(Truthstream Media.com) Driving around Austin, Texas over the past year, I’ve noticed a change taking place. Large mixed-use development buildings with apartments on top and businesses on the bottom are popping up all over town. Billboards line the highways telling me I should have a “roadmance” (not…
(Truthstream Media.com)
Driving around Austin, Texas over the past year, I’ve noticed a change taking place.
Large mixed-use development buildings with apartments on top and businesses on the bottom are popping up all over town. Billboards line the highways telling me I should have a “roadmance” (not even kidding) with the new toll roads encircling the city that Texans never really ever wanted; future toll roads subsidizing corporate interests are in the works. Advertisements are pushing high-speed rail as hip and trendy; they are reminiscent of America 2050 goals for the future of our nation involving 11 highly condensed megaregions connected with these same rails (with support from the Rockefeller Foundation, of course).
The entire service area for Austin has been smart metered, without regard to national outcry over the negative health effects. Austin Energy says the meters are “valuable devices” that communicate with the utility via radio frequency waves and “Advanced Metering Infrastructure software to measure the amount of electricity used and at what time of day.” The utility also admitted back in 2012 that “integrating smart meter technology into the operations and services to customers” was one of the its “aggressive goals“.
Each of the city’s smart meters is putting out electromagnetic frequencies as they send customer data to the utility company every 15 minutes. Recently two Texas senators introduced legislation to help residents opt out.
When I first moved here, my roommate was all excited to show me her new smart, motion-sensored thermostat that comes on automatically any time you walk near it. She told me how it was installed in her home for free (how cool is that?) if she agreed to be part of a pilot project through the University of Texas at Austin on monitoring energy consumption. She was pretty excited about how the temperature in her house could be controlled remotely using an Internet interface.
The city’s water is in the process of being smart metered, too. The Citizens Water Conservation Implementation Task Force filed the report “Water Conservation 2020: Strategic Recommendations” with Austin’s City Council in 2010, calling for a smart meter program with “real-time” water use data. The committee also recommended the city “Target customers with high water use with an audit campaign to look at outdoor and indoor conservation measures” [emphasis added] as well as reducing the city’s water use by two percent every year.
So What Is Agenda 21?
Although buzz terms like “sustainable development” and “smart growth” sound friendly enough on the surface, Agenda 21 is a pact the U.S. signed on to with 177 other countries after the 1992 U.N. Earth Summit. Agenda 21 describes itself as a “comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally” as a new vision for the 21st century.
In short, Agenda 21 is about global control from the ground up. Agenda 21 expert Rosa Koire sums it up (those are her caps below, not mine):
“UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world. INVENTORY AND CONTROL.”
Though Agenda 21 is technically a ‘non-binding treaty’, that didn’t stop President Clinton from binding America to it with Executive Order #12852 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, an official push to align U.S. environmental policies with U.N. Agenda 21 directives. Today it’s continued through President Obama’s Partnership for Sustainable Communities.
For all the ways Agenda 21 will seeks to destroy everything from national sovereignty to personal property rights, check out this video:
Randomly taking a peek at recent Austin City Council meeting minutes from the last few months, we can see Agenda 21 at work:
“Authorize negotiation and execution of agreements with Ecobee, EnergyHub, and other thermostat vendors who qualify for participation in Austin Energy’s Power Partner Program for a demand response program to provide customer incentives in exchange for thermostat data access, for a combined total amount not to exceed $950,000 over a 24-month period.”
“Authorize the negotiation and execution of Amendment No. 1 to the Interlocal Agreement for Services to Develop an Analytic Tool for Sustainable Communities Regional Planning with the Capital Area Council of Governments to increase the amount payable to the City by $12,500 to employ summer interns, for a total contract amount not to exceed $205,507.”
“Approve a resolution directing the City Manager to collect data on multi-family units participating in Austin Energy’s Multi-Family Energy Efficiency Program.”
Land use map designations are being formally changed from “Single Family land use to Higher Density Single Family land use” or “Mixed Use land use” all the time.
Approving an ordinance “repealing and replacing Article 11 of City Code Chapter 25-12 to adopt the 2012 International Residential Code and local amendments“.
All of these will significantly impact how people live in Austin, a city that appears to be on the cutting edge of Agenda 21 trendiness.
Tonight we talk to Rosa Koire, author of Behind the Green Mask: UN Agenda 21 about the ideology and people behind Agenda 21. Topics discussed include: What is Agenda 21? What is communitarianism? What is the history of this agenda? How is it being implemented? And what can people do to combat it?
*NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, the third segment of this broadcast was not recorded on video. It is available on the mp3 audio version of the broadcast, available for download from corbettreport.com.
More or less every modern politician talks about “freedom” or “liberty.” Actually, they don’t talk about it as much as they use it as a magic incantation. They go on at length about “our free country,” but if you could get them to define freedom, that definition would be something along the lines of “what we have.”
Once we’re past such self-praising nonsense, we’re still left with the original question: What exactly is this “liberty”? And then the trouble begins. There are dozens of definitions. This is a problem. We’re all going around talking about liberty, but no two of us mean precisely the same thing. If you’re looking for reasons why liberty gets so little real traction in the world, this would be a good place to start.
So, it’s about time that we clarified what we mean by these terms. And, since I’ve spent decades pursuing liberty, and since no one else seems to be addressing this, I’ll take on this chore myself.
First of all, I’m going to treat “liberty” and “freedom” as the same concept. After all, the word freedom comes to us from old English and liberty from old French, and they both mean the same thing: unconstrained.
The problem with unconstrained lies in the fact that we are constrained by the natural world, by everything from gravity to rocks to weather. Nature constrains us. Yet, we don’t feel oppressed by nature – it isn’t trying to hurt us or limit us, it simply is what it is, and we can use it as we wish too. Our bodies are part of nature, after all.
It is when other people force us to obey, use violence against us, our simply intimidate us, that we feel constrained and abused. (Which tells us all we really need to know about the nature of liberty and humanity.)
So, here is a precise definition for freedom/liberty:
A condition in which a man’s will regarding his own person and property is unopposed by any other will.
That is the bedrock. From there you can add other aspects if you wish, but you cannot deviate from this core and still be talking about “liberty.”
For example, Thomas Jefferson used the same core idea (notice the inclusion of “will”), but added a political aspect:
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
The great John Locke also held to this core, but took it in a more philosophical direction:
All men are naturally in a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man.
Personally, I like a very plain version of the same sentiments:
We should be allowed to do whatever we want, so long as we don’t hurt others.
I generally call these statements as Lockean, since John Locke was the first person to clearly define the concept of liberty in modern times. But, that’s just my preference.
These statements are clear, and they define liberty. No more really need be said.
You can ignore manipulative “freedom to” statements like Franklin Roosevelt’s famous Second Bill of Rights, whose proposed ‘rights’ included the right of everyone to their own home. This, of course, would require the enslavement of builders, suppliers and taxpayers. (Roosevelt never mentioned that side of the equation, of course.)
There’s only one thing which I will add to this discussion, and that is this: None us have a monopoly on Lockean liberty.
Anyone who holds to Locke’s formulation is your brother and sister, and you must accept them as such.
We are past the time when we can be insular (if there ever really was such a time). You don’t have to agree 100% with the Ron Paul people or the free-market anarchists, or with anyone, but if they accept the core statements above, you must accept them as joint heirs of the Lockean liberties.
If you think someone is wrong, you can ignore the difference of opinion, or you can, respectfully, correct them. Better still, you could laugh at your joint human frailties and move forward together. What you may not do, is to cast them off as idiots; you may not resent them for honestly disagreeing. If they believe in John Locke’s liberty, they are your allies, not your enemies.
If we can’t do that, we don’t deserve to succeed.
[Editor's Note: Paul Rosenberg is the "outside the Matrix" author of FreemansPerspective.com, a collection of insights on topics ranging from Internet privacy and economic freedom, to alternative currencies. Join our free e-letter list to receive other articles like this one... and immediately get a report that explains in a unique way how the US Government got into the mess it's in, the dangers that creates for us, and how to protect ourselves from it.]
It can be downright terrifying and morally decimating. Usurpations continue as rights are whittled away and the constitutional principles eroded. The demands on citizens and states from a supposedly “limited” and “defined” federal government are now innumerable . The Union looks more and more like a consolidation of states instead of a federal republic.
So, what do we do? What are the options to fight this reversal of the founder’s vision?
Political philosopher and economist Murray Rothbard contemplated this very question.
“We face the great strategic problem of all “radical” creeds throughout history: How can we get from here to there, from our current State-ridden and imperfect world to the great goal of liberty?”
Some Wacka-doo’s recommend taking up arms in resistance. Only death will result. The strongest and most heavily armed will ultimately earn the victory. Freedom cannot reign when the request for your volition is at the point of a gun.
So how about a good protest? We can march on D.C. We can carry poignant signs. Maybe we can sign a petition. But they don’t listen. And ultimately, aren’t we just begging the federal government for their acquiescence? Why ask permission where none is required?
Another option lies in hoping those black-robed federal employees at the Supreme Court will finally hand down an opinion limiting federal power in keeping with the intent of the founders. But somehow, throughout more than 200 years of American history, they’ve voted in favor of the federal government most of the time. And even if they do get one right, that doesn’t make us safe. Judges can even overrule their OWN opinion! Heck, they don’t even have to listen to a case, just like they did with the NDAA this year! Is this your last hope? That’s not what the founders believed. The last arbiter of constitutionality is the people of the states, not nine black robed mystics of the Constitution.
Or, you can look for hero to save you.
Maybe if you just vote in the right guys, we can take back our country. I mean, why would this bum fail you? He has all the right qualifications! He’s that no-name stooge with a D or an R next to his name.
Look: we’ve tried all of this ad nauseum. Our political strategy brings to mind the definition of insanity often attributed to Albert Einstein: doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. We’ve protested. They ignore us. We’ve voted the bums out. We get new bums. We counted on the courts. They failed us.
What can we do?
First and foremost, stop acting like a Disney Princess!
No one is coming to save you. The hero you are looking for…..is YOU!
Americans have broken and twisted the founders’ message. Those who formed this country preached liberty, self-government, decentralization and self-sufficiency within communities. Today, the federal government wants you to be dependent on them for everything. including your safety, your health care, the products you buy, the things you grow and the decisions you make.
Time to change that message.
Rothbard pointed the way toward the path to liberty.
“On one point there can scarcely be disagreement: a prime and necessary condition for libertarian victory (or, indeed, for victory for any social movement, from Buddhism to vegetarianism) is education: the persuasion and conversion of large numbers of people to the cause.”
We’ve seen the power of everyday people getting involved at the grassroots during the recent gun debates.
Early this year, the Obama administration called for “common sense” gun laws to prevent another mass shooting after Sandy Hook. These “common sense” laws include banning so-called “assault rifles,” creating a national registration, minimizing magazine capacity, and even restricting collectable, antiquated firearms. The pure evil that caused the deaths of children and teachers was deplorable, but it shouldn’t be used as a tool to criminalize law abiding citizens.
As a preemptive tactic, the Second Amendment Preservation Act was introduced in 31 states in an effort to hold the federal government within its constitutionally prescribed role. Eleven states passed the act through one of its legislative chambers, while four pass it through both houses. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback signed the Second Amendment Preservation Act into law on April 16. Alaska and Missouri are expected to have their bills sent to their governors soon.
The Kansas bill had no easy journey, but with grassroots support, the bill made it all the way to the governor’s desk. He signed it without hesitation. And when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder threatened the state, Brownbacks’ response was simple and tactful.
The State of Kansas is in receipt of your letter in which you place Kansas on notice regarding the view of the Obama Administration concerning the state’s Second Amendment Protection Act.
The right to keep and bear arms is a right that Kansans hold dear. It is a right enshrined not only in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, but also protected by the Kansas Bill of Rights. The people of Kansas have repeatedly and overwhelmingly reaffirmed their commitment to protecting this fundamental right. The people of Kansas are likewise committed to defending the sovereignty of the State of Kansas as guaranteed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution”
In the wake of Kansas’ stand, local action to nullify unconstitutional federal gun laws is spreading like wildfire in the state, as well as in Missouri, Colorado and even Alabama. In fact, many cities across the Union have introduced and passed local legislation. With enough resistance from cities, towns, counties, and states, federal gun control will become unenforceable. Through this effort, citizens in every locality are educating their communities and garnering support from sheriffs, representatives and neighbors.
On January 16, 1919, the ratification of the18th amendment was certified by the US Congress. This amendment had been ratified by 46 of 48 states and said:
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
The 18th amendment was repealed bythe 21st amendment on December 5, 1933.
Before I started researching for this article, what I thought I knew about the prohibition era went something like this: The 18th amendment was passed. Organized crime took over in New York and Chicago. The mob thrived. People danced “the Charleston”. Al Capone got arrested for tax evasion. And eventually the 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st. It occurred to me recently that learning more about prohibition era America might provide some useful lessons for today, so I have done some reading. I am still far from expert on the period, but what I have learned so far is absolutely fascinating.
What strikes me most about prohibition and its repeal is that this is a familiar recipe. We have seen hownullification helped pave the way to freedom for Pennsylvania’s black population during the 19th century. Pennsylvania’s resistance to the federal fugitive slave acts spanned decades and included jury nullification, individual nullification in the form of the underground railroad, state-level nullification in the form of personal freedom acts, and electoral efforts at the national level, eventually culminating in the Civil War and the 13th amendment.
Similarly,the Whiskey Rebellion, consisted of a combination of jury nullification, individual nullification in the form of non-compliance, and organized nullification in the western counties of many of the states. It came to fruition when Thomas Jefferson was elected President. Jefferson appointed Pennsylvanian and accused whiskey rebel, Albert Gallatin, to be his Treasury Secretary and to oversee the repeal of the unpopular whiskey tax.
This article will demonstrate how the same basic template was used in order to bring about the 21st amendment. Can the nullification deniers continue to bury their heads in the sand when nullification has played a role in not one, but two Constitutional amendments? It’s sort-of hard to argue that nullification isn’t a valid part of the Constitutional process when there are two real, live, examples where nullification was part of the process that led up to a Constitutional amendment.
Was Prohibition Constitutional?
I am aware that this question seems almost nonsensical. How could an amendment to the Constitution possibly be unconstitutional? The thing to remember, though, is that prohibition involved more than just the 18th amendment. After the amendment came federal legislation, and after that came interpretations by the Supreme Court. I would invite you to look at section 1 of the amendment again. What was actually prohibited by the amendment? According toLast Call, the phrase “intoxicating liquors” was intentionally chosen in order to be misleading.
This conscious dodge had enabled fence-sitters, conflict avoiders, and wishful thinkers to support the amendment in the hope that the eventual definition would leave room for some of the milder forms of liquid stimulation.
When you see the word “liquor” in that amendment, does it include “beer”? I don’t know what the language was in 1919, but to my understanding, beer, wine, and liquor are three different types of alcoholic drinks. The amendment was enabled bythe Volstead Act, which prohibited drinks with more than 0.5% alcohol, including beer and wine. This is a classic bait and switch. Is an agreement valid when it is made under intentionally false pretense? Jack S. Blocker, Jr.wrote in the Journal of the American Public Health Association,
The Volstead Act defined “intoxicating” as containing 0.5% or more alcohol by volume, thereby prohibiting virtually all alcoholic drinks. The brewers, who had expected beer of moderate strength to remain legal, were stunned, but their efforts to overturn the definition were unavailing.
The Supreme Court’s decisions upheld Congress’ bait and switch and added on some power grabs of its own. Section 2 of the amendment said that the federal government and the states had concurrent enforcement power. According to Robert Post of Yale Law School,writing in the William and Mary Law Review, over the prohibition years, the supreme court modified its interpretations of the 4th, 5th, and 10th amendments in order to uphold the Volstead Act and interpret the enforcement power in the 18th amendment expansively. The court allowed wiretaps without a warrant, allowed a person to be charged twice for the same crime under state and federal statutes, and allowed warrantless searches of motor vehicles – establishing the “reasonable suspicion” standard.
Post writes that Supreme Court Justice McReynolds sputtered in dissent to United States vs. Carroll:
“Has it come about that merely because a man once agreed to deliver whisky, but did not, he may be arrested whenever thereafter he ventures to drive an automobile on the road to Detroit!”
And to that, political scientist Robert Cusman answered:
“it certainly has, and … most of us are not sensitive enough to feel that such a result violates the requirements either of justice or of common sense.”
Simplistically – the phrase concurrent enforcement could mean two things. It could mean that the states enforce the law in their own spheres of influence – inside their borders; and the federal government enforces it in its sphere – interstate commerce and foreign trade. This understanding would not have involved reinterpreting the Bill of Rights.
the dual sovereignty in our federal system of Nation and State each supreme within its own sphere did not signify a merely functional division of labor between state and federal governments, but instead a fundamental constitutional commitment, symbolized by the Tenth Amendment, to maintain ‘state control over local affairs.’
Instead of accepting this argument, which would have left the Bill of Rights intact, the court interpreted it to mean that the federal government could enforce the amendment anywhere, including domains that had been reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment. Post goes on to say,
A similar letter, which early tests indicated contained ricin, was also sent to the director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, in Washington, D.C.
In both letters, the writer made threatening comments about Bloomberg’s support for gun control, NYPD Deputy Commissioner for Public information Paul Browne said. The letter to Bloomberg was opened on Sunday, and the letter in Washington was opened on Friday.
Civilian personnel in New York and Washington who came in contact with the opened letters remain asymptomatic, officials said. However, members of the NYPD Emergency Service Unit who came in contact with the letter that was opened at the city’s mail facility on Gold Street in Manhattan on Friday are being examined for minor symptoms of ricin exposure that they experienced on Saturday, which have since abated.
The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force and the NYPD Intelligence Division, which is responsible for the Mayor’s protection, are investigating the threats.
A clean environment is important to us all. We have an obligation to maintain our resources and sustain our environment for future generations. Sustaining our environment has led us down the road to environmentalism. Then a strange thing happened. Environmentalism came to a fork in the road. While the rhetoric took one route, the agenda took another. Explore this topic and discover how Agenda 21 will affect you.
This classic video produced by George W. Hunt exposes how the progenitors of the hijacked environmental movement, people like Maurice Strong, the Rothschild family and David Rockefeller, always intended the scam to achieve global population reduction along with a global carbon tax based on a cap and trade system controlled by them.
Pelosi introduces a bill to follow the 1992 RIO Earth Summit and conform to Agenda 21 and local agenda 21 sustainable community practices and follow international law.
Taken from C-SPAN archives, filmed on Oct. 2, 1992
Private property rights in California are being subjected to Agenda 21, a United Nation’s declaration on the collective society’s right to control private property.
Environmentalists and TreeHuggers rejoiced today with the joint announcement from Barack Obama of the USA, Stephen Harper of Canada and Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico announce the agreement to fully implement Agenda 21 throughout the three countries. The multi-trillion Amero project will ensure a greener, healthier, fairer and more equally distributed future for the 99%.
Glenn Beck/Screen capture
Readers may remember that Agenda 21 started in Rio in 1992 and has been spreading ’round the globe ever since, as Treehugger types push the idea of living a low impact life with a small carbon footprint, eliminating greenhouse gas emissions and saving the planet for all species. As one agender put it,
The objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.
protecting biodiversity means giving the land back to the animals./Screen capture
In order to preserve that biodiversity and habitat, President Obama has announced the implementation of the wildlife reserve and corridor system across the USA, that will return most of the nation to its natural habitat.
Library of Congress/Public Domain
The Hoover Dam and others on major rivers will be deconstructed so that they can be returned to their natural state. This will cause some problems for cities like Phoenix and others in California that depend on the river’s water; the people will have to be relocated as there won’t be any water for drinking or lawns.
Fortunately, there are thousands of empty houses in Detroit and Buffalo and other northern cities that will be made available for occupation by the transplanted Phoenicians, who will be welcomed back, and given jobs on urban farms.
Since production of fertilizer requires fossil fuels and these contribute to climate change, all farming will be organic and done mainly by hand. This will provide a huge number of jobs for millenials now looking for work; a hundred and fifty years ago 80% of the population of North America worked in agriculture; now it is 3%. This is a great opportunity to put people back to work in productive jobs with lots of fresh air, exercise and sunshine.
Apartments produced in the LifeEdited Industries factories will accommodate families of all sizes and incomes; to keep consumption of materials and energy down, space will be rationed to 200 square feet per person, with a maximum unit size of 600 square feet. This will help control population growth, a major source of environmental problems. After all, Agenda 21 style living has been described as:
a future in which people would be forced to live with five others in 20-by-20 living spaces with push-button furniture in high-rises across major cities. The complexes would serve three vegetarian meals a day, feature mosques and have a 24-7 on-call doctor to discuss taking one’s own life.
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan addressing higher education sustainability leaders at the September 20-21Sustainability Education Summit: “Citizenship and Pathways for a Green Economy.” He says his department is late to sustainability and education, but it’s getting underway.
William F. Jasper, investigative reporter for The New American magazine, uncovers the real objective behind the Earth Charter. Many U.S. city and educational officials have already been persuaded to endorse this pro-UN manifesto. Learn why this campaign, masquerading as a plan to protect the environment, is potentially lethal to family, faith, and freedom. A must-see video presentation!
Step by step, piece by piece, the Wildlands Project is coming to fruition. The Project, foundational to the U.N.Biodiversity Treaty which was never ratified by the U.S. Senate, calls for approximately 50 percent of the United States to be set aside as “wildlands”, where no human can enter. Much has been accomplished over the past 10 years toward that goal, and the pace is stepping up, with the help of the federal agencies first under Clinton/Gore and now under Obama/Biden.
What, you may ask, is the Wildlands Project? It is a grandiose plan to transform at least half of the continental United States into an area free of modern industry and human habitation.
The father of this radical vision for a new green America is none other than Dave Foreman , principal founder of the eco-terrorist group EarthFirst!, and until 1997, a director of the Sierra Club . Carl Pope took the reign in 2002.
A vast network of powerful and influential environmental groups are taking great strides toward reaching the Wildlands’ goals. They are working toward the resurrection of a pre-industrial North America — the continent once known to Native Americans as “Turtle Island.” Foreman, in his own words, summarizes the Wildlands Project as a “bold attempt to grope our way back to 1492.” What kind of progressive notion is that, you might ask.
The deep ecology movement operates behind a sham of new age language and pseudoscience. Idealistic neo-pagans were courted and seduced by a pseudo spiritual rhetoric that masquerades the hidden agenda for power, money and control. They fell in love with the idea of this socially engineered, new earth religion “Gia”. This relationship came with weighty strings attached and they, lost in their beautiful delusions, danced at the puppet masters’ command.
Even so, these people consider themselves to be enlightened and always right, while they consider those with differing views to be ignorant and unenlightened. These eco-centrics have created their own vocabulary and terminology and this green “newspeak” has grown deep and extensive roots within our popular and political culture.
Wildlife Corridor Conservation Act Introduced
Politicians and other agents of Agenda 21 are inundating us with overlapping schemes that quietly and deliberately drown our property rights and freedom. For surefire evidence, take a look at U.S. Congress – H.R. 5101 Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act of 2010. This bill includes transboundary tax-payer funded projects for wild animal bridges and tunnels, increasing roadless areas and other means to capture more natural resources and private property for government and its partners.
H.R. 5101 states that “The Secretary, in cooperation with the States and Indian tribes, shall develop a Habitat and Corridors Information System, that shall include maps and descriptions of projected shifts in habitats and corridors of fish and wildlife species in response to climate change; and to assess the impacts of existing development on habitats and corridors.” The System is charged with identifying, prioritizing and describing “key parcels of non-Federal land (i.e. state lands and private property) located within the boundaries of units of the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Forest System, or National Grassland System that are critical to maintenance of wildlife habitat and migration corridors.” This is way over and above what the federal government has already swallowed up under other guises.
Congress and other elites are desperately clinging to the fraud of man-made global warming in an attempt to illegitimately wrest control of private property. Many people still nominally own and pay taxes on their private property but if their property is even slightly proximate to the imagined wildlife corridors, then animals rule as “new habitat” is created for them in response to “climate change” and other “threats” (meaning people). It doesn’t matter that grandma’s house has been there for 100 years and she and the animals get along fine. Not anymore, with this bill government will determine what if any use might be made of land that falls in or near corridors invented ostensibly to protect animals (in truth this is done to take private property and to control the human population).
The difference between this bill and previous wildland’s programs is that this one doesn’t just have teeth, it has fangs. Not only does it have “strong language calling on agencies to actually take steps to protect corridors” but it also calls for a funding mechanism (more taxes) to support “such protective action.” In short, we will be footing the bill for the global elite to further control our property and diminish our freedom under the guise of habitat protection. And “the Secretary of the Interior may transfer funds to the Foundation under this subsection in advance, without regard to when expenses are incurred.” How many of us can get paid whenever we want, even if we haven’t yet done the work?
Here are a few examples of Wildlife Corridor Program across the United States. Once again they are bad programs hiding behind pretty pictures and phony words. Rim of the Valley Los Angeles Basin, California, Buffalo Commons Plains States, USA and Yellowstone to Yukon or “Y to Y” plus there are many more.
Norman MacLeod of Washington explains that HR 5101 incorporates the legislative provisions of Section 481 of HR 2454 (the House version of the climate bill) and Section 6009 of the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill draft. These sections authorize a wildlife corridors information system. HR 5101 builds on this with implementation programs, mostly to be housed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Funding mechanisms and public-private structures are included. The bill has been referred to the House Natural Resources Committee.
This bill is intended to lead to the formal creation of several continental-scale wildlife corridor systems that include core habitat, connectivity, and buffer systems that will impact livelihoods, homes, ranches, farms, access to resources, outdoor recreation and more.
Buzzwords for a New Millennium
Biological diversity is a broad term which crops up in many environmental documents. It is used to define any kind of life form and its interrelation(s) to all the other life forms within any particular ecosystem a/k/a biome.
Bioregions, also known as biosphere reserves, are geo-political regions formed from land areas constituting similar ecosystems. The United Nations prefers the term “eco-regions,” and the Department of the Interior refers to them as Ecosystem Management Areas.
Under such a plan, areas that are now defined by state boundaries in the U.S., would be reorganized to follow similar landscape features. For example, the mountainous regions of Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Kentucky and West Virginia would constitute the Southern Appalachian Bioregion.
According to the enviro¬gurus, all human activity is damaging to a biosphere. Following that reasoning, they believe that people must be heavily regulated or removed in order to protect the balance of biodiversity within eco-regions.
First, a core area is established where no human activity is allowed. Core areas are the central component of the Wildlands Reserve program. Core areas are large and are taken mostly from National Forest and Park lands and adjacent private lands. Around the core is a buffer zone, consisting primarily of private land. Buffer zones may contain some housing development and human activity. According to the “grand plan,” however, no new development must be permitted. A transition area will surround the buffer zone. Human activity, such as tourism, or even some human settlement will be allowed. The transition area boundaries can be flexible. A corridor is an area of land that connects core areas with other core areas. Corridors generally follow rivers, streams and wildlife migration routes. Corridors consist of both public and private lands.
According to the Wildlands Project, no commercial development, housing or communities would be allowed within such a corridor. Imagine a national park that was 2,500 miles long, two counties wide and which passed through ten states from the Canadian border to the Gulf of Mexico. This is the Mississippi River Corridor, as designated by Congress. Numerous and costly studies will be made in this region in order to develop a unified federal program to control this ten-state area. Are you beginning to see how this plan will work?
There are sixty-eight other designated Heritage Areas and Corridors across our country in nearly every state of the Union. (this was true in 1999 – there may be more at this time)
THE ROAD RIP: Road Removal and Implementation Project
A common characteristic of core wilderness areas and interconnecting corridors is the absence of roads. Road RIP is an NGO dedicated to removing existing roads and preventing the construction of new roads. Since this paper was first written, many “road removal” projects have been implemented.
The original Road RIP radicals prepared handbooks for local activists that describe step-by-step procedures for challenging road construction and “Six Steps to Close a Road.” Sample letters, a comprehensive flow chart of the procedure and sample forms are provided to the organization’s chapters. The author of the work, Keith Hammer, is credited with forcing the Forest Service to remove or commit to remove more than 1,000 miles of roads in the Flathead National Forest.
The group is not content to close only roads in the national forests. Their ambitions run much higher. According to their literature:
“The best road density goal for maintaining and restoring ecological and evolutionary processes is ZERO—NO ROADS AT ALL. And what we call a road includes everything from interstate highways to two-track logging roads, off-road vehicle trails, and snowmobile routes. They are all swaths of ecological destruction.” And back to 1492 we go.
PRIVATE PROPERTY
In order for the Wildlands Project to be successful, thousands upon thousands of acres of private property need to be incorporated into biosphere reserves. Landowners were once free to use their land as they saw fit, as long as their actions did not harm other people. That changed with a 1972 decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. In Just v. Marinette County, the Court ruled that:
“An owner of land has no absolute and unlimited right to change the essential natural character of his land so as to use it for a purpose for which it was unsuited in its natural state. ”
Simply put, the Wisconsin ruling set a legal precedence that a property owner could not “harm” the land itself. Fortunately, following cases favored landowners although the legal definition of “harm” was expanded and modified.
The Wildlands Project and other environmental organizations now campaign to “educate” the courts and public what they consider to be inappropriate land uses that “harms” others. The arguments which the eco-activists have dreamed up are convoluted and complex. They claim that when wetlands are filled, others are harmed by excessive run off and by the loss of the run off to the aquifer. When private property is clear cut others are harmed by the loss of biodiversity and so on, ad nauseum. They know the legal game and play it well. If they don’t want you to have it (property), they will find a way to take (legally steal) it from you.
The Sweet Home decision is an excellent example of how the Supreme Court is expanding the definition of harm. It was based on the notion that landowners can harm the land itself, which in turn, would affect and harm people.
“Others” that are affected are often unidentified souls that may be indirectly impacted by the loss of some imagined benefit. This case has left the door wide open for government restrictions upon private property owners. A favorite scheme used to implement the Wildlands Project, is for the federal government to offer a variety of flexible conservation easements to property owners. The owner retains title to the property and continues to pay taxes on it even though specific uses of the property are relinquished to the easement holder. Further, they often receive a pittance for the rights they gave up and future generations are robbed of the property uses which were forfeited.
The Nature Conservancy and other land trusts have led the way in exploiting this technique of separating resource utilization from the bundle of rights which traditionally have been considered private property rights and other non-profits have learned those techniques.
From the Global to the National to the Local
It is no coincidence that an article about the Wildlands Project first appeared in the 1992 special issue of Wild Earth, * an EarthFirst! publication. After all, the United Nation’s Convention on Biological Diversity also took place that very same year, and come to think about it, so did the release of Al Gore’s book, Earth in the Balance.
Not surprisingly, one of Al Gore’s first acts as Vice President was to establish an Ecosystem Management Policy. This directive was implemented via various resource management agencies within our federal government. (It should be noted that the Sierra Club published a map of the new America, broken down into 18 bioregions. )
Codex Alimentarius Lecture by Ian R. Crane – 1 thru 9
Uploaded on Jun 20, 2008
1 of 9
Taken from ConCen:
Never heard of Codex Alimentarius? That’s exactly what they want!
The UN plan to eradicate organic farming & to destroy the Natural Health Industry.
With biting political analysis, Ian R. Crane probes the track record of those who openly crave the introduction of a One World hierarchical Government. He exposes the agenda of those who have presided over events leading directly to the launching of the illegal wars in Afghanistan & Iraq and who continually demonstrate their desire to perpetuate a state of permanent global conflict; whilst systematically eroding personal freedom, through the process of gradualism.
It’s amazing how little the liberal rhetoric has changed. Whenever there is an issue with policy or Federal encroachment on State sovereignty . They drag out the worn out race card and insults.
The amusing point to all this is that they believe themselves so intelligent and have such lofty impressions of themselves that they do not take the time to look at the people they are insulting. WE are made up of minorities, disillusioned Democrats, fed up environmentalists, disgusted working class Americans. And yet we are all ignorant rednecks with a racists agenda. LOL!!
The lines are getting old and the only thing they have accomplished is to expose their ignorance of the Law of The Land. Perhaps, they need a memorable lesson to assist in the assimilation of the necessary information to permeate those thick skulls. Not to mention a bit of air let out of those over bloated egos would be in order……
This according to the keepers of acceptable opinion at two divergent publications.
Both The Economist and the Montgomery Advertiser recently ran opinion pieces skewering nullification, specifically state efforts to block unconstitutional federal gun laws in Kansas and Alabama. Interestingly, both the author of The Economist piece and the editorial board over at the Alabama newspaper used the same strategy. They both try to make their readers believe anybody who actually views nullification as legitimate must not be too bright. Their implication? “The federal government enjoys absolute supremacy and a bunch of dumb racist, rednecks who don’t know anything about the U.S. government want states to ignore laws they don’t happen to like.”
From the Economist: “It is remarkable that a civics lesson like this is necessary.”
The Montgomery Advertiser editorial board gets even snarkier.
“That body (the Alabama Senate) has taken a plunge into the past by revisiting and embracing the long-discredited practice of nullification, the notion — abandoned decades ago by most people who passed sixth-grade civics.”
Talk about groupthink. Federal supremacists apparently find the whole “civics lesson” theme clever. I have to admit – it does effectively create the impression that nullification supporters wander around in ignorance among the illiterate and uneducated. But the mockery would prove even more effective if the writers actually knew what in the hell they were writing about.
Here’s the problem: these amateur historians actually think the three things they leaned in their government school sixth-grade civics class make them some kind of experts. They might want to move on from pre-civics to basic civics before they try demeaning those of us who actually know the historical and the philosophical basis for nullification.
Let’s touch on a few basics, shall we?
1. Federal Supremacy – These wanna-be historians actually think the federal government stands absolutely supreme all the time, no matter what. They apparently never bothered to put down the sixth-grade textbook and read the actual supremacy clause in the Constitution. If they did, they would find that only acts “in pursuance of” the Constitution stand supreme. Yes Virginia, federal supremacy actually has limits! Alexander Hamilton made this clear in Federalist 33.
“If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed….But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution.”
2. The extent of federal power – While we’re on the subject of limits, our civics professors apparently need a reminder. The federal government can’t just do whatever it wants. It operates under strict limits. The feds can only exercise powers delegated to it in the Constitution. James Madison described the extent of federal power in Federalist 45. He insisted that the powers delegated to the general government were “few and defined,” and those left to the states and people were “numerous and indefinite.” The ratifiers even insisted on a Bill of Rights “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers.”
3. Who decides constitutionality? - Federal supremacists sell you a load of crap. They want you to believe the people of the states created a federal government with limited, enumerated powers, insisted on further “declaratory and restrictive clauses” – the Bill of Rights - and then left it to that government to decide the extent of its own power. This idea not only earns them an F on their civics test, they also fail their logic test. Basically, these geniuses want the Dallas Cowboy player to referee the Dallas – New York Giants football game. How do you think that would turn out for the Giants?
Fact: the people of the states created the federal government in the first place. Therefore, the people of the states retain the right, in the last resort, to determine the extent of the powers they gave to the government they created. So yes, Kansas can determine what limits the Second Amendment places on federal regulation of firearms. Granted, this idea may fall into the realm of advanced civics, so maybe we should let a real expert explain it. How about we call on Madison, the “Father of the Constitution?”
“The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”
With a veto-proof majority, the Missouri legislature approved a popular bill protecting private property and due process rights by banning a deeply controversial United Nations “sustainability” scheme known as UN Agenda 21. The legislation, SB 265, now heads to Democrat Governor Jay Nixon, who has not yet taken a public position on the issue.
The effort to ban Agenda 21 in Missouri, widely celebrated by activists from across the political spectrum, comes in the wake of similar moves to stop the UN plan across America. In Alabama, for example, lawmakers in both houses unanimously approved a law last year prohibiting the international “sustainable development” agenda within the state. Numerous other states are working to do the same, and multiple legislatures have adopted strongly worded resolutions blasting the program.
In Missouri, the legislation was approved 24 to 9 in the GOP-controlled Senate last month. The Republican-dominated state House of Representatives, meanwhile, approved the bill 131 to 42 on May 8, also with a slight veto-proof majority. It remains unclear whether the governor will try to stop the legislation, sign it, or simply do nothing and let it quietly become law, according to news reports.
With lawmakers able to override any potential veto, activists who supported the effort are cautiously optimistic that the state government, as well as city and county authorities, will soon be prohibited by law from implementing the controversial UN agenda in Missouri. Liberty-minded legislators, responding to strong grassroots pressure from constituents, also say the law is needed to protect the rights of citizens.
The two-page legislation is short and simple. “Neither the state of Missouri nor any political subdivision shall adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to Agenda 21, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development,” the bill reads, defining political subdivisions as cities, counties, public-private partnerships, and other public entities.
If the legislation becomes law, the state government and all of its political subdivisions would also be barred from adopting or implementing any other “international law” or “ancillary plan of action” that contravenes the U.S. or Missouri constitutions. Lawmakers in the “Show-Me” State and around the country say such prohibitions are needed to protect citizens from unelected international bureaucrats seeking to impose their will on Americans — especially considering recent overt moves by the UN to broadly expand its powers on everything from guns and healthcare to the environment and welfare.
The Missouri bill ends with a ban on cooperating with UN allies involved in pushing the controversial agenda. “Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the state of Missouri and all political subdivisions are prohibited from entering into any agreement with, expending any sum of money for, receiving funds from, contracting services from, or giving financial aid to those nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21,” it states.
Day after day, the media pounds out a relentless drumbeat against nullification.
Pundits, commentators and so-called legal experts demonize it as unconstitutional, villainize it as racist and trivialize it with slurs like “wacky” and “kookie.”
But while the political class continues to arrogantly ridicule Madison and Jefferson’s principles, everyday Americans embrace them in increasing numbers.
A Rasmussen poll released Monday indicates that nullification is growing more and more popular in mainstream America. Pollsters found 38 percent support states taking actions to “block” federal acts that restrict the right to keep and bear arms. Less than half (45 percent) oppose blocking these unconstitutional federal acts.
Even more revealing: more people than not approve of nullification in general.
“On the general question of ‘nullification,’ 44 percent believe states should have the right to block any federal laws they disagree with on legal grounds. Thirty-six percent disagree and 20 are undecided,” pollsters said.
Digging into the numbers, we find even broader support for nullification where it really counts – on Main Street.
A majority of everyday politically engaged Americans support the general principle of nullification. According to the Rasmussen poll, 52 percent of mainstream voters think states should have the right to block any federal laws they disagree with on legal grounds.
Think about it. Even enduring constant demonization from the mainstream media and the political elite, most average American voters approve of nullification efforts.
Amazing!
“People are finally starting to understand and accept the concept of decentralization. Our message is mainstream now and we have hard data to prove it,” Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center state chapter coordinator Lesley Swann said.
So, where does the vast majority of opposition to nullification come from?
The political class.
You know, the guys calling it “ludicrous” and “demented.”
Seventy-four percent of those polled identifying with the political class oppose nullification. Of course, most of those folks don’t even think anything warrants nullifying. A whopping 80 percent of the political class indicated they think the government operates within constitutional limits. A majority (56 percent) of mainstream voters disagree with their assessment.
Note the term used: block. In other words, a majority of everyday Americans believe states can interpose (verb; be an obstacle to, BLOCK, break into, come between, force in, hinder, impede, infiltrate, infringe, inject, insert, intercalate, intercede, intercept, interfere, interject, intermeddle, intermediate, interrupt, intervene, introduce, intrude, mediate, obstruct, obtrude, parenthesize, penetrate, place between, prevent, put in, stand in the way, thrust in) to stop unconstitutional federal act.
Of course, James Madison made that case more than 200 years ago.
AUSTIN, TEXAS – Today, Rep. Matt Krause passed H.B. 928 on its third and final reading out of the Texas House of Representatives. H.B. 928 is the first bill Rep. Krause has successfully guided out of the chamber in his first term in office.
“There has been a lot of discussion on firearms and our rights as Americans in the wake of the recent mass killings in Colorado and Connecticut,” said Rep. Matt Krause. “H.B. 928 simply ensures that Texas will frame the discussion on these issues and that we will not aid the federal government in enforcing unnecessarily restrictive or punitive measures designed to keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.”
H.B. 928 would establish a new cooperative framework between Texas and the federal government solely as it relates to firearms. The bill declares that no state resources (i.e. law enforcement or any state or local agency) can be utilized for the enforcement of federal firearm regulations that do not also exist in state law. The bill also prohibits state resources from being deputized by the federal government for the express purpose of enforcing federal firearm regulations.
“My bill completely respects the federal government’s right and ability to make and enforce its own laws,” continued Rep. Krause. “Federal law is the supreme law of the land and H.B. 928 does nothing to refute that; however, my bill does make it clear that where federal laws do not align with state laws, Texas will not spend its resources and time enforcing those laws for them. The FBI or ATF is more than welcome to come to Texas and enforce those laws in which the federal government has overstepped the state, but our local and state tax dollars won’t be helping them.”
H.B. 928 instructs our state resources on their conduct while respecting the federal government’s ability and right to create and enforce its own laws.
“We love to call H.B. 928 the ‘Come and Take It’ bill, because it truly encompasses that mentality. Critics who claim that its ‘unconstitutional’ or wrongfully invoke ‘nullification’ are simply scared at how simple it is for a state to lawfully and meaningfully assert its sovereignty on an important issue such as the 2nd Amendment,” said Rep. Matt Krause.
The Texas House recently passed multiple gun measures designed to protect Texans from undesired, if not unconstitutional, federal gun laws. Two bills related to federal gun laws, HB 1076 and HB 928, are proceeding and at the time of this writing HB 1076 has passed the final vote in the Texas House, 100-47 and HB 928 has passed as well, 102-31. The bills seek to deny state and local resources for enforcement of federal gun laws and in support of this deny funding to state and local officials that do enforce federal gun laws.
Unfortunately, there is a wealth of misinformation published that obscures the legitimacy of this legislation. For instance, the Dallas Morning News makes numerous claims inconsistent with facts.
Key statements made in this article are incorrect and mislead the reader regarding the content and legitimacy of the bill’s language. Starting in the third paragraph, Ms. Hoppe begins her summary of a “proposal to nullify new federal gun control laws.”. This is in regards to Steve Toth’s HB 1076.
Ms. Hoppe states: “Those gun laws not already on the books in Texas couldn’t be enforced here under the sweeping and unadjudicated argument that they wouldn’t be constitutional under the Second Amendment.”
It is true that the legislation would reject local enforcement of federal laws. That is the point of the legislation in general. In contrast to the implication, it is very workable in practice as state laws would be put in place as needed. This allows the Texas legislature to draft gun laws that are consistent with the Texas Constitution.
However, Ms. Hoppe’s claim that the legislation challenges the constitutionality of any federal law is false. No such argument is being made regarding the Second Amendment. In HB 1076, Texas is merely refusing to participate in the local enforcement of federal gun laws. In fact, the constitutionality of the gun laws is neither challenged nor validated. They simply deny resources and manpower to enforcement. The Constitutionality of this bill from the federal perspective is clear. In Printz v. U.S., a 1997 Supreme Court case, Scalia rejected federal comandeering of state and local officers regardless of the constitutionality of the federal law. In other words, the federal government cannot, in any case, force states to uphold federal laws.
Ms. Hoppe states: “And for those cities or counties that tried to enforce a new federal gun law, their entities would lose any state grant money.”
True.
Next, Ms. Hoppe states: “Supporters of the bill said they worked with the attorney general’s office in shaping the so-called Firearms Protection Act. But other lawmakers — all of them Democrats — said the bill ignored the constitution, especially the supremacy clause that establishes federal laws override state ones.”
The supremacy clause is irrelevant in this case since there is no challenge to any specific federal gun laws. It’s just not part of the bill. However, it is worth pointing out the the suggestion made here, that federal law always trumps state law, is false as well. The supremacy clause is a not a blank check on power, it only applies to laws made in pursuance of the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Texas State Representative James White posted this to Facebook regarding the general misinterpretation of the Supremacy Clause:
Due to the social nature of this site, it may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit, to those who have expressed a prior interest in participating in this community for educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Any materials (ie. graphics, articles , commentary) that are original to this blog are copyrighted and signed by it's creator. Said original material may be shared with attribution. Please respect the work that goes into these items and give the creator his/her credit. Just as we share articles , graphics and photos always giving credit to their creators when available. Credit and a link back to the original source is required.
If you have an issue with anything posted here or would prefer we not use it . Please contact me. Any items that are requested to be removed by the copyright owner it will be removed immediately. No threats needed or lawsuit required. If there is a problem and you do not wish your work to be showcased then we will happily find an alternative from the many sources readily available from creators who would find it amenable to having their work presented to the subscribers of this feed.
Thank you for your time and attention, blessings to all :)
