The most interesting debate of Monday night’s House session was over a bill to extend the Local Food Advisory Council. Some GOP members say it’s part of a UN plot to subvert US sovereignty.
The measure, Senate Bill 491, simply extends the Local Food Advisory Council’s mandate for three years. It has the support of Republican Commissioner of Agriculture Steve Troxler.
Nonetheless, two GOP House members argued it’s part of a United Nations conspiracy, because the board’s charter includes the term “sustainable.”
Rep. Glen Bradley tried to amend the bill to remove the word from the panel’s mission. He said the term “sustainable” is government doublespeak, intended to “lull the public into complacency.”
Bradley warned his colleagues that “sustainability” is part of the UN’s Agenda 21.
The following information is from an email that I have received from more than one source:
Here are the Republicans who voted with Democrats to defeat Rep. Bradley’s amendment to strip pro-Agenda 21 language from the Food Advisory Council’s charter. They joined with Joe Hackney to provide the swing vote; most Republicans voted with Bradley and AGAINST Agenda 21. Clearly, the below Reps agree with the Southern Poverty Law Center , which claims that Agenda 21 doesn’t exist, and is just an “anti-government conspiracy theory.”
Remember them well, as they all clearly need to be replaced at their next election.
Rep. Bill Brawley – 919-733-5800
Rep. Larry Brown – 919-733-5607
Rep. Jimmy Dixon – 919-715-3021
Rep. Mike Hager – 919-733-5749
Rep. Mark Hollo – 919-715-8361
Rep. D. Craig Horn – 919-733-2406
Rep. James Langdon, Jr. – 919-733-5849
Rep. Bill McGee – 919-733-5747
Rep. Chuck McGrady – 919-733-5956
Rep. Efton Sager – 919-733-5755
Rep. Ruth Samuelson – 919-715-3009
Rep. Paul Stam – 919-733-2962
Rep. John A. Torbett – 919-733-5868
The comment below from Rep. Pittman brings out some good points. I agree that we do not have access to all of the information concerning this matter. The record stands on who voted against this legislation. Whether this will impact their re-election is up to the people and the information that they have in the open.
David DeGerolamo
Actually, I did not say that sustainability is the UN’s effort to circumvent the US Constitution. I said Agenda 21 is that. I went on to say that the sustainability language is part of that, which is why we wanted it removed. The original bill, coming from the Agricultural Regulations Committee, did remove the sustainability language; but some who were afraid that it wouldn’t be accepted by the full House insisted on putting that language back. As for some of the members you mention above as needing to be removed, you go too far. Some of those you name are on our side. They just think we need to take a different approach to the same goal. So don’t be so quick to condemn them if you don’t know the facts. Some of them did not disagree with us about challenging Agenda 21. They just don’t think a frontal assault will succeed. They think we need to take it down incrementally. It is a difference of strategy and tactics, not a difference of goals. So please be careful and don’t cut off our nose to spite our face. We would not have made the progress we have made without some of the folks you say should be removed. I will certainly miss Glen Bradley next year, though. I appreciate his leadership on these issues.
The above article has been updated to clarify its sources. The first part is an article from WRAL linked back to the complete article. No additional commentary was added. The second part (in bold) is an email that I received from more than one source. I have clarified this in the article.
I have added the last paragraph and put my name on that section.
Mr Pittman
A friend of mine struggled to understand the cognitive disconnect between righteous, direct confrontation of evil (i.e. doing the right things openly and always) and the behaviors you describe in your comment above.
This friend asked me “is the following what I should infer from Pittman?” :
The people don’t have all of the facts so shut up.
The legislators have plans that people do not know about so shut up.
Remove some of the legislators’ names who are actually supporting this legislation but are voting against it (of course no specific names are mentioned).
We should keep quiet as they compromise over a period of time to implement their agenda.
He asked me: “Doesn’t this sound like how the progressives took over?”
I answered “Yes.”
“In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.”
-- Ayn Rand