Grassroots dedicated to restoring the prerogative of Wisconsin
voters to determine the size, scope, and direction of government
Follow Us On:
   fbook  Follow Wisconsin912 on Twitter  rss
Green Tieranny: Seeds
Written by Kirsten   
Thursday, 19 July 2012 11:24

The first article in this series provided a video overview of Wisconsin's Green Tier program, along with a few minor written notes and corrections to clarify some of the information provided in the presentation. This second piece will focus specifically on the planting of the seeds from which Green Tier subsequently germinated and grew.

Governor Tommy G. Thompson Goes Global

In late 1998, then-Wisconsin Governor Tommy G. Thompson traveled to Munich, Germany to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Bavarian government. Signing for Bavaria was the minister for regional development and environmental issues, Dr. Werner Shnappauf. Signed on December 1st, the MOU established the Wisconsin-Bavaria Regulatory Reform Working Partnership.

Nearly every scholarly paper written on Green Tier rightly identifies this transnational agreement as having birthed the program. Yet, nearly 14 years after the fact, most Wisconsinites still know little or nothing about the connection between Wisconsin and Bavaria or the goals the two states adopted. Nor do they have any clear way of grasping all of the damage that has resulted from the agreement.

Framed as a resolution, the MOU is a mere two pages long. A close read of the document quickly and irrefutably reveals to anyone paying attention a profound threat to Wisconsin's representative government in the advancement of a globalist agenda.

Did Governor Thompson know what he was signing? Remarks made by both Thompson and Schnappauf on the occasion of the MOU's signing make it nearly impossible to believe Thompson was anything but fully informed as to the content and nature of the agreement. Both men refer to the aims spelled out in the agreement. They refer to globalist aims and socialist approaches. In fact, Thompson asserted: "It's government's job to help others do what's right," thereby granting verbal as well as written consent to the agreement's purpose and signaling fully considered participation in its aims.

Thompson Embraces Agenda 21

The Wisconsin-Bavaria Regulatory Reform Working Partnership title speaks immediately to regulatory reform as the core goal.

But how is it that Thompson believed that anyone other than the people of Wisconsin, should have a say in the shaping of state regulatory policy—particularly a foreign governmental body such as Bavaria—part of a socialist European state?

Actually, this question must be extended further, because it was not simply Bavaria's influence that Thompson allowed to insert itself into Wisconsin's regulatory environment. It was the entire global community in the form of the United Nations (UN). This willingness to entertain UN influence is not conjecture. It is noted quite prominently within the document itself.


That the State of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Deportment [sic] of Natural Resources and the Bavarian State Ministry for Regional Development and Environmental Affairs agree, referring to the Agenda 21 (Chapt. 30, 38, 39) and the U.S.- EU New Trans-Atlantic Agenda from December 3rd 1995, to create the Wisconsin - Bavarian Regulatory Reform Working Partnership in consideration of their respective responsibilities and consistent with Constitutional and legal frameworks in both states. (emphasis added)

What do the three specified chapters of Agenda 21 cover?

  • Chapter 30: Strengthening the Role of Business & Industry
  • Chapter 38: International Institutional Arrangements
  • Chapter 39: International Legal Instruments & Mechanisms

Using the noble but deceptive refrain of the greater good, each of these chapters—read for yourself—details a different yet wholly complementary avenue for the facilitating the global redistribution of wealth, the erosion of individual and national sovereignty, and the undermining of any legitimate form of true representative government in favor of global communitarianism.

The phrase within the Wisconsin-Bavaria MOU that says efforts will be "consistent with Constitutional and legal frameworks in both states" is plainly subverted by reference to these three chapters of Agenda 21, as well as the agreement's own subsequent language.

For instance, in one of the more disturbing bullet points in the MOU's second "resolved" paragraph, the parties agree "to work on a common international environmental law project in cooperation with the International Environmental Lawyers' Network (I.E.L.N.) and other competent partners."

In another bullet point, the parties agree "to establish joint projects to promote businesses' participation in EMSs verified/certified to EMAS/150 14000 et seq. standards according to the principles of performance audits and legal compliance." How does one decipher all of this alpha-numeric gobbledygook? Well...

EMS refers to environmental management systems, a concept developed largely by the Institute for Organizational Standardization (ISO) for use within its ISO 14000 family of environmental management standards. See the notes in the first article in this series for additional information. The Wikipedia article for "environmental management system" is also helpful in its coverage of the nature and purpose of both ISO 14000 and EMAS. Deployed in 1995, just three years before the Wisconsin-Bavaria MOU, EMAS is the European Union's "voluntary" Eco-Management and Audit Scheme—scheme being the operative word.

It is not difficult to discern, then, that the Wisconsin-Bavaria MOU sought Wisconsin's facilitation and adoption of international law standards and the subjection of our businesses, industries, and citizens to it. Wisconsin was to be a laboratory whose "successes" could be applied elsewhere. Hence the MOU language stating: "With reference to the worldwide goal Sustainable Development the Working Partnership's goal shall be to reach a sustaining economic and environmental system in our states and beyond our states." (emphasis added)

A Paradox Resolved

How can the Wisconsin-Bavaria agreement refer to respecting existing constitutional frameworks while also clearly referring to legal paths that would logically and necessarily undermine both the constitutions of the United States and the State of Wisconsin—the two documents that Governor Thompson's oath of office bound him to uphold and defend?

It's not an accident or a mistake. In fact, this paradox within the MOU's language is completely intentional. Here's how it works and why:

To quote Wikipedia, which actually puts it quite concisely: The 40-chapter UN Agenda for the 21st Century, more commonly referred to as Agenda 21, is "a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans directly affect the environment."

However, Agenda 21 is also soft law policy: It ostensibly has no official legal standing. Rather, it gains standing—and teeth—when aspects of it are legally adopted into federal, state, county, or municipal policy via the adoption of laws, regulations, or other "legal instruments and mechanisms." In fact, as discussed in this pertinent and concise Eurofound article, this softening of the way for future hard policy appears to be a principle aim and use of soft law. 

The Wisconsin-Bavaria agreement is just the sort of arrangement, then, that soft law, via the cited chapters of Agenda 21 envision. It tailor makes aspects of Agenda 21 for the state of Wisconsin... makes it Wisconsin's gingerbread house. All sorts of lovely lollypops, gum drops, and chocolate stars were trotted out to adorn it: the promise of improved regulation, leaner and more efficient processes, business growth, economic development, etc, etc, etc. Except it's goal was actually about getting Wisconsin to walk freely into the cage of international law that lay inside the delectably-decorated gingerbread.

The more one delves into the Wisconsin-Bavaria agreement, its goals and its outcomes, the more apparent Governor Thompson's utter betrayal of his oath of office becomes—and there is yet much more to cover in upcoming articles in this Green Tier series.

Wisconsin Determines to Learn

So, where on earth did this agreement come from? Who fostered its development and adoption? Who stirred up the globalist gingerbread batter and made sure it was oven-ready?

In his remarks at the signing, Thompson thanks Dr. Matthias Weigand, head of the division of general transmedial environmental law within the Bavarian government. He also thanks Marina Podonsky of the Herbert Quandt Foundation (HQS) and Suzanne Dickerson of auto manufacturer BMW. HQS, based in Bad Homburg, Germany, appears to have facilitated the agreement between the two states. While the fullness of the relationship is still being researched, there is, in fact, a direct link between HQS and BMW: It was Herbert Quandt who rescued BMW from failure in the 1960s. In the 1980s, Quandt established HQS in an effort to advance his personal scientific, political, and cultural interests.

As we will see in a future article about Green Tier's operational mechanics, these players represent three points of a triad necessary to one of the principle tools of Agenda 21: the public-private partnership.

On its website, HQS currently describes itself as "an actor and advocate of the social mainstream in Germany." This social mainstream includes the social market economics in which Germany has long rooted itself. Social market economics is described as a "middle way" between socialism and the free market. In other words, it purposefully incorporates a measure of planned state intervention in the economy. This fact will also become increasingly important in subsequent articles.

Interestingly, in 1993-1994, along with a number of other companies, BMW had established substantial operations in the U.S. Having long complained that German permitting for operations was too slow and cumbersome, the corporation opened an auto plant in South Carolina. The move seems to achieved positive results in this regard. In 1995, BMW's reports of speedier U.S. permitting led some German officials to caution that without significant reforms, Germany would continue to lose business and industry. You'd think, then, that Bavaria might have wished to learn from an American state how to roll back regulation, expedite production, and grow business.

However, a list of the learning opportunities offered in Phase One of the Wisconsin-Bavaria MOU confirms precisely the opposite.

It is entirely evident from this Phase One list—and quite logical based on the fact that Germany was already fully steeped in international regulatory and environmental law by the time the Wisconsin-Bavaria agreement was signed—that the partnership described in the MOU was never intended as an exchange of ideas and opportunities but rather a teaching relationship, with Wisconsin as pupil.

Not once in the list of opportunities does Wisconsin contribute knowledge of any significance to the relationship. Rather, with Governor Thompson's full blessing, Wisconsin functionaries were meant to learn so that they could pave the way for a new, internationally-driven regulatory regime.

As will be seen, the Green Tier program is just one of many proofs that Wisconsin's employees at the Department of Natural Resources—which is, as readers may have noted, named as a partner in the MOU—did indeed learned the lessons of their European masters well.  In fact, thanks to former Governor Thompson, they have been working diligently ever since to deploy those Bavarian/globalist lessons within our state.

The next article in this series will cover the philosophical roots of Green Tier and the program's germination and development out of the Wisconsin-Bavaria agreement.