Agenda 21 Fully Explained

Hi Mike,

For some reason my IPad was not able to show this video; it kept stopping every few minutes. However, I was able to see enough to once again be faced with the enormity of the situation -- private property, as envisioned by our Founding Parents is a thing of the past. Good thing is that trying to watch this video inspired me to look into other folks who were also telling us what is really happening here. My IPad liked one video of Rosa Koire, who interestingly works for the government as an appraiser of property that has fallen under eminent domain. Google her name if you are interested. Rosa spoke about the following, which might provide ammunition to LPSF activists:

Focus on local legislation. There will be no grand announcement about Agenda 21, or One Bay Area.

One Bay Area and other meetings are for show. They do not care what you say. All they want is to be able to say they had the meetings.

Watch for areas labeled as blighted. They will be appropriated unless local citizens overturn the decision.

Communitarianism vs. constitutional rights. We need to expose the flaws in subsuming the rights of individuals for the greater good.

Agenda 21 uses the Green Mask -- environmental concerns as basis for government takeover.

Today's eduction is "outcome based" -- making sure kids are socialized and fit in the grand plan.

Mandatory volunteering for the state; i.e. snitching on neighbors who do not conform [maybe like those who have a license plate holder that says "Libertarians, the real freedom fighters," in which case, I am done for.]

Grill your local politicians on the subject, and out them on this issue.

Understand "regulatory taking." No need for eminent domain -- regulation works much easier.

Find out if your local jurisdiction is operating under the "General Plan" mandated by Agenda 21, and legislate the General Plan out of your local documents.

Well, I am not going down without a fight.


Exactly Marcy....this is what was behind the entire "redevelopment" plan for the Bayview/Hunters Point that showed up as a ballot measure a few years ago. But it included all the land from the BVHP to the Catellus land past Candlestick all the way to Brisbane on the west side of 101. While Catellus was in on the deal, the enormity of the BVHP taking was breathtaking. And it included all the government housing projects made miserable by government from redevelopment in the 50s 60s built by the Redevelopment Agency back then under the leadership of Justin Herman of the "Plaza" fame. He booted all the blacks in the Fillmore who bought up property cheap when the Japanese were interned in camps during the war. And once out, the returning Japanese joined the "redevelopment" agency who claimed the property now "blighted" by black people. From there they were moved to the BVHP. It just doesn't stop....criminal activity in broad daylight. Catherine Austin Fits writes about the role of HUD in this process eloquently.

The Drug War and Prison Industrial Complex have starring it and weep.


Good examples, Mike. Yes, Catherine Austin Fits is amazing. So how come the lame street media ignores her? Simple, she tells it like it is, something nobody wants to hear.

I am hoping we activists can focus on the specific projects and find a way to help neutralize each upcoming one. Mayor Lee's housing trust fund on the November ballot is a start -- letters to editors, comments on articles, Facebook posts, guest speakers, and hopefully an argument on the November ballot.


Yesterday, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Karnow, a Schwarzenegger appointee, imposed attorneys' fees on we 6 plaintiffs who had challenged two particular aspects of top-two in state court. He awarded attorneys fees to the attorneys for Abel Maldonado and the group supporting top-two in the 2010 campaign. They are intervenors in the case, who said they were afraid the Secretary of State would not defend top-two vigorously enough.

It is not supposed to happen. They have asked for $240,000. Courts aren't supposed to award attorneys' fees against plaintiffs unless the lawsuit is utterly without merit. The judge will set the amount today. Gautam Dutta is a young attorney and he and his wife just had their first baby. He is a sole practitioner and lives in Fremont and works at home. He will ask for rehearing. He can't appeal without putting up a 10% bond. The case challenged the failure of the top-two law to allow the word "independent" to be on the ballot, and the part of the law that said write-ins couldn't be counted under any circumstances even though write-in space appeared on the ballot (this year the legislature "fixed" that by abolishing write-in space on November ballots for congress and state office). Those were strong claims, not frivolous ones. This judge must be a monster. But so is Abel Maldonado, and the man who has been paying the legal bills for
Maldonado, Charlie Munger, a multi-millionaire who is also chair of the Santa Clara County Republican Central Committee and son of Warren Buffett's business partner, Charlie Munger Sr.

Richard Winger


PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

This is nuts! From a common sense perspective, it would seem that if a case is without merit, the judge who allowed the case in should pay the fees! So a judge says Ok to try a case (thus not taking responsibility for a tough decision) then the court says, "oh no merit. Have to pay fees."


This is not the first time he's done this sort of thing: