Agenda 21 – Part 4

Agenda 21 – Born in the U.S.A., Raised in the U.N. Part 4

For those of you who have honored me by reading and following this series, you may a turn in direction beginning with this installment. I feel that I have shown in the first three parts of this series, Agenda 21 (aka Agenda) is not necessarily a new concept but, what I feel is the adaptation of policies all ready set forth by the U.S. government.


The first part of this “series”, dealt with the background of how the environmental movement, now known and referred to as “sustainable development” (aka population control), may have started in the America after two books were published in 1948, In Our Plundered Planet by Fairfield Osborn and Road To Survival written by William Vogt. , and eventually led to the signing in 1970, of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the so called “Environmental Magna Carta”, by Richard Nixon.


Part 2, showed how the Rockefeller Commission Report (aka Commission), which was released in March, 1972, may have led to the first U.N Conference on Human Environment held in Stockholm, Sweden just a few months later in June, 1972. I ponder, “Was this turning point in the development of international environmental politics the basis of the U.N.’sRioconference in 1992, which led to Agenda 21?” Part 2 also reviewed the four basic “concepts” of Agenda 21 and showed the relationship between the Commission’s Report and Agenda 21’s fist basic recommendation concerning social and economic issues


Part 3 began by showing how an organization, The Resources for the Future, basically wrote the Commission’s section concerning what would be later addressed in Agenda 21’s “concern” for conservation and management of resources for development. This “concern” seems to be the main subject of everyone’s focus when discussing Agenda 21. However, I attempted to show that the basic foundation for Agenda 21’s recommendations was laid in the Commission’s Report.


If one visits the websites that focus on stopping Agenda 21, most of their focus is on its restriction on private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership,  individual travel choices and  privately owned farms, although I haven’t come across this (YET!) in reading Agenda 21, but when I do, I’ll fully admit it. However, I have read and cited the Commission’s views on some of those subjects. I’ve also noticed that very little is said about what the Agenda’s recommendation about “strengthening the role of major groups, including women….” Is this not something that the American people should be concerned about, considering it has and will involve the government reaching into and altering the most sacred and the foundation of the American way of life, the FAMILY?


With everything that is going, there was a statement made by the former speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, which didn’t get too much coverage in the media, talk radio or even with those who are attempting to stop Agenda 21. While on a short tour through California, she said to a Californiaaudience, “One of the great pieces of unfinished business is high-quality child care; I wonder why we just can’t do that.’’ By “we”, Pelosi means the federal government. Pelosi clarified that Congress should be “doing for child care what we did for health-care reform.”[1] Now, I would ask, “Where did this sudden concern for “universal”, federally funded child care come from?” Could this be another attempt at the implementation Agenda 21?  If so, why weren’t the anti Agenda21 campaign drawing the American people’s attention to this remark? Or could this be left part of the Commission’s report? Or Both?


From the Commission’s report, Chapter 10, The Status of Children and Women, “We believe that institutional child care, if undertaken on a broad basis, may have some beneficial implications for the family. Economic and educational functions have been separated from the family without destroying it. [2]” The Commission also recommended that “Developmental child care seems preferable to custodial programs; and there is no question that such programs, on a large scale, will involve enormous expense. One source estimates that it would cost $20 billion per year in public funds to pay for the best kind of full-time developmental program for the 18 million children from families with incomes under $7,000. There may be ways to obtain good care for less. Experimentation with a variety of programs and personnel seems essential.” Now, in this day of 15 Trillion dollar debt and climbing, everyone should ask, “Who will pay for it?” Well, the Commission has that answer as well, “Those who are able to pay for child care should do so. Recent amendments to federal tax law to permit working persons with incomes under $18,000 to deduct up to $4,800 per year in child-care costs should make it possible for many middle-income families to pay for these services. Union and industry programs that provide care for children of members and employees should be expanded. Even so, public funds will be necessary both to stimulate innovative programs and research, and to subsidize services for lower-income families.” In fact the Commission recommended, “…that both public and private forces join together to assure that adequate child-care services, including health, nutritional, and educational components, are available to families who wish to make use of them.” Does this look and sound familiar?


Some will say, “It makes sense, but what does it have to do with Agenda 21” Well, for those who have read Agenda 21, they will find in Section III, Chapter 24, “Programmes to promote the reduction of the heavy workload of women and girl children at home and outside through the establishment of more and affordable nurseries and kindergartens by Governments, local authorities, employers and other relevant organizations…[3]” Any similarity?  Nothing to see here, let’s move on.


Most Americans are outraged about the passage of Obamacare, and as we know there are a number of provisions contained in the law concerning women’s health in general and particularly dealing with reproductive health. Now hold on ladies, I’m NOT even going into what a woman needs in the way of health services, however, I will show that these provisions link back to the Commission’s report and yes, Agenda 21.


Some federally supported programs to extend and improve health for mothers and infants, especially in rural areas, date back to 1935. Yet in 1972, the Commission believed “adequate prenatal care is not available to many women, especially the poor who live in inner-city ghettos and in rural areas, pregnant adolescents, and women pregnant out of wedlock. One result is higher rates of death or illness among such mothers and infants. Our nation’s infant mortality rate is higher than that of 12 other nations, and it varies within the United States according to location and socioeconomic group. Infant mortality is higher among nonwhites and the poor than among whites and the middle class. The incidence of cerebral palsy and other birth disorders is also higher among the same groups.” Again, I have to ask, “Does this sound familiar?” Does this sound like some of the arguments used in the Obamacare debate. Of course the Commission had a solution (As all government commissions do…OM). “The Commission believes that our nation should set a goal of providing comprehensive health care to all mothers and children. This should be a high priority of our health-care system. The costs and methods of developing a complete fertility-related health program are discussed later.” Two-thirds of the costs of such a program would be for maternal and infant care. The costs to the nation, over and above current expenditures, are not excessive. The savings, in terms of improved maternal and infant health, would be considerable. Until the time that it becomes fully operational, existing federal maternal and infant care programs, especially those carried out under the authority of Title V of the Social Security Act, should be extended and enlarged.” The commission believed that that the demand for child-care services will continue to grow. The challenge is to make certain that they enhance the well-being of the child and recommended, “that both public and private forces join together to assure that adequate child-care services, including health, nutritional, and educational components, are available to families who wish to make use of them. Because child-care programs represent a major innovation in child-rearing in this country, we recommend that continuing research and evaluation be undertaken to determine the benefits and costs to children, parents, and the public of alternative child-care arrangements.” Was this the start of what is now buried within Obamacare?


Now, during the debate on Obamacare, I don’t remember any mention about Agenda 21. Maybe those on the “bandwagon” didn’t realize or read Agenda 21, which also addresses women’s healthcare. “Programmes to establish and strengthen preventive and curative health facilities, which include women-centred, women-managed, safe and effective reproductive health care and affordable, accessible, responsible planning of family size and services, as appropriate, in keeping with freedom, dignity and personally held values. Programmes should focus on providing comprehensive health care, including pre-natal care, education and information on health and responsible parenthood, and should provide the opportunity for all women to fully breastfeed at least during the first four months post-partum. Programmes should fully support women’s productive and reproductive roles and well-being and should pay special attention to the need to provide equal and improved health care for all children and to reduce the risk of maternal and child mortality and sickness.” As in the Commission’s report, these very subjects are addressed in Obamacare and if you look very closely at current Federal programs, they are all ready in place and the taxpayers are paying for them.


A point that Agenda 21 addresses again and again, no one seems to address when they cite the dangers of Agenda 21 is the role of women in society. The Agenda address this by proposing “Measures to strengthen and empower women’s bureaux, women’s non-governmental organizations and women’s groups in enhancing capacity-building for sustainable development and eliminate illiteracy among females and to expand the enrolment of women and girls in educational institutions, to promote the goal of universal access to primary and secondary education for girl children and for women, and to increase educational and training opportunities for women and girls in sciences and technology, particularly at the post-secondary level” The Agenda also would like to see, “Programmes to support and strengthen equal employment opportunities and equitable remuneration for women in the formal and informal sectors with adequate economic, political and social support systems and services, including child care, particularly day-care facilities and parental leave, and equal access to credit, land and other natural resources.” Is this an outgrowth of the “Women’s Movement” of the 1970s which was catapulted out of the rebellious sixties counterculture with ardent momentum. By the early seventies, American women were making great strides towards political, economic, social and personal equity. Politically, much legislation was passed in the seventies, such as Title IX, the Equal Pay Act and Educational Equity Act, which continue to guarantee freedom for American women today [4]. Did the Commission’s recommendations have anything to do with this movement?


The Commission addresses the role of women in American society in a manner which may shock some people. First let’s look at the Commission’s view of the changing role of women in American society.


Anyone who is familiar with or have read American history knows that for many generations,, particularly in the farming areas, children were valued, not only as loving members of the family, but in helping (working) to maintain the family business (farms). After the industrial revolution, things began to change, however, “Institutionalized pronatalist (pro-birth position ) pressures include: (1) the socialization of the young into sex-typed roles, with the boys pointed toward jobs and the girls toward home and motherhood; (2) discriminations against the working woman and, even more, the working mother; and (3) restrictions on higher education for women. Such pressures are so pervasive that they are typically perceived as “natural,” and not simply cultural prescriptions. They are so powerful that even the current movement for women’s liberation has hardly questioned motherhood as one of the goals for the modern woman.” There was still no denying the strength of the pressures in 1972’s society, or the psychological punishments employed in their “enforcement…. However, there are some contrary social trends as well —the limited economic value of children in an urbanized, industrialized society; the substantial liberation that has already occurred in the status of women; the rise of universal education; the increasing ethos of rationality and freedom of choice in reproduction (A reminder, Roe v, Wade was argued in December, 1971, Reargued in October, 1972 {Commission report was released in March, 1972} and finally decided in December, 1972. Any connection?…OM) ; the decrease in pressure from traditional religious doctrine and, in some cases, direct religious support for more freedom of choice —in short, all of the still emerging social changes associated with the transition from traditional to modern society.


The change from the “traditional” to “modern” society is also present in the legal structure and public policy of America. How can Governmental actions affect childbearing decisions by individual couples? The actions translated into laws or public policy will include “regulating marital status (age at marriage, divorce, responsibility for child care, status of children born out of wedlock, even homosexuality); laws directly regulating fertility control (contraception and abortion); tax policy on income (Is this the reason married couples pay more income taxes then singles?…OM), property, and inheritance; housing regulations and subsidies, urban renewal programs, and welfare policies; food subsidies; health programs; aid to families with dependent children; fiscal support of formal schooling; allocation of expenditures to “male” or “female” sectors of the economy; even the draft laws. Although our knowledge of these influences is uncertain, three points should probably be made: (1) rarely are such laws adopted on demographic grounds; governmental influence is unintended, the by-product of policies adopted for other reasons; (2) the influence is mixed —some pronatalist, some antinatalist— and not easily balanced; and (3) accordingly, their influence is not likely to be great.


As the Commission says, “If we should achieve a stationary population, women will spend even less of their lives in bearing and rearing children since family size, on the average, will be smaller. More women may forego motherhood altogether.” Therefore, “… it would seem good social policy to recognize and to facilitate the trend toward smaller families by making it possible for women to choose attractive roles in place of or supplementary to motherhood.


Since the release of the Commission’s report, the world has opened up for women, which in my opinion was one the greatest moves of the 20th century, however, was there a “guiding hand”, a “nudge” if you will from the government and “outside” groups. Was this movement the foundation of a world wide movement? Is this why in Agenda 21 wants the “Strengthening the role of major groups, including women…”? Yes, strengthening the role of women in theUnited States is a great thing, HOWEVER, it isAmerica’s business and the U.N. should not have any say on how and when we do it. Face it, when it comes to women’s rights, the Rockefeller Commission’s ideas and recommendations are all ready in place and Agenda 21 is just catching up, Except for some minor points and I’m sure the Progressives will find a way to tweak these minor points and those who are not paying attention will blame it on Agenda 21.


Hard Links to References:


Part 1


Part 2


Part 3




[2] Care




Semper Fi

Beckah (Editor)

Top Shot (Editor)

Old Marine (Research and Author)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *