NVDAILY.COM | Local News

Posted March 28, 2012 | comments 37 Comments

Resident concerned by rezoning

Planned neighborhood for new development could hold 450 units total

By Kim Walter -- kwalter@nvdaily.com

FRONT ROYAL -- Town Council approved, on its second reading, a rezoning application from HEPTAD LLC for the proposed development known as "Swan Estates," but not without some citizen concern.

The rezoning will change about 98.25 acres located on the eastern side of town by Williamsburg Estates from a suburban residential district to a planned neighborhood district. The property could potentially hold 4.85 dwelling units per acre, or about 450 units in total.

Ronald Occhiogrosso, a science and mathematics teacher at Chelsea Academy, lives at 1161 Happy Ridge Drive in Front Royal which is adjacent to the proposed development.
"I'm just wondering why we need to consider putting in 450 dwelling units," Occhiogrosso said during a public hearing on the issue. "If there's so many homes already available for sale, why do we need to rezone and put in all these extra units?"

Occhiogrosso said that he moved from New York to Front Royal in 2005, and since has raised his six children, one of whom is raising his own family in town.

"I'm aware that [Swan Estates] could bring jobs to the community, but ... I'm just concerned that it will bring people who don't value their homes like I do," he said. "I see the pond, I take my kids walking and sleigh riding out there. This hits directly at home."
Councilman Thomas H. Sayre added that he has received comments from a number of people about the development.

"Yes, there's some open space and there are some things in the proffer statement that I like, but it's too much high density," Sayre said. "I wish we didn't have to 'Fairfax' Front Royal."

Sayre was the only councilman to vote against the development.

In the proffer statement, HEPTAD LLC, the developer, has offered to pay between $6 million and $7 million to the town and Warren County Public Schools. Additionally, the applicant has proffered construction of a neighborhood park, school sidewalk and landscaping adjacent to the adjoining properties.

"I support this, and I welcome the proffers and improvements that it will to the community," said councilman N. Shae Parker.

Councilman Carson C. Lauder also shared his support.

"We've been looking at this for at least six years, and I don't think it gets any better than what this community will be," he said. "This is my hometown, and I think [Swan Estates] is a great thing."

37 Comments | Leave a comment

    When are our elected representatives going to listen to local science and math teachers who would support true smart growth, instead what is imposed by interests that are not our own?

    This may happen sooner than you think, as people power will soon prevail in the Shenandoah Valley.

    The previous economic downturn left stagnated, and possibly affecting the environment in a negative way, several undeveloped lots within Front Royal. Future downturns may likely contribute to more of the same.

    The proposed development follows a UN-approved model
    that will likely not serve the needs and lifestyles of our community. These imposed zoning changes are being implemented all over the country, but they will not work. Americans will not submit to be clustered
    into additional areas resembling a downtown.

    Is this part of the push to change Front Royal from a town to a city? If this goes forward, I'm afraid we will continue to advance in that direction and the results will not be pretty.

    It is time to listen to people that have some smarts and big eyes to see the future. People who truly care about where they live.

    Victory will be ours.

    Why is Vicente ducking my question? What is he hiding from voters?

    Does Vicente believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute?

      Maybe he doesn't know which one of your many screen names to direct the answer to.

        Where do you stand? Does "Mountain Man" believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute?

          Jacques, would you kindly have one of your personalities point me to the founding documents with the term "separation of church and state" in them so that I can properly understand the context in which you are using the term.

          Does your idea of the absolute separation of church and state also apply to the state imposing laws upon the church contrary to it's beliefs?

            Mountain Man:

            In the unlikely event somebody agrees with anything I write it would be easy to suggest I am my own cheerleading squad.

            I believe I know where you are headed with your request for clarification so I'll just play along and see where you take this.

            Very well then, to help you out in your time of need to discover the sources of the widely used metaphorical phrase "separation of church and state", I'll reference 4 sources.

            You are undoubtedly familiar with ...... In the beginning..., the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

            This is the foundation for the principle. So where, you must be asking yourself, does it say anything about separation of church and state?

            The First Amendment is the foundational document. From the foundation, here is where the path leads:

            Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

            The U.S. Supreme Court, in Reynolds v. United States (1879), wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment."

            In the U.S. Supreme Court decision Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), both Justice Hugo Black's majority opinion and Justice Wiley Rutledge's dissenting opinion defined the First Amendment religious clause in terms of a "wall of separation between church and state". Justice Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

            I am told many U.S. Supreme Court decisions after Everson v. Board of Education repeatedly use the phrase.


            Then you ask: "Does your idea of the absolute separation of church and state also apply to the state imposing laws upon the church contrary to it's beliefs?"

            My short answer to your question is "No, the state may impose laws that govern all citizens without regard to the citizens religious beliefs. The mere fact a citizen is a member of a church has no bearing. i.e., most if not all states impose laws against bigamy, some churches practice bigamy.

            So, does "Mountain Man" believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute?

              Jaques, the examples you cite, while they include a quote from the man I consider to be the most important in the foundation of this country, leave much to interpretation. So, if your interpretation of "absolute separation of church and state" means that we should not have the word God printed on our money or in our pledge of allegience, or have a copy of the ten commandments (which this country's laws are based on) hanging in a courthouse, or have a cross on display on any public property at Christmas time or even use the word "Christmas" in any government function, then No, I do not beleive in the absolute separation of church and state.

              I do beleive that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and the first ammendment provides for the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion. The first sentance of the second paragraph of the Declaration of independence begins "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", establishing the founders belief in a higher power and the basis of the core foundation of this country, Liberty.

              In answering my question you gave an example of a law imposed on citizens, but what about laws imposed on "the church". In current events of course I am referring to legistation requiring the Catholic church to provide insurance which covers contraception, something contrary to it's belief. How does that not violate your interpretation of the "absolute separation of church and state"? The Catholic church also believes that non-Catholics cannot receive communon in a Catholic church. If legislation were enacted requiring any organization offering bread and wine free of charge to some individuals to offer that bread and wine to all individuals, would that also not violate your interpretation of the "absolute separation of church and state"?

                You asked for founding documents that established the principle separating church and state. I quoted the U.S. Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, and two U.S. Supreme Court decisions. These documents speak for themselves and do not require my interpretation. However, you then say my examples are not acceptable and also subject to your interpretation? Under such a narrow viewpoint, nothing will ever satisfy you and your demands for proof. So, pardon me for saying your resulting interpretation is worthy of becoming bird-cage liner.

                This country was founded on principles of freedom. Read the Declaration of Independence for the list of England's transgressions that suppressed our freedoms.

                The Declaration of Independence, not regarded as establishing any law of the land, is overshadowed and outranked, as it were, by the U.S. Constitution, which did establish laws, rights, and freedoms. The original draft of the Declaration was changed to its present form from this first draft , " We hold these Truths to be self evident; that all Men are created equal and independent; that from that equal Creation they derive Rights inherent and unalienable; among which are the Preservation of Life, and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Too bad this version did not survive to become the final version.

                Access to public space is not restricted. Anyone or any organization may be given permission to use public space, including Nativity dioramas and Burning Man monuments.

                The remainder of your statement is specious, misguided, irrational, and argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

                There is a wall separating church from state and state from church.

                The sooner the churches, in all their numerous iterations, stops trying to impose their religious will on everybody else the better off our republic will be. Religion poisons everything.

    I find it ironic that the people who complain the most about growth in Front Royal are people that have moved here from other places. Mr. Vicente, Mr. Occhiogrosso, and the many transplants from Fairfax county are the reason that we need the proffers as well as new homes. Im sure there are plenty of small towns further west that would suit you just fine as long as you don't mind the longer commute to Fairfax,D.C., etc.

    I am deeply concerned with what Mr. Occhiogrosso said in his interview and to the town council. “I am just concerned that it will bring people who don’t value their homes like I to." What is he saying? As a renter in Front Royal who could possibly buy one of these new homes I am looking forward to the prospect of seeing what this housing development has to offer. So like any good citizen who has questions about it, I contacted the town and actually got to see the plans for this development. I like what I see. Now let’s get back to what Mr. Occhiogrosso said. What type of people is he talking about? Is there an income requirement that he wants these people to meet? Or could be that he might consider them the wrong level of Education. It is nice to surround yourself with people of your income bracket or level of education. But this is the real world. Middle Class people deserve to be able to buy a nice medium priced home if they want too. And here is a news flash for you. The homes that you would like to box the people that you are concerned about wrecking your nice little life style, are in not so nice neighborhoods.

    Now onto Mr. Vincente. You blew it. I was thinking of voting for you. But the minute you mentioned that UN Agenda 21 Crap I immediately lost interest in you. Have you looked at the plans? My guess would be no. If you had seen the plans that would have seen at once that that Swan Estates will not resemble a down town look. I have seen the plans and the plan will compliment the terrain and not take away from it. It will leave a lot of green space to keep that rural feel. And isn’t that what you want? You claim you want to keep the charm of the small town feel. Well this plan does precisely that. What do you really want? Or who is really directing you? Could it be the Sayre Plantation? Lord knows we must not interfere with Mr. Sayre’s Views. Oh Wait, will you even be able to see the Sayre Plantation from Swan Estates?

    "I'm just wondering why we need to consider putting in 450 dwelling units," Occhiogrosso said during a public hearing on the issue. "If there's so many homes already available for sale, why do we need to rezone and put in all these extra units?"

    "I'm aware that [Swan Estates] could bring jobs to the community, but ... I'm just concerned that it will bring people who don't value their homes like I do,"

    IMO, Front Royal and Warren County needs a lot of new housing. That was the issue I faced when I relocated to Warren County, not a shortage of housing, but a shortage of QUALITY housing.

    The town of Front Royal and Warren County has many residential structures and properties that are in a state of blight. The manner in which some existing properties are maintained, it suggests that it’s the residents who already live here, are the ones that do not value their properties and homes, not the people who want to move here.

    Most all new developments have home owners associations and restrictive covenants. Most are very good at keeping unsightly conditions in check. From my experience, the people who purchase new homes have a tendency to be more proactive in the upkeep and care of their property.

    Frankly, I am embarrassed by some areas and properties in town and the county, there are many parts of town and the county where I would not take a visitor. There is too much trash, junk cars, junk machinery, dilapidated buildings, and other eye sores in town and the county. I would support changes to the town and county code to improve things. We really need to clean up the area, isn’t anyone else tired of Front Royal slowly turning into a large eyesore.

    Tourism and beauty of the area is what attracts many visitors and most of us to FR, but over the past 30 years, I’ve seen this area become more blighted by each passing year.

    Take a drive down 55, the main visitor road from Exit 13 to town. The sight is depressing, many run down overgrown properties, abandoned structures, houses that need repair or painting, junk cars in the yard, debris that need to be thrown away, etc.

    This is consistent with many properties in town and the county. The corner of 6th and 522 is another example, there is a duplex on that corner, that I’ve watched deteriorate. The front porch fell off about six years ago. The house has been vacant and boarded up for the past few years. I doubt the place is livable or could ever be occupied again, yet it still stands at one of our major visitor thoroughfares in town. If a place isn’t habitable, the county/town should force the property owner(s) to either fix the property or tear it down. Same thing with junk vehicles, many towns have laws that all vehicles must be insured, in running condition, and have valid tags and title, or they must go.

    I support any initiative that will bring new attractive housing and commuities to Front Royal.

    Dear Truth,

    Maybe I'm getting old, but I don't remember mentioning Agenda 21 in my post. I did mention the UN, however, because it has a different concept of property rights than what we find in the US Constitution. I will have to do more research on this Agenda 21 business.

    By the way, are you not voting for me because I did or I did not mention it?

      Dear Mr. Vicente,

      Of Course I mentioned Agenda 21. It is the cover phrase that the UN is supposed to be using. You know sustainable Developement, smart growth and green growth. I know all the different phrases. If you see the UN Connection then I find it hard to believe that you do not know of Agenda 21 or sustainable developement or smart growth and green growth.

      And I am not voting for you simply because you have not been able to articulate the percise local issues you are going to be putting forward in your campaign. You keep stressing Federal issues and now UN issues as well. This is a Local Election. Can we please some percise local issues that you will be dealing with. Not State, Not National, Not UN and not County but good old town of Front Royal issues!!!

        Dear Sir,

        I appreciate your candor in getting back to me. Purely national issues like the ongoing health care debate are usually not pertinent to everyday town business. As you can see, I did not post any comment on that (HHS) article.

        However, as they say: "Think globally, act locally." This little catch phrase in this interconnected world in which money gets moved around within different levels of government does acquire a special meaning.

        Property rights and zoning fall into this category. In a world that many of us would like to see, it should be strictly a local issue, but it is not. There are outside controlling factors.

        I consider myself to be an ordinary citizen. The issues of the ordinary people of Front Royal should be represented before those of the so called movers and shakers. So I will focus on fair taxation, proper use of revenue and fiscal responsibility, taking care of infrastructure, allowing small local businesses to not be over-regulated, safe parks and adjoining neighborhoods, and making sure that streets are safe for children (proper speed enforcement).

        Along with property rights, these are concerns that have been brought to my attention by ordinary people and I will do my best to address them.


        Manuel Vicente

          Mr. Vincente,

          I now understand your concern. After reading "4 liberty comments on agenda 21 I did some investigating. After spending 30 minutes on the site she recomended I too see the reason to be concerned.

          However I will again stress. The first thing we need to do is see if our Town Government is actively involved in the ICLEI or Agenda 21 movement or pay a fee to be a member of ICLEI. If they do pay a fee then we should get good people who are concerned about property rights elected and then get out of ICLEI. But let's check first. I don't see the problem with implementing these new ideas and techniques on our own. We don't have to be a member of ICLEI to use the techniques. Take the good and through out the bad.

          United Nations Agenda 21 is a blueprint, as it were, for sustaining long term human habitation in emerging and developing countries without destroying the environment.

          Simple enough until Super Whacko Glen Beck got hold of it and transformed it into his trademarked "It's A World Wide Conspiracy to Enslave Everybody" frothy-mouthed ranting. The Beck faithful ate it all up and swished it down with Beck Kool-Aid.

          The mere mention of Glen Beck should be all that is needed to explain why the local Tea Party Tin Foil Hats have the opinions they do. It is absolute insanity and not a one has any idea how to explain what Beck told them.

          I'll keep asking expecting your answer. Does Manuel Vicente believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute?

    WAKE UP PEOPLE! There is such a thing as the UN's Agenda 21 and Swan fits the profile ... too a 'T' ... of how the elites want the world to develop. It is the biggest property rights-land grab in the history of civilization. And, it's your property and your rights they are grabbing ... plus, the last nickle out of your pocket!

    But, please, please, please, don't believe me. You're obviously already sitting at your computers ... so just do a Google search or go to a very good website I found ... put up by Democrats who are fighting Agenda 21 in California. Google, UN Agenda 21 for dummies; or go to www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com.

    If enough people do this, we can take this conversation to a whole new level!

    Aside from that bad news, I have good news: housing prices have now fallen to a 10 year low ... back to where they were before the fake, government-Wall St. created housing bubble. So, if only there were a few good jobs that didn't get shipped to Mexico or China (thank you, government and Wall St., again), housing would once again be affordable and no one would be interested in living in cramped little boxes way out here in the country.

    As one who has experience with "problem" properties in town, let me say that the bureaucracy that has been created and must be overcome just to replace an existing porch can be infuriating.

    Has no one here ever heard the horror stories of poor people going before that completely useless (federally encouraged and supported) Board of Architectural Review (BAR)? Most of them, it has been said by people who know them personally, " ...don't know one end of a screwdriver from the other" ... yet they sit high and mighty and hand down decisions that make repairs prohibitively expensive, if not impossible, for property owners to accomplish. Obviously, these unelected, communist inspired do-gooders are on a personal power trip ... and the governments that create these unelected busybody boards are masters at the psychology of manipulating people. They are meant to be mischief makers, and control freaks, pure and simple. Same goes for most homeowners associations.

    Anyone seeing a pattern here: government creates a problem then offers a solution. It's the Hegelian dialectic in action, right here in our little town.

    I have nothing but contempt for politicians who know what's going on and sell us down the river for their own personal gain. I have patience for politicians who don't understand the system that has been put in place and this is my MAIN REASON FOR WRITING. Warning: patience wears thin.

    I suggest the Town Council do a little homework. The people don't exist for the state, the state exists for the people. We are a republic, not a communist dictatorship YET! And, I will fight this crony capitalism that is part and parcel of Agenda 21 to my last breath, not only for myself, but for my friends, neighbors, family and the people of Front Royal.

    To the people of Front Royal ... if we don't now have representatives who will defend our rights to life, liberty and property, we should vote them out and elect ONLY people who promise to defend our rightful interests. Then, after election, we need to hold their feet to the fire.

      What we need to do is find out if the Front Royal Government has any direct ties to the Agenda 21. Or if they pay a membership fee to International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives or ICLEI. If the Town Government pays a fee then we have a problem. If the Town of Front Royal is a member of ICLEI then we have a problem. However if they are not a member of ICLEI and not affiliated with the Agenda 21 people then what is wrong with establishing these types of Developments? We can utilize all the green energy and green space techniques and not be part of ICLEI. BUt we do need to be vigilante and make sure that Front Royal's Government doesn't get suckered into buying to ICLEI.

    Agenda 21 is so much more then just the sustainable development part, although it is something to be concerned about. Implementing a plan like Agenda 21 is incremental, bit by bit, piece by piece. It's like a game of chess you get your pieces into position and then strike, even giving up some important pieces to win the game. All of this is a game. The people setting up "go green" initiatives and "sustainable development" are not trying to plan the global take over of the world, they very much believe it is the way to go. However if you read Agenda 21 (and it's huge) you'll see that this document signed by George Bush the first, by the way, you'll see that over the past 30 years and even farther if you look into the prequal to the plan, you'll see it's slow implementation. Even our president and congress openly talk about global government, money, etc. We're not conspiracy theorists anymore. You can read it. I even wrote a fiction novel with a possible outcome of Agenda 21. Most of the people who write on this page are smart enough to dig through the actual document without all the "sides" web sites give. It's very easy to understand once you get through the muck and it's a HUGE document. Fight ICLEI if it's here. This is just my two cents on Agenda 21, I've not been following Swan Developemnts...just wanted to put on the old tin foil hat crown for a bit! ...love the queen! ;)

    For the record, the Town of Front Royal is not affiliated with Agenda 21. It is doubtful that anyone on Council (except maybe Shae) has even seen the document. The United Nations certainly didn't ask our opinion when they wrote it, and we didn't contribute anything to it. We aren't members of ICLEI, whatever that is.

    Any relationship between the efforts of Agenda 21 and sound planning practices that maximize the efficient and responsible use of land within the Town of Front Royal is purely coincidental.

    Mr. Vicente's accusations that we are following a United Nations agenda are absurd. Take a look at the original plans for Swan Farm and then look at the new ones. It doesn't take a genius to see that the new plans are better.

    I believe that before I left the Council meeting last night Mr. Occiogosso agreed that the new plans were better.

    Enough with the conspiracy theories!!!

      Thank you Mr. Conkey! As I too pointed out. There is nothing wrong with us adopting the Green Growth and implementing the technology that makes sustainable developement work with out joining ICLIE. Wich is what this development is trying to do. I hear Mr. Vicente wants to keep Front Royal a small rural Community. This housing developement will actually accomplish that with available green space. Clustered homes are designed to leave plenty of Rural and Green Space. Question for Mr. Vicente and Mr. Occhiogrosso. Would you like to see a sign at all the entrances to Front Royal "No More Vacancies?" Because that is what it is looking for. Every town needs new people moving in to refresh the population. New residents brings in new points of views and new ideas and new businesses. Or are you still afraid that the "Wrong Kind of People" might move into your neighborhood?

    Sorry to disappoint you Mr. Strappe (lol) but I knew about Agenda 21 long before Glenn Beck mentioned it. It's not a conspiracy theory. Read the stupid thing. The people planning developments today have been instructed in schools for a certain way of development "green, smart growth, sustainable" these are buzz words with a purpose. Of course the people putting this forward are not in cahoots with anyone. They are doing what they have been instructed to do. We are doomed to repeat history because no one seems to pay attention to it, except to blame someone for something. All great societies built up because of the hard work of citizens governed by those who they chose until those chosen figured out they could control the populace by giving them "free" stuff. By the time the people realized the "helpful" plans for the people were actually power grabs by those at the top it was too late to fight. They became slaves and their civilizations fell. Same as is happening to America. Sustainable development is only sustainable as long as the people do as their told, but once they want more or something different revolution occurs. TEA parties, OWS, militias and all forms of resistance happen because we've realized how much we've given up.
    We're in a hole and it's either climb up or get buried.
    Agenda 21 is very real.
    "The safest road to hell is the gradual one--the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without millstones, without sign posts." CS Lewis, The Screwtape Letters.

    Mr. Conkey,
    Your explanation is perfectly understandable. Unfortunately what you and Mr. Vicente do not understand is the Koch Brothers have the Tin Foil Hats jumping up and down re-launching the blame game against an imaginary world conspiracy led by UN Agenda 21. Special emphasis will be directed at the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Chalk this one up (again) to the far right wing sock puppets who are so easily manipulated by the Koch Brothers.

    This February 3rd NY Times article sums it all up nicely:

    A complete PDF copy of Agenda 21, all 351 pages, is available here:

    As for Bishop, unfortunately for your credibility, your role as sock puppet once again proves you have absolutely no grasp of anything you choose to discuss. You can cram the most words into the fewest ideas of anyone I know.

    Mr. Conkey, why you picknig on Mr. Vincente? It's obvious he dont know what hes talking about becase he didn't ever hear about your Agenda 21. He must be saying what someone smart like Tom Sayre tole him to say. He has my vote in november!

    Dear Sir,

    We basically agree. Growth is not a bad thing. It just depends on your definition of the word "smart." And if what is currently being applied is indeed smart, why do we need impositions, incentives, gimmicks, and lack of transparency in order to apply it?

    Please look at this link:


    A couple of things: I am running as an ordinary citizen seeking after the truth, as your sign-in-name also implies.

    As implied earlier on this thread, I do not sit at the feet of wise sages, whoever they may be, and claim to instantly become enlightened. Of all the political advice I've been given lately, the one I take most seriously is: "Be your own man."

    WOW You Front Royal people are something else. One should always know what they are talking about, before one opens their mouth and words start falling out. Also town elections are in may, not in november like our county elections.

    Rosa Koire (of Democrats Against UN Agenda 21) explains how we'll be left holding the bag for this development:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2jyA22sqUg when it goes belly up (which they know it will do).

    To all the conspiracy theorists caught up in the misrepresentation of Agenda 21:

    Many Republicans and all of the tea party wing nuts seem to be against many of those things that common sense says are good things for you and me - clean water and air and control of toxic waste.

    Here in Front Royal we have some first hand experience ---- the decade long (and counting) Super Fund cleanup of the polluted Avtex factory site --- Mercury Paper impacted by Asia Pulp & Papers deforestation practices --- upgrade costs to sewage treatment plants to control pollution of the Chesapeake Bay --- prevailing winds to carry Warren County's new electric power generating plant's discharges into Skyline Drive and George Washington National Forrest.

    That the northern Valley, and Frederick County in particular, is teetering on the brink on non-attainment for air quality should come as little surprise. We have known for years that a variety of factors — industry, vehicular emissions, prevailing air flows — have made for a less-than-salutary situation in this regard.

    For all of these things a majority of the people in America have said yes, control of this pollution benefits everybody, even those who object and deny they receive any benefits from breathing clean air and drinking clean water.

    It should come as no surprise many Republicans would be against over 100 nations of the world when they also agree clean water, clean air and control of waste is a good thing for the whole world.

    This explains the irrational attacks by Republicans against United Nations Agenda 21. Read these 40 items addressed by the United Nations and see how many you can find that might make Republican blood boil. My choices are in bold type:

    Chapter Paragraphs
    1. Preamble
    2. International cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in developing countries and related
    domestic policies
    3. Combating poverty
    4. Changing consumption patterns
    5. Demographic dynamics and sustainability
    6. Protecting and promoting human health conditions
    7. Promoting sustainable human settlement development
    8. Integrating environment and development in decision-making
    9. Protection of the atmosphere
    10. Integrated approach to the planning and management of land resources
    11. Combating deforestation
    12. Managing fragile ecosystems: combating desertification and drought
    13. Managing fragile ecosystems: sustainable mountain development
    14. Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development
    15. Conservation of biological diversity
    16. Environmentally sound management of biotechnology
    17. Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas, including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, and coastal
    areas and the protection, rational use and development of their living resources

    18. Protection of the quality and supply of freshwater resources: application of integrated approaches to
    the development, management and use of water resources

    19. Environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals, including prevention of illegal international
    traffic in toxic and dangerous products

    20. Environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes, in hazardous wastes
    21. Environmentally sound management of solid wastes and sewage-related issues
    22. Safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive wastes
    23. Preamble
    24. Global action for women towards sustainable and equitable development
    25. Children and youth in sustainable development
    26. Recognizing and strengthening the role of indigenous people and their communities
    27. Strengthening the role of non-governmental organizations: partners for sustainable development
    28. Local authorities' initiatives in support of Agenda
    29. Strengthening the role of workers and their trade unions
    30. Strengthening the role of business and industry
    31. Scientific and technological community
    32. Strengthening the role of farmers
    33. Financial resources and mechanisms
    34. Transfer of environmentally sound technology, cooperation and capacity-building
    35. Science for sustainable development
    36. Promoting education, public awareness and training
    37. National mechanisms and international cooperation for capacity-building in developing countries
    38. International institutional arrangements
    39. International legal instruments and mechanisms
    40. Information for decision-making

    It all sound sooooo lovely ... makes my heart throb to think that those elitist dudes are so concerned about how they might make our world a better place. How will they solve our problems? Well one way is through trading carbon credits ... the latest and greatest Wall Street idea for cleaning our environment, just like their other great ideas: credit default swaps, and the bundling and selling of mortgages. Those Goldman Sachs Ponzi schemers have certainly saved us from any true prosperity!

    Why do they have to solve these problems? Because we little folk have the nerve to exhale Co2 AND (how selfish can we be???) we want heat and ac to make our little lives a bit more pleasant.

    Why didn't you quote the parts of Agenda 21 about the elites wanting to reduce the world's population by 5 or 6 BILLION PEOPLE? (Not them, of course, just us). IT'S ALL IN THERE, ISN'T IT? And I know they have a thousand very scientific means for accomplishing their goal.

    Let me count just a few of the ways ...by stealing our productive lands (starvation), poisoning our water (fluoride), poisoning our air (chemtrails), poisoning our food ... that which they will permit us to consume ... with GMO frankenfoods, aspartame, high fructose corn syrup, msg products. Then there's war. Actually, there's lots and lots of wars. Being equal opportunity murderers, their repertoire even includes poisoning our own troops by manufacturing and issuing them weapons and ammo laced with depleted uranium (du). We, too, are getting our regular dose of it ... they get "rid" of excess depleted uranium in building products ... concrete, asphalt, etc. Aren't they clever? I just hate traveling down Happy Creek Road anymore. Does anyone have a Geiger counter and care to check this out? I suspect all the latest and greatest building projects around town (schools???) are actually slow kill death traps.

    Is everyone aware that some cancers are up 2,000%. Way to go, you elitist psychopaths!

    But, hey, don't take my word for it. You'll find Dr. Doug Rokke on youtube, giving you the inside skinny on the military du situation and there's more about the "many uses" of du in construction projects, too.

    Sniveling communists, who are surely being paid to promote this agenda, ought to be exposed for exactly what they are ... anti-God, anti-human, sociopaths (or is psychopath the more accurate term?). I'm talking to you, whatever your name is!

    Would you care to continue this conversation? I have lots more where the above came from.

      I do not suffer fools. Against my better judgment, I will extend one chance for you to make your best case and continue this conversation on a friendly level. As a starter, the topic will be the paragraph you thoughtfully emphasized in bold type and I will copy here in italics:

      "Why didn't you quote the parts of Agenda 21 about the elites wanting to reduce the world's population by 5 or 6 BILLION PEOPLE? (Not them, of course, just us). IT'S ALL IN THERE, ISN'T IT? And I know they have a thousand very scientific means for accomplishing their goal"

      Please answer these questions:
      1) Please identify who are the "elites" you identify in your paragraph. Who are these people?
      2) Please identify and quote the specific language from Agenda 21 that supports your allegation these "elites" you have identified want to reduce the world population by 5 or 6 billion people.
      3) Why is it important for these elites to reduce the world population?
      4) Please identify the method or methods to be used to reduce the world population by 5 or 6 billion people.
      5) When you say "IT'S ALL IN THERE, ISN'T IT?" what are you implying?
      6) In your last sentence you identify an entity as "they". Who exactly are "they".
      7) You allege "they" have a thousand very scientific means for accomplishing their goal.
      a) What is the goal "they" are seeking?"
      b) Perhaps you can name a dozen of these scientific means "they" will employ to accomplish their goals?

      In due course we can progress to new topics, one at a time. I wait your response.

    I never in one million years thought I would say this but... NVD censor, please come back!

    Just kidding. But seriously, these right-wing nutjob vs. left wing libtard battles are getting old. I'm not taking one side or the other... I'm just asking everyone to please recognize that you are never going to convert anyone to believe or not believe in anything on an online forum. Why are you wasting your breath? If you were just provoking a headlong charge from the other side, I would find that amusing and perhaps edifying, but your earnestness bleeds through.

    I would hazard that no atheist is ever going to become a theist from reading the NVD forums, and likewise no fundamentalist Christian is going to go godless based on someone's diatribe here.

    All it is is a bunch of backslapping among people who already agree.

    What ever happened to everyone talking trash about local politicians and figures of prominence?

    Yes, the first step is to claim that any philosophy but your own is mental derangement.

Copyright © The Northern Virginia Daily | nvdaily.com | 152 N. Holliday St., Strasburg, Va. 22657 | (800) 296-5137