Posts tagged United Nations
By Cheryl Pass
UN Agenda 21′s Sustainability: Now It’s Being Pushed At Biltmore Estates
If you have never been to the Biltmore, you have missed seeing a glorious example of architecture and landscape from the heady days of our growing economy in the late 1800′s and early 1900′s. The Vanderbilt fortune built this place for family enjoyment, entertaining, and to house a collection of beautiful art and history pieces. I loved to go there years ago. Truly, it is gorgeous and one of my favorite places in North Carolina. Now they are pushing the “Sustainability” ideology to tourists and as you can see, students. They have also wrecked part of the landscape with a large section of solar panels. It’s a shame. Et tu Biltmore?
Almost every day another friend of mine sends me copies of email invitations he gets for LEED green business symposiums for “Sustainability.” Wherever you look, the word “Sustainability” shows up on advertising, products, school curricula, foods, energy bills, real estate, and more. Are you sick of it yet???
I wonder what the human condition is that causes a herd of people to stampede toward self-destruction. A word, “Sustainability,” has become a drug fix for something so obtuse, stupid and wrong. What would cause a person to allow a faux religion based on nonsense restrict their ability to live as prosperously as possible? Granted, we have seen cults commit suicide, so there is something to this. I am watching an entire society jump onto a death wagon, and doing so with such misguided enthusiasm as to not be believable.
I observe the people promoting the ideology of shrinking life expectations are some of the wealthiest. Those same people are hardly living what they are preaching. They are not shrinking their own life expectations. But they sure are happy preaching this nonsense to children and the poor mental midgets with good intentions who want to buy into something that will make them “feel good.” What makes a person feel good about telling the rest of society that they must lower their life-styles? Instead of telling our children they should shoot for the moon and become as successful as they can, Common Core is telling our school children they should feel guilty about living, procreating, and using resources to support their lives….they MUST be “Sustainable.” They are separating our children from the future guaranteed in the Constitution, the American Dream. And using the false doctrine of “Sustainability” to do it.
In case you think I am saying everyone can own a Biltmore Estate, which is not what I am saying. But I am saying it is very wrong to tell children they can’t even aspire to the mid level success of suburbia. That is what “Sustainability” teaches…that the “affluent middle class is ‘unsustainable.’ “Check Maurice Strong for that quote. What are we doing to our children? Do I want to go give Biltmore my money to tour there anymore? No. Don’t use my money to wreck our children’s futures.
State Legislature Truth Updates April 5, 2013
Last week in the Tennessee General Assembly, House bills requiring labeling of GMO foods and seeds were deferred until 2014. House Subcommittees are shutting down for the year, while Committees finish hearing bills as the legislature prepares to begin budget discussions.
This week, a bill prohibiting United Nations representatives from monitoring elections in Tennessee failed in the House Civil Justice Subcommittee. A bill making evidence obtained by drones inadmissible in court, except when a warrant is obtained or in exigent and authorized exceptions, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously. The bill authorizes civil suits against law enforcement agencies to prevent or stop violations of the legislation.
Several tax bills are moving forward. The House unanimously passed a bill reducing the sales tax on food ¼ of a % saving about $25 million a year which is about $3.50 per individual. This makes the State portion of sales tax on foods 5%. A bill raising the Hall income tax exemption levels for senior citizens in 2013 from $16,200 to $33,000 for single filers and from $27,000 to $59,000 for joint filers passed the Senate Tax Subcommittee. Tennessee has the highest beer tax rate in the nation. The Beer Tax Reform Act of 2013 removes the wholesaler beer tax of 17% replacing it with a flat tax of $35.60 per barrel. The legislation is moving forward in both the House and Senate.
The Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 2013 passed the House Finance, Ways and Means Committee and is headed to the floor next week. The state workers’ compensation system was established in 1919. Tennessee is one of only two States to adjudicate workers’ compensation claims in the trial courts, causing medical costs related to workers’ compensation to be some of the highest in the nation. The overhaul is suppose to make the system more efficient by allowing allow workers to receive benefits faster and return to work sooner. The bill has already passed the Senate 28-2, with Blount County Senator Doug Overbey voting against it.
A bill allowing State legislators to nominate their parties candidate for general elections of US Senators was taken off notice. This bill attempted to partially return the process of selecting Senators back to State legislature. The 17th amendment to the US Constitution allegedly ratified 100 years ago, requires popular election of US Senators, although some States were already doing this prior to the amendment. A copy of the State Legislative Journals documenting the ratification process of the 17th amendment in Tennessee is available at www.bcpublicrecord.com. This reporter visited the Tennessee State Library and Archives to obtain documentation of Tennessee’s ratification process for the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments to the federal Constitution and is happy to share those documents.
This is Tona Monroe with Blount County Public Record. I am delighted to bring you these weekly State legislative updates and thank Truth Radio for the opportunity. For more information on these bills, visit www.bcpublicrecord.com.
By Alex Newman
Following Alabama’s lead, lawmakers in the Oklahoma House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to approve popular legislation protecting private-property rights and banning a controversial United Nations “sustainable development” scheme known as Agenda 21, which critics say represents a serious threat to American values and liberty. If approved by the Senate as expected, the law would also prohibit state and local governments from working with the UN or its affiliates to implement any sort of “international law” that violates the U.S. or Oklahoma constitutions.
The bill, H.B. 1412, was passed in the state House last week on a bipartisan vote, with a Republican-led coalition of 67 supporting the legislation against 17 Democrats who opposed the measure. It originally passed out of the States’ Rights Committee in late February and is now in the state Senate, where a broad coalition of activists — supporters of national sovereignty, private property, the Constitution, individual liberty, Tea Party groups, and more — is working to ensure its passage.
Of course, Oklahoma is just the latest state to take action against the highly controversial UN plan, which calls for a transformation of human civilization under the guise of promoting so-called “sustainability.” In May of last year, Alabama became the first state to officially ban UN Agenda 21 after a law to protect private property and due process rights was signed by Gov. Robert Bentley. The wildly popular bi-partisan legislation was approved unanimously in both houses of the state legislature.
Before that, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Tennessee adopted a resolution blasting the dubious UN agenda as a radical “socialist” plot at odds with individual liberty, private-property rights, and the U.S. Constitution. Lawmakers in Kansas followed suit. Numerous other state governments, under heavy pressure from activists across the political spectrum, are also working to ban the “sustainable development” scheme in their jurisdictions. City and county governments, meanwhile, are taking action to protect residents, too.
In Oklahoma, lawmakers said legislation was needed to defend citizens and their rights from the UN scheme as well. Despite having never been ratified by the U.S. Senate as required by the Constitution, supporters of the bill explained, officials at all levels — especially the federal executive branch, mostly using unconstitutional “grants” and decrees — have been quietly working to implement the controversial 1992 international agreement across America.
“House Bill 1412 is a short little bill, barely two pages long; it deals with a big topic though, protecting personal property rights,” noted Republican Rep. Sally Kern, who sponsored the legislation in the Oklahoma House. “This bill is specifically dealing with the intrusion of our government into personal property rights that has been happening for the last 20 years and is getting worse through the Agenda 21 of the UN, their sustainable development program.”
Rep. Kern pointed out that as many as 10 federal agencies under multiple U.S. administrations — George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama most recently — have been working to implement the UN scheme. She also offered numerous examples of the agenda being foisted on Oklahoma, noting that other states have passed similar legislation to protect citizens as well.
A handful of Democrats, apparently ignorant about UN Agenda 21, sounded confused during the questioning session on the House floor, asking bizarre questions such as whether or not cities would be barred from building bike lanes. Rep. Kern answered well. While noting that it is important to protect the environment, Kern said Oklahoma should not be subservient to outside forces — plus, as countless analysts have pointed out, Agenda 21 has little to do with protecting nature anyway.
“One of the goals of the United Nations Agenda 21 Initiative is to influence governments,” Kern explained. “My constituents are concerned about that influence and about their property rights being infringed upon by government regulations that originated from Agenda 21. My legislation addresses those concerns by protecting individual property rights.”
Kern said it was “very easy” to see what was going on and which organizations were linked to the controversial global plan, urging fellow lawmakers to do some research and check out the UN website itself. “You can go and look up the President’s Council on Sustainable Development,” she added, singling out ICLEI — formerly known as the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives — as one of the UN-linked groups working to foist the controversial “sustainability” plan on America and the world.
The ultimate UN plan was outlined and agreed to by national governments and dictatorships worldwide at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro. “Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts (sic) on the environment,” the UN admits on its website, sparking suspicions from analysts who point out that virtually every aspect of human existence has some “impact” on the “environment.”
When one realizes that the UN considers carbon dioxide — a gas exhaled by humans and necessary to plant life — to be a pollutant, the true scope of the global agenda becomes clear. Plus, as the UN admits in its documents, the global organization believes private ownership of land should be curtailed. Other official papers and statements reveal that the UN is seeking a “complete transformation” of the global economy in ways that are completely at odds with national sovereignty, individual liberty, American traditions of self-governance, and more. Even individuals’ thoughts are in the crosshairs, according to UN documents.
The Oklahoma bill passed by the House last week reads: “The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe upon or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to United Nations Agenda 21/Sustainable Development.” Also prohibited under the measure is state or local government participation in “any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Oklahoma Constitution.”
The legislation also ensures that state and local governments are barred from working with UN-linked groups promoting the controversial agenda. “Since the United Nations has accredited or enlisted numerous nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to United Nations Agenda 21/Sustainable Development around the world, the state and all political subdivisions of the state shall not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, receive funds contracting services or give financial aid to or from any nongovernmental or intergovernmental organizations accredited or enlisted by the United Nations,” the bill continues.
Unsurprisingly, a few members of the increasingly discredited establishment press sought to demonize or ridicule supporters of the legislation, variously claiming that opposition to Agenda 21 was either a “conspiracy theory” or that the UN scheme is harmless. It remains unclear why supporters of the UN plot continue to falsely allege that opponents consider it a “conspiracy” — a conspiracy is secret by definition, and the global organization has documents about Agenda 21 and the goals all over its website.
Analysts have also pointed out that if, as some proponents of the scheme claim, the UN agenda is non-binding and does virtually nothing, such fiendish opposition to laws protecting private property and due process would seem bizarre, almost ludicrous. However, despite half-baked efforts by the UN and its allies to vilify opponents of Agenda 21, it appears that grassroots pressure within both parties is having a significant effect.
The Oklahoma legislation to ban Agenda 21 will be assigned to a state Senate committee soon — probably within the week, according to sources in the legislature. If it eventually passes, as analysts and lawmakers widely expect, the bill would go to Republican Governor Mary Fallin to be signed into law. The governor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Truth. Justice. Accountability. The idea of an international rule of law appeals to our innate sense of justice, but the most horrific plans are often cloaked in the most beautiful lies. Just as the ideals of international law are used to cloak the imperial ambitions of the globalists, so too is the idea of seeking justice in these controlled courtrooms a phoney pipe dream. Join us today on The Corbett Report as we explore the only real solution to this problem: removing the bodyguard of lies from the power elite and to withdrawing ourselves from the systems that seek to legitimize their rule.
Christina Tobin of Free & Equal interviews Amber Lyon, Emmy Award winning journalist and whistle blower. Free & Equal has been on the fore front against the limited choices that We The People have been stuck with thanks to the two party duopoly sitting in D.C. Please visit Free & Equal and support their actions as best you can. The lead in and interview to follow.
Emmy Award-Winning Whistle Blower Amber Lyon Broke Away from CNN; Here’s Her Side of the Story!
Free & Equal empowers people to demand liberty, honesty and integrity from those they vote for. Amber Lyon is encouraging Americans to demand the same from journalists. Together, honest journalism and open elections can transform America – and that change is already beginning.
Amber Lyon, a three-time Emmy award-winning journalist, became famous during the Arab Spring, when she reported on Bahrain’s human rights violations and couldn’t get CNN to air certain stories; she investigated further and discovered that CNN was in fact was taking money from dictators worldwide in exchange for content.
Since Amber Lyon was fired after over a year of conflict with her bosses, she has been pursuing her vision of journalism by acting “as a watchdog of government and a muckraker, not a puppet.”
Free & Equal is dedicated to supporting integrity like Amber’s by uniting all honest media, musicians, authors, leaders, and providing support for grassroots movements and causes, including breaking the stranglehold of the two-party system.
Free & Equal’s next two podcasts will feature Intellectual Revolution’s Ty Loomis and Matt McKinney (www.intellectualrevolution.tv). Then 2012 Presidential Candidates -Gov. Gary Johnson of Libertarian Party (www.garyjohnson2012.com) and Jill Stein of the Green Party (www.jillstein.org). Stay tuned!
Creating honest media can only be done with the help of people who are tired of mainstream misdirection.
You can subscribe to the Free & Equal podcast through iTunes directly or through Podomatic at this link. You also can listen to the show through the Free & Equal mobile app currently available for the Android device and soon to be available for iPhone.
By Daniel Howden
African mission plea for more firepower after being humiliated by rebel advance in DRC
The United Nations is considering using unmanned drones in its peacekeeping operations for the first time, as it seeks to strengthen its forces in eastern Congo.
The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, is pushing for the deployment of drones in a diplomatic battle in New York that could have far-reaching implications for the future of international peacekeeping.
The proposal to use the unarmed intelligence-gathering drones has the backing of council members the US, UK and France but faces opposition from China and Russia. Rwanda, which holds one of the council’s rotating seats, and is accused of meddling in its larger neighbour, is also determined to block the move.
Monusco, the UN’s mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the largest of its kind, was humiliated last year after first vowing to prevent armed rebels from taking the regional capital before standing aside and allowing them to march into Goma.
The M23 rebels routed the Congolese national army, despite its support from UN forces. Rwanda allegedly lent direct military support to the rebel offensive, according to a report by a UN group of experts.
Congo analyst Jason Stearns said drones could be a “technical fix” to one of the key problems: “monitoring meddling by neighbouring countries and gathering information about security developments in the vast interior of the country.”
The UN’s peacekeeping head, Herve Ladsous, has been pushing for the organisation’s creaking and poorly supplied missions to be modernised and has threatened to name and shame under-performing troop contingents. This week, he told the Security Council that the Congo mission needed more helicopters, night-vision equipment, river units and drones.
Rwanda has opposed the move, saying it does not want Africa to become a laboratory for foreign intelligence devices. Olivier Nduhungirehe, a Rwandan diplomat at the UN, said his country would oppose the use of drones, calling for further assessment of how they would be used: “We express reservations about the introduction of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) to peacekeeping operations when the issues that go along with it are still being discussed,” he told the state-owned media in Rwanda.
The government in Kigali has repeatedly denied allegations that it commands the M23 rebels and rejected evidence from UN experts. The use of UAVs in Congo’s remote border areas would settle the argument and make it impossible for large-scale supply operations to be kept secret.
The UN, which has 17,000 troops and 1,400 police deployed in sub-Saharan Africa’s largest country at an annual cost of $1.5bn, has been considering drones since 2009, when it asked the US for the technology and was refused. The cost of UAVs has fallen dramatically in the past five years and the Pentagon has lost its monopoly on the technology with countries from Belgium to Pakistan manufacturing them.
The first UN drone deployment faces significant opposition from veto-wielding China and Russia who have concerns over the security of the intelligence gathered.
By Paul Howe
I have quietly watched and evaluated the in pouring of e-mails reference the liberal’s intent to seize guns and crush the second amendment. I want to add a few of my own thoughts on this issue as I have worked in and around all the people who could be tasked to seize your guns.
WHO’S COMING TO GET THEM?
United Nations (UN)
We are the UN. Other countries mostly join the U.N. to secure money, funding and training and few have any offensive combat capability. Most serve as guards at static locations and have no will to fight. America is the enforcement arm of the U.N. We have the money, equipment, personnel and lift platforms to get the job done.
If the president ever let the U.N. in this country, it would be a foreign invasion and armed Americans would stand up and crush them in a day. Our government would break down and the president would be ousted for letting foreign militaries invade our country.
Federal Government Military
Having served over 20 years in our military, I know that most soldiers would refuse the order to take part in the confiscation of weapons. First, the president would have to give the order, which is an “Illegal Order” in violation of the constitution. I don’t believe that service members would go back into the communities that raised them and conduct raids on good Americans in violation of the constitution.
Remember, these forces would have to come from a military base that is surrounded and supported by American communities. Civilians would simply cease to support the bases and they would fold in a short time. Cut of the fuel, food, electricity on bases and this would stop the silliness. Also, many, many service members live in the communities and they would have to travel from their houses to base unless they were locked down. In that case, their families would still be in the community and people would not be too friendly to those supporting these actions.
Federal Government DHS or TSA
The Federal government is not large enough or talented enough to seize guns. If they were to do 5-8 raids a day seizing guns, they would be physically and mentally exhausted and need a break. Physically conducting raids is exhausting. After the first few raids, the word would get out and Americans would start to fight back. It would take one good ambush from a house or along a travel route to decimate a tactical force or make it combat ineffective
Next, most Federal Agencies work out of a fixed location centrally located in a community. Also, their personnel live in those communities along with their families. Once the word got out that they were doing raids in violation to the constitution, they and their families would be at risk. If they were to start raiding houses, kicking in doors and breaking in windows looking for legally owned guns, their homes would be subject to the same treatment by Americans rising up to defend themselves. They would shortly find themselves without a place to live.
State Law Enforcement
The Governor would have to order State and Local Law Enforcement to either:
- Seize guns
- Ignore the Federal Orders
If they ignore the Federal Orders, things would be tense, but people would be civil. If they started to seize guns, they only have limited people and assets to do this. Much the same consequences would take place as with the Federal Government.
Local Law Enforcement
Local Police and Sheriff Departments are the backbone of who protects American Citizens. A Sheriff or Chief of Police would have to give the order for his people to begin to seize weapons. Their people would either comply or see it as an illegal order and refuse.
Remember, Chiefs and Sheriff’s also have to live and work in the same communities they serve. As I described with the Federal Government, local Tactical Teams could probably only do 8-10 hits in a day and then need a break. So they hit ten houses and seize their guns, the word would get out and now they are subject to living in the same community as those they are attacking. It would not go well. Also, after one or two determined Americans or combat vets fought back, the team would lose many to death or injury and they would have made a decision whether to continue to push the fight. Remember also, they have to sleep sometime. Their homes and families would be at risk. It is an ugly scenario at best.
Nation of Combat Veterans and Patriots
Having been at war for over 10 years, we have a nation of combat vets and contractors that have seen more action than many of our WWII vets. It has been said that only a small percentage of Americans stood up to the British War machine in the Revolutionary War. Americans are better armed and trained today than at any time in our nation’s history. Think about what would happen if just our nation’s veterans stood up. People have been buying more guns and ammunition in the past five years than any time in my life. The guns and ammunition are out there along with the talent to use them.
Kool-Aid Drinkers is the term I use to describe the Jonestown voluntarily massacre where the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project, a dedicated community western Guyana by the Peoples Temple led by cult leader Jim Jones intentionally drank poison Kool-Aid. Over 900 people died.
In every law enforcement, government and military agency or branch, there are a small number of Kool-Aid drinkers who would blindly follow orders. They would either be purged internally by their co-workers or people they attacked would stop their gene pool.
Also, at the police tactical team level, all members “volunteer” for the job and they can have the individual integrity to terminate their team service at any time if their profession becomes corrupt or misguided. I know many a good officer that has done that in the past.
Finally, there would be a certain number of American Kool-Aid drinkers that would turn in their weapons if asked. I believe it would be a small percentage as there are always those that do not have the will to resist or fight and they are not needed should thing get tough.
History of “Gun-Free Zones”
Our nation’s history is filled with examples of “gun-free” zones failed.
The Aurora Colorado movie massacre and the recent Connecticut shooting are two that come to mind. Also, remember the Fort Hood massacre where an Islamic extremist Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 soldiers because our military bases are gun free zones. Combat trained soldiers had to be rescued by a security guard. That is embarrassing.
Evil came to all of these places and everyone was disarmed and not ready to fight back because they were gun free zones.
Think what would happen at a national level if the American people were disarmed. Another evil would come along either from inside our country or outside of it and resulting in our downfall.
How about others in recent history:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
Write your state representatives and let them know how you feel about this issue. I would like to think that most states would refuse the order.
Next, at the local level, talk to your Sheriff or Chief of Police and ask them if they would allow or support the federal government in their confiscation of firearms. Put them on the spot now and hold them accountable. I like to think that most states would refuse the order.
Should firearm confiscation begin, solutions are simple. If they cannot live in a community, they cannot work in a community. If their house goes away while they are at work confiscating guns, so be it. Allow them to leave with their family and what possessions they can pack in their car. Point them to California and let them know all the Hollywood types would be happy to financially support them in the fantasy land they wish to live in and that they are not welcome in Free America.
In the end I believe that guns are the glue that hold our country together. Guns keep the government in check and the individual American safe and free. Remove guns and the government will no longer be controlled by the people. The government will control the people.
Finally, it is claimed that the Battles of Lexington and Concord, in 1775 were started because General Gage attempted to carry out an order by the British government to disarm the population resulting in the “Shot heard round the world.”
About the Author
Paul R. Howe is a 20-year veteran and former Special Operations soldier and instructor. He owns Combat Shooting and Tactics (CSAT), where he consults with, trains and evaluates law enforcement and government agencies in technical and tactical techniques throughout the special operations spectrum. See www.combatshootingandtactics.com for details.
Image added to original post.
Written by Andrew Puhanic
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an organisation established in 1921 by the global elite, has publicized what it believes to be the challenges that need to be overcome to establish World Government in 2013.
In summary, the Council on Foreign Relations has sought the opinion of four Globalists from around the world on what are the greatest challenges the world faces that would prevent the formation of World Government in 2013.
- Richard N. Haass – President, Council on Foreign Relations (2012). Bilderberg Group (2005)
- Yang Jiemian – Trilateral Commision Member (2010)
- Igor Yurgens – Chairman of the Management Board, Institute of Contemporary Development, Russian Federation (2012)
- Michael Fullilove – Executive Director of the Lowy Institute for International Policy (2012)
Astonishingly, these Globalists claim that the emergence of World Government will not occur if the following 7 ‘challenges’ are not overcome 2013.
1) The world needs to establish shared responsibility for the most intractable problems of our post-unipolar world. Therefore, for World Government to become a reality, China needs to play a greater role as a global power.
2) To implement World Government, it is essential to strengthen organisations like the United Nations, World Trade Organisation, International Monetary Fund and the G20.
3) Major powers need to begin engaging less prominent countries so that both major and minor players in the global political landscape can further the “networked governance” principle. Essentially, the key to World Government in 2013 is for all countries to enter into new mindsets and functioning mechanisms.
4) Globally, trade needs to be more regulated. In 2013, government subsidies should be tackled at the global level as opposed to regional or bilateral level.
5) The World needs to begin harnessing regional efforts into common action on a global level. Discouraged by the stalemate of global governance building, many countries and regions are now turning to regional and sub-regional integration, which explains why we are seeing more regional and sub-regional free-trade agreements.
If such a trend cannot be reversed in a timely fashion, then there will be no World Government in its real sense.
7) The deterioration of the political landscape in the Middle East has challenged the principles of World Government. Also, the inability of the international community to cope with this region’s challenges threaten to also undermine the establishment of a World Government.
These blueprints published by the Council on Foreign Relations for the establishment of World Government come at a time when the world’s political leaders are beginning to warm to the idea of a World Government.
Recently, the President of the European Council revealed a desire for the European Union and Russia to contribute to the development of World Government.
Herman Van Rompuy was quoted at the 30th EU-Russia Summit as saying:
By working together, the EU and Russia can make a decisive contribution to global governance and regional conflict resolution, to global economic governance in the G 8 and G20, and to a broad range of international and regional issues.
The push for World Government by institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations, the European Union and the Vatican are worrying signs that what the world has feared for many years might come to fruition in 2013.
Image credit and more information at: Globalist Report
By Jacob G. Hornberger
It’s no big surprise. A gun massacre brings out the gun-control crowd, which loudly demands that gun control be imposed on the American people, as if that would have prevented the massacre in Connecticut.
It’s really a shame to have to trot out the same arguments exposing the fallacies of statist thinking, but, alas, it must be done.
First, murderers don’t and won’t obey gun-control laws. If they don’t comply with murder laws, they’re not going to comply with gun-control laws.
The people who comply with gun-control laws are peaceful, law-abiding types who are now denied the right to defend themselves from the murderers. Why do peaceful, law-abiding people obey gun-control laws while murderers don’t. Because the former don’t want to be convicted felons, while the latter don’t care.
After all, don’t forget that it was illegal for the shooter in Connecticut to carry guns onto school property. No doubt much to the surprise of statists, he didn’t say, “Golly, even though I want to murder all those children, I can’t do it because it’s illegal for me to carry my gun onto school property.”
Second, gun-control laws won’t eliminate guns from society, any more than drug laws have eliminated drugs from society. Given the millions of guns in existence, along with continued manufacture of guns all over the world, all that gun control would do is convert the business of owning guns into a black-market enterprise. That means gun gangs, gun cartels, robberies, muggings, and all the other things that come into existence with a black market. If you like the war on drugs, you’ll love the war on guns.
Let’s now address a more fundamental issue, one that statists can never consider given their inability to think outside the statist box in which they have been born and raised.
The Connecticut massacre took place in a public school or, to put it more accurately, in a government school. That’s a place where parents are forced by law to send their children. If they don’t send their children into this governmental system, they are arrested, charged, and incarcerated. They might even have their children taken away from them for “incompetence” or “abuse.”
Sure, there are two alternatives for parents — private schools and homeschooling. But for the vast majority of parents, those are not viable options. Private schools, which have to secure a license from the government to operate, are too expensive, especially for a vast number of families that also are required by law to pay school taxes even if they decline to send their children into the public-school system. Other parents do not feel competent to homeschool or are unable to do so for other reasons, such as the need to have two incomes.
So, that leaves a large segment of families being forced to send their children to these state institutions from the time they are six years old.
Along with the regimentation and indoctrination that comes with the government being in charge of children’s education comes another distinguishing characteristic: These institutions are mandatory gun-free zones. That is, teachers and principals are prohibited by law from carrying a gun onto school property. I’d be willing to bet that there is a 99 percent compliance rate because most teachers and principals don’t want to be convicted felons and they want to keep their jobs.
So, consider the situation: The state forces parents to send their children into state institutions in which there are already gun-control laws — that is, laws that make it illegal for people to carry weapons onto the premises. The peaceful and law-abiding people obey the gun law. The murderer, knowing that everyone is defenseless, doesn’t obey the gun law.
Now, obviously most parents aren’t going to even question the horror in this. That’s because public schooling is a part of their lives. They went to public schools. So did their friends. For them, public schools mean “freedom,” even though they have a hard time explaining how it is that public (i.e., government) schooling is a core feature of communist and socialist countries like Cuba, North Korea, and China.
So, does that mean that the solution is to let public-school teachers and administrators carry guns to school? Not for us libertarians. We have no interest in telling the state how to run its schools. For us, public schooling is an inherently immoral and destructive institution. It should be dismantled completely, in favor of a total free market in education. See The Future of Freedom Foundation’s book Separating School and State: How to Liberate America’s Families by Sheldon Richman.
A free market in education would put families, not the state, in charge of their children’s education. Some people would choose schools that are not gun-free zones. Others would choose schools that are. The same principle of freedom of choice would apply to a vast array of other things – schools that are general in nature and others that specialize in things like music, religion, math, liberal arts, or science. Some parents would choose to have their children be educated without schools.
But the point is that in a free market, people are able to get what they want, as compared to having the state force it upon them and their children. As things stand now, most families have no effective choice at all — the state forces them to send their children into a gun-free institutions where their children are defenseless against murderers.
As the gun-control debate gets ramped up once again, there’s another thing to consider: the permanent culture of violence that the U.S. military empire and national-security state have brought to our nation. For decades, we have heard about how U.S. forces abroad have killed wedding parties, families, old people, and, yes, children. Oftentimes, there is the standard expression of regret by U.S. officials, but a callous mindset of conscious indifference to human life has, slowly but surely, been inculcated into the American people, at least with respect to Muslims and Arabs.
Consider, for example, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children whom the U.S. government killed with its 11 years of brutal sanctions against Iraq. When U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright was asked by “Sixty Minutes” whether the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children were worth it, she responded that yes, they were indeed “worth it.”
That mindset was really no different in the invasion of Iraq. When the bogus WMDs failed to materialize, U.S. officials said that their new primary objective was to bring “democracy” to Iraq. So, rather than exiting the country after failing to find those bogus WMDs, they stayed, killing countless more Iraqis. The mindset that justified the continued killing and mayhem was the same that undergirded the sanctions — that any number of deaths of the Iraqi people was considered “worth it” — worth the political goal of establishing “democracy” in the country.
How can that mindset of callous indifference toward the sanctity of human life not be transmitted to the American people, especially given the faith that so many Americans place in their federal officials?
For more on this, see my January 2011 article “The Banality of Evil,” which was written in the wake of the Arizona shootings and which applies just as well today.
Finally, let us never forget the primary reason that gun ownership is so important. It is an essential prerequisite to a free society because it enables people to oppose the tyranny of their own government. History has shown that when the military and the police have a monopoly over the ownership of guns, freedom doesn’t exist long in those societies. People must obey whatever edicts are issued by government officials and they must submit to whatever government officials do to them. As Judge Alex Kozinsky put it in his dissenting opinion in the case of Silveira vs. Lockyer, giving the government a monopoly over the ownership of guns is a mistake that people can make only once. It becomes too late to make it again because the deprivation of liberty becomes permanent given the inability of people to violently resist it. As our American ancestors understood so well, the right to keep and bear arms is the best insurance policy against tyranny.
This is what so Americans just cannot comprehend. Just today, in an editorial the Los Angeles Times extols China — yes, that brutal communist regime in which the government has a monopoly on the ownership of guns — for its gun-free society because Chinese children were able to survive a recent massacre in which the person used a knife, as compared to what happened in Connecticut, where no one survived the gun onslaught.
That editorial is amazing. For one thing, as I stated above, there is no way that the U.S. government could possible eradicate guns from society, as the Chinese tyrants have done, at least not without imposing the same type of horrible police state that the Chinese communist dictators have imposed on the Chinese people. More important, who wants to live under a brutal communist regime, one that is able to maintain itself in power precisely because people lack the means to violently overthrow it?
The Connecticut massacre is just one more sign of the aberrant welfare-warfare system that statists have foisted upon our land. The solution to the woes brought upon us by statism is not more statism. The solution is freedom, which is what libertarianism is all about, including the right to own guns, the right to educate one’s children without state interference or control, and the right to live in a free, peaceful, and prosperous society rather than a warfare-state empire.
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.
http://NextNewsNetwork.com | Next News Network’s WHDT World News Program airs daily at 6pm and 11pm Eastern on Comcast, DirecTV and Over-the-Air and Online at http://usmediavault.com/WHDT.html
WHDT World News is available to 6 million viewers from South Beach to Sebastian, Florida and to 2 million viewers in Boston, Massachusetts via WHDN.
WHDT broadcasts on RF channel 44 (virtual channel 9) from Palm City and is carried on cable TV channels 44 (SD) and 1044 (HD) by AT&T, on cable channels 17 (SD) and 438 (HD) in West Palm Beach by Comcast, on satellite channel 44 (SD) in West Palm Beach by DIRECTV, and on WHDN-Boston which broadcasts on RF channel 38 (virtual channel 6) from the Government Center district in downtown Boston.
More about WHDT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHDT
Like us on Facebook: http://Facebook.com/NextNewsNet
Follow us on Twitter: http://Twitter.com/NextNewsNet
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel: