OBAMA AND THE UN 2030 AGENDA: An Almost Unbelievably Criminal Plan for One World Government

By Daniel John Sobieski

Lost among the addresses to the U.N. General Assembly by Pope Francis, President Obama, Russian President Vladimir Putin and other world leaders, is the fact that this U.N. session is also the kickoff for the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development conference. “Sustainable” is U.N.-speak for “controlled.” And that means controlled by governments at the expense of liberty and freedom around the world.

The planet is in peril, don’t you know, and humanity is the plague infecting it. The U.N., with U.S. compliance, is hammering out an agenda that will determine not only how many people there will be, but where they will live, how they will live, and what governments will permit them to do in order to save the planet.

If this sounds familiar, it should, for it is the follow-on for the failed Agenda 21 which was rolled out in 1992 at the U.N. Earth Summit in Rio De Janiero, Brazil. Agenda 21 failed in its attempt to eradict poverty and save the earth, but it did serve as a justification for world governments to enhance their power at the expense of the liberty and freedom of their people. Agenda 2030 is no less ambitious in its goal for global government control, according to the preamble of the document outlining the agenda:

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets which we are announcing today demonstrate the scale and ambition of this new universal Agenda. They seek to build on the Millennium Development Goals and complete what these did not achieve. They seek to realize the human rights of all and to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental.

Agenda 2030 is the death knell for freedom and independence around the world. It is a blueprint for world government of the U.N., by the U.N. and for the U.N. Its 17 goals and 169 targets leave no aspect of human life and activities immune from the ensuing power grabs of government.

President Obama embraced Agenda 2030 when he addressed the Sustainable Development conference on Sunday: "We suffer no illusions of the challenges ahead, but we understand this is something that we must commit ourselves to," Obama said in a speech to the assembly. "In doing so, we recognize that our most basic bond -- our common humanity -- compels us to act. An impoverished child in a distant slum or a neighborhood not that far from here is just as equal, just as worthy, as any of our children, as any of us, as any head of government or leader in this great hall."

President Obama doesn’t need a U.N. agenda to help poor children in, say, his home town of Chicago or to address the income equality in the U.S. that has grown on his watch and due to policies that adhere to the original Agenda 21 goal of sustainable development. Poverty occurs when government interferes with and controls the actions of people, just what Agenda 2030 seeks to achieve – total control of our affairs by government, Control of private land use was a prime goal of Agenda 21. It is why the U.S. government owns and places off limits vast swaths of U.S. land. It was the reason the Bureau of Land Management went aft rancher Cliven Bundy. As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized:

Does the government really need to own 30% of the U.S., with the percentage in Western states much higher?

The government's agenda in this and many other land-confiscation activities is motivated by a desire to comply with a U.N. "rewilding" program that advocates pushing humans out of rural areas and into densely packed urban zones to promote what the U.N. calls "sustainable development."

"Land ... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market," says the U.N.'s Agenda 21 action plan. "Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes."

But private property is a prime tenet of American freedom – something President Obama and the U.N. seek to eliminate or control. Alabama was the first state to recognize the threat of Agenda 21 and ban its implementation with the sovereign state, As Investor’s Business Daily, one of the few national publications to highlight this threat, noted:

After Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's stunning triumph over the excesses and abuses of public-sector unions, the London Telegraph's James Delingpole, an indefatigable opponent of global warming fraud, opined in a piece titled, "How Wisconsin And Alabama Helped Save The World," that we should take note of "an equally important but perhaps less well-publicized victory won in the Alabama House and Senate over the U.N.'s malign and insidious Agenda 21.

Agenda 21 is one of those compacts, like Law of the Sea, Kyoto and New START, that are supported by an apologetic administration with a fondness for the redistribution of American power and wealth on a local and global scale.

It fits in perfectly with President Obama's pledge to "fundamentally transform" America, its institutions and its heritage of capitalist freedom….

Not liking the sound of that, Alabama recently passed Senate Bill 477 unanimously in both of its houses. The legislation bars the taking of private property in Alabama without due process and says that "Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in or traceable to Agenda 21."

Something wicked this way comes and it is called Agenda 2030. The direct descendant of Agenda 21, it will, if fully implemented, complete President Obama’s promised fundamental transformation of America from the land of the free to the home of the enslaved.


Read more articles by Daniel John Sobieski at American Thinker.