Letter to the Editor: "Voluntary Stewardship Program" just another name for a UN Agenda 21 program

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Dear Editor,

I have been hoping to establish a basic education for the public on the subject of the United Nations and their established foreign governance infrastructure in our country.

I have talked about how they are now in charge of our activities through all the “Global to Local” programs they have established, primarily, “The UN’s Sustainable Development Agenda 21”, under disguised names like the Wildlands Project, Growth Management, Smart Growth, Comprehensive Planning, Critical Areas Ordinances(CAOs), Watersheds/WRIA, etc.

Well, now there is a new name to learn, which is called the “Voluntary Stewardship Program”(VSP) that developed as a result of the new WA State E.S. House Bill 1886, titled “Critical Area Protection—Voluntary Stewardship Program”.

What they are trying to pass off as the local savior from the all the CAO’s [Critical Area Ordinances], that the UN [United Nations] established in the first place - is another UN plan.

What?! How is it that one UN plan can save us from another UN plan, when neither “foreign governance” plans belong here to begin with? Do any of you remember how the people of King County were eaten alive by their CAOs?

They say in their flyer to the County Commissioner meeting attendees with their summary of their “Bottom Line”, which is: “Washington Farm Bureau and other agricultural organizations support opting in to the VSP because it is the only way to ensure that both the county and agriculture are protected from lawsuits and new regulations.”

Lawsuits? Lawsuits filed by whom? Apparently they are saying that eco-extremist groups were cited as potential lawsuit filers.

So, did I read this right?

Does this say that a new UN program is going to save us from a previous UN program, and if we don’t opt in at the county level, then our counties will get sued by the UN’s primary supporters, such as all the extreme environmental groups??

Isn’t that coercion??

Why would anyone say “ok” to something so stupid, when the smart thing to do would be to tell them to get all the UN programs out of the county altogether, based on their being unconstitutional? Then we wouldn’t have to worry about their unwelcomed regulations OR getting sued by the eco-extremists.

They failed to mention the option of getting rid of all the stupid UN programs altogether, starting with the “Growth Management Act” or ICLEI [ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability, formerly, Council for Local Environmental Initiatives'] that dictates global regulations and sidesteps the authority of our elected officials.

If we are being ruled by these private property rights stealing programs, it's our own fault. We need to step up to the plate, get organized and begin the effort to oust these foreign programs. If it calls for a huge lawsuit based on the UN programs being unconstitutional, and the people who implement them as treasonous, then that’s where we all need to start.

We, as Americans, cannot forget our right to say NO. We also must ask our elected officials the important questions like “Do you, or have you ever supported any UN programs?” Anyone who says “yes” to that question MUST be rejected as a potential candidate because they will NOT defend your private property rights.

Is your own group/committee planning to take action against these UN programs yet? You may even join your local Property Rights groups like CAPR [Citizens Alliance for Property Rights] , or the Stevens County Assembly, and ask that they start working to get rid of ICLEI and Growth Management. This action isn’t going to need everyone’s help; just Americans who plan to keep their private property rights, right to bear arms, and the right to grow and eat the foods we choose! ;)

Rene’ Holaday
UN Researcher