Tag Archives: Agenda 21
This video is of a public meeting held on October 11, 2012, for GOP Senate leaders, hosted by Georgia Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers in the Gold Dome where he talked about President Obama’s “war on the suburbs.”
The invitation read to the meeting:
“How pleasant sounding names are fostering a Socialist plan to change the way we live, eat, learn, and communicate to ‘save the earth.'”
Agenda 21 Full Video from Bryan Long on Vimeo.
The International Conference on Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty, sponsored by American Freedom Alliance, concluded Monday in Los Angeles CA.
The chief question posed at the Conference’s opening: Is Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty the West’s next ideological war?
John Bolton, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN gave Sunday morning’s Keynote Speech. Ambassador Bolton spoke from first hand experience, sharing front line knowledge accumulated through years of engagement in international diplomacy. He not only gave definition to the term “the Global Governance Movement”, he also described its agenda, which is to subvert national sovereignty in favor of a supranational authority through the invention and initiation of international laws and norms.
After his speech, Ambassador Bolton welcomed Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for American Common Culture at the Hudson Institution, John Yoo, Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkley, Steven Groves, the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at the Heritage Institute’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, and Michael Shaw, guiding attorney for Freedom Advocates.org to the stage. The five elaborated intelligently on the consequences of increasing subservience by sovereign nations to the ideology of Global Governance. Both the political makeup and the ideological activism of the UN were indicted.
Following morning breakout sessions focused on:
- Non-governmental organizations as purveyors of Global Governance
- The Green Movement, Agenda 21, Global Warming alarmism and Global Governance
- Who will control the Internet and who will control the seas
The afternoon was kicked off by a Keynote Speech by President Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. President Klaus spoke directly of the prospects of Global Governance and its European variant, the European Union. Drawing upon his experience as a leader of a former Soviet bloc country, President Klaus warned against the threat of independent sovereign states surrendering control to an un-elected, unaccountable extra-national governing body in a distant capitol.
Larry Greenfield, National Executive Director of the Jewish Institution for National Security Affairs, invited Robert O’Brien, Managing Partner of the Los Angeles office of Arent Fox LLP, Donald Kochan, Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Elan Journo, a fellow in foreign policy at the Ayn Rand Institute into a discussion about the politicization of international law and its impact on national sovereignty. Global and international law were identified as both threats to and the means by which national sovereignty is undermined.
Subsequent to afternoon breakout sessions focusing on:
- The demonization/diminishment of the United States and Israel as a chief Global Governance strategy
- Law-fare, international humanitarian law and their role in undermining sovereignty
- The role of Islam in fostering and encouraging Global Governance
The Honorable John Howard, Australia’s 25th Prime Minister gave the day’s concluding Keynote Speech. The former Prime Minister discussed the concept of the nation state and why it still matters to countries that enjoy governance by popularly elected representative governments.
Sunday’s last panel, featuring President Klaus, Nonie Darwish, founder of Arabs for Israel, John Yoo and John Fonte discussed whether or not liberal democracies have the strength and will to defend their national sovereignty. The endurance of strong constitutions and distinct cultural identities were viewed as key elements in an ongoing uphill struggle by sovereign nation-states against the intrusions of Global Governance. Panelists considered these elements necessary to fending off the introduction and implementation of transnational ambitions by proponents of Global Governance.
The Conference reconvened Monday morning with a spirited discussion concerned with using the political process and judicial system to thwart and defeat Global Governance activism. A distinctly academic intellectual discussion about whether Constitutional Law was robust enough to prevent the political branches of government from violating the Constitution through treaties whose provisions conflict with constitutional guarantees was initiated by Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA School of Law. Professor Volokh gave an extensive portrayal of why the introduction of Sharia Law into the American judicial system is not threatening U.S. Constitutional rule of law. His observations were challenged by Larry Greenfield, Steven Groves and by John Yoo. Professor Volokh’s defense of his position was based primarily on viewing individual situations and circumstances as singular, isolated potential constitutional violations easily rationalized away by equating Islam’s ambitions to those of other, more benign religious institutions found in America. This approach was resounding rejected by Stephen Coughlin, a fellow of the American Freedom Alliance, who successfully portrayed the fallacy of ignoring the global dominance agenda openly preached and taught by proponents of Islamic global dominance under Sharia Law. Mr. Coughlin’s remarks received applause from Conference attendees.
After an address by Professor Mike Farris of Patrick Henry University on how Global Governance threatens the nuclear family through international laws and treaties, the Conference concluded with a reading of and discussion about the Conference Declaration.
The Declaration of Los Angeles: Sovereignty, Democracy and Individual Rights are Indivisible.
We, the undersigned, do hereby append our signatures to the statement below and declare:
THAT national sovereignty, constitutional democracy and the protection of individual rights are indivisible.
THAT constitutional democratic representative government is the most successful political system ever devised by the human mind.
THAT democratic self-government has only existed—and can only exist—within the sovereign liberal democratic nation state in which the people rule themselves.
THAT the principles of liberty, national independence and democratic self-government as articulated in Britain’s establishment of parliamentary democracy, the founding of the American republic, the establishment of the state of Israel, the achievement of dominion status in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the traditional national sovereignty of European democracies, and the continuing growth of liberal democracy in Asia, Latin America and Africa, are superior to any forms of global governance.
THAT the assertion of constitutional government’s obsolescence and decline is utterly false.
THAT while international cooperation should be encouraged and international treaties respected, no supranational authority which claims jurisdiction over liberal democratic states without the consent of the governed should be accepted.
THAT non-governmental organizations which purport to represent an international constituency do not have the legal or political authority to speak for the citizens of liberal democratic nation states, only democratically elected representatives have such legitimate democratic authority.
THAT the constitutions of our respective nations remain the supreme and inalienable law of our lands and if ever a conflict arises between our respective constitutions and any form of supranational authority (such as interpretations of international law, rulings of the United Nations, judgements of international courts, etc.), our Constitutions and constitutional principles will always prevail.
THAT we call on leaders of democratic nation states to reject the demands of transnational advocates to subsume domestic law to international law and stand together with us in upholding the principles of national sovereignty while rejecting the claims and arguments of global governance advocates.
European business activity fell in May, nearing a 35-month low, according to a survey by Markit. Its survey, based on European manufacturing and service sectors, fell to 45.9. The euro fell to a 22-month low against the dollar in response. Disagreement at Wednesday’s summit between European leaders about how to solve the dilemma did nothing to boost confidence.
Chris Williamson, chief economist for Markit, said research indicated the downturn had “gathered further momentum in May. The survey is broadly consistent with gross domestic product falling by at least 0.5% across the region in the second quarter, as an increasingly steep downturn in the periphery infects both France and Germany,”
Economic reports show that concerns over Greece are having a broader economic impact than originally expected. “It clearly indicates that the evaporating sentiment that we have seen in recent weeks, as the Greece crisis has intensified, is having a big impact on the economy” said Peter Dixon from Commerzbank.
Socialist President Hollande wants France to increase spending; a plan Chancellor Angela Merkel says Germany will oppose until there is more budget discipline across Europe.
Facing the reality that sovereign nations will retain and defend their own national views, interests and sovereignty is bad news for Globalists. New World Order proponents saw Establishment of the European Union and eurozone as an important step in the march towards their grand vision of One World Government.
Theorists within the “progressive” movement have envisioned such an eventuality since the early Twentieth Century. Woodrow Wilson, after winning re-election in 1916 on the campaign slogan: “He Kept Us Out Of War”, entered WWI in order to involve the United States in world affairs, thereby creating justification for his desire to establish the League of Nations.
While in Paris after the war, Wilson engaged in creation of the League of Nations while also helping shape the Treaty of Versailles. The Versailles Treaty resulted in economic devastation within Germany, leading to the rise of Adolph Hitler’s Nazi Germany. In 1919, Wilson and a Republican controlled Senate fought over giving the League of Nations power to force the U.S. into a war, a clear violation of Article One, Section Eight, Clause Ten of the United States Constitution, which assigns Power to declare War to the U.S. Congress. To the credit of Republicans in the Senate, they stood for U.S. sovereignty, rejecting the Treaty of Versailles, and voting against U.S. entry into the League of Nations.
Although the League of Nations proved completely impotent in the prevention of WWII, that didn’t deter “progressive” Globalists from forming the United Nations. The original aim of the UN was to keep peace throughout the world, develop friendly relations between nations, to help eliminate poverty, disease and illiteracy, stop environmental destruction and encourage respect for rights and freedoms. These aims were based on, among other principles, that all member states would have sovereign equality and that the UN was not to interfere in the domestic affairs of any country.
Pending before the United States Senate today are threats to U.S. national sovereignty:
The Convention on Biological Diversity, the Law of the Sea treaty, the International Labor Organization Convention No. 111, the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and other Related Materials, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.
Additionally, there’s Agenda 21, which dictates action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally in every area where humans directly affect the environment. If the Agenda 21 agenda doesn’t clearly describe the UN interfering in America’s domestic affairs, what would? The Law of the Sea treaty, if ratified, would grant the UN mineral rights within U.S. territorial waters. If that’s not a violation of national sovereignty, what is? Were the firearms treaty to be ratified, the UN would then have control over arms within the United States, an open violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
It’s time for Americans to stand up for national sovereignty and kiss the UN, Globalists and One World Government “progressives” goodbye. The best way to accomplish this is to do what Americans did in 1920 after Woodrow Wilson’s early attempt to violation American sovereignty. Elect Republicans in a landslide.
“In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” – Karl Marx, the Communist Manifesto
Most people at the Hampton Roads Convention Center were enthused to make Fort Monroe, Virginia a National Park, especially the Conservation Groups. An elderly lady demanded the federal government confiscate over two million acres of property surrounding National Parks to preserve them. The most disturbing comment came from a teenager. While describing his nature trip along the James River, he explained private property was the cause of the destruction of our beaches…the sound of freedom was slowly deflating from his future. One councilwoman provided three names John Mallory, Frank Baker and Sheppard Townsend for the youth to look up, she rather left out a vital lesson. Private property is actually the pillar of freedom; it allows us to make decisions without needing the authorization of someone else.
As it would be nice for Fort Monroe to become a National Park, it should not be done at the expense of confiscating private property. After reading Scott Rigell’s House Bill 2456 and Mark Warner and Jim Webb’s Senate Bill 1303, there are questions of whether property ownership is being infringed. Most of the maps did not have a north beach in Hampton and the bill referred to the map. So, one can only assume that lines are drawn but is private property being taken?
“Now what liberty can there be where property is taken without consent?” – Samuel Adams
While our city councils pursue their global goals at their constituents’ expense, the question is whether they respect our property rights. As they make decisions on the regional level and follow international direction, it’s sad to say that they do not.
One of the objectives of United Nations Agenda 21 is to eliminate private property. These UN practices are active within the Hampton Roads Region and across the nation. The citizens of this nation use to exercise “government run by the people,” but now our neighbors, who we elect, have taken the role of “governance of the people.” As we move toward a Global Community, the President has given an executive order to assist rural areas in their fundamental transition.
On June 9, 2011, he signed Executive Order 13575 that establishes “a council to better coordinate Federal programs and maximize the impact of Federal investment to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in our communities.” This Council consists of 25 Federal agencies to include the Department of Defense, Homeland Security and the Department of Education to name a few. Why would these agencies be needed in rural America? As sixteen percent of population is in rural America, the language used in this Executive Order is consistent with some used by Agenda 21. Its intentions are to place the populations within allowable regions. This is known as “The Wildlands Project.” Whether we are at this stage or not is beyond me, but the intentions is to restrict human activity to certain regions in the nation.
“Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.” – John Adams
Property rights is the foundation of freedom and without it, we are slaves. It allows people to make decisions about their own property; no need for a committee, paperwork or fees. Just do it. These rights do not stop at your property lines, they entail your businesses, your family and whatever other possessions you may have. Without private property and mainly property rights, liberty does not exist.
“The rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated” – James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention, 1829
As our neighbors who were elected as Mayors and city council have become masters of the soviets. We were taught the atrocities of communism, the bad things that it and fascism did to their people. Our children are taught to idolize Che Guevara and Mao Zedong and are not exposed to the evils of people who studied and practiced Karl Marx such as Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Vladmir Lenin, Benito Mussolini and even Adolf Hitler.
“The Utopian schemes of re-distribution of the wealth…are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown.” – Samuel Adams
If anyone wishes to discuss important slave history with our children, they should start with the importance of private property rights. Then our children, such as the young teenager who spoke at the Fort Monroe public forum, would truly understand the meaning of freedom. If our children do not understand that, they do not understand freedom. Once you no longer have these rights, freedom no longer exists because you have nowhere to go…except someone else’s property.
Maruice Strong and his Earth Charter crap came from Agenda 21. They intend it to be a new religion. A religion where men like himself and those in the United Nations control the entire world. The Earth Charter is intended, as Strong said, to be the new “ten commandments”. To understand the Earth Charter, first understand Agenda 21.
- an end to national sovereignty
- abolition of private property
- elevation of nature over humanity
- and much more socialist bologna that just .. makes .. me … sick
And here’s a video that lays it out.