When I opened my Petoskey News-Review tonight in “eager” anticipation for Nancy Sarowski’s latest conservative rant, I was left even more slack-jawed than on any previous Tuesday. Today Ms. Sarowski decides to take on UN Agenda 21. That’s right. UN Agenda 21. I’ve written previously about the fake threat of UN Agenda 21 that is being propagated by the John Birch Society. That’s right. The John Birch Society. See a connection here? Silly conspiracies being trumpeted by the silliest conspiracy theory organization in our history. (Remember these were the guys who thought commies were behind the fluoridation of our drinking water and that polio shots were an attempt at mind control.)
There’s no need to revisit the details of Agenda 21 and the history of the conspiracy theory being chanted from bunkers across the county because you can read my analysis here: UN Agenda 21.
What’s interesting today is how could someone like Nancy Sarowski fall for this garbage? Remember Ms. Sarowski is the self-proclaimed voice of conservatives in northern Michigan, though I have yet to find a single one of my conservative friends who considers her anything but a “doofus.” (Their words, not mine.)
In today’s piece, Ms. Sarowski begins with a very curious and circular statement about inalienable rights and freedom. I’ve read it six times and I think it says “If you lose freedoms, you have lost freedoms.” It’s groundbreaking analysis like that that the News-Review insists on wasting ink and paper on each week.
She goes on to claim that “private property rights” are one of the basic tenets of our Constitution by citing the 14th Amendment and the requirement that states respect the same due process as the federal government must respect when it comes to life, liberty, and property. It’s curious that a true “conservative” would cite the 14th Amendment to support any argument since most conservatives decry the spread of federal power over states’ rights that the 14th Amendment brings. But no one ever accused Ms. Sarowski of writing with consistent logic.
What follows is a staple of her writing. She states something that she says is true, but isn’t, and then proceeds to knock it down, claiming this to be a valiant conservative effort against the evil liberals. She says that liberals see private property ownership as “selfish and destructive to the ‘common good,’” and that liberals seek to redistribute property. Beyond the fact that no liberal this side of Pol Pot has ever called for the redistribution of private property, this alleged conspiracy makes no sense. If private property is selfish and destructive, what good would it do to take some from the rich and give it to the poor? Wouldn’t that make the poor selfish and destructive too?
The leaps of logic come fast and furious at this point as she launches into a real head-scratcher about slavery and how economic security allows you to be a responsible citizen. Apparently Ms. Sarowski is unaware of the massive crimes committed by the very rich who own lots of things but who are willing to destroy pensions, savings, baseball teams, mortgages, etc. in pursuit of more. There can be no more preposterous statement that being rich prevents you from committing crimes.
What follows is Ms. Sarowski’s cherry-picking of statements from Agenda 21 which makes it seems like the document is going to put us all on collective farms. Again, I’ve debunked all these claims in my April 26th piece and I urge you to read hers and then mine and see what you think.
In an effort to bolster her argument, she uses Representative McMaster’s tomfoolery regarding Agenda 21. Both McMasters and the Charlevoix County Commission have made fools of themselves and our area by following the direction of the John Birch Society in trying to stand up to the black helicopters being sent this very minute to take away your deer blind. Citing actions by states like Oklahoma and Arkansas, whose legislatures are filled with John Birch Society endorsed legislators, is not exactly what the people of Michigan ought to be taking for advice.
In the end, Ms. Sarowski fails to understand this basic principle: Just because you claim you’re not an unstable, silly, conspiracy theorist doesn’t mean you’re not an unstable, silly, conspiracy theorist. You’re actually going to have to provide sound consistent arguments that don’t ignore the reality around you before you can become believable. As in each of her previousTuesday efforts, Ms. Sarowski fails the stink test once again.
The Grumblings 
Powerful. I agree.