August 18, 2008
“All countries, where appropriate, should develop and implement resettlement programmes that address the specific problems of displaced populations in their respective countries…” —Agenda 21, Chapter 7
Everything that happens today, happens for a reason. News headlines are engineered daily for us, along with financial markets and monetary systems, the wars that kill thousands, viruses that kill more, and our weather patterns which kill more. Crisis after manipulated crisis, ours is a highly engineered world, controlled by the richest of families whose purpose is to move us further and further toward their synthetical societal dictatorship under their oligarchic world governing system.
We are witnessing our wealth being incrementally stolen from us by inflation, created shortages of our energy supplies, and massive taxation both with and without “representation”. We have pending global carbon taxes, and the ongoing and purposeful movement of our jobs to other countries via treasonous trade policies with our avowed enemies.
But most of all, our wealth is being annihilated by the unrestrained and largely unchallenged theft of all private property rights by state and federal agencies, private land trusts, private developers, and sell-out city councils.
The UN, through its long and endless tentacles, has given us Heritage Areas, Scenic Byways, Conservation Easements, Historic Districts, Buffer Zones, Wetland Preserves, and a million other handy excuses to put the means of production, the land, off limits to the people.
Welcome to life under Agenda 21
Yet, despite being 16 years into implementation, the average man or woman on the street has never even heard of it, much less do they care — until it is their property being targeted.
If the existing land use restrictions weren’t already severe enough, there are the countless and infinite disasters that make it very convenient and expedient for local governments to impose even greater burdens upon private land “ownership”.
In 1968, Congress passed legislation which created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), purportedly in response to the rising costs associated with flood disasters. The results of the Congressional action are written into Title 42, Chapter 50, Subchapter I of the United States Code. Section 4011 authorizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency to develop and oversee the flood insurance program.
The Mitigation Division of FEMA administers the NFIP, and according to FEMA, nearly 20,000 communities take part in the program.
In order for communities to participate in the NFIP, they must adopt a Floodplain Management Program, which represents conformity to a myriad of zoning regulations and ordinances that are established by FEMA. Without the adoption of a Floodplain Management Program, communities are not eligible for NFIP participation.
The Flood Insurance Manual is a guide for insurance companies. It reads,
“Participating (Eligible) Communities Flood insurance may be written only in those communities that have been designated as participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).”
The National Flood Insurance Program is a perfect example of how regional governance is changing the face of government at a local level.
Without fanfare or scrutiny from a pacified nation, president Richard Nixon quietly signed executive order 11647 on February 10, 1972, dividing the united States into ten federal regions, each with its own capital. These regional governing councils are administered by unelected, appointed bureaucrats who are not accountable to the people.
Federal funds flow from on high, through the ten federal regions, into the states, and into your local neighborhoods who gladly accept the handouts. Since federal funds never come without strings attached, state and local governments are always on the hook to implement the federal programs whenever they accept one penny of the federal gifts.
Today, FEMA remains divided into the same ten federal regions. Through their “Hazard Mitigation Grant Program,” they are able to utilize the “carrot and stick” approach to coerce local communities into implementing very strict land use and control measures.
It always fractures this writer when I read or hear someone say that the United Nations is just a worthless think tank, that they are a miserable failure, and that they don’t get anything done. The FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is just one of countless ways that UN mandates are being implemented at a local level, without the average person ever offering any input or even having a clue that anything is wrong.
UN documents constantly talk about seeking input from “stakeholders”, yet land owners across America have never been told about the schemes to regulate their property and incrementally wrest control from them. Obviously, the American people are not considered “stakeholders”. Despite the fact that it’s your land, they believe you have nothing to say about it. Judging from the American people’s level of involvement, perhaps they are right.
FEMA openly brags in their documents about the effectiveness of the NFIP at implementing local land restrictions.
“Prior to the creation of the NFIP, floodplain management as a practice was not well established — only a few States and several hundred communities actually regulated floodplain development. For many communities, the NFIP was the community’s initial exposure to land use planning and community regulations.  
FEMA admits that the real battle is not on the federal level. The battle for control of your property is in your state and local governments. It is your local communities that have been granted the power by the states to enforce the controls — not the federal! Your local community leaders receive the funds, and as a condition of receiving the funds, they agree to impose the confinements upon land owners.
FEMA has absolutely no authority to operate within your local community unless that community accepts their handouts. FEMA very candidly and explicitly states this point thusly:
“Since the Federal Government does not have land use authority, the NFIP is based on the Federal government’s power to spend under the Constitution rather than any Federal authority to regulate land use.”
Though this writer highly doubts the framers’ intent to grant sweeping powers to federal bureaucrats to control local governments through bribes, the admission that FEMA otherwise has no authority in local communities is, nonetheless, as rare as it is remarkable. Perhaps their candor can be explained by the fact that those words were penned for the benefit of FEMA staff, and other NFIP “constituents” — implementers of the program — not for the average American.
“Under the NFIP regulations, participating NFIP communities are required to regulate all development in SFHAs. [Special Flood Hazard Areas]”
As we’ve stated, nearly all flood insurance comes from the NFIP, administered by FEMA, which is overseen by the Department of Homeland Security. For the most part, you cannot get flood insurance apart from the NFIP. Insurance companies that sell flood insurance, sell it on the behalf of FEMA. You’d be hard pressed to obtain or maintain a mortgage without flood insurance, if FEMA says you live in a “Special Flood Hazard Area.”
In other words, if FEMA says you have to have it, then you likely have to get it. In order for you to get it, your community must participate in the program. In order for your community to participate, they must implement controls on your land in accordance with federal dictates.
“When a community chooses to join the NFIP, it must adopt and enforce minimum floodplain management standards for participation.
“‘Floodplain management’ refers to an overall community program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing future flood damage. These measures generally include zoning, subdivision, or building requirements, and special-purpose floodplain ordinances.”
42 USC Section 4022 states that “no new flood insurance coverage shall be provided … unless an appropriate public body shall have adopted adequate land use and control measures (with effective enforcement provisions) which the Director finds are consistent with the comprehensive criteria for land management and use…”
“If a community chooses not to participate, flood insurance is not available from the NFIP. Moreover, if a President declares a disaster as a result of flooding, federal financial assistance will not be available for the permanent repair or reconstruction of insurable buildings.”
Like every Hegelian situation that we live today, the controls will make perfect sense to those who are ignorant of the big picture. If the federal government is going to insure local housing against the dangers of “natural” disasters such as flooding, shouldn’t they require that housing to be hardened toward those dangers? Furthermore, shouldn’t they be allowed to restrict development in certain areas that are especially vulnerable? Doesn’t it make sense to have “reasonable” restrictions upon the land as a condition of insuring property that is located in a high-risk area?
Keep in mind, governmental regulations always seem to begin with the utmost innocence and benevolence. Once the camel’s nose is thoroughly under the tent, the story takes an ugly turn. Land use and building restrictions are rarely, if ever, relaxed and often are increasingly restrictive.
“Communities must ensure that their adopted floodplain management ordinance and enforcement procedures meet program requirements. Local regulations must be updated when additional data are provided by FEMA or when Federal or State standards are revised.”
Understanding the role of “natural” disasters in the implementation of Agenda 21 is imperative. Large swaths of land are to be put off limits to human use, while populations are resettled into tightly-controlled “sustainable” communities, where everything you need is within a short distance. In order for this to happen, the land must be cleared from its human occupants.
Agenda 21, Chapter 7, addresses “Sustainable Human Settlement Development” and it states that,
“All countries, where appropriate, should develop and implement resettlement programmes that address the specific problems of displaced populations in their respective countries…”
How are people displaced? When the land is flooded, it is cleared of its occupants, who are then required to submit to the dictates of ordinances and land-use controls that come from FEMA, through one of its ten federal regions. In the case of massive flood events, the planners can redesign whole communities around “sustainable” principles.
The Associated Press recently reported how flood victims were being targeted by FEMA for buyouts of their private property. Once FEMA “buys” the property, it can never again be used for private development.
“After the Great Flood of 1993, thousands of properties in flood plains around the Midwest were bought out by the government. Now, weeks after the latest massive flood, buyouts are again being considered in at least five states — Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana and Illinois. Residents in areas that qualify can choose to sell their properties to their city or county, with 75 percent of the costs paid by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Communities that use the FEMA dollars agree to demolish structures on the properties and not develop the land, except for recreational use such as parks.” 
Thousands of such “buyouts” are currently taking place in several states. Like an unquenchable, windblown wildfire, FEMA’s land use controls are spreading throughout America, putting the land permanently off limits for private ownership. And none of it would be possible without the exploitation of so-called “natural” disasters.
A January 1999 study put out by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill outlined how marvelous an “opportunity” that “natural” disasters present for community organizing. Sustainable Development and Natural Hazards Mitigation explored various ways to control where and how people live. Under the heading of “Windows of Opportunity”, page 20 of the report states,
“Despite the wide array of tools and techniques to operationalize the principles of sustainable development, one of the roadblocks to implementation is the fact that much of the land within local jurisdictions has already been developed according to practices and traditions that are far from sustainable.
“Ironically, the time immediately following a natural disaster provides a community with a unique window of opportunity for inserting an ethic of sustainability in guiding development and redevelopment in high-risk areas. With forethought and planning, communities that are rebuilt in the aftermath of a natural hazard, can be built back so that they are more resiliant to future hazards, breaking the pattern of repeated hazard-destruction-rebuilding. At the same time, the community is given the opportunity to incorporate other attributes of sustainability into its ‘second chance’ development, such as energy efficiency, affordable housing, use of recycled building materials, reduction of water use, and environmental protection.” (Emphasis Added)
Like buzzards circling their unfortunate prey, community organizers capitalize upon disasters as a means to dictate where and how you live. Wildfires, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons and other so-called “acts of God” are convenient tools to clear the land so that it can be rebuilt according to UN blueprints.
Given the fact that these disasters are so useful in implementing the Plans, is it any wonder why we see so many of them in our country and around the world? The most effective war is one that is waged upon a people, unaware of the existence of the conflict.
Beginning in 1967, and lasting for much of the war in Vietnam, the United States military underwent a covert operation which involved the aerial spraying of silver iodide to seed clouds that would cause the flooding of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The operation was aimed at cutting off enemy supply lines and was dubbed “Operation Popeye.”Concerns about further exploitation of the weather as a weapon of war led to the formation of the United Nations’ ENMOD treaty in 1976, which was opened for signature in 1977 and went into effect in 1978. The ENMOD treaty attempted to ban hostile environmental modification techniques as a weapon of war by one country against another. It did not attempt to ban environmental modification techniques by a country on their own people or “for peaceful purposes.”
Let us never forget that in the minds of the architects of globalization, “peace” is the complete lack of any resistance to their Plan of world domination.
If the American people are to retain any semblance of the freedom for which our forefathers fought, and if we are to preserve it for posterity, we must instruct our city leaders in the art of rejecting federal and state largess. Otherwise, our ability to govern ourselves will be drown, along with all that occupies the land, across the vast floodplains of America.
1 - The National Flood Insurance Program, FEMA website
2 - Flood Insurance Manual, effective May 1, 2008
3 - National Flood Insurance Program: Program Description (Microsoft Word format), published August 1, 2002
4 - Floodplain Management Program/NFIP, Utah Department of Homeland Security, accessed August 11, 2008
5 - National Flood Insurance Program: Program Description (Microsoft Word format), published August 1, 2002, accessed August 11, 2008
6 - ibid
7 - About the National Flood Insurance Program: Community Floodplain Management Activities, FloodSmart.gov
8 - About the National Flood Insurance Program: Flood Zones Explained, FloodSmart.gov
9 - About the National Flood Insurance Program: Community Participation, FloodSmart.gov
10 - Answers to Questions about the NFIP: Floodplain Management Requirements, FEMA.gov
11 - United Nations Agenda 21, Chapter 7, “Sustainable Human Settlement Development”, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992
12 - Midwest’s Flood-prone Communities Consider Buyouts, by Betsy Taylor, Associated Press, July 17, 2008
13 - Sustainable Development and Natural Hazards Mitigation, published by University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in conjunction with the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, January 1999, pp. 19, 20
© 2008 - Darren Weeks - All Rights Reserved