Green New Deal – Boldest Tactic Yet to Advance U.N. Agenda 21

From Heartland

March 28, 2019

By Nancy J. Thorner

Most people in America don’t even realize that tentacles of a dangerous United Nations program are being enacted in our nation’s cities and certainly our country, with the full cooperation of those in our highest positions of authority.


Most people in America don’t even realize that tentacles of a dangerous United Nations program are being enacted in our nation’s cities and certainly our country, with the full cooperation of those in our highest positions of authority. It is so complicated and difficult to believe that many simply dismiss it, considering it just a conspiracy theory. But even a cursory investigation reveals it is very real and the evidence is easily attained.

This intrusive, all-encompassing plan that could eventually affect every aspect of our lives is known as “United Nations Agenda 21.”  It’s pure communistic in nature. We all must fight against it if we are to remain a free people and nation. The Green New Deal happens to represent the boldest tactic yet toward the full implementation of Agenda 21 here in this nation.

The specific plan, United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development, was a product of The Rio Conference held at Rio de Janeiro from June 3 – 14, 1992.   It was to be implemented worldwide in order to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world.  As such Agenda 21 marked a new beginning for the U.N., a decisive point of departure for the world organization.

Project 21 contained twenty-seven principles warning against a mode of growth that was leading to the extinction of life on earth.  Based on two fundamental ideas, development and environment, Project 21 was introduced as a cooperative task and challenge for world nations toward this goal: to establish the basic principles that must govern the conduct of nations and peoples towards each other and the Earth to ensure a secure and sustainable future.

U.S. signs on to Agenda 21

One hundred nations attended the 1992 Rio Education on Environment and Development.  According to the UN information Center, all nations in attendance agreed to the document.  Representing the U.S.A. was President George H. Bush (1989 – 1993), who allowed an outside entity (the U.N.) to collaborate and dictate an agenda which is already affecting our entire country and our citizens.  In a news conference given in Rio de Janeiro on June 13, 1992, Bush’s opening statement included the following remarks prior to questions taken from reporters:

“Let’s me be clear on one fundamental point.  The United States fully intends to be the world’s preeminent leader in protecting the global environment.  We have been that for many years.  We will remain so.  We believe that environment and development, the two subjects of this Conference, can and should go hand in hand.  A growing economy creates the resources necessary for environmental protection and environmental protection makes growth sustainable over the long term.”

First called a “suggestion” for “voluntary action”, not long after its introduction at The Rio Conference (also known as the “Earth Summit”), Nancy Pelosi introduced a resolution of support for the plan in Congress calling it a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.”

Presidents Clinton and Obama promote Agenda 21

With the defeat of G.H. Bush, newly elected Bill Clinton in 1993 ordered the establishment of the President’s Council for Sustainable Development, with the express purpose of enforcing the Agenda 21 blueprint into nearly every agency of the federal government to assure it became the law of the land.  A year later in 1994, the American Planning Association issued a newsletter supporting Agenda 21’s ideas as a “comprehensive blueprint” for local planning.

The main weapon used by Clinton for his call for action was the threat of Environmental Armageddon, particularly manifested through the charge of manmade global warming, later to becoming “climate change.” It didn’t matter if true science refused to cooperate in the scheme, as actual global temperatures are not rising and there continues to be no evidence of any appreciable manmade effects on the climate.  But has truth ever been important to scare mongers?  Paul Watson of Green Peace declared: “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

President Barack Obama endorsed Clinton’s efforts to have what was originally a voluntary effort for world leaders to comply to Agenda 21.  Obama, believing climate change constituted an economic and security threat to the nation, signed on to the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015 which pledged its nearly 200 participants to work to stem global warming.  Accordingly, on Sept. 21, 2016, Obama instructed federal agencies to consider climate change when drawing up their national security plans. On the same day the National Intelligence Council(NIC) backed Obama with a report saying climate change is “almost certain to have significant direct and indirect social, economic, political, and security implications [and] pose significant national security challenges for the United States over the next two decades.”

President Trump as a stumbling block

President Trump momentarily stymied the U.N movement to advance Agenda 21 worldwide in a White House Rose Garden event on June 2, 2017, and was harshly condemned, when pulling out of the Paris Accords.  President Trump has many times spoken of climate change as “a total and very expensive hoax.”  On March 28, 2017 Trump declared the costs of complying with government regulations designed to limit climate change posed a greater threat to national security than did the changes themselves. Additionally, Trump rescindedObama’s 2016 national security memorandum and many of Obama’s other climate-related directives. Trump’s aim was to end “regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth and prevent job creation.”

As to the Paris Accords, Dr. Bjorn Lomberg had the following to say in an article by Ed Hiserodt in the March 4, 2019 edition of New American:

“Even if we assume all promises (determined contributions of those signing on to the Paris Accords) are fulfilled by 2030, and continue to fulfill them until the end of the century, and there is non ‘CO2 leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rise by just 0.7 degree C (0.306 degrees F) by 2100.

And even if Americans did stop producing CO2, Earth’s CO2 levels would continue to rise because China, India, and other countries are building coal-fired plants by the dozen, which will like more than offset any reductions Americans make.”

Green New Deal of AOC

Enter the Green New Deal, the boldest tactic yet, as proposed by AOC when the Democrat Socialists took control of the House in the 2018 midterms.  The origins and the purpose of the Green New Deal are not unlike the positive-sounding objectives of Agenda 21: to protect the environment and make a better life for all of us.

In that the forces behind Agenda 21 were becoming both impatient and scared because after 27 years Agenda 21 had not yet been realized, coupled with growing apprehensive that people around the world were starting to wise up to the real nature of Agenda 21, permitted the clock of deception to be removed to reveal the true goals of the Green New Deal, socialism and global control as a way to advance Agenda 21.  Still undetermined, however, is whether through congressional action the Green New Deal could be enacted into law.  Presently the most ambitious climate change and clean energy policies are coming from states.

If Illinoisans like the Green New Deal championed by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex, they will like what Illinoisans have in store for them.  Illinois’s general assembly is weighing a bill — the Clean Energy Jobs Act (SB 2132/ HB 3624) — that sets an aggressive target of decarbonizing the state’s energy by 2030 and running the state completely on renewable energy by 2050. That includes deploying more than 40 million solar panels and 2,500 wind turbines alongside $20 billion in new infrastructure over the next decade. Its central goals are 100 percent carbon-free electricity production by 2030 and 100 percent renewable everything across the state by 2050. That means the 2050 goal also precludes nuclear energy!

Broadly, the Green Energy Jobs Act aligns with the Green New Deal. While the Green New Deal resolution is just that — a resolution — in Illinois the rubber might actually meet the road. According to Emily Melbye, chief of staff for State Rep. Ann Williams, a sponsor of the Clean Energy Jobs Act, “This bill is far more comprehensive [than the Green New Deal] and positions Illinois as a leader in the clean energy economy.”

Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, New Jersey, Washington State, Massachusetts, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, and Washington, DC, have commitments or are considering legislation that would put them on a path toward 100 percent clean energy.

Local community sustainable and energy policies

It isn’t only states who are determined to convert to 100 percent renewable energy. There is a direct link between U.N. Agenda 21, as introduced to the world at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, and groups who are trying to gain control over local development and energy policies, perhaps even in your community or city?  As far back as 1994 the American Planning Associationissued a newsletter supporting Agenda 21’s ideas as a “comprehensive blueprint” for local planning.

In this recent article by Steve Goreham, a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute, a speaker, author, and researcher on environmental issues as well as an engineer and business executive, he writes: 100% percent renewable by 2050 – Is the Mayor of Porkopolis Smarter than a fifth Grader?, Goreham writes:

“Mayors in more than 100 US cities have announced plans to transition their electrical power systems to 100 percent renewable by 2050. They propose replacement of traditional coal, natural gas, and nuclear generating stations with wind, solar, and wood-fired stations. But none of these mayors has a plausible idea of how to meet their commitment.”

Words of Wisdom

Friedrich August von Hayek (1899-1992) Nobel Laureate of Economic Sciences, left this warning for humanity:

“Ever since the beginning of modern science, the best minds have recognized that “the range of acknowledged ignorance will grow with the advance of science.” Unfortunately, the popular effect of this scientific advance has been a belief, seemingly shared by many scientists, that the range of our ignorance is steadily diminishing and that we can therefore aim at more comprehensive and deliberate control of all human activities. It is for this reason that those intoxicated by the advance of knowledge so often become the enemies of freedom.”

As more American city, county, and state governments are duped by the global warming fanatics (alarmists) into initiating new harsh laws and removing individual freedoms, the public can no longer afford to yawn and ignore U.N. Agenda 21 and all its tentacles into our lives.

[Originally Published at Illinois Review]

HT/David B

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 29, 2019 6:20 am

100 percent clean energy

A political myth sustained through indoctrination, obfuscation, socialization, and shifted/shared environmental pollution and human exploitation. At best, their goal is marginal, gray energy.

Reply to  n.n
March 29, 2019 8:29 am

Make sure no power is supplied from over state lines. If they demand all renewables then there should be no non-renewable backup.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Mark
March 29, 2019 9:29 am

YES! Let them live in the nightmare they want to create – that is the ONLY cure for their stupidity.

Reply to  Mark
March 29, 2019 10:25 am

In New England, the grid operator recently held its Forward Capacity Auction to guarantee we have enough power in 2022. It included 1,188 MW of imports from New York, Québec, and New Brunswick. While no NE states are on track for 100% renewables (as yet), it is interesting that the region already relies on power supplied by other states. That’s reality while 100% renewables is not.

Ian W
Reply to  Mark
March 29, 2019 11:50 am

The shedding of surplus power across state lines is probably something that could be managed/controlled under the ‘Commerce Clause’.

John DeFayette
Reply to  n.n
March 29, 2019 9:46 am

This goal is already within reach. We have at our disposal nuclear fission, supercritical coal with efficient scrubbers, as well as combined cycle natural gas giving us plentiful, affordable energy for improving our lives. These are all safe and reliable, and all have been improved drastically over our own lifetimes. And where the fuels are combustible, what more could we desire when what comes out of the stack is nothing more than water and plant food?

Life is wonderful; too bad the current brood of children at voting age seems to not notice.

March 29, 2019 6:25 am

When Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom he did not have full knowledge of disaster that was communism and national socialism.

All through my life, the most vocal opponents of communism were the people who had managed to escape from it. Communism is corrosive to humans. Under communism, you can’t say anything because someone will accuse you of thought crime. We already see that with the SJWs. They regularly turn on those who otherwise agree with their goals but have the misfortune to put a foot slightly wrong.

The other thing about central planning is that it doesn’t work. link That’s a historical fact. It has never worked.

Those who think we need central planning are ignorant of history. They are thus functionally illiterate.

Rhys Jaggar
Reply to  commieBob
March 29, 2019 8:05 am

That is not strictly true. During war it always works. The Government takes control of economic output to direct it toward war necessities. You Americans do not know what war means as you always fight military pygmies 5000 miles away. You have not had a fair fight in over 200 years. We Brits had our entire country under threat of devastation during WWII and the economy was centrally driven to ensure our survival.

The rebuilding process after the war was also suited to central planning – housebuilders build for profit at a speed that suits them, governments build to give people necessary shelter, so when you need new homes fast, the Government is the best organiser.

In the happy situation that peace and prosperity afford the luxury of freedom, choice and downward empowerment, central planning may not be the optimal solution.

But trust me, if you Americans continue behaving like moronic idiots trying to trigger WWIII in Europe, war will be brought to your mainland and you will learn soon enough how POTUS will take charge in ways you would squeal were utterly Communist.

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 29, 2019 8:30 am

When Churchill went begging to FDR, after supporting Hitler, he got quite a shock.
The Marshall Plan, based on FDR’s RFC, the New Deal Reconstruction Finance Corp., sent $4 to the UK, Paris, for every $1 to Germany.

von Hayek is playing exactly the Kant trick – setting up a “socialist” straw dog to hit his real target , the American System of Political Economy.
Trump has often mentioned this System, and that is the key reason for the attempted, lawfully British, putsch.
When I see WUWT used as an Austrian School propaganda organ by various adherents I wonder what is the game here? Using the CO2 shenanigans to push London School of Economics dogma? That happens to be AOC’s game.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 29, 2019 8:41 am

“You Americans do not know what war means as you always fight military pygmies 5000 miles away. You have not had a fair fight in over 200 years.”

I have the greatest respect for the British military. They have a storied history.

It should be noted that the American military fought against the same enemies the British fought against, and much more recently than 200 years ago.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 29, 2019 10:42 pm

“I have the greatest respect for the British military.” — which means you do not know much about the British generals who fought what we now call WW I. I’d love to say more, but this is not the place. No disrespect for the poor soldiers though.

Kyle in Upstate NY
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 29, 2019 8:53 am

No it doesn’t necessarilly work during war either. It depends on how the central planning is carried out and the severity of the situation for the country. It isn’t so much that it works during war but rather allows for large-scale militarization. The population otherwise may be living in a fairly communist level of poverty. So it doesn’t really “work.” And central planning was not suited to post-war Britain. To the contrary, it wrecked the British economy and was a disaster. England became known for years as the “Sick Man of Europe” and economically almost went over a cliff in the 1970s until Margaret Thatcher finally came in and took a sledgehammer to the socialist establishment.

And virtually no European alive today has experienced war, so stop with the lecturing. I have no idea what you mean about Trump trying to trigger WW3 in Europe.

Reply to  Kyle in Upstate NY
March 29, 2019 9:58 am

It’s not Trump – the neo-cons like Bolton are at it again. We could very soon see Pershings on the autobahn again, now that the INF Treaty was canned.
Russia will place Iskanders right on the doorstep in Kalinin.
The new B60 small bomb, ONLY a few Kilotonsm, are an easy door to Armageddon.
And Germany again in the cross-hairs.

Get it?

Kyle in Upstate NY
Reply to  bonbon
March 29, 2019 5:04 pm

No they aren’t. It is the Russians who are at it again, and the U.S. is once again having to counter them.

Michael S. Kelly, LS BSA, Ret.
Reply to  bonbon
March 29, 2019 6:42 pm

Bolton hasn’t had a hit since 1998’s “Safe Place From The Storm”, so I don’t think he has any influence over nuclear war today. Come on, now, get real!

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 29, 2019 9:54 am


Don’t be silly.

It can’t work long term. That is the point. During emergencies and SHORT TERM time frames it may be necessary. This is why certain people want to declare Emergency! Emergency! 12 years to go. Emergency!

“so when you need new homes fast, the Government is the best organiser.” Completely wrong. Look at government housing 40 years later. The expediency and perceived efficiencies of government mandate are overwhelmed by the following 40 years of shit slum. Housing costs are driven by land supply & regulation … both of which are driven by government intervention. Central planning can help only by getting the hell out of the way.

As for trying to trigger WW3 … what are you talking about? We have nothing to do with your attempted cultural makeover. We have nothing to do with your “sustainable” mandates that lower living standards. We have nothing to do with your central planning for warmer weather when it will undoubtedly freeze. And if you think encouraging Iran to have nuclear weapons will make Europe & the world a safer place in the long run, then I should not have used the phrase “you think” in the beginning of this sentence.

Reply to  DonM
March 29, 2019 10:06 am

Not very nice to get a European point of view, is it?

Britain and D.C very nearly started war with Russia over Kiev, the Skripals, Russiagate, faked chemical attacks in Syria.

Sure EU’ers play along, until the sudden realization of what a Pershing actually looked like only a few years ago.

Still, Putin did give quite a surprise when he recently announced nuclear drones, hypersonics which have no defense. Likely both of these just made the US carrier fleet obsolete.

The way to make the world safe is Reagan’s SDI, who just happened to be a good friend of Trump. That means space.

Reply to  bonbon
March 29, 2019 11:12 am

I also know that the adopted European point of view is that it is good idea to open the doors to Europe, to the the low end population, of the lesser culture, of the deficient nations that want to rid themselves of their low end populations.

Anyone with that point of view garners no respect.

Kyle in Upstate NY
Reply to  bonbon
March 29, 2019 5:12 pm

I am curious about this line of thinking, that the U.S. and Britain almost “started a war” with Russia, who itself was the aggressor, in going into Ukraine. The reality is that Russia almost started a war with the United States and Britain. The United States and Britain could not start any war with Russia because Russia is not in any position to fight a war, and most definitely not in any position to fight a war against the combined forces of the U.S. and U.K. You are talking essentially the two most world-class militaries on the planet, versus a third-rate military. The reason Putin took Crimea is because he knew he could get away with it, that Obama would respond like a patsy and not do anything serious.

I would dispute on the carrier issue: the U.S. carrier fleet is not made obsolete by some mythical Russian super-weapon, of which we have been hearing about for decades. Supposedly the Russians have always been on the verge of releasing some new ultra weapon that will render (insert)-U.S. forces obsolete, and it either never pans out, or the real-world version is nothing like what was claimed. As for carriers, the Russians spent decades trying to crack the carrier problem, and never fully succeeded. A new drone announcement isn’t going to change that.

I do agree 100% on missile defense however.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 29, 2019 10:05 am

Rhys Jaggar
You said, “You have not had a fair fight in over 200 years.” Are you suggesting that the colonials taking on the greatest naval power in the world, supplemented with German mercenaries was a fair fight?

You also said, “We Brits had our entire country under threat of devastation during WWII and the economy was centrally driven to ensure our survival.” And supplemented by arms and food supplied by a free economy. It was this free economy that voluntarily supplied sporting arms to the British people after the debacle at Dunkirk virtually unarmed the populace and the army.

You overlook the fact that fighting “military pygmies” such as the Nazis added a logistic burden of supplying food, fuel, and ammunition across a sea infested with ‘pygmy’ submarines.

I think that you are living in a fantasy world.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 29, 2019 10:18 am

That free economy had come from devastation in the Great Depression to a capability beyond anything seen before only because of FDR’s New Deal, RFC and bank law known as Glass-Steagall. That is an Executive mission orientation, uniquely American. Trump is trying to apply that now, that he is freed from the British coup known as Russiagate. It is precisely this mission orientation that von Hayek attacks with his “statist” jingoisms. He most definitely is an enemy of the American System of Political Economy.
To hear Senators praise von Hayek makes AOC look like an angel.

After WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Honduras, Iraq, Libya (I must have forgotten one somewhere) have destroyed the US not to mention the millions dead around the globe.

John DeFayette
Reply to  bonbon
March 29, 2019 5:06 pm

Will you please stop using the misnomer von Hayek? At least get your Austrians straight.

Kyle in Upstate NY
Reply to  bonbon
March 29, 2019 5:22 pm

FDR’s New Deal did not recover the American economy; to the contrary, it only lengthened and deepened the depression. The New Deal had some good aspects in terms of safety nets it created. On infrastructure, it is more a mixed record because of how a lot of people had their property rights trampled upon. In terms of economics, the New Deal was absolutely horrendous and had nothing to do with recovering the economy—to the contrary, it is what prevented the economy from being able to recover sooner.

FDR also violated a lot of the Constitution with his policies, and tried to give himself authoritarian control over the economy via the National Industrial Recovery Act, which the Supreme Court struck down.

BTW, the U.S. has not been destroyed by those conflicts you mention nor were they solely the fault of the U.S. And Hayek was a smart guy.

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 29, 2019 9:07 pm

The United States Civil War resulted in over 600,000 deaths . Yes , during war , government power grows , and individual freedom diminishes , but policies needed to win wars , when remaining fully implemented during times of peace , trample the rights of individual, and thwart the creative power of the free market system . Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus , but after the Civil War ,Constitutional Rights were unconditionally adhered to . This power grab during times of war is the reason for the ongoing search for MEOW MEOW , the moral equivalence of war , by the Totalitarians in our Midst .

Flavio Capelli
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 29, 2019 10:50 pm

You don’t want to fight fair in war. If that’s your view, it is sorely mistaken.

Kevin kilty
March 29, 2019 6:27 am

Forty million solar panels in…… Illinois! Ha, Hahaha, Bwahaha…. wait no one else is laughing…

Reply to  Kevin kilty
March 29, 2019 8:26 pm

UN Environment, 19 Sep 2017

Event: NYC, U.S.

“Financing The 2030 Agenda”

Has information about what took place at this Event.

The 2030 Agenda can’t advance without funding/money.

Reply to  Kevin kilty
March 30, 2019 8:28 am


Editorial / 07 OCT, 2016

By: Agustin Carstens and Patricia Espinosa

“The Paris Agreement Will Soon Enter Into Force: Now We Need to Move the Money”

Editorial content at:

Has information pertaining to the present situation.

Reply to  Barbara
March 30, 2019 8:53 am
Reply to  Kevin kilty
March 30, 2019 11:25 am


UN Climate Action Speech / 11 DEC, 2017

“Keynote Speech by Patricia Espinosa at Climate Finance Day”

Re: Accelerating financing for the low-emission transition.

Reply to  Kevin kilty
March 30, 2019 5:13 pm

Climate Finance Day

Organization: Paris, France

Has programs 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and other information.

There are important organizations associated with ‘Climate Finance Day’

Reply to  Kevin kilty
March 31, 2019 1:04 pm

UNEP FI, 13 September 2018

“400 Investors Launch Joint Global Investor Agenda For Climate Action”

Sources of funding include pension funds.

Article has links for more information.

Reply to  Kevin kilty
March 31, 2019 2:49 pm


“Fiduciary Duty In the 21st Century-Ohio Roadmap”, June 2018, 13 pages.

Includes pension funding and other U.S. States are also mentioned in this publication.

Reply to  Kevin kilty
March 31, 2019 7:41 pm


RESOURCE / 06 DEC, 2014

“UNEP Helping to Unlock Private Climate Finance”

Includes: Renewable Energy.

Follow the links to the Report and the Executive Summary.

Jim de Boer
March 29, 2019 6:31 am

Please correct this: “the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rise by just 0.7 degree C (0.306 degrees F) by 2100.” C degrees are bigger than F degrees.

Flight Level
March 29, 2019 6:36 am

Is it real a coincidence that green, left, 21’ners and alike are also very active in the promotion of restrictive gun control and subsequent total ban ?

Or is it that privately owned firepower might somehow interfere with their business plans ?

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Flight Level
March 29, 2019 8:12 am

As someone posted here a few months back, the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees free speech, the second amendment guarantees the first. Since the Left Wing of the Democratic party need to severely limit speech in order to impose their agenda, they first have to get rid of the second amendment.

Flight Level
Reply to  Joe Crawford
March 29, 2019 12:03 pm

However in practice they could cancel both amendments as soon as smartphones become the only things citizens can pull-out to document the event.

Here we have the stigmates of what kind and how many guns it takes to kick some guys out of power. I mean, almost every city or village has a commemoration plate with names on it, folks who gave it all.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Flight Level
April 1, 2019 2:47 pm

Flight Level

March 29, 2019 6:39 am

will reduce temperature rise by just 0.7 degree C (0.306 degrees F) by 2100.

Math error there, and not just the conversion. The absolute values are wrong too.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  beng135
March 29, 2019 7:20 am

And, please, no temperatures stated to the nearest one-thousandth of a degree, whether in deg C or deg F.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  beng135
March 29, 2019 9:44 am

The actual Lomborg quote from the New American article is this:

”The climate impact of all Paris INDC [Intended Nationally Determined Contributions] promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.”

It appears to me someone changed quoted, factually correct values to obviously bad numbers in Nancy Throner’s Illinois Review article to discredit her.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
March 29, 2019 9:48 am

The rest of the Lomborg quote that Nancy used and was changed.

”Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO2 leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100. ”
Source: Same link as above

Roger Knights
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
March 29, 2019 9:05 pm

Lomborg, I assume, is relying on the lengthy CO2-persistence-in-the-atmosphere figures the alarmists (and the IPCC?) cite—i.e., something like 100 years or more. Skeptics, IIRC, claim the length is either seven or 14 years, based on CO2-isotope fallout from Pacific nuclear test rates.

His use of their figures makes it awkward for the disingenuous alarmists to rebut his claim. But it may be that the effect of lowered emiossions on temperatures would actually be greater than what he’s calculated.

Duke Henry
March 29, 2019 6:43 am

Buy more ammo…

March 29, 2019 6:47 am

What a load of bull. Agenda 21 is a set of recommendations, it has no legal meaning and no state or government is bound by it. Can we get out of tinfoil hat territory and back to real issues, like the renewable rent-seekers?

John Endicott
Reply to  Trevor
March 29, 2019 7:16 am

What a load of bull. Agenda 21 is a set of recommendations, it has no legal meaning and no state or government is bound by it

The same could be said of the Paris accords, that doesn’t stop the lefty-greens from trying to get government to implement it (and go apesh!t when someone like Trump comes along and upsets the (green) apple cart). Those “recommendations” are economically and socially terrible ideas that will be ruinous to any nation stupid enough to fully implement them. As such, they are fair game for discussion. Why are you afraid of discussing them?

Lee L
Reply to  Trevor
March 29, 2019 7:17 am

Oh would that it were Trevor.
We should indeed ‘get out of tinfoil hat territory’ starting with yourself.

Maybe you’d be more receptive to the idea that Agenda 21 has been deeply advanced if you recognized that your local businesses and more importantly you local level government where land use is governed, are deeply involved in implementing United Nations Agenda 21 under the name of ‘Sustainable Development’ or have you never heard of it?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Trevor
March 29, 2019 7:17 am

Trevor, that is naive or you are one of the supporters of it. Read about Jan Kozak’s ” Not a shot was fired”. He masterminded the plan on how to use the tools of a democratic parliament to convert the country to a centrally planned communist country – yay!, even getting the people to demand the changes! His handiwork was realized by employing it to convert free Czechoslovakia to a communist nation voluntarily (to their eventual chagrin).

Yeah its doable and has been worked on in the US for decades. Its called the thin edge of the wedge approach. We see the results everyday.

Reply to  Trevor
March 29, 2019 7:19 am

funny thing… they called us extremest nutters when we fought Reds. You can’t cure the symptoms unless you correctly diagnose the disease.

Flight Level
Reply to  Trevor
March 29, 2019 7:20 am

Sad enough, the school program for our kids here on the old continent is officially described as Study Plan 21.

I monitor my kid, second year, till now no indoctrination. Only the usual read, write, calculate.

However, after the third year it’s supposed to get much more environment stringent and parents have to be vigilant.

Reply to  Trevor
March 29, 2019 8:33 am

Google ICLEI and find out if your civic government is a member of this organization .You may reconsider whether this is a load of bull or not. It might be an eye opener.

Fred Middleton
Reply to  Gary
March 31, 2019 6:25 am

Good read, opening additional doors to ‘suggestive items’ (google). Some very provoking ideas. Ah, unfortunately leads, at this moment, toward Too many irons in the fire (blacksmith).

Reply to  Trevor
March 29, 2019 10:12 am


“Load of bull”, you say?

Yes, recommendations, BUT recommendations that lots of people are trying to act on.

From an NC USA perspective, here’s how it’s looking:

* UN Agenda 21

* Paris Agreement

* Executive Order NO. 80: North Carolina’s Commitment to Address Climate Change and Transition to a Clean Energy Economy

* Green New Deal

and the latest, …

* 116th Congress H.R.9 — To direct the President to develop a plan for the United States to meet its nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement, and for other purposes.

John Endicott
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
April 1, 2019 9:18 am

* 116th Congress H.R.9 — To direct the President to develop a plan for the United States to meet its nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement, and for other purposes.

Even if the house can manage to pass it (not a given, there are still a few sane dems, few though they may be) and even if it manages to get to the floor of the Senate (unlikely as Mitch does not have to bring it to the floor) and enough RINOs vote for it to pass the Senate, then it will end with a VETO, thank goodness. When the next time a Dem is sitting behind the desk in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it’ll be a different (and scarier) story, but fortunately, for now, it’s going nowhere.

That said, until Paris is ratified by Congress there is no “nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement”. Only Obama was party to Paris, and Trump refused to be a party to it. If Paris wants money, it can darn well go to the man who was party to the agreement Mr B.H. Obama himself.

Michael C. Roberts
Reply to  Trevor
March 29, 2019 11:04 am

Trevor, my dear! As UN Agenda 21 is mentioned in the above article, also regarding the implementation of same in the USA at the local level – I wish that you might take the time to access the informational resources readily-available to everyone with internet access (and not residing in a country that restricts access). During your research – oh well I’ll just do it for you – here’s a link to an insidious tentacle of the UN Agenda 21, the ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability: – Just play around at this website for a bit of time to familiarize yourself with “the Plan’. An eye-opener ‘fur shur’.

Here you will find all that is needed for a town, borough, city, county, or parish to utilize as a local zoning and land use planning tool to foist UN Agenda 21 into local level politics – effectively bypassing anything the state or even federal influence will stop. A bottom-up implementation of Agenda 21, if you will. If you reside in a city in America – you may find it has already signed on to the ICLEI and has been methodically implementing the Master Plan for years! Being ‘bound’ to adherence with Agenda 21 is as easy as local governments applying the tools presented by and through the ICLEI. I have over the years posted numerous times regarding this exact situation here at WUWT. It is just now, as is mentioned in the article that the Globalists, who up until recently have been playing a good hand of poker (that is not openly discussing the true Master Plan of Global Socialism) – have decided to ‘lay all of their cards on the table’ as it were, to expose to all the true nature of their One World Socialist Government plans. With POTUS Trump at the helm, we may be able to alert many voters here in America before it becomes too late. Here in my home State of Washington, home of Mr. Jay “I’ll Pass a Carbon Tax on my Watch” Inslee (did you see this guy on FoxNews this morning?? I’m thoroughly embarrassed he is from my state..) our local legislature (now almost exclusively posted by leftist/socialist/Democrats) is plugging in numerous last-minute legislation for all types of issues Agenda 21. Elections do indeed have consequences…



Joel Snider
Reply to  Trevor
March 29, 2019 11:11 am

Yeah – ‘recommendations’ they’re trying to make happen.

Reply to  Trevor
March 29, 2019 1:07 pm

You want to come see how things like this work in Australia.

First the Minister for whatever department outsources his/her job to the department they are supposed to be overseeing – they do this because they’re lazy, stupid and easily coerced. Next they give the department the flexibility to create policies which can and are treated as law. Catch-all and ambiguous phrasing is the key to this trick.

Next the department goes on to enact policies at it’s pleasure – even if they break the laws of the land, the ‘policy’ is invoked, the one that permits them the power to make such changes. Writing to Ministers and pointing out legal breaches is pointless because all correspondence pertaining to a department is forwarded to that department to answer.

One very prominent example pertains to our money, legal tender in Australia is required to be accepted as payment for debts – there’s penalties for failing to or refusing to accept cash. Many departments have altered policies because they find accepting cash is inconvenient.. then they eliminate the cashiers and the ability to accept cash and point blank refuse cash. Pointing out the illegality earns you a citing of their policy. Ministerial replies (handled by said department) earns you the same.

Loop this. There’s little to nothing to be done about it, you are facing wall eyed bureaucrats and dim witted politicians – no one will prosecute the breach of law, you CAN contact the agency responsible for policing this act but they’ll also cite the ‘policy’ to you- you’re now stuck accepting whatever the heck they’ve decided is easiest for them. There are innumerable examples of this and it would rupture your brain to see how powerful bureaus can become once freed to make their own psudo-laws.

Flip it a bit and you’ll see other examples such as the catch all laws controlling us because Police argued catching crims and proving crimes is haaard.. so they need more powers, and they were handed them. Owning ‘gun making’ equipment is unlawful.. lemme see, drill press, pipe, drill bits, wood.. yes, wood.. these are crimes It allows the police to mass multiple charges against a person should they decide they need to. Of course they assure us they only use this when they need to (cough) – which is after they’ve decided someone is a ‘bad guy’. I recall one absurd case where police were asking for additional powers and after a months of negotiations to gain this power, someone pointed out that specific power already existed and had done for over 50 years. yes, they were that unfamiliar with the actual laws and statutes and so in love with grabbing power on demand…

Beware this happening elsewhere – the transfer of power to bureaucrats usually occurs without anyone noticing and once it’s occurred you’ve sod all chance of wresting control away from them.

Reply to  Karlos51
March 29, 2019 1:33 pm

This is a stark example of the growth and overreach of the administrative state. A bureaucracy that is once small becomes powerful with authority that grows and includes lawmaking and enforcement powers. A once independent judiciary defers eternally to the “reason” of experts; legislators cede their oversight to these “experts.” And the insolation, power, and self-esteem of bureaucrats – who outlive any elected representatives in power and authority – becomes self-reinforcing mandarins where the real authority and power resides.

Can the iron triangle of bureaucratic power, rule-making, and review ever be staunched? “Unmasking the Administrative State: The Crisis of American Politics in the Twenty-First Century” by John Marini and Ken Masugi is the most current critical reassessment of this modern dragon and the task of slating the administrative machine – before all freedom is extinguished. Agenda 21 is entirely predicated on the progressive ideal, “the rule of experts” within bureaucracies.

We are all – in modern developed societies – the victims of the administrative state’s powers and the failure of oversight to reign it in.

Les Segal
Reply to  Trevor
March 29, 2019 5:50 pm

Trevor, follow this link. Rosa Koire is crystal clear about the agenda.

March 29, 2019 7:09 am

Let them hear us shout Hell No! from every mountaintop.

Free people and those aspiring to freedom will not yield one inch. In the end we will bury them as we buried their predecessors. Many of us here are veterans of the last great ideological struggle which has shape shifted into this one. Malevolent monster that they are we will drop them like a bag of cement. Can’t wait for the victory party.

AZrno Arrak
March 29, 2019 7:13 am

Can’t copy or priont this one. What are you up o, Anthony?

Reply to  AZrno Arrak
March 29, 2019 7:57 pm

nothing, pebkac

Gordon Dressler
March 29, 2019 7:13 am

I appreciate the above article overall for its calm logic and appropriate warnings.

However, regarding “. . . will reduce temperature rise by just 0.7 degree C (0.306 degrees F) by 2100”, can’t we please learn that a 1 degree Centigrade change in temperature is equal to a 1.8 degree Fahrenheit change, not the other way around.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
March 29, 2019 7:23 am

I think the O.306F is the ‘correct’ calculation using IPCC formula. Something went screwy with arithmetic, -0.17C should have been used.

Don Perry
Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 29, 2019 8:29 am

-0.17C ??????????? How can a positive Fahrenheit change be a negative Celcius change?

Robert of Texasa
March 29, 2019 7:20 am

“will reduce temperature rise by just 0.7 degree C (0.306 degrees F) by 2100.”

delta 0.7 C = delta 1.26F

Where did this term “renewable energy” come from? The energy we use isn’t renewable unless we break the laws of thermodynamics. “Green Energy” might better be called “intermittent but sustainable” for millions of years (billions if we live that long), but it isn’t renewable. Even the Sun wears down. Weird.

I can’t wait for the people who are truly worried about the environment and just too ignorant to know better find out that all these solar panels and wind turbines are going to be the greatest source of new pollution and damage to the environment in 50 years (let alone they actually don’t accomplish much). The money we are throwing away is just depressing…it could be used for so many other things of real value.

After a few blackouts people will start paying attention (I hope).

Meanwhile…I wonder if the U.N. will try to outlaw fracking? Reduce the amount of natural gas we can extract and cause a new energy crisis. They will need to outlaw nuclear power as well – immoral energy source.

March 29, 2019 7:28 am

Extraordinarily insightful article.
Forward wisely and often !!!

March 29, 2019 7:44 am

“The Road To Serfdom”
Hayek dedicates his book to:
“The socialists in all parties”
Wonderful irony.

March 29, 2019 8:13 am

Von Hayek was Prof at the London School of Economics, just like his tweedle Dee, Lord Maynard Keynes.
It’s quite amusing how the LSE makes utter fools of many Americans (and Germans) with that Keynes/Hayek tango.

Now along comes Steve Bannon with his fake sovereigntist movement to hijack the populists with the European Parliament’s Mises Circle – the Austrian School of Benjamin Harnwell.

Kid me not, but I see a Bannon versus UN dog-and-pony show here. Neither Bannon nor the UN fooled Trump.

Carl Friis-Hansen
March 29, 2019 8:27 am

Nancy, thanks! The article is giving a nice overview. Not that Tim Ball and others have not done similar, but maybe yours is even better.

James Clarke
March 29, 2019 8:32 am

If Illinois was a person, it would already be bankrupt and homeless. The economics of the state are a disaster. For the state to even consider this nonsense is akin to shooting yourself in the head after you have taken poison and are dangling from a noose.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  James Clarke
March 29, 2019 9:37 am

LMAO! Great analogy!

March 29, 2019 8:45 am

(1) You can write any amount of barmy BS on a paper and call it a “plan.” Won’t make it reality.

(2) The UN was formed to stop potential wars. All the rest is virtue signaling by rent-seeking troughers.

(3) To be seen as “anti-Environment” is like being tarred as “pro-cancer.” But there’s been 40 years of creep in what “the Environment” now means; today, it’s been outed as code for “anti-growth.”

(4) Agenda 21’s premise was that Ehrlichian and Malthusian scenarios were real and imminent threats; both have been completely debunked, and there is still no empirical evidence for CAGW either after 40 years.

(5) The United Nations can be defunded or disbanded any time we decide we’ve had enough of them. They can do nothing without our complicity and our bankrolling.

Dr Deanster
March 29, 2019 8:59 am

Agenda 21 is just the a reword of the template of the Fabian Society fostered out of the London School of Economics. It’s been sinking it’s tenacles into the US for over 100 years starting with W. Wilson. It went on steroids under FDR, ….. the fruit of all that is that with each successive generation, there is a higher acceptance of Socialistic principles. Social Security, public education, Medicaid/Medicare , welfare, and now climate change.

Don’t be fooled people. Don’t listen to the morons who tell you this stuff is all conspiracy. It’s not! The ultimate goal is a feudal system where the public is enslaved to the socialist elites.

Reply to  Dr Deanster
March 29, 2019 10:08 am


March 29, 2019 9:15 am

An American was imprisoned on a visit to North Korea for stealing a propaganda poster. We Americans sighed and shook our heads, amazed these things still occur in our enlightened age. Now go to any Public School in America and walk slowly through the halls. Count the posters as you look at them. Tally the count of Leftwing vs Rightwing messages displayed. Then try to remove a Leftwing poster from the wall and see what happens to you or your kid.

Andy Pattullo
March 29, 2019 9:42 am

This really has become a fight for the survival of society as currently constructed and the avoidance of self-induced decent into the chaos and conflict that would be inevitable if the current energy services underlying society are disrupted. Imagine 7.5 billion people trying to feed, shelter and protect themselves and their families without our current social supports. Every tree and twig becomes fuel, every scrap of protein living or dead is food and every other living human is a competitor for the few remaining resources – this is the future without energy and this is what Venezuela is becoming in front of our eyes because of ill advised socialist governance and corruption.

Steve C
March 29, 2019 10:10 am

Very much agree with this. The UN’s stealthy arrogation of authority to itself as a “supra”-national government is something we all need to wake up to (and to fight, if you want your descendants to be anything more than serfs).

The “Green New Deal” was given its first trial exposure here in the UK a decade ago. There was a post on Activist Post (don’t shoot the messenger … ) a few days ago:

There are, as noted already, various key Agenda 21/2030 buzzwords: not only “sustainable development”, but also “resilient cities”, facing problems with “common purpose”, etc. It’s Newspeak in action, once you become aware of it, it jumps out of the screen/speaker at you every day.

It also looks as though the “supra-legal” dark forces in our English-speaking countries, at least, are preparing a steady stream of repressive legislation which can be swiftly brought in anywhere after faked incidents, e.g. the instant anti-gun reaction in NZ (or in Aus, some years ago, where I read that the heavy legislation had been drawn up in Canada), the instant Patriot Act ready and waiting on 9/11, and so on ad nauseam. The Swamp is vast and Hydra-headed.

March 29, 2019 10:18 am

For those that believe Agenda 21 (is it still called that? I don’t think so) is just a bunch of words on paper you need to understand that some of the elements are probably being enacted where you live today. It is a stealth introduction from city governments and top officials that isn’t talked about or referred to as Agenda 21. Top down, bottom up indoctrination. Read it …. if you can wade through the obfuscation …. and you’ll see it is a road map for the UN becoming the one world Socialist/Marxist government. It even states this in the document. Ask the people in New Zealand what they think of it. It’s very real and one day you’ll wake up and say “how did we let this happen”?

March 29, 2019 10:35 am

I call “Agenda 21” the “Sustainability Scam.”

It has been being implemented in Brighton, Sussex, in the UK, since 2011.
see my blog article:-

In the USA it is already being implemented in Seattle.

“Grow Community is a new urban One Planet neighborhood on Bainbridge Island, just a 35-minute ferry ride from downtown Seattle.”

“If everyone in the world lives like an average North American, we will need 5 planets to live on”

March 29, 2019 10:48 am

Yes, “poofteenths” is the best unit of agw temps increases.

On the outer Barcoo
March 29, 2019 11:16 am

Time to de-fang the UN climate zealots by stopping all US government support immediately. And since nothing has been contributed by the UN to the US efforts to step the flow of illegal immigrants there’d be no point in feeling bad about it … why not double down?

Linda Goodman
March 29, 2019 12:28 pm

Bad news: The Green New Deal may have been a reverse bait & switch to make the just-released Climate Action Now Act bill seem reasonable. So, in the illusory ‘spirit of compromise’, republicans may be primed to support it, as climate change propaganda swirls all around them.

The conservative press is the lone voice of reason, but nearly ALL ignores what this potent article exposes. So, many [most?] Americans continue to believe the climate change ‘hoax’ is just about making money from thin air, just a clever con job that sets off no alarm bells. Mass awareness of the true threat of this monstrous fraud will surely end it overnight, so why is the conservative press protecting it by keeping their readers ignorant of it?

And the conservative press connects few to no dots from ‘climate change’ to UN Sustainable Development to the Hollywood ‘elites’ afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome, who all share the same eco-fascist Utopian wet dream. The press reports all their vicious attacks, but never their motives. Imo, we desperately need to raise critical mass awareness to end this nightmare while the opportunity exists. And one opportunity taken leads to another and another and…..

March 29, 2019 12:56 pm

when pulling out of the Paris Accords.

FFS , when will you start basing such commentary on FACTS?

Trump never “pulled out” of Paris Accord. He simple declined for the US to contribute the the Green Slush Fund.

USA is still on paper as having “agreed” to the Paris Accord and Trump has done NOTHING to change that, apart from blowing off in the Rose Garden. Dems hate him for having “pulled out”; republicans aplaud him for having “pulled out”. Both remain ( willfully ? ) at odds with the legal reality.

March 29, 2019 1:03 pm

is known as “United Nations Agenda 21.” It’s pure communistic in nature.

So GH Bush, who represented the USA at Rio , was a “communist”.

Agenda 21 is real and is a menace to democracy across the world. However, confusing non democratic globalism with “communism” is not only naive but counter productive.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Greg
March 29, 2019 2:45 pm

‘Communism’ tends to get bunched in with any of a number of collectivist-based ideologies.

Fred Middleton
Reply to  Greg
March 31, 2019 7:48 am

#41 – Progressive, as are 42,43,44. A fluid in motion hindered only by rule of law obstacles . All bushes have berries, some more than others, thus a progressive farm berry. Marxist Fascist Capitalism is in play.

March 29, 2019 1:54 pm

A key understanding to stop the GND/Agenda 21 lunacy is the realization that CO2 has little if any effect on climate.

Since 2002 CO2 has increased by 40% of the increase 1800-2002 while the temperature has been essentially flat except for the el Nino that peaked in Jan 2016 and later smaller ones which are still playing out.comment image

March 29, 2019 3:45 pm

I got to say this, and it could be very wrong, but just got to say it.

Supposedly, if:

Planing and engaging clearly enough, in an activity that happens as per it’s main aim to be an accommodation to support, as a main workable mean of encouragement, or and also an initiation, initiative, and an expected successful propagation and accomplishment of the SJW radical left supremacy, by attempting the demoting, removing and
replacing of the role and position of the USA’s National Guard with that of a military UN force,
where and when the whole commanding and power to engage and direct in matters of national internal affairs in the US would have being handed specifically and indisputably to a UN military command….
what do you think that will constitute under the USA constitution and it’s statutes…supposedly if this was true and factual as per matter of clear evidence there… ????!!

From the proposition stand of SJW supremacy radical left, that will be the best ever expected outcome to
cherish at… but what about the best for USA and the Americans as a people and a Nation???

In Canada the leader in charge psychopath has managed to have the government legislate pro SJW supremacy laws.
Supremacy in Canada, the SJW LGBT radical left supremacy, is supported, defended , incremented, nourished and forcefully applied..

SJW movements, are supremacy movements, either white, rose, green or what ever, like LGBT or Antifa or
radical feminism, or radical masculinity, or whatever… SJW stands as default for Supremacy, where all possible forms propagate the eagerness and conviction towards social civic anarchy, lynching and harsh civic unrest, when sometimes it, the civil unrest, may even manage to reach the point of civil war…

Oh, well, I should be keeping an eye on my drinking… 🙂

No malice intended… thanks.


Peter D. Tillman
March 29, 2019 4:27 pm

“Against stupidity, the Gods themselves rage in vain. ”
— Friedrich von Schiller

Peter D. Tillman
Reply to  Peter D. Tillman
March 29, 2019 4:34 pm

To be fair, the “stupidity” here is on the receiving end, and with well-intentioned (but stupid about science) people like AOC. OK,
“Good intentions are just stupidity gone to college”, opines noted philosopher PJ O’Rourke

March 29, 2019 8:33 pm

The “Earth Charter” Is the work of Steven Rockefeller, Maurice Strong, and Gorbachev.

Interview: Maurice Strong on a “People’s Earth Charter”

But, let us be very clear, the UN action is not going to be the only goal. The real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It will become a symbol of the aspirations and the commitments of people everywhere. And, that is where the political influence, where the long-term results of the Earth Charter will really come.

March 30, 2019 2:23 am

Churchill n ever did tody to Hitler. About 1928 when Hitler was a
minor politician, Churchill was in Munich researching information about his ancestor Marlborough and the battle of Blenham against the French.

A meeting was arranged but Hitler declined as he considered Churchill a “Has been politician”. At that time Churchill had nothing against Hitler, saying that he was just another German politician. It was a mutual friend who thought that both men should meet.

It was Lord Halifax and other right wing politicians who wanted to do a deal with Hitler following Dunkirk, and considering that Britain had been defected in France, it was a very generous offer from Hitler.
Keep out of European affairs, keep your fleet, military and Commonwealth. Churchill said no. Its one of the interesting “What ifs of History” as in the past hundreds of year s of UK an d Europe history such deals were quite common, but Churchill was very anti Nazi and did not trust Hitler. He may well have been right.


March 31, 2019 9:05 am

The UN is using the Smart Cities program to circumvent national sovereignty in the West and the Sustainable Development program to do it in the developing countries having tasted our dumbness after their sensational success with the ozone scare and their success in selling the climate caper to most national governments. It is an evil organization that must be defunded asap.

March 31, 2019 4:15 pm

The Green Deal would absolutely destroy the USA economy if implemented . The USA doesn’t need the Green
Deal to accomplish that feat of social /economic suicide. It just has to keep printing money and debt till no one wants it any longer which is very likely to be less than the 11 years remaining to save the planet .
Agenda 21 is a road map to socialism and then communism .

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights