Tag Archives: Gary Banz

Oklahoma Action Alert! Pushing Back against the UN and Sustainable Subversion

Kaye Beach

Feb. 14. 2012

The problem with UN Agenda 21 is not that it came from the United Nations but that our government leaders have embraced the plan and have worked diligently to naturalize the policy into US law and national, state and local policies. The principles of government promoted by the UN and it’s Agenda 21 are antithetical to our form of government that has traditionally put great emphasis on private property rights.   This emphasis on individual liberty and property rights is largely responsible for the historic success of United States as a nation.

The implementation of the tenets of Agenda 21 is nothing short of subversion.  This has nothing to do with environmental stewardship.  It is about control!

There are battles being waged all over the United States as citizens and legislators struggle to protect fundamental property rights against multitudes of non-government organizations and agencies carry out the goals of Agenda 21.

Below is information on two efforts taking place in Oklahoma to defend against the implementation of contrary UN goals, a little history on how the UN policy came to America, one example of how damaging it is to industry and innovation in America and a new agreement (signed Feb 11, 2012) between the EPA and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).


Two efforts to push back  taking place in Oklahoma right now. Your support is crucial.

On the county level;

Cleveland County Commissioner Offers Resolution Opposing Agenda 21

On a state level; HJR 1072, Support for the American Sovereignty Restoration Act by Rep. Charles Key.  This measure reiterates the intent of the American Sovereignty Restoration Act  which would end membership of the US to the United Nations. 

HJR 1072 urges Congress and the President of the United States pass legislation and take steps to end membership of the United States in the United Nations. Read HJR 1072

This measure was  referred to the House Rules Committee on Feb. 7, 2012 but it needs to be scheduled for a hearing in the Rules Committee.

Let the Rules Committee leaders know that it is very important that HJR 1072 gets scheduled and heard! 

Call or email;

Some background;

Land Use Control

Since the mid 1970s, both the United Nations and the United States have been moving toward ever-tightening “public” control of land use.

By: Henry Lamb – Sovereignty.net

Ownership of land is the foundation of freedom in America.  The hope of owning even a small plot of ground compelled our forefathers to brave incalculable risks crossing the ocean and challenging the wilderness.  Land ownership was so cherished by our nation’s founders that they guaranteed that government could not take private property without just compensation paid to the land owner.  This founding principle has eroded dramatically over time, especially since 1976.
The United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT I) met in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1976.  Agenda Item 10 of the conference report was entitled simply “Land.”

Here is an excerpt from the Preamble to that item:
“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.  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.  Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”
This policy document was agreed to by the United States.  Among the U.S. delegates were William K. Reilly, former EPA Administrator, and Carla Hill, former Trade Negotiator in the Bush Administration.

Read more

Here is one example of how the principles of UN Agenda 21 looks on the ground as it is being carried out in the USA.

Signed on Feb 11, 2012-New Agreement between EPA and United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 


Administrator Jackson signed the first Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA and United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) during the 26th Session of the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum, held in Nairobi, Kenya in February 2011. The MOU identifies areas for strategic cooperation, including strengthening environmental governance and regulatory capacity in developing countries; creating healthy urban communities; facilitating the transition to a green economy; responding to global challenges such as climate change; and providing scientific leadership.


WHEREAS the United Nations Environment Programme (hereinafter referred to as UNEP) is the leading organization within the United Nations system in the field of environment;
WHEREAS the mission of the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as EPA) is to protect human health and the environment within the United States and EPA may, consistent with applicable law, cooperate with other nations and organizations to protect the environment globally;

Full text of the MOU


Oklahoma Representative Wants to Downsize Representation

Kaye Beach

Sept. 26, 2011

From a Oklahoma House Press Release dated Sept. 8, 2011

As lawmakers seek to downsize state government, state Rep. Gary Banz believes they should include themselves in the process and has filed legislation to downsize the Oklahoma Legislature.

“As lawmakers, we constantly talk about the need for smaller government,” said Banz, R-Midwest City. “My legislation lets legislators prove it in a way that shows we are truly committed to reducing the size of government.”

Under House Joint Resolution 1021, voters would have the opportunity to approve a constitutional amendment reducing the Oklahoma Legislature by approximately 10 percent. That would cut the number of seats in the Oklahoma House of Representatives from 101 to 91, and reduce the number of state senators from 48 to 43.

Am I the only one who sees a distinct difference between government and representation?  Many complain that the government is too big and intrusive but I have yet to hear one person complain that they they are suffering under too much representation

When we talk about reducing the size of “government” we mean the SYSTEM that governs.   That is to say the agencies, the bureaucracy, the confusing tangle of rules and laws that govern and burden our daily lives.  The government system is definitely too big.

Our representatives are the individuals elected by the us to protect our rights and represent us in the legislative process. They are our most direct line of access that allows for input into and influence on policy our state government.

We are sorely dissatisfied with politicians and government, no doubt but to be clear on the message,  people are clamoring for less government and more real representation.

New Gallup Poll-Americans Express Historic Negativity Toward U.S. Government

What Rep. Banz is suggesting here is NOT about downsizing government.  This is downsizing REPRESENTATION.

Bantz continues his line of reasoning;

“I believe the Legislature needs to look at itself first,” Banz said. “If we ask agencies to consolidate, it is important for the Legislature to take the lead and do the same.”

The amount of consolidation that is going on in our state is something that many have been watching carefully.  We should be watching very carefully to make sure that consolidation efforts are really cutting out the fat and not dangerously consolidating power.

In defense of his proposal (which died a deserved death last session) Banz says;

“But it [reducing the number of elected represntatives] is probably more true to the nature of long-term reduction of our overhead than some of the things that we have done this last session, that kind of tap dance around the edges, as it relates to consolidating agencies and some of those kinds of things,” he said.  Source:  JRLR Insiders Report, June 7, 2011

Bantz’ comments that reducing the number of elected representatives of the people is in keeping with the true purpose of state agency consolidation is even more vexing because we are told that the purpose of consolidation is to increase efficiency in government and save money by cutting out what is NOT necessary.

And as a cost cutting measure, this proposal is laughable.

The measure would reduce legislative expenses by $1.2 million a year, Banz said. (the Tulsa World, Sept. 26, 2011)

1.2 million dollars doesn’t even qualify as a drop in the bucket compared to other expenses in this state’s budget!

I will agree that the American system of representative government is not the most efficient or cost effective form of government. That model is known as a Dictatorship.

To bolster his argument Rep Banz offers that new communication technologies justify less representation.

“I don’t think there has been a time in state history where if you want to be involved as a citizen, as a constituent, you have greater access to your representation in the House and Senate,” he said. “With a push of the button, with technology, you can communicate with more folks and more folks can communicate with me.” Sept. 26, 2011, the Tulsa World

Emails are great, aren’t they?  What about “virtual townhalls”?

Those things are great for making people feel like they are doing something but it is no substitute for direct, human interaction. Personally speaking, I do not visit the state capitol for fun.  I do it because emails don’t cut it.

I would go so far as to say that 50 visits from constituents beats 500 emails hands down when it comes to making an impression.  No one necessarily sees those emails but everyone is going to notice 50 constituents.  Even a phone call beats email hands down.  Don’t be fooled.  Do you think lobbyists have stopped visiting the capitol because they have email?  Hardly.  They know it is not a replacement for face to face interaction and it never will be.  Now that I think about it, I’ll bet the lobbyists would love to see a smaller, more manageable legislative body.

This justification, in my opinion, is a lame one.

Back in July Banz said;

“I think it will be an idea that will be widely accepted by the public,”

Really?  What am I missing here?  It doesn’t save any money to speak of and weakens the voice and influence of the people.  Why on earth would they support this idea?

House Floor Leader Dan Sullivan concurs.

“I suspect if it were submitted to vote of the people, it would pass,” link

I find their assertions doubtful but who am I to argue?  These two men are, after all, elected representatives of the people of Oklahoma and they should be very in tune with the voters.

Dan Sullivan also said it is a proposal that needs to be looked at and will get some serious consideration.  link

OK.  If this is such a great idea, maybe we should implement this right away and let the people choose which representatives goes first.

Seriously.  What are they thinking?