Agenda 21 in Action

Regardless of where you live UN Agenda 21 is being implemented by your local council without your knowledge. Time to Stand, say NO!! and mean it.

The Chicken Man, Andrew Wordes, in his own words 2012


What’s not Sustainable? Private Property

“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference in Vancouver Canada

This is one of those stories that often never makes it to the Front Page of any newspaper or website. It’s a story about Property Rights and Eminent domain. It’s the story of one man who tried to fight back; and sadly it’s the story of a man who lost it all in the process. It’s also a story that can happen to anyone who is reading this article.

The story begins back in 2009 when Andrew Wordes, otherwise known as the Roswell Chicken Man, began his fight to raise chickens on his property. In February 2009, the city of Roswell, GA started to cite Andrew Wordes for raising livestock in his backyard. Wordes, who had started raising chickens on his .97-acre homestead in 2005, decided to fight back. And guess what he won.

But sadly, that’s when the real trouble started:

You see, the story actually has very little to do with chickens. While the city of Roswell, and cities just like it across America, would like people to believe it’s a story about chickens, the real story is about the rights of property owners.

When taking a look at a map that was published back in 2003, as part of Roswell’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan for city improvements, one thing becomes painfully obvious; The city had already planned to take Wordes’ property.

The Map showed that the city had major plans for his property. In fact, his property sat right in the middle of a planned city park. His property was being targeted for “city improvements”, and this fight had nothing to do with chickens. The chickens were really just the catalyst for the city to unlawfully seize his land.

After initially winning his fight in municipal court, the City of Roswell made Wordes life a living hell.

The Harassment Campaign Against Andrew Wordes

On Dec. 14, 2009, the city council approved a new ordinance banning roosters and using lot size to limit how many chickens a resident could keep. Wordes claimed that the harassment started immediately after the meeting, when Roswell police ticketed him for no insurance and a number of other moving violations.

  • In September of 2010, Roswell prosecuted Wordes under the new ordinance claiming he had too many birds for his lot size. The judge found him not guilty since he had the chickens before the ordinance became law.
  • In September of 2010, he was convicted of grading sediment on his land without a permit and having inoperable vehicles in his yard.  He was sentenced to community service.
  • In November of 2010, code enforcement served Wordes with a  nuisance citation.
  • After winning twice in court against the city, the county then got involved and actually cited him for “not properly stacking his firewood.”
  • In 2011, the 84 year-old women who held Mr. Wordes mortgage was harassed by the city into selling Wordes mortgage for forty cents on the dollar. The city then began the foreclosure process.
  • While in the process of trying to save his home, Andrew Wordes was arrested by Roswell Police on the day that he was to bring paperwork that would’ve delayed his bankruptcy and the foreclosure on his home.
  • Wordes was jailed for violating his probation after the city claimed he only served 122 of the 150 hours of community service that he had been ordered to serve.  He then served 99 days in jail.

After his release, he placed a sign on his property that read “Trespassers will be construed as a bodily threat” and then waited for authorities to arrive and remove him.

On Monday at 10:45 a.m. Marshalls arrived at the home. After a two-hour standoff, Wordes advised the Marshall that they needed to immediately leave the property.  That’s when the explosion happened. After years of battling for his right to keep his land, Wordes finally had enough.

On a website dedicated to Andrew Wordes, one of his friends wrote:

We all lost a little something today. Andrew was a man of faith, with a strong love for God. He was a staunch Constitutionalist with a passion for our freedoms and liberties.

You pushed Mr. Wordes to this point. You marched around Roswell bashing Andrew, annihilating his character, marking him as crazy and filing lawsuits whenever you could, bankrupting him and denying him rights given to property owners in the United States.

Andrew fought the good fight, not just for himself but for others because he knew it could happen to anyone. And it is. Eminent domain is being abused all over our country, just look it up. Communities are plagued with repeated abuses of the use of eminent domain. It’s tragic and your neighborhood could be next. Andrew fought to his last breath, for himself, for me, for you. In his mind, he went on his terms. Right out of Atlas Shrugged. Andrew is at peace now but it’s not over.

The sad truth about this story is its not an isolated incident.   When any government (talking city or county now) finds financial motivations, and they are able to initiate those directives at gunpoint of it’s local law enforcement, it’s important to keep powers in check so that they cannot be abused.

From the Federal Government seizing property because of “environmental regulations”, to local municipalities who use code enforcement agents codes to intimidate people into giving up their land, we have a huge problem in this country. Our property rights are being shredded before our eyes, and it’s only a matter of time before this story becomes an everyday occurrence, and the causes need to be addressed.  Remember, in the U.S, every town, every county, and every State makes many of it’s own laws, so circumstances vary from place to place.  It’s important to get plugged in to where you live and be sure that your local governments are above reproach with their handling of the citizens they intend to serve.

Regardless of where you live UN Agenda 21 is being implemented by your local council without your knowledge. Time to Stand, say NO!! and mean it.


Name that Traitor – Fun and Educational


Daily Show likes Name That Traitor.

President Obama with Prime Minister Stephen Ha...

Image via Wikipedia

NWO traitors

Play "Name that Traitor" Fun & Educational-click here

Traitor-“One who betrays one’s country, a cause, or a trust”

Government of Ontario checks out Name that Traitor

IP Address 204.40.1.# (Government of the Province of Ontario)
ISP Government of the Province of Ontario
Continent  : North America
Country  : Canada  (Facts)
State/Region  : Ontario
City  : Toronto
Lat/Long  : 43.6667, -79.4167 (Map)
Distance  : 281 miles
Language unknown
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Firefox
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/6.0
Javascript disabled
Time of Visit   Aug 18 2011 2:12:53 pm
Last Page View Aug 18 2011 2:12:53 pm
Visit Length
Page Views   1
Referring URL unknown
Visit Entry Page http://kincardine.wo…o-name-that-traitor/
Visit Exit Page http://kincardine.wo…o-name-that-traitor/

Our elected officials are giving our sovereignty away via international agreements colluding with the United Nations and international bankers

This is not unique to Canada. It is happening across the globe. Agreements made in the shadows, agreements designed to end sovereignty of nations,  replaced with an international parliament or world government.

Stephen Harper Says Canadians Must Give Up Their Sovereignty

Why We Need a Smaller U.S. Population And How We Can Achieve It

Historic population growth

Image via Wikipedia

Editor: Notice how the population graph looks the same as the Al Gore hockey stick in his MMGW propaganda movie. Any reduction in C02 will correspond with a planned reduction in human population.  Environment and Eugenics are one and the same.

Why We Need a Smaller U.S. Population


How We Can Achieve It

Donald Mann*
July 1992

We need a smaller U.S. population in order to halt the destruction of our environment, and to make possible the creation of an economy that will be sustainable indefinitely.

All efforts to save the environment will ultimately prove futile unless not only halt, but eventually reverse, our population growth so that our population
after an interim period of decrease can be stabilized at a sustainable level, far below what it is today.

We are trying to address our steadily worsening environmental problems with purely technological solutions, while refusing to come to grips with their root cause overpopulation. Population size not just population growth is important because it multiplies and intensifies our overwhelming environmental problems. Sheer numbers of people can prevent the achievement of such vital national goals as a healthy environment and sustainable economy.

At any given level of technology and conservation, our impact on the environment is proportional to the size of our population. There is an indisputable correlation between population size and environment degradation. Regardless of new technologies and heroic conservation efforts, we must recognize that population size is the central, core issue and address it as such.

By any measure, the United States is already vastly overpopulated. We have long since exceeded the long range carrying capacity of our resources and environment, yet we continue to grow rapidly, by about 25 million each decade.

If present rates of immigration and fertility continue, our population, now in excess of 256 [as of April 1998, 269] million, will pass 400 million by the year 2055, with no end to growth in sight!

Could any rational person believe that U.S. population growth on such a scale could be anything other than catastrophic for our environment, and our standard of living? Already, with our present numbers, we are poisoning our air and water, destroying croplands and forests, and triggering fundamental climate changes.

Asking ourselves the right questions is supremely important, because failure to do so can prove fatal. As a nation we have failed to ask ourselves the essential question regarding a national population policy: At what size should we seek to stabilize U.S. population? Surely that is the central issue.

As a direct result of our failure to ask that question and find an answer to it we are doing absolutely nothing to first halt, and then reverse, our explosive population growth.

The question of an optimum population size for the U.S. is a public policy issue of crucial importance. It is, however, an issue that is completely ignored not only by our policy makers in all branches of the Federal government, but also by the mass media who could, and should, bring it forcefully to the attention of the American public.

We at NPG believe that the optimum size for U.S. population lies in the range of 125 to 150 million, or about the size it was in the 1940s. With a slow and gradual decrease in our numbers, that size could be reached in about a century (see Fig. 2 below).

To progress toward a smaller population we would need to lower substantially our present rates of immigration and fertility. Those two factors, together with increases in life expectancy, are responsible for our population growth. Our detailed recommendations will be presented later in this paper.

For the moment, however, let us examine the concept of optimum population size.

Optimum Population Size

Some years ago, when world population was perhaps half its present size, famed British scientist Sir Julian Huxley wrote:

“The recognition of an optimum population size (of course relative to technological and social conditions) is an indispensable first step towards that planned control of population which is necessary if man’s blind reproductive urges are not to wreck his ideals, and his plans for material and spiritual betterment.”

Optimum population size should not, of course be confused with maximum population size or the number of people our country could possibly be made to feed, with a low standard of living for everyone, accompanied by the rapid destruction of our ecosystem.

If bare levels of subsistence, and the perhaps irreversible destruction of our environment were acceptable, then maximum U.S. population size might exceed optimum size by a factor of five, ten, or even more.

Various experts are forever trying to estimate how many people in out nation, and the world, could possibly be made to support. Their focus, for some odd reason, seems to be on the possible rather than the desirable.

Critics often claim that the concept of optimum population size is so value-laden that it will be forever impossible to develop a broad consensus on a specific number, or range. We need not be deterred by such objections.

Judgments on public policy issues can never be completely value free, nor need they be. For example, is there some magic number for the size of our defense budget, foreign aid, or the Federal discount rate? Of course not. The essential point is that, after all the evidence is carefully weighed, a final figure must be determined as a matter of policy so that the process of government can proceed.

The same holds true for optimum population size. We must decide on a figure, or range, for optimum size, or at least decide whether it is smaller or larger than present numbers. Failure to do so condemns us to continues inaction, and makes it virtually impossible to progress beyond vague calls to stabilize population at some unspecified level, at some indefinite date.

What someone has said about the greenhouse effect is fully applicable to optimum population size: “In the face of threats of irreversible environment damage, lack of full scientific certainty is no excuse for postponing action.”

What we must try to define are the criteria that will guide our search for answers to the question: What is the optimum size at which we should seek to stabilize U.S. population?

Proposed Criteria

We submit that the concept of optimum population size should be based on the following criteria:

1. The primacy of environmental consideration, because our economy, and our very lives, depend on the proper functioning of the earth’s natural ecosystems.

2. The idea of time, duration, and sustainability. An optimum population size would allow the creation of a society, and an economy, that would be sustainable indefinitely.

3. The idea of an adequate standard of living for everyone.

4. Ample room for open space and wilderness, and for other creatures and forms of life.

5. Prudence. Given our incomplete knowledge of the world’s natural ecosystems, and given that the damage we inflict on the ecosystem may be irreversible before we are even ware of it, a large margin of safety should be built into the goal, just as engineers build large margins of safety into the design of a bridge.

If, for example, it appeared that the optimum U.S. population could reasonably be set at 200 million, the prudence would dictate reducing the goal by at least 25 percent, in order to ensure an adequate margin of safety.


Smart Growth is Agenda 21

Smart Growth and sustainability are cover words for Agenda 21. Agenda 21 will destroy our countries and with it the lives of the children, Our elected officials are traitors to both our countries and humanity. They strive for world tyranny.
Vodpod videos no longer available.