Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, Agenda Control the Cattle

Although this is political, the rules that will be created will very likely affect the way we do business...

Looks like the ranchers are at it again. We all need the rancher to tell us exactly how to live our lives. The name Agenda 21 became toxic and it has been rebranded. Agenda 2030 is implementing the collectivist utopia our government rancher leaders think we need to implement to keep their herd under their control. This is very scary, personal choice and liberty robbing rules that will steal our individual freedom. Obama wants this control to be part of the scope of the government and says he will work to make these world laws part of the laws required to be obeyed by the citizens of the US and once he leaves office, to work to give this control to the UN as a world controlling governmental body. This is in the works and is already being pushed through. Read these documents and consider what it is you do and how this will add more adversity to your ability to thrive doing what you do.

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.or...ormingourworld



https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...nd-agenda-2030

Do we really need to give the people who have f~ed up our lives and economy and prosperity more power? Is giving the ranchers more power to control every aspect of our lives a good idea?

Is there an old Communist saying about if you control the food you control the people?? Its a very scary thought.

Originally Posted by Patriot76

I am from the old school that requires a solution when complaining about a situation. So what is your recommendation to correct your concern?

The solution is individual freedom. The complaining that is being done is the complaining that government can't control the herd well enough.

Originally Posted by harsas

Sorry but all I saw was a proposed commitment to end poverty and hunger by 2030. Not sure how this can be bad...

It is bad because it can never be accomplished. The government has spent trillions of dollars over and over from the beginning of the progressive era and we still have the same amount of poverty and hunger.

In all honesty .... i think you're looking at this through the conservative lens T. ( I'm a conservative as well. )

It's just one of the conservative talking points from the talking heads on tv. It's for all of the conservative sheeple out there.

Anything having to do with the UN = one world guvmin't = bad.

My opinion is that their hearts are in the right place but their efforts are misguided.

Job #1 absolutely has to be to bring global population back down to sustainable levels.

Seeing as disease,famine, and war are natural population controls efforts to end these things will only increase the suffering.

< sigh> This isn't complicated.

There's some good talent at the UN from both sides of the political aisle. Why on earth haven't they figured this out yet ?????

Originally Posted by t00nces2

It is bad because it can never be accomplished. The government has spent trillions of dollars over and over from the beginning of the progressive era and we still have the same amount of poverty and hunger.

I really don't think we can blame this on the progressive era. Global population has doubled from roughly 3.5 billion to 7 billion in your lifetime.

Imagine that : In all of human history up until the day you were born the greatest number we had was 3.5 billion. That's tens of thousands years ! Then in the last sixty or so years the population exploded. Looks like all of those efforts to save the breeders worked like a charm.

They survived and made lots n lots of babies.

Who are the "Rancher's"?

To respond to Patriot & harsas:

We've done a pretty good job of controlling population growth here in the states. What little growth we do have is mostly due to people from other countries coming here from other countries for a better life. There are different reasons for our success.

We had the "baby boom" from roughly 1945 through 1964 where we had lots of children. ( That's our generation. )

Starting in the sixties things began to change:

1: There was the zero population growth movement.

2: There was the advent of " The Pill ".

3: There was the feminist movement.

4: Our economic system changed. Instead of being able to support a family with one wage earner ( father ) you now needed two wage earners. ( mom & dad )

5: The original Christian church fell into disrepute because it had become so corrupt. People stopped listening to the message of " Be fruitful and multiply ".

6: People abandoned their faith and started going to science & medicine for the answers to their questions. It became more about rational thought than blind belief.

7: Rowe v Wade was a turning point in our legal system.

8: The advent of HIV / Aids greatly increased the use of prophylactics. ( rubbers )

9: Planned parenthood helped control the rate of teen pregnancy.

I think one could reasonably say that these things were proven to work in stabilizing population growth ?

Ummm .... i am concerned. The problem of exponential growth is more in other countries but there's no " here" and "over there". It's all the same place. Our world is one closed ecosystem. Like it or not ... we're all in this together. Everything is interconnected in ways we can't begin to imagine. What they're doing " over there " has a huge impact on us here in the states.

The only way i see of restoring the balance is either with a terrible world war -or- a plague we can't stop like some mutation of the Ebola virus. Maybe some aweful famine where billions of people die off due to starvation ?

Somehow, it's all going to sort itself out.

If there's a one word solution, it's education! Very true we and most other educated countries Japan, all of Europe (except for Ireland), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, China, Brazil, Chile, and I know I'm leaving a bunch of countries out, have all just about or will soon reach zero (even negative) population growth. ZPG (Zero Population Growth) is in simplicity, As many births as deaths. Not just the United States, but most nations know that the world cannot sustain itself without controlling population growth. For a lot of reasons, but let's keep it simple, we all need food and we should want everybody in a somewhat healthy state. There's nothing wrong with not wanting your neighbor to starve for lack of food. Nor should we want them so ill that we start catching diseases that we thought we cured a generation ago or a mutated virus hopping on a plane everyday, rapidly spreading from nation to nation.

Most nations have achieved a decent standard of living for the majority of their people. They have done so many ways, including controlling population growth. In our country the fertility rate is about 2 births per female, Japan and most other industrialized countries is even less.

Still the worlds population has tripled since 1950, with Africa and Arab nations populations increasing every year!

Ummm ... okay ... maybe we're getting a bit off track. What you're talking about is called a corporatocracy. That's a form of government where corporations rule. Lol ... it gets really wonky when you figure that most major corporations are publicly owned by shareholders and governed by board members, many of whom were elected to their positions. Kinda democratic in the way it works but what the heck ... lets just go with it.

A smart cookie plays both ends against the middle. The corporations are major contributors to the election funds of both the progressives and the conservatives. That way ... no matter how it plays out ... they have someone in office that will look out for their best interests.

Look at the current sitting president : He inherited a mess. The economy was doing a meltdown and the banking industry was in dire need of a bailout. He provided that bailout to the BIG multinational banks. Next, the auto industry was in trouble so he bailed out those companies. Then there was the whole green energy Solyndra fiasco. Then, there was " The healthcare crisis in America " so he FORCED everyone to go BUY health insurance.Let's not forget about the HARP program.

The prime beneficiaries were BIG business not the average working stiff.

That ain't freedom bro.

Ayn Rand warned against this back in the early 60's because she saw similar scenarios play out in the communist USSR.

It's often bad juju when the government gets in cahoots with private industry. The little guy often ends up becoming an economic slave to the system. It's what naturally happens when any country trends too far left of center.

Originally Posted by bigburtchino

Still the worlds population has tripled since 1950, with Africa and Arab nations populations increasing every year!

Case in point: There aren't enough resources in those areas to support the population. You get disease,starvation, war, political instability, genocide , etc.

Anyone raising money to feed the starving children in Africa ought to step back and ask themselves if they're only prolonging the agony.

Better education is really important but there's a problem that comes with it .... better educated people start thinking for themselves and ask uncomfortable questions. That's generally not good for the traditional religions in the region.

I have no problem with anyone learning all they can, if that causes a problem, the world can use more of those problems!

"Somehow, it's all going to sort itself out."

the simple of that statement is honestly true in the illusion of time.

there is a "unknown force" that seems to keep this world within the balance that is required.

propaganda is a popular feed for lazy sheeple

the goats and such prefer eating the labels and not bothering to read them anymore then they might fancy reading a fresh garden salad.

point is, what is there to read from a salad much beyond it's reality?

if propaganda is the salad that we must eat, do you really want to know about the cheese mites and poo poo bugs that may thrive in your free range garden salad?

how do we eat of the popular propaganda machine and not get gas?

remove the skin of the bean that is the source of the gas and eat the naked truth of the bean.

but, yes I do agree that a bean without the gas is not a real bean.

darned if we do and darned if we don't.

Conservative vs Liberal and Republican vs Democrat aside, I went to a seminar at NC State University about this just last week.

Ending hunger would do a lot for the population so far as decreasing it, because the survival rate so far as infants would increase greatly. This increase in survival rate would decrease the general populations need to try for so many children.

Just like BigBurtChino said education is very much a factor in population control. They estimate that by 2030 the population will be 9 billion but if you look at the trend so far as developed or "first world countries" go, you'll see that populations are flat lining even tending towards decreasing. This is especially true in America and China. If more of the world were educated, I don't believe that population would be a problem.

Very relevant, very informative TED talk here:

So far as healthcare, my plan cost twice as much now for a plan that's not even close to the one I had. I can't wait for the day that bill is repealed.

Corporations don't run this country. The people do, for now. The thing about having corporations provide things like healthcare is that it creates competition. When the gov controls it, it's mediocre just like everything else they control. There is no sense of competition, because, why would the gov spend money constantly improving something that they control? They wouldn't. They'll have your money anyways, they're the sole provider. In a capitalistic society such as ours, anyone can create a quality product and rival a large corporation. Look at Yeti, they went from nothing to a multi-million dollar corporation in a few years. If you don't like a corporation, use your dollar to vote. I've said it on here before and I'll say it again. Every dollar you spend is a vote for a corporation. Research just who your money is going to before you spend it on something. You dont have to spend your money at one spot, until it's a government controlled endeavor.....

The government is not competent enough to control every facet of the US economy. This point has been proven time and time again. Look at Russia's old leader Boris Yeltsin, after given a tour through a super market in Houston, he was amazed by the amount of cereals we had on the shelf. He had never seen choices like that. One of his aides claimed he was somber the whole ride home and in 1991 he turned the country more towards a free market.

Socialism is not what this country needs, yet, look what we're advancing towards.

A tip: I find people that tend to use the word (I use the term word lightly.), sheeple, tend to be that which they claim they are not. I find those that cite TV shows are often misguided themselves.