Obama Promises $3.5 Billion for Mass Transit in Urban Cities to Support Agenda 21 Policies

Agenda 21, High-Speed Rails & Obama’s $302 Billion Transportation Bill

February 27, 2014

Occupy Corporatism - Speaking in St. Paul, Minnesota, President Obama explained his 4 year scheme to create jobs and repair American infrastructure by building bridges, roads and high-speed rail systems (HSR) throughout the nation.

This plan, costing $302 billion to taxpayers, would facilitate projects for transportation and planning directives that will alter the US landscape.

By executive power of Congressional approval, Obama vows to get this agenda through and implemented.

The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program has invested $3.5 billion of taxpayer money into 270 projects across the ntion thus far.

The Obama administration would like to see funding moved to transit schemes as priority to ensure “projects that make it easier for Americans to get to jobs, school, and other opportunities, promote neighborhood revitalization and business expansion, and reconnect neighborhoods that are unnaturally divided by physical barriers such as highways and railroads.”

Last month Obama revealed a project with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to revamp bus lines and create more access for residents of urban cities to mass transit.

Along with Vice President Joe Biden, Obama made his 3 year plan to invest private corporate investments into American infrastructure.

Under the Rebuild America Partnership (RAP) the corporate infiltration coincides with employment creation who also handing over traditionally governmental roles to private sector members of local communities.

Two years ago, Ray LaHood, then secretary of the DOT, revealed a stated last week that $470 million in unspent funds are still available to states for such projects.

In 2011, Obama called for these HSRs to be built in America within the next 25 years.

HRS is the brainchild of America 2050, a non-governmental organization that supports Agenda 21 policies in the US.

America 2050 claims that the railway will provide more trains to the growing population in California and that this endeavor is necessary to “close the gap” between Northern and Southern California.

Conveniently enough, in 2013 Elton Musk, founder of Tesla Motors and SpaceX, announced his plans to development faster and more efficient high-speed bullet trains that move Americans from San Francisco Bay to Los Angeles at speeds unheard of before.

The Hyperloop, as described by Musk, is the fifth mode of transportation.

Beyond the four modes of current transportation (boats, planes, cars and trains), the Hyperloop would move 3 to 4 times faster than the bullet trains built across the globe; meaning it would travel at twice the speed of an average commercial airliner.

THE NEW AMERICA: Agenda 21 and the U.N. One World Government plan

February 19, 2013

Renew America - I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I investigate conspiracy theories and I gather evidence before I believe anything anyone purports to be true. 8-10 years ago this New World Order topic came to my attention, and along with it, the One World Government plans. At the time, I remember reading that the American mainstream media was calling the New World Order a "conspiracy theory" and denied that any such thing existed. They pooh-poohed the idea of a One World Government, as well.

In 1992, however, in their Venezuela conference, the United Nations passed something called "Agenda 21," which the elder President George Bush of the United States of America publicly gave it his support. It referred to something called "Sustainable Development" and seemed to be concerned with protecting the planet by limiting and controlling the development of corporate and personal structures. As I perused this effort, I saw that rural development was going to start being restricted and that the Train to Nowhere, that we have been struggling with here in Sonoma County (called that because it starts in a little hamlet devoid of much corporate activity and ended at a location in San Rafael which did not connect with the existing train – BART – and required a taxi ride across town in one wished to take this train into San Francisco).

Why would anyone be so intent on building a high-speed train from a little town called "Cloverdale" with a population of 8,634 that sits out in the middle of nowhere, nearly 2 hours north of San Francisco, to another destination which isn't connected to BART, and is still another 30 minutes outside of SF? Millions of dollars have been poured into a campaign to get public approval over the past ten years. By their own estimation, only 1,400 trips are estimated, which would be 700 round trips. Estimating a cost into the hundreds of millions of dollars, to transport barely 700 people? Were they serious? Yes, they were. But why?

UN Agenda 21 was passed in 1992 without any particular fanfare. The media was almost completely silent about it, and continues to relegate Agenda 21 to page 9, if any mention is made at all. But included in Agenda 21 is a plan for high-speed trains nationwide. Ooo, how exciting! Another interesting part of the plan is that it includes building six-story apartment complexes along these train lines, intended to relocate civilians away from their farms and ranches, which will no longer be approved for residential development. If you want to know what researchers have discovered about this effort, a simple google will lead you to all you ever wanted to know. Personally, I prefer the facts, Ma'am, nothing but the facts.

Further investigation reveals that the Clintons and the Bushes approved of Agenda 21 and also approve of this development of a One World Government system. Barack Obama is also supportive of this Agenda 21 effort and this OWG plan, with approval and funding coming from our own federal government as well as local governments, is being implemented nationwide today. Locally, the little towns of Cotati (population 7,333 not counting the chickens or the snakes) and Cloverdale have been putting elements of Agenda 21 in place for years already. Why would our government choose these little unknown towns to begin implementing this thing?

More importantly, if our own presidents are willing to give the United States of America over to a one world government system, then who is looking out for America's best interests now? That is, on the world stage, who has America's best interests at heart? Certainly not someone who supports a plan to eliminate the USA's independent nation status. Am I right? My point – and this is an awful realization to me – is that no one is looking out for America's best interests anymore. Our own presidents and leaders in Congress have already given their blessings to turn our nation over to an undetermined, unelected world government organization. That only leaves We, the People and God to look out for America's best interest. That said, we may have troubled times ahead, but when God is with us, who can be against us? That is, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. We can do this.

Agenda 21 is being implemented across America, and many Americans have never heard of it. There is a list of mayors who have signed on to support it on the ICLEI website. It is actually a list of Progressive politicians, and the list includes mayors of nearly every major American city. (See diagram, above.) What this means, interestingly, is that when polled, while Progressives make up less than 20% of the political landscape in America, they've made a particularly impressive nationalized effort to put themselves into leadership in so many of America's largest cities! Bravo to the Progressives, but aren't you curious how they managed that?



So the media has been almost silent about this, but nearly every large city in America has signed on to support Agenda 21? Should you or I be concerned about this? I am concerned, and I'll tell you why: The only civilized nation who hasn't officially signed onto the One World Government plan is the good ole' USA. Well, actually, President George H. Bush, President Clinton, President George W. Bush and even President Obama has signed on now, in 2011, but there has been no formal public announcement of this plan to hand America over to the OWG folks, virtually no media attention and most importantly, there has been no buy-in from We, the People! Can a U.S. president legally commit to handing governing authority of The United States of America over to the United Nations? Not according to our Constitution.

But as we've seen, our current president has been making hundreds of questionable appointments and actions in the four short years he's been in office. Clearly, the presidents before him engaged in and signed some similar somewhat secret agreements. I am in no way trying to paint Barack Obama as a bad person, because I'm certain that he is not spearheading this One World Government effort. Apparently it's been going on long before Obama was even born. As America's leader, however, Mr. Obama must do whatever those who put him in power tell him to do. Yes, I just said "those who put him in power," and I am not referring to you and me. I'm referring to those people who have put together and who are implementing this One World Government plan.

There is a One World Government planned, and that is a fact. Google it. It's not a "conspiracy theory" or even a secret anymore. Granted, the U.S. government isn't talking about it. The media, who called it a "conspiracy theory" just ten years ago, now acknowledges it, although you don't see any media outlet making a big deal out of it. Why on Earth wouldn't something as huge as a transition of all the independent nations on the planet into a new worldwide governing organization be big news, splashed all over the television and newspapers of America? That's BIG NEWS, right?

And who do you think is planning this One World Government? Do you know? I don't have any idea. The media hasn't disclosed that information yet. Our own government hasn't revealed that information to us yet, either. Obviously, if the United Nations has spent decades planning such a government, someone surely knows who the planners are, but We, the People don't know yet.

Do you think an effort of this magnitude would ever be left to chance, or would the reigns of this nation be left for a bunch of yahoos like We, the People to determine who is going to run this country? Really? Do you believe that? What if we were to elect someone who doesn't support this One World Government plan? That would certainly be a possibility if our elections were truly left up to Americans' votes. So what is the likelihood that these 'secret people' would leave something like leadership of the most important, prosperous and powerful nation on Earth to chance? It's not really likely, is it? I doubt it.

So if electing our president isn't being left to chance, then how is the president being selected? That's a great question, isn't it? I know many Americans will be bothered by this question, and by the disturbing things my questions might indirectly suggest. I am bothered too. That's' why I'm writing this article. I've become increasingly bothered by recent events here in America.



This effort to convince Americans that giving up our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms disturbs me most, I think. There is only one reason a government would want to disarm its citizens, and that is if that government planned on doing something that would so enrage the citizenry that people might be prone to become violent toward that government. That's the only reason any nation has ever disarmed it's citizens. Gun regulation has commonly been followed by gun confiscation and then tyranny and bloodshed as the government turned on its people. We, the People know this, and we see the media making an effort to convince people that giving up our guns is a good idea.

Considering that Agenda 21 is being implemented nationwide right now, and that this United Nations plan for a One World Government is also in the works, are we Americans willing to give up American sovereignty in order to become a part of a worldwide governing organization? When we don't even know who our 'new rulers' might be? Clearly, taking away our guns would be mandatory if our government planned on handing America's sovereignty over to some unelected world governing body. There would be angry Americans marching on Washington DC and marching on every state capital in America if our government agreed to give up our autonomy and become part of a "North American Union," which is what the UN is planning for us. I suspect that this effort to demonize guns is directly connected to the OWG plan to give up America's sovereignty.

What really prompted me to write this article doesn't have anything to do with Agenda 21 or with the One World Government being planned for our planet. What drove me to write this afternoon was when it occurred to me that (a) the reason they are trying to convince us to give up our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and give up our guns is because whoever is really leading this nation – our president, Congress, whoever gets them elected – knows that they are planning on doing something that will likely incite us to violence, and when that violence starts, they would like us to be rock-throwers like the Arab citizenry. They don't want to be looking down the barrels of our guns when the stuff hits the fan. And (b) when I considered the magnanimity of this planned One World Government, it hit me that whoever is planning this new worldwide governing body would never allow hicks and rednecks like We, the People to choose our own leaders. They would want to make sure that everyone with any power was on board with this plan, and that no one would spill the beans too soon and piss off We, the People while we are still heavily armed.

Well guess what... it wasn't too hard to connect the dots, and once I saw even a glimpse of the likely big picture, I had to put pen to paper. Some facts I would ask you to consider are these:

Fact: The UN has been planning a transition to a One World Government for decades, and for decades world leaders have been busy preparing for it.

Fact: The American mainstream media hasn't been reporting all of this responsibly. In fact, I don't hesitate to say that our media has been irresponsible in investigating and informing the American public about these plans to hand America over to an unknown World governing organization.

Fact: Agenda 21 is being implemented locally in my own Sonoma County. It is possibly being implemented in every state in the union today.

Fact: America's leaders support this planned transition to a One World Government. If they did not support this plan, there would have been much said about it by our Senators and Representatives in the House. No one is raising so much as an eyebrow over this plan to sacrifice America's sovereignty and our right to exist as a sovereign nation in order to be part of this proposed, planned world governing organization.

Fact: Who the people are behind the planning and implementation of this OWG is still completely unknown to myself and to every American I questioned about this. This is the biggest story in the history of Mankind, and none of us knows (a) who has planned it or (b) who is overseeing the implementation of this plan.

Fact: Suddenly the Democrat Party is making a concerted effort to convince Americans that owning guns is bad for America. While every other nation who has been disarmed is warning us not to give up our guns, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, Diane Feinstein and some of her cohorts are leading the charge to demonize guns, pretending that giving up our guns will somehow make us safer. The Republican Party is doing little to counter that absurd contention. Despite the opposite being true, in every nation in which guns have been banned, Feinstein and other Democrats are still going through the motions to convince us that giving up our guns is in our own best interest. It's not. Gun-related crime invariable rises dramatically when gun bans are put into effect.That is a fact, too.

So why is this all-too-common American husband, father, Cancer survivor, worship pastor, author and licensed addiction counselor concerning myself with plans for a world government by the world's leaders of today? The answer is simple. I love America, and I don't love that America's leaders are planning on sacrificing our sovereign nation status so that a group of heretofore unidentified rich and powerful global elitists can play "King of the World." I want America to be here for my daughters, so that they can have the same kind of freedom and liberty that I've had in my lifetime. I want my girls to enjoy the security of living in the most prosperous and powerful nation on Earth, not some "North American Union" in which self-appointed Communists are ruling everyone and dictating everything as law. Of all the plans for this One World Government that I have read thus far, there has been no mention whatsoever of (a) who the rulers might be or (b) how they might go about becoming "world rulers." There is no mention whatsoever in any UN documents I've seen which discuss worldwide elections for this new, not-only-proposed but planned, world government.

And I do not want my daughters to have to depend on an average of 11 minute response time to their 911 calls if/when they are being assaulted or worse. I want them to be able to pull out their AK 47 Bullpup's and protect themselves and their families, like Americans all over our nation can do today.

That's why.

If you didn't know all of the facts that I've presented here, then perhaps you might want to start doing a little investigating of your own. While We, the People weren't paying attention, a whole lot of bad people started planning a whole lot of bad things for America. We don't have to sit back and let them carry out their plans, however. We are American patriots. Our ancestors fought and died for our freedom and our rights and I will not sit back and do nothing while some elitist foreigners take over our nation and force us into some North American Union, ruled by other rich, foreign or domestic elitists.

If you've ever wondered why John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer – and even our President much of the time – all seem so incredibly smug and arrogant, perhaps it's because they don't consider themselves 'one of us.' Perhaps, too, it's because of what they're planning on doing with America, that we are not privy to know...just yet. You know, that thing about throwing the USA on the dung heap of nations chartered for One World Government rule? Australia was thrown on that pile last year. All of America's ally nations are already doomed for inclusion. We are the last hope...the world's last hope for freedom. Just like we've always been.

And why is it that you're getting these facts from me, instead of from the mainstream media, whose job it is to report newsworthy events such as, oh, I don't know... converting all of the world's autonomous nations into a one world government? Great question, isn't it?

The truth is that I don't want any of this to be true. I would love it if this was nothing more than a "conspiracy theory"...but it's not. Agenda 21 is out in the open now. The United Nation's plan for a One World Government is public knowledge now. And frankly, I am very, very disturbed by all of it, particularly becoming aware that our own leaders aren't looking out for America's best interests any longer. If that sounds unfair, or like a reckless conclusion, answer this for me:

1. Why would our leaders be concerned with America's best interests when America won't even exist soon if/when these UN OWG plans come to fruition?
   
   
2. How could people who are planning on abandoning America's autonomy and our precious independent nation sovereignty in order to hand America over to the United Nations' One World Government plan be serious about watching out for America's best interests?
   

The answers to those two questions, of course, is "They aren't" and "They can't." If America is going to remain a sovereign nation, it is going to be because God and We, the People stood our ground and refused to turn our nation over to any foreign governing body. Our own government has already been active in planning on throwing America on the dung heap of nations earmarked for the One World Government. This, I'm afraid, is what all this saber rattling about gun control is really about. They must take our weapons before they take that final step of sacrificing our sovereign nation status in order to include the USA in this UN OWG plan. Again, they would rather deal with angry rock-throwers than angry gun owners. And it's likely to get much worse before it gets better, I suspect. Get ready to be the patriot you and I have always bragged about being. The proverbial rubber is about to hit the proverbial road...hard, in fact.

Flashback: New Governors Could Derail Obama's High-Speed Trains

October 5, 2010

Governing.com - One of the biggest initiatives announced in President Obama's State of the Union address earlier this year was his plan for a network of high-speed rail lines throughout the nation. His administration even directed $8 billion in stimulus funds to states to begin work on the lines.

But many of the current Republican candidates for governor across the country have said that, if elected,they'll delay or halt implementation of the rail system, according to the New York Times:

In Ohio, the Republican candidate for governor, John Kasich, is vowing to kill a $400 million federal stimulus project to link Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati by rail. Florida, Rick Scott, the Republican candidate for governor, has questioned whether the state should invest in the planned rail line from Orlando to Tampa. The state got $1.25 billion in federal stimulus money for the project, but it will cost at least twice that much to complete.

And the nation’s most ambitious high-speed rail project, California’s $45 billion plan to link Los Angeles and San Francisco with trains that would go up to 220 miles per hour, could be delayed if Meg Whitman, a Republican, is elected governor. “In the face of the state’s current fiscal crisis, Meg doesn’t believe we can afford the costs associated with new high-speed rail at this time,” said Tucker Bounds, a campaign spokesman.

In some places, GOP opposition to the plan is even stronger. Fighting high-speed rail has become a central campaign issue for Scott Walker, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Wisconsin.

Mr. Walker, who worries that the state could be required to spend $7 million to $10 million a year to operate the trains once the line is built, started a Web site, NoTrain.com, and has run a television advertisement in which he calls the rail project a boondoggle. “I’m Scott Walker,” he says in the advertisement, “and if I’m elected as your next governor, we’ll stop this train.”

 

Related:

• Agenda 21: Osborne unveils plan for Northern super city and new high speed rail link between Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds
• Agenda 21: Social Engineering for a New World Order
• The Purpose of the Economic Meltdown
• Global Education, Land Use, and Population Control
• Sustainable Development: The Communist Agenda for the 21st Century
• The UN's Agenda for 2010
• Freedom Is Being Replaced By Servitude, Capitalism By Socialism, and Property Rights By 'Sustainable Development'
• Transportation System of the New World Order Excludes Private Auto Mobility
• Agenda 21: 'Walkable Urbanism' Rather Than 'Drivable Suburbanism'
• Social Engineering is Forcing People into Cities Because It is Easier to Track and Control an Urban Population
• U.S. Population by Major City and State
• Non-Human-Use Zones in America
• Vehicle Tracking and Disabling Systems
• Vehicle Mileage Tax
• Intelligent Transportation Systems: Big Brother Tracking Our Every Move By Vehicle and Public Transit