Brief Highlights from United Nations “Agenda 21″

The below sections are taken directly from the United Nations Agenda 21, and represents some of the serious concerns this plan represents to liberty for our people. Please note this overview is intended as a brief introduction, which may interest folks in looking further into the possible ramifications of Governmental Centralization. Please utilize the links at the bottom of the article to explore more of the discussion.

Section 1.1. Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can – in a global partnership for sustainable development.

Section 1.3. Agenda 21 addresses the pressing problems of today and also aims at preparing the world for the challenges of the next century. It reflects a global consensus and political commitment at the highest level on development and environment cooperation. Its successful implementation is first and foremost the responsibility of Governments. National strategies, plans, policies and processes are crucial in achieving this. International cooperation should support and supplement such national efforts. In this context, the United Nations system has a key role to play. Other international, regional and subregional organizations are also called upon to contribute to this effort. The broadest public participation and the active involvement of the non-governmental organizations and other groups should also be encouraged.

Section 2.32. All countries should increase their efforts to eradicate mismanagement of public and private affairs, including corruption, taking into account the factors responsible for, and agents involved in, this phenomenon.

Details

VA Lawmaker to Introduce Domestic Drone Regulation Bill

What could bring together the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and one of Virginia’s most conservative state representatives? The specter of drones filling the skies of the United States. In a joint statement released July 17 by Virginia Delegate Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah) and the Virginia Chapter of the ACLU, the seemingly disparate pair announced plans to work to fight the unregulated use of drones by law enforcement in the Old Dominion. He stated,

Both the ACLU and I believe, as do many Virginians across the political spectrum, that the use of drones by police and other government agencies should be strictly controlled by state laws that protect the privacy and civil rights of all Virginia residents. I will be introducing legislation in the 2013 General Assembly Session to i) prohibit the use of drones by law enforcement unless a warrant has been issued; ii) require that policies and procedures for the use of drones be adopted by legislative bodies in open meetings; iii) provide for public monitoring and accountability; and iv) mandate that pictures of individuals acquired by drones be destroyed unless they are part of an authorized investigation.

Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, executive director of the Virginia ACLU, echoed Delegate Gilbert’s remarks:

Delegate Gilbert is right to be concerned about the possibility that, without new laws, this new and increasingly inexpensive technology will be used in a manner that will violate the fundamental right to be free from unreasonable searches and will have a chilling effect on the First Amendment rights of Virginians to assemble peaceably and speak freely. We are proud to be working with Delegate Gilbert to build a coalition in favor of the legislation he will introduce — a coalition that will bring together diverse voices from across the Commonwealth.

Despite their cooperation on this issue, Gilbert and the Virginia ACLU have been foes in previous matters. For example, Delegate Gilbert recently sponsored a bill that would permit state-assisted private adoption agencies to reject prospective parents if the agency objected to the couple’s religion or sexual orientation. Gilbert described the measure as a “conscience clause,” while the ACLU countered that it was state-sponsored anti-homosexual discrimination. The bill is now the law in Virginia.

Details

Take it to Their Living Room!

I often hear politically active people express frustration at the general level of apathy in America. In particular, they lament the difficulty in getting their fellow citizens up off the couch and out from in front of the television.

They speak the truth.

We live in a visual society, and Americans love their TV. I don’t think we stand much of a chance of changing that any time soon.

So, how about instead of getting all worked up because people won’t come out and hear the message, we just take it to them – right where they sit – on their couches in front of the old boob-tube!

The recent Supreme Court opinion declaring the insurance mandate in the federal health care bill constitutional immediately thrust the principle of state nullification into mainstream discussion. James Madison called state interposition a duty, and Thomas Jefferson called it the rightful remedy when the federal government exercises powers not delegated. But most Americans have no idea what the word even means in a political sense, much less do they understand the history and philosophical principles behind it. They won’t likely take the time to read a 200 page book on the subject. They probably aren’t going to seek out the Tenth Amendment Center website and educate themselves. But they just might sit down and watch a relatively short, entertaining, visually interesting video.

Especially if you make it available to them!

Details

Who is the Rebel Here?

Many Americans balk at the idea of states nullifying unconstitutional acts because they view it as rebellion against the United States.

I think this stems from the fact that so many Americans view the federal government and their beloved country as one and the same. We learn this from our very earliest days in grade school. Teachers line the walls with pictures of presidents. We take school trips to Washington D.C. to see the magnificent buildings and monuments built to and for government. We learn history through the lens of government action – military triumphs and legislative successes. And gradually, we begin to perceive any criticism of the U.S. government as criticism of the United States itself. To challenge the federal government and its policies in any way is to denigrate the greatness of the country.  And as good, patriotic Americans, that makes us angry.

But in truth, we don’t find America’s greatness on Capitol Hill, or in the White House Oval Office, or in the judges’ chambers in the Supreme Court building. It’s not the IRS, the TSA or the FDA that make the United States a place people risk their lives to come and build a life. We find America’s greatness in the fundamental principles written into the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence – principles rooted in freedom and liberty.

Details

“Constitutional Rights”? Not Really

I frequently hear people talk about how many “constitutional rights” we have lost under (fill in whichever President’s name). This brings up a very interesting misunderstanding about the origin of our rights… For one thing, our rights don’t come from the Constitution; the Constitution merely recognizes that our rights preexist it.

For instance, in the 2nd Amendment it goes like this:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” ..not “the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms” – this is a very important difference in syntax! This is true throughout the document, and the document even recognizes in the 9th Amendment that we have all the rights not specifically mentioned.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

If the Constitution gave rights, then the syntax of the 9th would say something like “that the people shall enjoy” or “that the people shall have” instead of retained by the people.”

The meaning of the subtle difference here is profound, and has vast implications!

Details

Ice-T Defends Gun Rights “It’s Part Of Our Constitution”

Host - “So you have got guns in your home?”

Ice-T - “Yeah, it’s legal in the United States, it’s part of our Constitution. You know, the right to bear arms is because that’s the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It’s to protect yourself from the police.”

Host - “And do you see any link between that and this sort of instance (Aurora shooting)?”

Ice-T - “No. Not really. If somebody wants to kill people, they don’t need a gun to do it”

Ice-T gets it and perfectly summed up what those us us that support gun rights have been saying all along.

Details

Should we be frightened?

What follows are six major changes to traditional constitutional procedure that have happened the past six months, none of which through the change process required in Article V of the Constitution, but each will adversely affect the distribution of power in this country and how we define liberty in the future. This time period could very well be the most radical six-month period of constitutional change in U.S. history. Should we be concerned with, or worse, frightened by, our own government?

We begin on New Years Eve with the President signing into law the 600 plus page National Defense Authorization Act which, among other things, authorizes the military to seize and transport U.S. citizens from U.S. soil to Guantanamo Bay on the presumption that they are terrorists. The threat of potential indefinite incarceration without recourse to lawyer, judge and trial is unconscionable in a free society. The new law ends the writ of habeas corpus found in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution and Posse Comitatus protection (protection from ones own armed forces). It also lays waste to much of the Bill of Rights, notably Amendments 4, 5, 6, and 8. Its intimidation potential will impact free speech, press, and assembly as well. Local law enforcement is essentially bi-passed.

Then in February, The National Operations Center (NOC), a part of The Department of Homeland Security, released its “Media Monitoring Initiative” giving itself permission to “gather, store, analyze, and disseminate” data on millions of users of social media, primarily Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. So far they appear less concerned with the information on the average Joe or Jane, although all is kept just in case, as they deal with unmanaged journalists and bloggers. These are defined as those who use “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed,” such as myself. Targeted are those who post articles, comments, or other information to popular web outlets. It is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Details

NDAA Nullification Efforts Expand in Michigan

LANSING, Mich. (July 24, 2012) – A strong grassroots coalition of Michigan citizens continues to push for state nullification of the kidnapping provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act.

On June 14, Michigan Rep. Tom McMillin filed HB5768, which would forbid state compliance with the detention provisions in sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA.

The legislation would prohibit any state agent, state employee or member of the Michigan National Guard from assisting “an agency of the armed forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of any person pursuant to 50 USC 1541, as provided by the federal national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012, Public Law 112-81, if such aid would place that state agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the Michigan national guard in violation of the United States constitution, the state constitution of 1963, or any law of this state.”

Work to nullify NDAA detention provisions also continues at the local level in the Great Lakes State. On July 18, Oakland County Commissioner Jim Runestad introduced an NDAA Liberty Preservation Resolution for consideration, and on July 26, Allegan County Commissioner Bill Sage will introduce an identical resolution to that county commission.

“Citizens cannot stand by and permit this type of travesty against the U.S. Constitution that all local, state, and federal officials took an oath to protect,” Sage said.

Activists also report support for the resolution in Clinton, Eaton, Grand Traverse and Sheboygan counties, along with Grand Traverse City and Bloomfield Township.

Exemplifying the grass roots nature of the movement in Michigan, Bloomfield Hills’ resident and TAC member Dennis Marburger has traveled across the state educating local lawmakers and citizens about the threat posed by detention provisions written into the NDAA, along with state and local options to fight it.

“We can only restore and preserve our liberty from the bottom up,” Marburger said. “That means you and me. It’s everyone’s Freedom that’s at stake.”

Details

Security and Self-Governance

by Ron Paul

The senseless and horrific killings last week at a movie theater in Colorado reminded Americans that life is fragile and beautiful, and we should not take family, friends, and loved ones for granted. Our prayers go out to the injured victims and the families of those killed. As a nation we should use this terrible event to come together with the resolve to create a society that better values life.

We should also face the sober reality that government cannot protect us from all possible harm. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, no matter how routinely we monitor internet communications, a determined individual or group can still cause great harm. We as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.

Furthermore, it is the role of civil society rather than government to build a culture of responsible, peaceful, productive individuals. Government cannot mandate morality or instill hope in troubled individuals. External controls on our behavior imposed by government through laws, police, and jails usually apply only after a terrible crime has occurred.

Details