How the media twists facts to enforce its propaganda bias

By Tom DeWeese

It's become obvious that our fight against Agenda 21/2030 is beginning to have an effect when a reporter writes not one, but two attack articles about the same event. That's what happened as a result of my recent talk in Rexburg, Idaho.

In mid-October I traveled to three cities in Idaho (including Rexburg) and to Spokane, Washington, speaking about Agenda 21 and the growing assault on private property and individual choice. Below is one of two reports on the Rexburg event, as reported by reporter Bryan Clark. I've inserted my remarks in the body of his article to show what I actually said in contrast to his innuendos and lack of facts.

Conspiracist warns of plot for global domination

Posted: October 19, 2017 5:31 p.m.

By BRYAN CLARK, Post Register

His original article is in italics

REXBURG – Most people don't think concentration camps and bike paths have much in common, but Tom DeWeese sees a connection. He sees lots of connections. Everywhere.

Of course, I never mentioned concentration camps in my talk. For that matter I didn't mention FEMA camps or chemtrails either.

DeWeese is one of the nation's most prominent exponents of the Agenda 21 conspiracy theory, which has gained increasing traction among Idaho's far right, being recently invoked in the debate over proposed wildlife overpasses near Island Park.

Of course, using terms like "conspiracy theory" and "far right" are a direct attempt to bias the reader from the start. It's a common tactic in political advocacy, but has no place in legitimate journalism. In truth, I actually spent considerable time at the beginning of my talk producing official government documents showing that specific government programs clearly claimed to be implementation of Agenda 21. Each of these documents used the exact same description for the purpose of Agenda 21 as a "comprehensive blueprint" with the intention of reorganizing human society.

Here are my exact words as I held up each document:

In 1994, the American Planning Association (one of the largest and most respected planning groups in the nation) put out a newsletter calling Agenda 21 a Comprehensive Blueprint for Sustainable Development that was adopted at the recent UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro (the Earth Summit).

In 1997 the United States issued a 70-page report to the United Nations Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development, detailing the progress the US was making to implement Agenda 21. The second chapter of that report is titled "International cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in developing countries and related domestic policies."

In 1998, the Federal Register issued a report on the EPA's Challenge Grant Program. That report says, "The EPA's Challenge Grant Program is also implementation of Agenda 21."

In 2011, the EPA issued a revised report entitled "History of Sustainability." It details how EPA policy on Sustainability was developed. The Fifth item on that report is Agenda 21, calling it a "comprehensive process of planning and action to attain sustainability."

And on and on it went, about Agenda 21. The blueprint. The plan. The consensus. The direction for changing how people live. Here was the plan for the 21st Century!

Of course, my point in bringing out these official documents was to show their excitement, support, and determination to impose this "plan to reorganize human society" domestically and worldwide. Again – that was the entire point of my presentation.

DeWeese, who bills himself as an expert on property rights (though he claims only a degree in journalism), gave an extended lecture on his theory Wednesday night at the Romance Theater in Rexburg. The event was put on by the John Birch Society and local activists. Conservative activist Maria Nate emceed the proceedings, and several government officials, including state Rep. Ron Nate and Rexburg Mayor Jerry Merrill, were in attendance.

First, I do not have a degree in journalism and never claimed to. I simply worked for two small newspapers in my younger days. Second, I have been involved in the property rights issued for over thirty years. My organization has been invited to testify before Congressional committees on the subject several times. I have met with legislators in several states, including Maine, Michigan and Virginia. I regularly work directly with elected officials at many levels, helping them to craft property rights legislation. I was even invited to debate the UN issue before a 200-year-old debating society at England's Cambridge University. In fact, that night in Cambridge I debated the former UK Ambassador to the UN, the head of the UN's Millennium Project, along with a member of the British Parliament. Those people apparently thought I was an expert or they wouldn't have gone to the expense of flying me to England.

It's in things such as zoning, bike paths and conservation easements that DeWeese sees the advent of global totalitarianism. DeWeese invoked Hitler and Stalin, Mussolini and Napoleon, saying this time things would be much worse. He warned that unspecified "secret societies" sought to organize the entire world under a single "diabolical plan," which he variously characterized as communist and fascist.

I only "invoked" Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon in saying there have always been those who have sought to rule the world. In fact, here's what I actually said:

"There has always been some kind of force loose in the world seeking domination over others.

Usually it's a drive for power for power's sake. Conquer other tribes, kingdoms or nations. Grab their resources. Enslave their people. Build wealth and power. Rule the World!

Kings saw it as their duty. Megalomaniacs like Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin lusted for the control and power to satisfy their hatred, mistrust, and insecurities. Secret societies have plotted global control for their causes, however demented it might be."

I was pointing out that these forces used war and violence to try to take over the world.

Then I said: "However, what if such power-mongers could find a way to keep their aggression under wraps, out of sight from those they intend to conquer – until it was too late?

Better yet, what if they could actually get their targeted victims to help them achieve that goal to control them? No armies in the field. No shots fired. Instead, they quietly pull in the Trojan Horse and celebrate its arrival.

What if there was a way to organize the world under a single unifying plan, accepted by nearly everyone as fact and necessary?

Everyone would be convinced that to oppose such a plan would be a direct threat to humanity. Acceptance of that plan would see every nation voluntarily surrendering its independence and sovereignty – to the aggressors. They would even raise money to pay for the aggressor's system of control.

These new rulers would issue exact orders to be followed by all, gaining more and more power with each dictate. People would voluntarily forget their history, reject their culture, and never ask questions about it. Was it not always so, they would later ask?

What could be such a threat, so powerful that the entire world would lie down to accept such global servitude? How about the threat of Environmental Armageddon? Who could be opposed to saving the planet?

"There is such a plan for world domination," DeWeese said, his voice rising in volume and urgency as he went on. "It is rapidly taking over with a pace and scope that no force or power ever experienced in history. Hitler would be so envious watching what is being done, so powerful and controlling is this force."

This is what I actually said: "In truth there is such a plan for world domination and it is rapidly taking over at a pace and a scope that no force of power ever experienced in history. So powerful and controlling is this force that, so far, it certainly hasn't even had to fire a shot as it gains new power every day.

The incredible part about it is that it's no secret. Everyone in the world knows about it. The aggressors have written down every detail of their plan and have told us in their own words how it's to work.

Citizens of the world, the direct targets of the plan, accept each new dictate in its name as most nations enthusiastically help to put it into place.

The Club of Rome, one of the leading forces behind the scheme, openly admitted their purpose and goals saying, "The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All of these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

Diabolical! Turn man against himself so that every aspect of human life is a threat. So – in order to subjugate the entire human race – get man to imprison himself.

First to be targeted, of course, would have to be the three pillars of freedom: free enterprise, individuality, and private property.

What do they call this new diabolical tool that now leads the forces of global control over all humanity, which is quickly invading every single level of our government, our communities, and our neighborhoods? Its name is Sustainable Development."

Things such as bike lanes, walkable downtowns and efforts to decrease urban sprawl will usher in "a dark ages unlike anything seen in human history," DeWeese said.

Of course I didn't say bike lanes and Walkable communities would usher in a Dark Ages. Instead, I went into great detail as to how sustainable/Smart Growth programs are being used to change our society – in the name of environmental protection. I demonstrated how, through these programs government is being taken from the hands of the people as NGO organizations, planners, and federal agents are usurping the power of elected representatives.

Here is part of what I really said – and by the way, I've had these details confirmed by elected officials across the nation:

"So how is Sustainable Development being used to change your government? Well, there are three main points of attack through the enforcement of Sustainable policy:

1. Destroy private property ownership and control.

2. Impose regional councils and government, taking government further away from the people.

3. Feed the plan with federal grant money.

Let's start by attending your local city council or county commission meetings, or planning committee meetings.

First, you will hear a completely new language being used.

Wetlands, conservation easements, watersheds, viewsheds, rails – to- trails, biosphere reserves, greenways, carbon footprints, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, open space, heritage areas, and comprehensive planning, are all part of the new language of government.

What you will rarely hear are references to private property, free enterprise or considerations for individual choice.

You will also notice a lot of faces that aren't really local people, who seem to be wielding a lot of influence during the meetings. In fact, you may notice your elected representatives giving them a lot of attention.

Who are they? They are planners and representatives of private organizations – or non-governmental organizations (NGOs). They call themselves Stakeholders. In fact, you will find representatives of these same organizations in nearly every single local government meeting in the nation. Most likely, they are national, and many are international organizations, all working toward the goal of reorganizing human society."

The local face of this force could be seen in places such as Envision Madison, local participants in the talk claimed. One participant described them as the "blue helmets" in city hall, a reference to the helmets worn by United Nations peacekeeping troops.

(Envision Madison is, in fact, an effort by Madison Economic Partners, a local economic development agency, to conduct surveys, workshops and other efforts to collect local input that can be used to shape long-term city and county planning decisions.)

These were issues brought up by local residents, not by me. They were concerned that their local government is spending millions of dollars for projects without true public input. Though the proponents of these constantly state their plans are "all local," in fact they are usually identical to international programs designed to infringe on private property and increase the size of government.

This time, DeWeese said, shadowy forces aiming to "take over the world" want to "keep their aggression under wraps."

This is an amazing misrepresentation of what I actually said. Never once in my presentation did I make reference to "shadowy forces. I openly stated who they are, including The Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Planning groups like the American Planning Association, the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and hundreds of similar non-governmental organizations that push various agendas such as controls on energy, waters and land use.

In an unusual move for an alleged secret cabal with a secret plan "to subjugate the entire human race" and "control all the world's resources," as DeWeese put it, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held a well-publicized, week-long international summit in Brazil in 1992, and published a 351-page document outlining the suggestions developed at the Agenda 21 conference.

I never said it was a secret cabal. In fact I openly said everyone in the world knows about the plan. In fact, I gave very specific details about the origins of Agenda 21:

In 1992, 50,000 delegates made up of 179 heads of state, diplomats, business leaders, government bureaucrats, and members of thousands of non-governmental organizations converged on Rio de Janeiro, to introduce to the world a document they called a "Comprehensive Blueprint" for reorganizing human society. Yes, for reorganizing human society.

Obviously, they thought it was pretty serious stuff.

Then Nancy Pelosi introduced the idea to the US Congress that fall, calling it a Comprehensive Blueprint. (I've got the Cspan video on my website).

The UN, in a 1993 publication, described Agenda 21 like this: "Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth.... it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people.... Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced."

There is no means of enforcing the goals, no penalty for deviating from them and no system of incentives for nations to implement the goals. The document only outlines broad goals such as international cooperation to preserve the environment and reduce global poverty. Efforts to come to actual international agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol to control global greenhouse gas output, which was proposed five years later, failed to gain crucial U.S. support (the Senate never ratified the treaty).

This is the standard lie told by the proponents of Agenda 21, assuring us that it's just an innocent suggestion, a voluntary guideline for helping us to protect the environment and make us all happy. In fact, they conveniently leave out the existence of President Bill Clinton's 1993 Executive Order to establish the President's Council on Sustainable Development. Its specific, stated purpose was to bring the "suggestions" of Agenda 21 into federal policy. Serving on that Council were many of the same groups that had helped to write Agenda 21, including the Sierra Club and Nature Conservancy. Also serving were representatives of major corporations, including Enron, along with representatives of most of the agencies of the federal government, including the Department of Interior, HUD, EPA and several more. Together they created grant programs that came with very specific strings attached that resulted in the creation and enforcement of Agenda 21 policy. That's why the EPA Challenge Grant Program, for example, states in the Congressional Record that it was "also implementation of Agenda 21."

In addition, planning groups like the American Planning Association, work in nearly every community in the nation to implement these policies. In reference to the APA, I said in my talk: "The American Planning Association is the largest and most respected planning group in the nation. They are operating in almost every community.

The APA is part of the "Planners Network." The Planners Network is officially run by a group called the Organization of Progressive Planners.

It's an association of professionals, activists, academics, and students involved in physical, social, economic, and environmental planning in urban and rural areas, who promote fundamental change in our political and economic systems. Along with the UN, the Planners Network openly advocates that free markets and private property are not sustainable.

So, go to the website, PlannersNetwork.com and read its statement of principles. It says, "We believe planning should be a tool for allocating resources...and eliminating the great inequalities of wealth and power in society...because the free market has proven incapable of doing this."

That is what every planner in every community believes. And so that is what is incorporated in every planning program they create. In short – it's social justice and redistribution of wealth."

DeWeese touted his listing as an extremist by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups and political extremism. He said the group had characterized him as a "domestic terrorist."

(The SPLC's profile of DeWeese, in fact, contains no mention of terrorism. The SPLC labels DeWeese an extremist tied to the radical right-wing antigovernment movement.)

Of course I was saying this in a joking way. It actually got the largest applause of the night because nearly everyone in the audience knows that the Southern Poverty Law Center attacks anyone who disagrees with their political vision and labels them a hate group. The SPLC has produced four separate reports on me. They have now started a vigorous campaign to destroy organizations and individuals they put on their annual hate list. Some organizations are now losing their ability to use credit card companies to raise funds. They are being censored by Google and Facebook. The purpose is to destroy any voice of opposition. Does the SPLC consider folks like me to be a domestic terrorist in opposition to their worldview? Their tactics to destroy us would indicate that they see us as such a threat. Considering that the SPLC has contracts with the federal government to help train law enforcement to recognize "domestic terrorists," and that training labels as a threat anyone who opposes the UN or promotes property rights, I think it's a safe bet they consider me to be one.

DeWeese urged those in attendance Wednesday to "rise up and make sure (elected officials) feel pain" for support of Agenda 21.

Of course here I was referring to political solutions, specifically to run campaigns to defeat anyone who promotes these policies. It's called participating in the American system.

The roughly 70 people at the talk applauded at the end of DeWeese's hour-long lecture. One man, who said he had figured out Agenda 21 on his own, asked how he could spread the word without alienating his friends or turning people off.

DeWeese advised focusing on more neutral terms such as "property rights" rather than giving an extended lecture that people might tune out. Break down information into small bites, and slowly win people over, he advised.

"Don't even mention Agenda 21," he said.

I am asked this question a lot – how do I reach my elected officials and get them to listen. The fact is, the proponents of Sustainable policy have had great success in getting elected officials to ignore anyone who even mentions Agenda 21. We get the "eye roll" and the "sigh," and then are dismissed from the discussion. I pointed out in my talk that one of the problems on our side is that we try to tell someone everything we know in the first five minutes of meeting them. It turns people off. They aren't ready to hear it. So I advise we take it slow and focus on the specific issue or policy first. We can teach them the rest when they understand that part. Take baby steps, I advise. But of course this reporter interpreted that to mean "conspiracy!"

The most amazing part to me in this so-called journalistic report was that the reporter never once asked me a question. Instead, he obviously came to the event with his own opinion of me and my message and made it his mission to discredit me.

Also interesting is that he completely ignored my comments about how these policies are negatively affecting low income and young people. I said:

"These Smart Growth economic realities are now forcing low income and young people out of their ethnic neighborhoods and into public housing programs – as expensive high rise condos replace their homes and destroy their local businesses – they call that improvement. The poor have little hope of ever buying a home and experiencing what used to be called the American Dream.

Again, in Portland, Oregon, after decades of Smart Growth development, exorbitant living costs have driven over 10,000 minority families out of their urban homes.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, thousands of low-income families are being uprooted from their homes and relocated, often against their will, into Preferred Development Areas.

And in Seattle, the city government intends to charge a new construction tax to pay for the government housing – raising prices even higher.

As Smart Growth policies are fully implemented, the only property owners in the future will be rich corporations that build and own the massive condo structures. And they will make all the decisions on living conditions – in direct partnership with government. That isn't freedom.

Obviously that information didn't fit his pre-planned narrative about racist, right-winged "Conspiracists" who have no compassion for the poor. And this is what passes for journalism in today's Sustainable society. That's why I fight!

© Tom DeWeese