You may have heard of some of these beauties, as most are not new. You may not know, however, the speed with which they are being pushed while Republicans are distracted with the Presidential nomination. Worse, if these treaties do get signed and ratified (which could well happen in a Democrat-controlled Senate), Morris points out they will have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered by Congress or trumped by state legislatures. Their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts. Just what our U.S. courts need – more power!

The first is the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). Already signed, it requires that the U.S. give half of our royalties for off-shore oil and gas drilling to an international body of 160 countries that vote on which countries should get the money. How frightening is this? We have only one vote of the 160, and panting nations of the world are lined up for the spoils. Morris tells us Obama will push for its ratification, with the aid of Senator Richard Lugar (RINO, Ind.), after Lugar’s primary this fall. (That way the little rat can ratify with relative impunity.)

It also mandates us to share our offshore drilling technologies with other countries for free. What do we get in return? Zip.

The second is the International Criminal Court. It is a body set up by the nations of the world with international judges who would have the power to prosecute violators of not only genocide but also the new crime of “aggression.” Aggression is described as going to war without permission of the United Nations. American presidents and Cabinet members could be imprisoned, with Russia and China having veto power over U.S. actions. No wonder George W. Bush wanted to steer clear, but Hillary is barreling ahead. Some of you may think this sounds cool, but give it a little thought.

The third one is the Small Arms Treaty. This is basically a way to enact gun control without going through Congress by means of a global ban on the export of small arms. The ban applies only to private citizens. Consider: It’s the governments of the United States, China, Israel and Russia that are exporting 80 percent of the arms around the world, not the individual Tom and Harry (oh, yea, and ATF on order of the Justice Department). An international treaty that deals with the governments moving arms instead of the individuals involved is goofy.

Now the entire world will know if I have a gun. What’s more, all my ammunition must be registered. Gun grabbers are drooling.

The fourth one is the Rights of the Child Treaty to be run by a 14-member court. It’s an effort to dictate that a code of rights for children is going to be locked into an international covenant. It’s meant to fight child prostitution, kidnapping and trafficking. But it could also impose rules in how to deal with children, where they may be educated, what religious instruction they should receive, or what discipline they should get, says Morris.

We already have the constitution and child protection laws. With the “gentle snowflake” treatment we give our kids, soon we’ll need protection for the parents. (Already my friends aren’t allowed to see the grades of their child in college without his permission!) Hillary wrote that “It Takes a Village.” I guess her sequel will be, “It Takes an International Treaty.”

These are all power grabs by the international bureaucracy at the United Nations. The rest of the world, a vast majority with hatred for us, sees this as a perfect opportunity to cripple Uncle Sam while Obama and Hillary are in charge.

Watch for Morris’ book, “Screwed! How the United States is Getting Screwed and What the Next President Must Do to Stop It,” which debuts on May 8, for even more atrocities from the Obama administration and how our own business and political leaders are pushing for globalism with all its negative economic and environmental consequences. And weep.

Contact Becky:

beckyfenger@cox.net

The Times ascribes to the Obama administration a “gold-rush mentality” when Congress expanded green-power incentives in 2009, despite a paralyzing federal deficit. The chief executive of NRG, which received $5.2 billion in federal loan guarantees plus hundreds of millions in other subsidies for solar projects, gushed that “I have never seen anything . . . in my 20 years in the power industry that involved less risk than these projects.”

A start-up industry with no capital risk to investors? It’s a nifty deal if you can get it—and many have. “It is like building a hotel, where you know in advance you are going to have 100 percent room occupancy for 25 years,” the Times quotes the CEO of SolarReserve. Even some of President Obama’s top advisors have warned of industry “double-dipping.”

Solar may be the most-subsidized industry in American history. Not only are producers subsidized at the federal, state, and sometimes even local levels, but consumers are subsidized to purchase solar panels, utility companies are forced to use and further subsidize solar power, and higher utility rates are passed along to Americans amidst deep recession.

Arizona is immersed in solar subsidies, providing tax breaks and (through the Corporation Commission) mandating that 15 percent of all utility energy be provided through specified renewable sources. Cost and technological feasibility are no object, and every dollar in added costs is passed along to consumers through a utility surcharge.

If the New York Times gets it, shouldn’t sensible, self-styled conservative elected officials? It’s time for government to stop playing Santa Claus to this pampered industry.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

“If you do nothing to help the cause of freedom and justice, you help the very enemy whose only goal is your total enslavement and destruction. If you fail to spread the TRUTH of what is really happening, you become part of the enemy’s propaganda machine. When you fail to support those who are fighting on the front lines and risking everything for your benefit, you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You may think that all is lost, but you couldn’t be more WRONG! Just ask the people of Nazi Germany, or Communist Russia…these “monsters” can be defeated and have been many times before….it just takes good people like YOU to help!

Clay Douglas with the Free American Radio Show.

An article titled, “Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?” is what has sent them into full fledged mock mode and, as best I can understand it, they believe that the Times has basically acknowledged that the truth and fact checking are not top priorities in The New York Times newsroom.

They don’t sound too terribly off from opinions expressed on the right about the Paper of Record. Perhaps we’ve reached a point where we can all agree that this old world rag is nothing but a liberal front and about as unbiased as Dan Rather?

Not exactly. These folks are actually upset that the newsroom isn’t inserting their opinion enough. And it looks like the Times is interested in hearing out their complaint.

In the article, New York Times Public Editor, Arthur Brisbane, is asking readers pointedly whether or not their “hard news division” is inserting enough of their personal perspective into articles outside of the editorial section.

I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.

I assume “facts” is put in quotes to indicate that they are anything but “facts,” which would leave only a handful of possibilities: they are opinions, interpretations, theories, or lies. I further assume that such “facts” are therefore the responsibility of the “fact” giver to back up and would be subject to the counter “facts” from the Paper of Record if there is a verifiable way to disprove what is being said.

Brisbane helpfully provides some examples of the “facts” in question so that we can see what this brave new world could look like if the Times writers were to become “Truth Vigilantes” as the headline calls them:

One example mentioned recently by a reader: As cited in an Adam Liptak article on the Supreme Court, a court spokeswoman said Clarence Thomas had “misunderstood” a financial disclosure form when he failed to report his wife’s earnings from the Heritage Foundation. The reader thought it not likely that Mr. Thomas “misunderstood,” and instead that he simply chose not to report the information.

Interestingly, this reader seems to completely miss what a “fact” is. In this entire excerpt there is only one fact: that Clarence Thomas is expressing what he personally did or did not understand, a perspective which he alone is capable of knowing. If there were documents that could show something to the contrary (perhaps an email with Thomas saying “Dude, I totally knew that I had to report that) then I would agree that Liptak would be completely within journalistic standards to present that information as counter evidence.

But, let’s use this new method that the Times is playing with and the leftosphere is so intent on and see how it works out. The following will be my attempt at rewriting the article while addressing the concerns that the reader had.

From the original article:

Justice Thomas said that in his annual financial disclosure statements over the last six years, the employment of his wife, Virginia Thomas, was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.”

[...]

Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, said he found Justice Thomas’s explanation about the omission to be “implausible.”

As a Supreme Court justice who regularly hears complex legal cases, “it is hard to see how he could have misunderstood the simple directions of a federal disclosure form.”

And now the “Truth Vigilante” version. Changes in bold:

Justice Thomas said that in his annual financial disclosure statements over the last six years, the employment of his wife, Virginia Thomas, was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions. What a load!11!”

[...]

Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, said he found Justice Thomas’s explanation about the omission to be “implausible,” as I, the writer of this article do as well.

As a Supreme Court justice who regularly hears complex legal cases, “it is hard to see how he could have misunderstood the simple directions of a federal disclosure form.” Given that this expert agrees with me, I will now accept his statement as a fact and subsequently call Clarence Thomas a liar liar pants on fire.

Brisbane plays the what if game as well with another critique:

Another example: on the campaign trail, Mitt Romney often says President Obama has made speeches “apologizing for America,” a phrase to which Paul Krugman objected in a December 23 column arguing that politics has advanced to the “post-truth” stage.

As an Op-Ed columnist, Mr. Krugman clearly has the freedom to call out what he thinks is a lie. My question for readers is: should news reporters do the same?

If so, then perhaps the next time Mr. Romney says the president has a habit of apologizing for his country, the reporter should insert a paragraph saying, more or less:

“The president has never used the word ‘apologize’ in a speech about U.S. policy or history. Any assertion that he has apologized for U.S. actions rests on a misleading interpretation of the president’s words.”

This is also an interesting example. While it perhaps would’ve been fine for a journalist to note that the word “apology” has never been uttered by President Obama in a speech about America’s position in the world (instead he just toured the world listing everything he viewed as utter American failures without ever actually saying he was sorry on our behalf), Brisbane goes on to show what the Times version of “truth vigilante” would look like. The “fact check” in this instance would’ve resulted in the writer asserting that anything hinting at an apologetic Obama, leans towards manipulation of the truth. Brisbane asks the readers if this is what The New York Times should move to, and the left on Twitter resoundingly screamed in unison “yes!”

What the Times will do remains to be seen. Brisbane acknowledges that being so openly interpretative would present its own problems:

Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another?

No, it’s not Mr. Brisbane. But why should that stop you now when it never has before?

One of the goals listed in the “request for proposal” document to community groups is “reducing alcohol retail outlet (e.g. bar, corner store) density and illegal alcohol,” the document states.

A spokeswoman for the department stated that “the city’s goals for the Partnership for a Healthier New York are in line with our ongoing strategies of promoting healthy eating and physical activity and discouraging tobacco, excessive alcohol use and consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages.”

The Post later reported that the story, “drew howls of outrage from responsible drinkers and operators of liquor venues across the city.”

New York City residents reacting to proposed alcohol cuts.

Howls of outrage is right. And just. He’s lucky he nipped it in the bud before the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth phase.

The nipping was that same afternoon, as Bloomberg stated that the planning document in question was merely part of the administration’s “brainstorming” and he had no plans to limit the sale of alcohol.

Asked if the mayor backed the effort to limit booze-selling businesses, Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser said, “No.”

The fact that such an idea was in the request for proposals in the first place is no surprise. Bloomberg, and many others in government lately, have come out of the closet about their desire to engineer society through deprivation, denial, regulation, restrictions, monitoring, and of course, daily public floggings. (That last one may not have been proposed quite yet.)

Yes this is the age of bacon bans, salt screeds, and alcohol abuse. That didn’t come out right, but you get the picture. In New York City, there is already a ban on trans fat in restaurants, effectively preventing Michael Moore from entering the city. It is also the command center for the war on salt. And it’s not just New York. San Francisco banned Happy Meals, and even bacon is in the crosshairs.

I suppose at this point, it would be my duty to point out that most of these bans have been placidly, if grumpily, accepted, whereas even hinting at curbing alcohol sales nearly started Civil War 2, and oughtn’t that say something about our society. But I won’t. Homer like beer.

Do these stomach crusaders, these modern day abolitionists, take no lesson from history? Top down societal engineering does not work. Especially not in this country. We the people won’t sit idly by and be rationed bread and water just because a bunch of rich politicians think we’re too fat and talk funny and believe grits are a real thing. The phrase “cold, dead fingers” comes to mind.

The great Bloomberg Booze Backlash of 2012 is just a taste, if you will, of what is boiling deep in American bellies. We’re getting fed up with the quickening pace of growing governmental control of our lives. It’s not just that we want our bacon and beer. It’s that we are entitled to be the directors of our own fates. The nonsensical, slippery slope argument about shared costs is as artificial as the foods you’d have us abstain from. Americans don’t trade freedom to clear line items for government. Frankly, the architects of TARP and the auto bailouts have no room to talk about ‘shared costs’ at all.

This is life. Isn’t part of life taking joy in partaking of life? Shouldn’t we have the option in our lives to enjoy rich food, drink cocktails, and occasionally throw up on our friends? Life is gritty. It’s real. It’s sometimes overweight. And sometimes it shops at Wal-mart in spandex and buys Twinkies. I may not like it when it does that, but I’ll defend to the death its right to do it. So pay attention Bloomberg. Pay attention Mrs. Obama. Keep your hands off our booze, out of our donuts, and away from our Happy Meals. We’re here! We drink beer! Get used to it!

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go dip this beer-battered Big Mac in some ranch dressing, roll it up, and smoke it. I SAID GOOD DAY, SIR!

What is even more essential is that we elect enough reliable conservatives – ones who will keep their campaign pledges – that we will not be relegated to the minority in those majorities. With the prospect of electing an unpredictable Republican president, in conjunction with tepid leadership in Congress, it is vital that we choose Republicans who will stand on principle, not benchwarmers who will merely serve as yes-men for leadership.

Last year, many of us thought we achieved a historic breakthrough by electing 87 “Tea Party” freshmen. Undoubtedly, many of them have been stalwart fighters for liberty and the limited government principles that buoyed them into office. Unfortunately, many of them voted for the debt deal and every single spending bill, in violation of multiple campaign pledges. Indeed, many of them are anything but Tea Party leaders.

One of the unwavering and indefatigable members of the freshmen class, Mick Mulvaney, had this to say about his fellow rookies:

“I would be embarrassed to tell you how many folks ran saying that they weren’t going to spend a bunch of money, they weren’t going to raise the debt ceiling, and then they went to Washington, D.C., and did exactly that.” My dad told me something long before I was in politics, and when your dad gives you advice every single day, eventually one or two of the things stick in your mind. And he said, don’t believe what people say, believe what they do.”

“We cannot have another experience like we’ve had in my freshman class, of people saying one thing and doing another.”

Thus, despite Republicans winning control of the House, we are still a minority in the majority.

We must internalize this lesson and commit ourselves to harness any opportunity to elect a steadfast conservative. We have very little time this year because all of the primaries have been moved up for the presidential election. There are many solid conservative districts with members who supported every solitary sellout of the legislative session. The disappointment of the presidential election is serving as my inspiration to highlight these races in the coming weeks. Hopefully, you will share that inspiration as well.

For now, there are some clear winners in the Senate races. Here is a list to build on:

Jeff Flake (AZ)

Adam Hasner (FL)

Richard Mourdock (IN)

Josh Mandel (OH)

Don Stenberg (Neb)

Ted Cruz (TX)

Mark Neumann (Wis)

It is also important that we choose a worthy candidate in the wide open primaries for Senate seats in New Mexico and Pennsylvania, two critical swing states. It would be nice if we could light a fire in conservative states like Tennessee and Mississippi. Some of the other senatorial primaries are, for better or worse, already forgone conclusions. Others still need to be sorted out.

Then, with all the open seats, new districts, and disappointing freshmen (and old bulls), there are dozens of House seats that are ripe for picking.

There is a lot to do and very little time left to make a difference.

We all must get to work.

Oral argument was held today at the United States Supreme Court in the Pacific Legal Foundation property rights case of Sackett v. United States Environmental Protection Agency. In this high-profile litigation, PLF seeks to establish that property owners have a right to appeal to court when EPA effectively seizes control of their property by declaring it “wetlands” under the Clean Water Act. Arguing on behalf of PLF clients Mike and Chantell Sackett was Damien M. Schiff, a PLF Senior Staff Attorney.

In a statement for release after oral argument, Schiff said the following: “If EPA essentially seizes control of your property by labeling it as ‘wetlands,’ do you have a right to appeal to a court of law? EPA says, No. The Ninth Circuit has said, No. Today, on behalf of Idaho property owners Mike and Chantell Sackett, Pacific Legal Foundation urged the Supreme Court to say, Yes. The Sacketts — and all property owners who are hit with EPA attempts to control their property under the Clean Water Act — have a statutory right and a constitutional right to their day in court. EPA must not be considered a law unto itself. Its edicts — in particular, its ‘wetlands’ compliance orders to property owners — must be subject to meaningful judicial review.”

Victims of EPA overreach seek the right to their day in court

PLF clients Mike and Chantell Sackett, of Priest Lake, Idaho, bought a small parcel in 2005 with the intent to build a three-bedroom family home. The lot is in a residential area, where neighbors have built their own houses. The Sacketts obtained a county permit to build, and started laying gravel. But then they were blindsided by EPA, which came in and claimed the property is “wetlands” — and ordered them to return it to the agency’s liking, on pain of astronomical fines.

The Sacketts wanted to contest the claim that their land is “wetlands” — but the Ninth Circuit ruled that they would first have to go through a years-long “wetlands” permit process, which could cost 12 times the value of their land! Represented by attorneys with PLF, the Sacketts are asking the Supreme Court: When property owners are hit by an EPA wetlands “compliance order,” do they have a right to meaningful judicial review — or is EPA effectively above the law? For more information on Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, including briefs, background facts, and a video of the Sacketts and PLF Senior Staff Attorney Damien M. Schiff, visit PLF’s website: www.pacificlegal.org.

About Pacific Legal Foundation: Donor-supported PLF (www.pacificlegal.org) is the leading watchdog organization that litigates, without charge, for limited government, property rights, individual rights, and a balanced approach to environmental regulations, in courts nationwide. The Sackett case marks the seventh time that the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a PLF case for review. Previous high-profile PLF property rights victories at the Supreme Court include Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987); Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning

————————————————

United Nations reformer, Maurice Strong, once wrote, “The forces that are shaping our future are global in scale and systemic in nature.” [1] Recently a task force chaired by Mr. Strong revealed that the post-cold war period has “become nothing less than a global experiment in international development.” [2]  

Striving to make this “global experiment” a reality, Maurice Strong has recognized the unique position of his native country in the international arena. Only a few short months after the 1992 Rio Earth Summit (UNCED), he announced to a group of prominent Canadian political advisors that,

“Canada at this time is in a position to make a unique contribution to fulfilling the promises of Rio by committing itself to be a model of sustainable development…It offers the prospect of uniting Canadians behind a new vision of their own future and a new generation of leadership internationally.” [3]

Unknown to the majority of Americans, Canada has positioned itself at the cutting edge of international environmental/political change. Although its population is one tenth of the US, its leadership role in the “global experiment” cannot be overstated. As Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien once said,

“We are one world. We in Canada feel this deeply. Responsible international citizenship is one of our proudest shared values. And the place we exercise that responsible citizenship is in multilateral organizationsthe town hall meetings of the world community.” [4]

Consider these Canadian examples of “responsible international citizenship.”

• Canada co-sponsored the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (the first Earth Conference) held in Stockholm, Sweden.

• The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), producer of the influential report Our Common Future, convened a special meeting in Ottawa, Ontario in 1986. At this WCED meeting, the idea of a “world conservation bank” was forwarded. Keep in mind that the WCED was the key organization promoting the term “sustainable development” in the late 1980′s. Canadians Maurice Strong and Jim MacNeill served as commissioners to the WCED, with MacNeill acting as the Commission’s Secretary-General.

• Adopted in Montreal, Quebec, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer formatted international rules to combat “global warming.” The Montreal Protocol has since made an enormous impact on national and international climate policies, hitting both consumers and industries with new levels of bureaucratic red tape.

• Canada co-sponsored the 1990 United Nations World Summit for Children, which spawned the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a set of parental behavioral laws that threaten families the world over.

• Canada played an influential role at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. This was evident at the highest level with Maurice Strong acting as the summit’s Secretary-Gerneral.

• Emerging from Rio was one of Canada’s most far reaching initiatives, the creation of The Earth Council, which is headquartered in Costa Rica. Led by Mr. Strong, The Earth Council is now in the process of drafting and implementing the global Earth Charter — a new world-wide green constitution binding mankind to earth servitude. [5]

In the words of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, “Canada is in the forefront of efforts to ensure that the United Nations is prepared for the challenges of the future.” [6] Indeed, his country’s involvement in the international globalization process has been extremely systematic. [7] Besides being the planetary meeting ground and sponsor for major sustainable development events, Canada has furthered the path to globalism by contributing to the environmental “intelligentsia” — the thought process undergirding the movement. Consider the following quotes from a 1992 meeting of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation.

“We need a unified one world order to replace the collectivity of nation states at the international level. The Euro-American model which now dominates the world systematically disables people, destroys the earth and creates dependency on wage labour.” [8]

“In this model, politics loses its left-versus-right conflict and moves instead towards a fundamental concern for the health of the ecosystem…Democracy is replaced with “biocracy,” where not people but life-sustaining systems are the central concern. Democracy remains a need within this model, at both local and global levels, but as one part of the whole system. “Participation” becomes more than people’s physical presence and deepens to contain a cultural and spiritual dimension…To implement these concepts, we start with bringing the community together and look at the land resources available. We decide how we want the community to evolve and decide who has control of the resources.” [9]

Likewise, the following statement from the Canadian federal government to the United Nations contains a similar thread — a sustainable world order based on complete world management.

“Canada believes the establishment of an international financial and economic system that is conducive to sustainable development must be a cornerstone of efforts to implement Agenda 21. Canada strongly supports efforts to reform international organizations to ensure effectiveness and efficiency in the promotion of global sustainable development.” [10]

Paying For World Government

Recently, the Canadian federal government passed the acceptance of a new international tax on world monetary transactions. Known as the Tobin tax, the ensuing billions collected would be “a feasible part of a new world order and new world vision,” as stated by Lorne Nystrom, member of the Canadian House of Commons. [11] Nystrom explained the purpose of the tax to the House, using the example of 1995 currency transactions and the amount that would have been raised based on that particular year,

“If there were a 0.1% Tobin tax on foreign currency transactions, that would raise, in 1995 dollars, $176 billion U.S. That is a lot of money. A Tobin tax of 0.003% would be enough money to fund United Nations peacekeeping around the worldOne of the consequences would be the establishment of a global village which would have a common good amongst the nations of the world. There would be a strengthening of international organizations. The United Nations would become a meaningful world governmentThere could be permanent international peacekeeping forces. There are many things that could be doneHow would this be implemented? There are a number of ways of doing it. The International Monetary Fund could be reformed to do it or the World Bank could be reformed to do it. My preference would be a new international financial agency to administer the Tobin taxWho would collect the tax? National governments would collect the tax around the world.” [12]

This last April I had the opportunity to attend the World Federalist Association National Youth Conference, which was held in Washington DC. At this conference I had the occasion to speak with WFA Issues Director, Chuck Woolery, regarding the Canadian passed Tobin Tax. Visibly excited, Mr. Woolery explained how a short time after the Canadian Parliament passed the tax, the WFA brought a Canadian delegate to DC for the expressed purpose of giving guidance on how to pressure US policy makers to do the same. If the US government follows this lead, and it is already being pressured to do so, American tax dollars will go directly into UN coffers.

Planning For A New World

Of all the Canadian provinces, Maurice Strong’s home of Manitoba has become one of the most persuasive in furthering sustainable development principles and agendas. One of the most overt of these initiatives took place in Winnipeg, Manitoba between October 17-20, 1990. Hosted by the provincial government, the World Environment Energy and Economic Conference (WEEEC), also known as World ’90, was attended by over 3000 delegates from around the globe. As a joint venture between UNESCO and the International Council of Associations for Science Education (ICASE), the WEEEC had for it’s official theme “Sustainable Development Strategies and the New World Order.” [13]

The introduction to the WEEEC’s final report connected itself with the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Speaking on the work of the WCED, the introduction revealed that, “Emerging from the work of the commission was the revolutionary concept of Sustainable Development Strategies as the New World Agenda.” [14] In extending this WCED link, the forward to the report explained, “The World Environment Energy and Economic Conference focused on recently introduced sustainable development principles that will affect policies, plans and the direction of programs in the coming years on a global scale.” [15] Appropriately, the WEEEC final document was titled Sustainable Development For A New World Agenda.

To ensure that global sustainable development initiatives achieve fruition, the WEEEC recognized the importance of using public education as an agent for world change. Dennis Chisman and Jack Holbrook, members of the ICASE executive board, presented a chapter in the World ’90 report entitled “The Future Direction of Sustainable Development in the Curriculum.” In it they explained,

“The role of the teacher will inevitably have to change. They will become more involved in facilitating changes of attitudes and guiding students to gain values rather than merely teaching factual knowledge.” [16]

Chisman and Holbrook further revealed, “The overall strategy is to design courses so as to prepare for a ‘sustainable development’ literate society.” [17]

What would learning encompass in the academic world of Chisman and Holbrook? Expanding on the concept of sustainable education, the ICASE board members shared on the importance of global “values” for education, including “population control and support,” “intercultural tolerance,” “the transfer of appropriate technology,” and “environmental literacy.” [18] All of these items would eventually make their way into the Rio Earth Summit two years later.

Creating A New World Police State

Disturbing as the WEEEC educational platform was, the most insidious aspect of World ’90 was the presentation on creating a “Global Green Constitution.” Presented by a Greengrass Institute delegate, the theme of creating a world constitution based on sustainable development principles was given an entire chapter in the WEEEC final report. Spouted as being “a global perestroika,” it was explained that this “revolutionary” global green political machine would encompass a form of “human rights.” [19]

“Popular or not, green governments will oppose any culture if it proves to be prejudicial by means of gender, age, colour, race, religion, belief, sexual orientation, mental or physical condition, marital status, family composition, source of income, political belief, nationality, language preference or place of origin.” [20]

The concept of framing a global “green” constitution was directly linked to national education contributions aimed at furthering this new world agenda. As explained in the report, uncooperative nations would not be tolerated,

“Each nation’s degree of dedication to educating the people would be the first indication of green government. The education process would centre on the need for a Global Green Constitution…Eventually, a public referendum would be held in each nation state with the objective of obtaining a simple majority in favour of enshrining a Global Green Constitution. Those nation’s governments where a majority have declared for a Global Green Constitution in a referendum vote would indicate that they are prepared to attend a Global Green Constitution Congress…Every nation’s government would ultimately be a signator to the Global Green Constitution. Obligation to do so would come from grass roots pressure within democratic societies. Less democratic nations or dictatorships would be brought on side through sanctions.” [21]

Specifying more drastic measures yet, World ’90 literally called for a global police state to ensure the complete success of the “New World Agenda,”

“The issues are not about if a global politics is necessary. The question is how do we achieve binding agreements in Law complete with effective programs for applying sanctions against non-compliance that would oblige each nation, regardless of size, to abide by a set of principles that are required to guarantee the survival of life on this earth. Perhaps we will find that there is no other alternative to a system of rigid controls that some would equate to a police state. Unfortunately, in order to save the planet from biocide, there have to be very powerful constraints from doing the ‘wrong’ things. The constraints must transcend national boundaries, be world-around and enforceable. There would be a need for an agency for preventing eco-vandals from acting unilaterally.

Enforcement agencies would need the power to act without being invited by the offending nation. Therefore, there needs to be an agency that is acceptable to all nation states on the planet. We can probably accept the fact that there will always be one or more nations that will not go along but there must be effective sanctions in place. If sanctions do not work, then physical occupation and the installation of a World Trusteeship would be imposed upon the offending nations.” [22]

Who Rules Who?

Recently I received an e-mail concerning Canada’s role in the push for global government. At its core, the message spoke of America’s need to look towards Canada in order to understand the forces pressuring US global integration. As a Canadian, I recognize the truth of that statement, and find it deeply troubling to watch as my country carries the banner of the “New World Agenda” into the next century.

America needs to look beyond its own borders to understand what is happening within its borders. The largest trading partner the US has is Canada. With that in mind, it should have concerned everyone in both countries when Prime Minister Jean Chrétien explained that the United Nations is “the centre piece of Canadian foreign policy.” [23] This foreign policy, this promotion of “global order,” is taking North America down the fast track to international socialism. Hidden under the guise of sustainable development, our two nations are trading freedom for a draconian world agenda.

What will it take to wake us up?

Endnotes

1. Maurice F. Strong, “Preface,” International Development Research and Policy Task Force, Connecting With The World: Priorities for Canadian Internationalism in the 21st Century (Winnipeg, MB: International Institute for Sustainable Development, in conjunction with the International Development Research Centre and the North-South Institute, November 1996), p.vi.
2. International Development Research and Policy Task Force, Connecting With The World, p.15.
3. Maurice Strong, Beyond Rio: A New Role For Canada (External Affairs and International Trade Canada, November 10, 1992), p. 20.
4. Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, Opening Statement by Jean Chrétien to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, (Speech at Auckland, New Zealand, November 10, 1995)
5. International Development Research and Policy Task Force, Connecting With The World, p.39.
6. Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, Inauguration Diner for the Lester B. Pearson Chair of International Relations, (Speech at Oxford University, February 22, 1996).
7. These points were taken from a private report by Carl Teichrib titled, Charting The Sustainable Society: Agendas for Creating a New Global Future.
8. James Robertson, “Toward a New Economic Paradigm,” Canadian Council for International Co-operation, Sustainability: From Vision to Reality (Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council for International Co-operation, February 1992), pp. 5-6. This CCIC program was funded through two Canadian federal bodies, the Canadian International Development Agency and the International Development Research Centre.
9. Maximo Kalaw, “A Community-based Model of Sustainable Development,” Canadian Council for International Co-operation, Sustainability: FromVision to Reality, p. 8.
10. Government of Canada, Report of Canada to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada, 1996), p. 25.
11. Hon. Lorne Nystrom, “Tax on Financial Transactions,” (Private Members’ Business) Edited Hansard – Number 144, Wednesday, October 28, 1998, Canadian Federal Government House of Commons, p. 1735.
12. Ibid., p. 1745.
13. Colin N. Power (UNESCO Assistant Director-General for Education), “Preface,” John E. Penick and John R. Stiles (editors), Sustainable Development For A New World Agenda (A STAM/CASE/ICASE Publication, Proceedings of the World Environment Energy and Economic Conference, Winnipeg, Manitoba, October 17-20, 1990) ISBN 962-7532-01-3.
14. Robert Lepischak, “Introduction: Sustainable Development Strategies…The New World Agenda,” Sustainable Development For A New World Agenda, p. viii.
15. Evhan Uzwyshyn, “Forward: Principles of Sustainable Development,” Sustainable Development For A New World Agenda, p. v.
16. Dennis Chisman and Jack Holbrook, “The Future Direction of Sustainable Development in the Curriculum,” Sustainable Development For A New World Agenda, p. 237.
17. Ibid., p. 234.
18. Ibid., p. 235.
19. Jim Bohlen, “Towards A Global Green Constitution,” Sustainable Development For A New World Agenda, p. 10.
20. Ibid., p. 11.
21. Ibid., p. 16.
22. Ibid., p. 15.
23. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, National Forum on Canada’s International Relations (Speech in Toronto, ON, September 11, 1995)

My friend Sheriff Richard Mack has been traveling the nation teaching country sheriffs that they are the most important and powerful elected officials in the nation. Sheriffs have the power to keep federal government agents at bay and protect the rights of citizens in their county. Too many sheriffs fail to understand their Constitutional duties.

So, on January 30^th and 31, 2012, Sheriff Mack and his organization, the Constitutional Sheriffs & Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), will host the Constitutional Sheriffs Convention in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Click on this link for all the details. http://www.countysheriffproject.org/CSPOA_Invitation_Dec29.2011.pdf

I will be there on the program to teach the sheriffs about Agenda 21 and how they can stand up to federal regulators like the EPA to protect property rights. I believe this event is so important that I am traveling there at my own expense and intend to spend as much time as I possibly can with these officers who are on the front lines in the defense of liberty. I’ll be joined by others, like Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, Michael Badnarick, one of the nation’s leading experts on the Constitution, and Tom Woods, best selling author of Nullification, which teaches us how to stand up to unconstitutional mandates on the states.

Sheriff Mack’s goal is to help at least 200 county sheriffs attend this conference free of charge. Having that many sheriffs from across the nation educated on their Constitutional powers to protect us from a tyrannical government authority will have a profound and historic impact on our nation’s future. But to achieve that goal, Sheriff Mack has risked nearly everything he has to put up the money to get the sheriffs to Las Vegas.

Sheriff Mack has raised abut half the money he needs to make this goal a reality. He needs your help to raise the rest so that every sheriff who wants to attend can be there. I urge you to go to Sheriff Mack’s website www.countysheriffproject.org and make a donation to assure there will be enough money to pack the conference with sheriffs from every corner of the nation.

And, if you can, join Sheriff Mack and me at the conference. All the info is in the link I’ve provided.  I hope to see you in Las Vegas at the end of this month.

Tom DeWeese

More communities drop out of ICLEI

The most recent communities to say no to membership in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) are Monmouth County, New Jersey and Somerset County, New Jersey. Activists in the Garden State are doing a great job getting the message out.

County Commissioner Richard Rothschild reports that he believes we have achieved about 54 cities that have pulled out of ICLEI since the beginning of the year. And that only 17 cities have joined ICLEI in that same time – giving us a net reduction of 37!

Commissioner Rothschild and I aren’t sure we have all of the cities on our list. Here are the communities that we know have dropped out. If any of you know of more, please let us know:

Carroll County, Maryland; Amador County, California; Montgomery County, Pennsylvania; Edmond, Oklahoma; Las Cruces, NM; Spartanburg, SC; Albemarle County, Virginia;  Plantation, Florida; James City County, Virginia; Lexington, VA; Carver, MA; Pinellas County, FL; Garland, TX; Sarasota County, FL; Abington, VA, and Clallam County, WA.   

Tom DeWeese Appearances in January

This month, along with the Sheriff’s event in Las Vegas on January 30^th, I will also be speaking on Agenda 21 at the following events:

January 13^th, I will appear on the Francis Swaggart television show (Jimmy Swaggart Ministries) in Baton Rouge, LA 9:00 AM Central Time. Find listings on your local cable networks,
January 14^th, I will be speaking in Baton Rouge, LA. All the details are at www.agenda21LA.com
January 16^th, I will be speaking in Myrtle Beach, SC at the South Carolina Tea Party Convention. Springmaid Beach Resort and Convention Center, 3200 South Ocean Blvd, Myrtle Beach, SC 29577. www.scd5patriots.org.
January 28^th, Marietta, Georgia. Sponsor: The John Birch Society. Location: Doubletree, 2055 South Park Place, Atlanta, Georgia. Contact: Jim Sandman – jsandman@jbs.org.

Please help me continue this fight

As you can see from all the above, I am getting out the message far and wide about the threat of Agenda 21.  And we are having an incredible impact, taking more communities away from the Sustainablists than they can sign up! That is an incredible feat, considering how small our budget is compared to the massive war chests of the other side.

Your support is all I have. I get no grants or major funding. Just individual contributions from dedicated patriots like you – and I like it that way. It keeps me independent and on the front lines.

I believe this is the year we will crush Agenda 21 – if I have your support! Please help me win this battle for American freedom.  Just click here to make a donation to the American Policy Center.

Thank you!
Tom DeWeese
President

Please note: All are welcome and encouraged to attend this FREE event!

Greetings!
As you may have gathered from the tremendous media attention given to the case and from the outpouring of amicus support for the Sacketts, many different organizations have recognized that Sackett v. EPA is one of the most important cases on the Supreme Court’s docket this term.

Accordingly, Georgetown Law Center’s Supreme Court Institute has graciously offered to host a panel discussion of the case on the afternoon of the January 9 oral argument, with special attention given to the issues raised at oral argument earlier in the day by the Justices.

Panelists include:

Pacific Legal Foundation Senior Staff Attorney Damien Schiff, counsel for the Sacketts;

Richard Lazarus, Howard and Katherine Aibel Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, who has argued 13 times before the U.S. Supreme Court;

University of California Davis Law Professor Richard Frank, the Director of the California Environmental Law & Policy Center; and

Hunton & Williams Partner Virginia Albrecht, a leading wetlands attorney and counsel of record for Amici the American Petroleum Institute, et al.

The panel will be hosted by Georgetown Law Professor Lisa Heinzerling.

If you are in the area, please make an effort to attend this event, especially if you are unable to attend the oral argument that morning due to limited seating capacity at the Supreme Court. The event is absolutely free. You will have an opportunity personally to meet the Sacketts, and there will be a question and answer segment that will allow you to ask questions of all these distinguished and knowledgeable panelists about the case.

Please be sure to use the RSVP address on the invitation below, so that the Supreme Court Institute can plan the follow-up reception accordingly.

Sackett v EPA – Program Invitation

Please RSVP by January 5 to rsvp2@law.georgetown.edu