Showing posts with label U.N.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.N.. Show all posts

Monday, February 4, 2013

United Nations – Agenda21 – Sustainable Development and the Regional One Bay Area Plan

bayareaplan

By: Heather Gass – AskMarion

Over the past few years I and many others in the Bay Area have been fighting against a plan that will socially reengineer our lives referred to as the One Bay Area Plan. It will transform the lives of over 9 million people and towns in 9 counties over the next 25 to 30 years into high density stack and pack housing next to mass transit all in the name of saving the planet and reducing GHGs (Green House Gases). Private property outside of city and county urban limit lines will be highly restricted and/or off limits as part of the first ever statewide re-wilding and corridor system in California is created.  The crazy thing is no one seems to know about it. Bay Area residents and taxpayers have been kept out of the process. Most have never heard of the regional unelected bodies pushing these plans or the legislation we are now being asked to follow, but all will be affected by it in some way in the near future.

Although I will be focusing on the regional plan in the Bay Area this is happening all over the state and country under different names so don’t feel left out. I have done thousands of hours of research over the past few years and discovered the genesis of these plans and who is behind it. I am hoping that by providing the historical timeline and links to back up my findings that it will be clear that these plans are were not being pushed by the people of the Bay Area, the local municipalities or by state level mandates. These plans were hatched long before the state legislation was enacted by a small group of NGO’s (Non-Governmental Organizations), stakeholders, foundations and regional unelected bodies funded with tax payer money. 

There are three main pieces of legislation that are being followed in California to complete the transformation and socially re-engineer our lives; SB375 (2008 Sustainable Communities Strategy), AB32 (2006 Global Warming Act) and AB2785 (2010 California Essential Habitat Connectivity Map).   All of these bills were signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger. The global warming bill calls for a reduction in GHGs to 1990 levels by 2020. The SB375 bill links land use to transportation and specifies the majority of future construction be compact, high density, low income housing next to mass transit in order to force Californians out of their cars and single family homes to ostensibly reduce GHGs. AB2785 identifies (maps) an animal and vegetation corridor system throughout California, connecting large blocks of government regulated land through private property that must be taken in some way to complete the California Wildlands corridors. This map is most egregious in that it  casually illustrates (with a sliding scale of less to more cost) how much it would cost our government (in terms of dollars, conservation easements, eminent domain, zoning to open space, etc) to take the land from private individuals in order to complete this map. California planning organizations are expected to use it in their planning for land use and transportation process. What people don’t realize is that this map is NOT about preserving land (Open Space) for the animals and plants. These land masses that are being set aside are being incorporated into giant land trusts for the purpose of selling carbon credits in the trillion dollar Cap n’ Trade scheme that recently started in this state. A few large land trusts and foundations will be the beneficiaries of this giant piggy bank. Here’s a list of land banks (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/conplan/mitbank/catalogue/). The CARB board will be giving many of the credits away to preferred corporations and to entice cooperation in the program.  This is a fraudulent pay to play scheme and giant land grab not an environmental initiative.

The few, regular citizens, who have found out about the One Bay Area plan were horrified and attended workshops and hearings in an attempt to stop this plan from being adopted.  Where did this plan come from? And why are unelected regional agencies dictating how and where the people of the Bay Area will live in the future?

Over the years the two main bodies pushing this plan MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) and ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) have pointed the blame at either local jurisdictions or at state legislators as the responsible parties for this plan. At times they claimed this was an organic, bottom up plan that the local municipalities want and were asking them to implement. Then on other occasions they claimed they were only following state level mandates and that if we had a problem with this plan we should be taking it up with the legislators who voted for the bills. The truth is ABAG and MTC were behind this plan way before the legislation was enacted and have been quietly involved in the forming of this plan for almost 20 years and if you include international connections it is even longer (See U.C. Berkeley PhD. Judith Innes White Paper). ABAG led the effort and along with other agencies they engaged in backroom secret meetings, formed international alliances, regional compacts with stakeholders and NGOs in an effort to reach their goal of transforming our cities and towns into the United Nations vision of Sustainable Communities ultimately leading to the passage of AB32 (2006), SB375 (2008) and AB2785 (2010) legislation that codified this agenda in California. The following timeline will illustrate how this so-called regional plan came about and who is behind it.  You will learn, as I did, that this plan is not a grassroots effort and was not originated at the state level. It is an international plan from the United Nations and is referred to globally as Agenda21 Sustainable Development.

These regional agencies are unconstitutional and the elected officials appointed to them have in my opinion violated Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution by joining an international alliance with ICLEI and should be at the very least investigated and/or abolished.

I have included links throughout so you can check the facts for yourself. This plan is being duplicated all over the country and the world, but the Bay Area is one of the four initial pilot programs within the U.S. The pilot areas were Denver , Atlanta , Chicago and the Bay Area. In my research I found a white paper about the Bay Area Alliance written by Judith Innes a PhD from UC Berkeley (white paper “Getting Serious about the Three E’s”).  She followed the alliance process from 2004 to 2007 and validates my findings.  She points out how flawed the process was with virtually no experts being used to prepare data and reports and how the stakeholder workshops were misleading and outcomes were controlled and predetermined.

1987       – The term “Sustainable Development” was adopted at the Brundtland Commission meeting in 1987 as part of the “Our Common Future” outcome document. The official definition of Sustainable Development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”  The term Sustainable Development encompasses three main principles; Equity, Environment and Economy. Economy is the key word used to describe replacing free market principles with PPPs (Public Private Partnerships). The Environment is used as catalyst for change and Equity describes the social and environmental justice and the redistribution of wealth. Not equal justice. Social equity is the driving factor to alter the function of law to impose social requirements replacing individual rights.

   

1990       -The United Nations accredited NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) ICLEI (International Council for Local and Environmental Initiatives) was founded in order to establish Agenda 21 campaigns throughout the globe. The ICLEI Charter/Constitution defines a world congress of mayors and elected officials working together with ICLEI serving as the international agent representing the members of the world congress throughout the globe. ICLEI serves as liaison between local governments and international governments. ICLEI members pay dues and must explicitly adopt the ICLEI Constitution which follows the 16 principles of the Earth Charter and a model of global governance. This international membership by cities and counties violates Article 1, Section 10 of the United States ConstitutionNo State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance , or Confederation… with a foreign power”. The ICLEI headquarters in North America is in Oakland , Ca.  Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner founded ICLEI USA. ICLEI is responsible for injecting international climate, land use and other policies into local governments. Many cities, counties and regional bodies across the country are contracting with ICLEI.

1992       -UN Agenda21 Earth Summit hosted by Maurice Strong was held in Rio de Janeiro , Brazil . At this summit the term sustainable development was adopted as part of the global Agenda21 campaign. 178 nations pledged their support for Agenda21. President George Bush, Sr. signed on to this for the U.S. Although this is technically a non-binding soft law, since Congress did not ratify it, Agenda21 and Sustainable Development have been incorporated into every aspect of our government through Executive Orders, the EPA, ICLEI and other regulatory agencies, bodies, boards and commissions. (See also video: Nancy Pelosi sponsored H.Con.Res. 353 on Sustainable Development.)

1993       -President Clinton signs Executive Order 12852 creating the President’s Council for Sustainable Development affectively bypassing Congressional approval of Agenda21. This council was tasked with injecting Sustainable Development and Agenda21 into all levels of our government nationwide.

1996       - Richard Clarke, retired Chairman and CEO of PG&E and Michele Perrault, International V.P. of the Sierra club (both members of the President’s Council for Sustainable Development) present the idea of a regional sustainable development initiative to the ABAG general assembly and to other NGO’s and stakeholder groups.

- David Early, Urban Ecology publishes the Draft Blueprint for a Sustainable Bay Area— The Final Plan (1999) is the basis for the One Bay Area Plan.

1997 – ABAG and several dozen NGOs around the Bay Area sign a Compact forming the BAASC (Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Communities) (See Compact for Sustainable Bay Area). This document specifically states that MTC and ABAG as well as other groups joined forces to implement a regional plan for a Sustainable Bay Area. The document states “It is founded on the principle of the Three Es of Sustainable Development – prosperous Economy, quality Environment, and social Equity.” It also states “The Bay Area Alliance adopted the definition of sustainable development endorsed by the United Nations’ World Commission on Environment and Development.” And goes on to clearly point out “The Bay Area Alliance also operates within an international context. The Earth Charter Initiative (www.earth-charter.org) is an outgrowth of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and has many principles similar to the visions and commitments contained in this Compact.” Sunne McPeak represented the Business (Economy) side of the Alliance .  Sunne McPeak also served on the ABAG board, Bay Area Council and she oversaw the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Department of Housing and Community Development, the California Housing Finance Agency, the Department of Real Estate and many others. She was a key player in pushing the SB375 legislation behind the One Bay Area plan.

1999  – Five regional agencies MTC, ABAG, BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District), BCDC (Bay Conservation and Development Commission) and RWQCD (Regional Water Quality Control Board) were working on  Smart Growth Strategies

- The BAASC (Bay Area Alliance for Sustainability Communities) plans “Regional Livability Footprint” Project a preferred land use pattern that dictated where development could occur in the Bay Area

- These two groups merged creating the Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint Project

- The Bay Area region and the BAASC were selected as one of four regional pilots in the nation by the Partnership for Regional Livability, a consortium of major foundations and federal agencies dedicated to advancing sustainable development and smart growth.

          – “Final Blueprint for a Sustainable Bay Area” is prepared by David Early of Urban Ecology  (one of the original stakeholders in the Alliance ). David Early also founded DCE Planning, which currently consults with local cities and counties to ensure the implementation of the plan locally.

2000 – Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg launched SCOR (Speaker’s Commission on Regionalism) to promote regionalism and collaboration across California . Sunne McPeak representing the Bay Area Council and many of the BAASC, NGOs and stakeholders were part of this new group. The main purpose was to push for legislation institutionalizing regionalism throughout California . Sunne McPeak was also the ABAG President.

2001 – First Round of stakeholder workshops (approximately 1000 participants) from all 9 Bay Area counties. These meetings were mostly attended by ABAG and MTC officials, planners, developers and social / environmental justice advocates who were stakeholders in the BAASC.

2002 – Second Round of stakeholder workshops (approx. 1000 participants).  Three Regional Scenarios are proposed (Central Cities, Network of Neighborhoods and Smarter Suburbs). The preferred scenario was Network of Neighborhoods. ABAG develops policy-based projections using the Smart Growth Scenario as a starting point.

- Publication of “Shaping Our Future” was the result of this coalition. 

2003 – Executive Board adopts policy-based projections.  Abandoning the trends based projection model used in the past. This approach forces development to occur based on the preferred land use and transportation scenario. MTC’s RTP (Regional Transportation Plan) is based on ABAG’s projections.

2005 – Governor Schwarzenegger passes Executive Order S-3-05 to reduce GHGs in California to 80% below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

2006 AB32 legislation passed - calls for a reduction in GHGs to 1990 levels by 2020. CARB (California Air Resources Board) is appointed to oversee and monitor state level GHGs.

2007 – California Center for Regional Leadership hosts a meeting where, then Assembly Member 11th District DeSaulnier (co-author of SB375 with Darrell Steinberg) and Van Jones both speak about pushing regional legislation. (http://calregions.urbaninsight.com/regcivic/bln/20071126/index.html)

– SB375 legislation introduced (Assemblyman Mark DeSaulnier was one of the co-authors of SB375 with Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg). Mark DeSaulnier served on the following boards ABAG, MTC, CARB and BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District) all proponents of this legislation.

2008 SB375 legislation passed – Links land use to transportation. Directs regional agencies to create blueprints focusing development in PDAs (Priority Development Areas) next to mass transit for the purpose of reducing GHGs based on AB32 legislation.

2010 – AB2785 legislation passed – California Wildlands Act.  The California Essential Habitat Connectivity report sponsored by DOT (Dept of Transportation), CalTrans and DFG (Dept of Fish and Game) shows many maps of the intended wildlife corridor system throughout California . This document is quietly being used by all planning, transportation agencies and commissions throughout California without the public’s knowledge.

2010–2012 -  MTC/ABAG and a host of paid stakeholders and NGOs launch a series of public workshops. This time the public really engaged in opposition to the plan.  Here’s a video of citizens opposing the plan at a workshop held in the County of Alameda in January of 2012.

As you can see the One Bay Area Plan did not originate as an organic bottom up plan, nor did it start with state level legislation. The President’s Council on Sustainable Development brought the idea to the regional agencies. The regional agencies then joined forces with local NGOs, stakeholders and foundations. The plan to socially re-engineer the Bay Area was going on long before the legislation (SB375, AB32 and AB2785) came to pass. This first ever regional plan in the Bay Area is scheduled to be adopted by the JPC (Joint Policy Committee) of MTC and ABAG in June of 2013 and when it does local jurisdictions will become virtually irrelevant. When money and power are concentrated at higher and higher levels by unelected regional boards bodies and commissions the end result is uncontrolled corruption. Someday the citizens of the Bay Area and California will wonder what happened to their beautiful unique towns and suburbs and go looking for answers. I’m hoping my research will give them the answers they seek and help them hold those behind this plan accountable. 

 

AGENDA 21  -  Book Review

Agenda 21

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

I am a big fan of Glenn Beck’s books. His most recent, Agenda 21 by Glenn Beck with Harriet Parke, does not disappoint. The book is very well done, with a great plot and characters. It is realistic and disturbing. It’s a great read, but this first installment is a sobering look into what will transpire if we do not change course from the Progressive’s vision of our future.

The heroine of the story is Emmeline, who was about four years old when her parents were rounded up and placed in what can only be called an austere camp. A prison camp that is in the formation of a circle, where the homes are cinder block, with only a mat to sleep on and energy boards. Most were shot that would not go to the camps – some escaped and are referred to as the ‘shadow people.’ All tenants must earn their keep by producing energy for the collective. Producing children is required and the mother never holds her child. The state takes them immediately. Pairing is assigned. Nature and authority are the only things revered in this world. Meals are two cubes a day. Non-production is rewarded with death.

Think it can’t happen? Think again… Agenda 21 is very real as has been written about on this blog many times and it is spreading across the US. The Progressive Marxist elites will not stop until we are stacked and packed in hovels or trailers. They will take the land for themselves to create more wealth with carbon credits while we sweat and toil for them in ghettos.

Agenda 21  is a look into where this road leads. The ending of the book brings hope and definitely leaves it open for a sequel. I would recommend this book to everyone I know. You can’t fight your enemy, if you don’t know your enemy. And this is not about animals and plants; it’s about power, control and money.

A final note… Make sure you read the end of the book which gives research and facts on Agenda 21 and how to fight it in your communities. This is the fight of our lives. Take the fight to the Progressives, don’t wait until it comes to your doorstep.

You can get a copy of Agenda 21 at Amazon.com or at Glenn Beck’s web site. You should get several copies. I can’t wait for the sequel. Beck does it again with the help of Harriet Parke. Fantastic!!!

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Why Do They Want Us Disarmed?

Updated: 07.17.12

Having left England and spilling their blood for individual freedoms our Founding Fathers knew the value of freedom and therefore gave us the Bill of Rights, a Republic and a Constitution that would protect the people, if ‘We the People’ were smart enough to remain engaged and educate future generations… but we haven’t done either.  They knew that Freedom of Speech and the Right to Bear Arms were essential for the average man (person) to remain free. Dictators know that as well, so they take away both as soon as they can! That is the plan of the Progressives controlling our country and elites controlling the world.

Western Journalism:

Americans need a severe case of Alley Oopism.

Alley Oop. Do you remember Alley Oop of funny paper and song fame? He carried a big stick and didn't walk softly. He tore the limbs off of trees.

Mr. Oop was capable of defending himself, his family, and his property. He had a big stick. Down through the ages, improvements were made in self-defense implements. Spears, bows and arrows, catapults, sling shots, etc. were invented and used. These same tools could be used for offensive purposes, also. And evil men, usually in the form of a government but sometimes other forms of gangs, used these tools of destruction to force others to comply with their demands. Demands they had no right to make. “Pay the taxes I deem necessary – or else!” Some complied, some didn't. Those who didn't were killed or banished from their land. Those who complied were treated with disrespect, and ever more demands were made until their lives were not their own. They were and are slaves. But they were and are called Freemen.

A government was instituted among men by men who understood the need for self-defense. The people had and still have the right to defend themselves from thugs of all kinds. In an amendment of the founding documents, spelled out very clearly is a guarantee that the government has no power to interfere with the natural right of every citizen to his or her own self-defense in whatever mode might be available. The latest technology is available to the private individual as well as to the police and military.

Since the establishment of that government, and even prior to that establishment, men and women have had weapons for self-defense. The same type of weapons has been used for destruction as well. A very few men and women go about killing each other for the flimsiest reasons. As a result of people killing each other, some nincompoops have coalesced into various groups with the intent to deprive those of us with a little common sense of our right to self-defense.

Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States of America prohibits the government of any power to interfere with our natural right to self-defense – the defense of ourselves, our families, and our property. Even Alley Oop, a Neanderthal man brought to the 20th century by a time machine, knew he had that right.

Currently, in our federal government, our hirelings and agents are debating whether or not they should give an International Agency the power to regulate our Natural right to own implements of self-defense. The people of this nation, in whose name the elected officials act, did not grant any power or right to their representatives, agents, or hirelings to even debate the action, let alone actually taking a vote on the subject. This is a sovereign nation. We rule ourselves. It is not up to a foreign entity such as the United Nations, or a treaty with other nations, to regulate the actions of the American People. We are a self-regulating group of adult men and women and are fully capable of making our own decisions about what we own or don't own. We do not need the input from an agent of a foreign nation such as Iran or China to tell us how to conduct our daily lives.

On the 27th of this month, the Senate will be voting on whether or not to give the power to an entity other than ourselves to regulate our daily lives and tell us what we can and cannot own. The members of the Senate do not have the right or the power to make such a commitment. We should tell them so.

Alley Oop had the common sense to obey the Natural Law of self-preservation. The fools that we have hired and sent to Washington, District of Criminals have not the common sense of a Neanderthal Man.

Hitler of Germany, Stalin of Russia, and Mao of China, among others, disarmed the citizens of their respective countries and then murdered them by the millions. 60,000,000 people were murdered in China alone, by one report. In light of these facts, one wonders why the Clintons, the Bushes, the Carters, and Our Fearless Golfer polluting the air in our house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D. C. are so determined to disarm the good people of the United States of America.

We were not invaded by Japan during World War II because the Emperor was aware that the Americans were well-armed and we would defend out land.

I would seem that our Neanderthal man, Mr. Oop, had more common sense than those who are now promoting the disarmament of the American People. People such as Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Our Fearless Golfer, the Queen of England, the various Ayatollahs, Castro, Mao, Chavez, and any number of people that are our sworn enemies want us disarmed for a reason. What could that reason be, do you think?

Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. When seconds count, it is best to be prepared to take care of oneself.

Only would-be-dictators and tyrants are afraid of the citizenry. Thomas Jefferson rode his horse daily out in public without guards. George Washington had no troop of armed guards. Andrew Jackson, however, needed guards; for he had made a formidable enemy for himself – the bankers. They wanted him dead.

The government has overstepped just one time too many, maybe, and a backlash is about to be let loose. And that government wants to disarm us. Be careful.

Thank you.

Sheriffs that Support Gun Control… God Help Us!

Idaho--and a Bingham County election...

Some things speak for themselves. Thanks to J.H., who posted the following elsewhere, but gave me permission to post it on my blog:
"Just before the Idaho primaries this past Tuesday, there was a forum where people were asking questions of the candidates for sheriff of Bingham County. When incumbent sheriff Dave Johnson was asked what he would do if the Federal Government mandated to take all firearms away from private citizens, he responded that he would have to comply with the feds. When candidate Craig Rowland was asked the same question, he responded that he would deputize every citizen who owned a firearm. Rowland got an applause and was elected Bingham County Sheriff this last Tuesday. Congratulations to Craig Rowland!"
Yeah. Gotta love Idaho.... :) And the Second Amendment. And the Constitution.
If any other sheriffs out there hadn't thought of this, I think that it's brilliant. After all, if a firearm is a part of your emergency preparation, you may find yourself in trouble if someone takes it away. There are many emergency situations where a firearm may be needed. In any case, if you are personally against firearms, please work out a plan where you have what you need for food procurement, etc. in case of such emergencies.
And hopefully, no matter what one thinks personally about firearms, they will vote for people who will uphold the Constitution and the freedoms we hold dear--and the right to bear arms is one of them

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton: “The UN's Real Agenda Is Gun Control!  — Former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton spoke at the NRA Annual Meeting on Friday, saying Barack Obama is laying the foundation to push an ambitious gun control agenda if he wins a second term.” (GunReports.com) Bolton @ NRA Annual Meeting Said: Obama Wants Gun Control in … - Ambassador Bolton ‘On the Record’: Video: US Gun Owners in Foreign Crosshairs

Perhaps it is time to update this photo?!?

See: Breaking Hillaryland News: New Evidence Shows Hillary a Mastermind Behind Gunwalker as Her Welcome in Egypt Not So Good

Related:

20 Republicans set to uphold controversial UN treaty (updated)

Obama expected to sign global gun control treaty - National Law ...

Congressional Warning: Small Arms Treaty Threatens U.S. Sovereignty, Violates 2nd Amendment

Hillary & Barack will BAN GUNS during the UN GUN TREATY on JULY 27, 2012!!!!

UN Arms Transfer Treaty (ATT) on Small Arms: Gun Grab Gradualism

Misleading gun owners on the Arms Trade Treaty

Shades of Watergate? – Congress Moves Ahead with Contempt Vote, Obama Invokes Executive Privilege… Why?

County pulls ol' switcheroo to kill gun shop

The Puzzle of 'Operation Fast and Furious' -- When Will Team Obama Come Clean About Failed Gun Program?

Hillary's Small Arms Treaty Swindle

Unfinished Gun Parts Getting ATF Attention

Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up – C-SPAN Video Library

Check out: Fast and Furious by Katie Pavlich

Video:  Troops Ordered to Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns

Time to look at the Swiss, one of the most peaceful and best armed countries is the world:  SWISS TV FORECASTS DEFEAT FOR TIGHTER GUN LAW – UPDATE

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

20 Republicans set to uphold controversial UN treaty (updated)

clip_image001[4]_thumb[1]

By: Anthony Martin - Examiner.com - July 9, 2012

Upon the advice of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama has confirmed his intention to sign two controversial U.N. treaties -- the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and the so called "small arms" treaty.

Although many citizens and elected representatives are sounding the alarm about the small arms treaty, such as this entry Sunday at the Daily Paul, some political observers note that the treaty is unlikely to pass the Senate. But a very different scenario is developing for the Law of the Sea.

Twenty Republican senators are set to join with Democrats in upholding LOST.

In a breaking update, 2 of the 20 Republican senators have now indicated they will oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty. One political activist stated that it is important for citizens to call the offices of all 20 to make sure those Senators are on the record with their intent to vote against the treaty. McConnell and Toomey now state they will vote no.

The U.S. Constitution grants authority to presidents to enter into treaty agreements with other nations and entities. But due to the fact that a treaty, if approved, becomes the law of the land, the U.S. Senate must approve by an exact two-thirds majority rather than the simple supermajority of 60 votes. This means that 67 votes are needed in the Senate to approve a treaty.

Most political observers believe that all 53 Democrats in the Senate will vote to approve LOST. And if the 20 Republicans who have failed to indicate opposition to the treaty hold firm, the Senate will have more than the required 67 votes to pass.

The 20 Republicans who are apparently set to uphold the treaty are Enzi, McConnell, Hutchison, Toomey, Johanns, Ayotte, Graham, McCain, Lugar, Kirk, Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, Isakson, Grassley, Portman, Corker, Cochran, Brown, and Alexander.

In 1983 President Ronald Reagan rejected LOST outright due to encroachments on U.S. sovereignty. Thus, the question arises as to why these 20 Republicans would be indicating support for a treaty that Reagan saw as an international attempt to usurp American sovereignty and thus supersede the U.S. Constitution.

The small arms treaty, on the other hand, is facing a much more difficult task in gaining the approval of the Senate. Although it is possible to muster 67 votes to approve, too many Democrats are facing reelection in states where gun rights are important. Democrats now have a 53 seat majority. Even if all of the Democrats voted in favor, 14 Republicans would have to join them in order for the measure to pass.

In an election year during a period of time in U.S. history when citizens have indicated in various ways that they oppose any more gun control in any form, it is difficult to imagine 14 Republicans voting in favor of such a treaty.

But as indicated by Forbes Magazine such assumptions are premature. Some senators are always loathe to oppose any treaty signed by a president for the fear of negatively impacting U.S. prestige on the international stage.

Thus, conservatives have sounded the alarm about the treaty to make sure citizens pressure their senators to vote no.

A look at some of the provisions of the treaty will reveal why many conservatives are alarmed. By international law all citizens in the United States would find it more difficult to purchase firearms due to tough registration and licensing requirements. The sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic firearms would be banned. And an international registry of gun owners would be created, which many gun rights enthusiasts view as a precursor to a worldwide ban on gun ownership.

Using the United Nations to enact strict gun control measures on Americans could be what Obama meant when he stated months ago that his administration is working on gun control "under the radar."

Related: 

UN Treaty, Sea Treaty, Gun Treaty… What Are We to Do?

Obama Seeks US Congressional Ratification of UN Global Gun Control Treaty

Urgent Alert: Law of the Sea Treaty

STAND-UP AMERICA!! TIME IS RUNING OUT!

h/t to Victoria Baer

==> GO HERE to find your US Senators. <==

"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil;  God will not hold us guiltless.

Not to  speak is to speak.  Not to act is to act."  Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Obama Seeks US Congressional Ratification of UN Global Gun Control Treaty

photo

Susanne Posel – reposted at Infowars.com June 16, 2012

Gun sculpture at the United Nations in New York.

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State has announced that the Obama administration is working with the United Nations (UN) to approve, through the US Congress, the Small Arms Treaty (SAT).

Clinton affirmed that the US would facilitate talks with the UN in the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, as long as it “operates under the rules of consensus decision-making. Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly.”

This global gun control scheme, concocted by the UN, is called the International Arms Control Treaty (IACT). Disguised as a way to combat terrorism, insurgents and international criminals, this document endeavors to secure the world’s citizens cannot defend themselves.

The IACT will empower the UN to literally force the US government to:

• Enact internationally agreed licensing requirements for Americans

• Confiscate and destroy unauthorized firearms of Americans while allowing the US government to keep theirs

• Ban trade, sale and private ownership of semi-automatic guns

• Create and mandate an international registry to organize an encompassing gun confiscation in America

Video: United Nations Small Arms (Gun Confiscation) Treaty to be Ratified by the US Senate in 2012

Senator Jerry Moran said in a letter (signed by 44 other senators) to President Obama; warning him not to continue his push for ratification of the SAT. Moran wrote: “Our country’s sovereignty and the Second Amendment rights of American citizens must not be infringed upon by the United Nations. Today, the Senate sends a powerful message to the Obama Administration: an Arms Trade Treaty that does not protect ownership of civilian firearms will fail in the Senate. Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable.”

Video: NRA News: UN Doomsday Treaty With Ginny Simone

The US is the world’s largest exporter of firearms; while private sales between citizens, collectors and sportsmen would all be internationally regulated with the approval of IACT. This includes rules over ammunition, and procurement.

The Obama administration, in an attempt to appear coy, agreed to sign only if other states agreed to as well. Yet many Senators, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and pro-gun advocates perceive IACT as the first step in international gun control and will not abide by while Obama gives the UN over-reaching power to destroy our 2nd Amendment and our Constitutional Republic.

A final version of SAT, which is based on IACT will be drafted by 2013.

Chris Cox, the NRA’s top lobbyist, explains: “As we have for the past 15 years, the NRA will fight to stop a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that infringes on the Constitutional rights of American gun owners.” Cox feels that Senators like Moran “sends a clear message to the international bureaucrats who want to eliminate our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. Clearly, a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that includes civilian arms within its scope is not supported by the American people or their elected U.S. Senators. Senator Moran is a true champion of our freedom. We are grateful for his leadership and his tenacious efforts on this issue, as well as the 44 other senators who agree with the NRA’s refusal to compromise on our constitutional freedoms.”

Last month, in press release , The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has awarded defense contractor ATK with an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) agreement for .40 caliber hollow point ammunition.

According to ATK :

ATK has secured a major Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity deal to supply up to 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition to the Department of Homeland Security . . . The 1 year contract with four option years comes at a time when many Americans believe that DHS, along with certain aspects of the military, will soon turn their sights on the American people during some sort of martial law scenario . . . We are proud to extend our track record as the prime supplier of .40 caliber duty ammunition for DHS, ICE,” said Ron Johnson, the president of ATK’s Security and Sporting group.”

This particular type of bullet is meant to expand upon impact “engineered for 100-percent weight retention, limits collateral damage, and avoids over-penetration.”

This order is not the first for DHS. In 2009, DHS contracted Winchester for delivery of 200 million hollow point bullets.

The economic state of America has caused US citizens to purchase armory at an incredible rate. A national “ gun-run ” last March saw a shortage of guns in stores for the first time.

“I have never seen such a situation in all my years as a gun owner, hunter and cop,” said Edna Aquino , a New York police officer and shooting instructor. “I’m hearing from fellow shooters that they are stockpiling ammunition these days because they are afraid of what they’re seeing in this country.”

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has reported that an estimated 6 million requests for pre-sale guns in 2009 reflects a 26% increase.

In response to Americans arming themselves, President Obama is seeking Congress to approve the UN’s international governance over our 2nd Amendment while claiming that it is only an attempt to create more stringent gun legislation for the American public’s protection.

 Video Here: Mr. fast and furious DOJ gun runner speaks in 1995… We Must Brainwash People About Guns - Longer version Here

Origins of Fast and Furious accidentally revealed by White House

What did Hillary know and when did she know it and why has she flown under the radar on “Operation Gun Walker?

Fast and Furious – Hannity Special Videos 

Agenda Behind Fast & Furious Gunrunner Program – NoisyRoom

"Fast and Furious" Goes All the Way to the White House – Updated

"Fast And Furious" Just Might Be President Obama’s Watergate… or Will It Be Solyndra, Light-Squared… or?

UN Treaty, Sea Treaty, Gun Treaty… What Are We to Do?

This was all always planned and connected…

The goal: Disarming You!!

Yet the word is already that they (Congress) will allow Holder to cut a deal…

Every dictator and the United Nations know that the key to control is disarming the people! Wake-up…

Had the people not allowed themselves to be disarmed in Germany, history would look a whole lot different!

Switzerland is the most peaceful country in the world and also well armed!! Private gun owners of the United States are the largest army in the world. There is nothing the UN and the globalist would rather do than disarm them!

Related:

  1. Senate Moves Toward Ratification of U.N.’s ‘Law of the Sea Treaty’
  2. Polish premier stops ratification of internet anti-piracy treaty
  3. The OAS Treaty: Blueprint for Dismantling the Second Amendment
  4. Obama Pushing Treaty To Ban Reloading
  5. Obama Signs Global Internet Treaty Worse Than SOPA
  6. START Treaty is Really the United Nations Global Military Regime Treaty
  7. Stealth Treaty Seeks Strict Controls Over Internet
  8. Obama Supports Treaty Outlawing Gun Possession
  9. Sen. DeMint: Ratifying U.N. Children’s Rights Treaty Would Turn Parental Rights ‘Over to International Community’
  10. U.S. agrees to timetable for UN Gun Ban
  11. While we’re all watching the gulf: Hillary signs UN Small Arms Treaty
  12. EU signs ACTA, global internet censorship treaty
  13. The Bilderberg Group’s Connection To Everything In The World
  14. UN Treaty, Sea Treaty, Gun Treaty… What Are We to Do?
  15. With UN Support, Socialist Chavez Disarms Civilians in Venezuela 
  16. Rand Paul: Hillary Commits to U.N. Small Arms Treaty
  17. Obama’s October Surprise: Will He Use the Military To Sway the Electorate?
  18. Police To Hold Gun Turn-In Event This Weekend  -  On the surface these seem like they might/could be a good idea. But if you have a working gun you could sell it for a heck of a lot more than $100 and you might just need it sooner than you think for your own protection.

If there ever was a time to get involved… and an issue to get involved in… The time is now and this is the issue!!

Saturday, April 21, 2012

U.N. to debut plan for world socialism in June – time for US to exit?

By: Jeffrey Klein  -  Political Buzz Examiner  - Cross-Posted by TMH at  the NoisyRoom

clip_image001

Is this the introduction of “Agenda 21?”  -  Photo credit: Google Images

The United Nations is holding its’ “Conference on Sustainable Development” in Rio de Janero, Brazil, over three separate sessions in June, to which organizers, led by UN Conference Secretary-General of Rio+20, Sha Zukang [who 'really doesn't like Americans'], expect 193 attendees from governments, the private sector, NGOs and other stakeholders, according to the Sarah de Sainte Croix March 20, 2012 article in The Rio Times.

The stated themes of this colossal conference, which is structured around a 204-page report titled, “Working Towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy, A United Nations System-Wide Perspective,” are “the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication,” … [by and through] … “the institutional framework for sustainable development,” according to George Russell’s excellent and quoted-filled FOXNews article today.

More specifically, the debates will cover a … ‘breathtaking array of carbon taxes, transfers of trillions of dollars from wealthy countries to poor ones, and new spending programs to guarantee that populations around the world are protected–from the effects of the very programs the world organization wants to implement.

According to Russell, the Obama Administration officials have supported this “agenda,” which is designed to ‘make dramatic and enormously expensive changes in the way that the world does nearly everything—or, as one of the documents puts it, “a fundamental shift in the way we think and act.”

According to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, proposals on how the “challenges can and must be addressed,” include:

–’More than $2.1 trillion a year in wealth transfers from rich countries to poorer ones, in the name of fostering “green infrastructure … climate adaptation … other green economy” measures.’

–’New carbon taxes for industrialized countries [amounting to] about $250 billion a year, or 0.6 percent of [US] GDP by 2020. Other environmental taxes are mentioned, but not specified.’

–’Further unspecified price hikes … derived from agriculture, fisheries, forestry, or other kinds of land and water use [industries], all of which would be radically reorganized–[to] “contribute to a more level playing field between established, ‘brown’ technologies and newer, greener ones.”‘

– ‘Major global social spending programs, including a “social protection floor” and “social safety nets” for the world’s most vulnerable social groups for reasons of “equity.”’

–’Even more social benefits for those displaced by [this] green economy revolution—such as those put out of work in undesirable fossil fuel industries. The benefits, called “investments,” would include “access to nutritious food, health services, education, training and retraining, and unemployment benefits.”‘

–’A guarantee that if those sweeping benefits weren’t enough, more would be granted … “Any adverse effects of changes in prices of goods and services, vital to the welfare of vulnerable groups, must be compensated for and new livelihood opportunities provided.”‘

“Transforming the global economy will require action locally (e.g., through land use planning), at the national level (e.g., through energy-use regulations) and at the international level (e.g., through technology diffusion),” the document says.

It involves “profound changes in economic systems, in resource efficiency, in the composition of global demand, in production and consumption patterns and a major transformation in public policy-making.” It will also require “a serious rethinking of lifestyles in developed countries.”

This ‘UN guidebook for global social engineering,’ was prepared by the Geneva-based United Nations Environmental Management Group (UNEMG), a consortium of 36 U.N. agencies, development banks and environmental bureaucracies–all of which rely on the contributions, from tax collecting nations for their very existence–not a single entity engaged in the production of goods or services, producing a profit and owning singular wealth.

This UN doctrine seems to directly channel Marx and Engel’s scribe of 1848, “The Communist Manifesto,” wherein its’ organizational and operational structure appears to largely be a paraphrasical equivalent to the 10 short-term demands Marx prescribed in section II., “Proletarians and Communists.”

However, instead of the UN overthrowing the capitalist system, it simply wants to tie it to a leash and be subject to the UN … [a] ‘dictatorship of the proletariat,’ to redistribute wealth around the world to “magically elevate the poverty class to the middle class.

The United States, arguably the most fertile and favorable ground for such a massive experiment, has already spent $15 [T]rillion in taxpayer treasure over the past 47 years attempting to circumvent market forces and eliminate poverty–with no affect.

Additionally, study after study has revealed the UN to have grown into an impossibly dysfunctional gargantuan, having negligent management skills, metrics and accountability, and a source of financially wasteful pandering–second only to the U.S. General Services Administration.

Actually, as this directly smacks of the long-discussed “UN Agenda 21,” America must treat this audacity of the United Nations as a wake up call, and say “[last] check please”–then hit the UN exit doors without delay.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

CITY COUNCIL AWAKENS TO EVIL AND DEFEATS IT

The City of Colfax, CA reportedly defeated UN Agenda 21 by a 4-0 vote and passed Resolution No. 12-2012.

Ken Delfino, one of the City Councilmen, reportedly wrote a letter describing what he learned about UN Agenda 21 and urges others to educate themselves about it too.

You can help by sending these three items of information to your City Council Members. If they’re uninterested, be sure to campaign against them so that they are defeated when they run for re-election.

1. Here is the reported letter in its entirety (a link to the letter is not yet available).

Dear friends, constituents and colleagues:

This evening the attached resolution was introduced and discussed...and was passed by a 4-0 vote.

This particular topic has been discussed in previous council meetings as more and more people are becoming aware of this United Nations program that has been hidden under a myriad of titles starting with the "New World Order" in 1992 and the addition of many of these restrictive and business-killing environmental initiatives that have been introduced and passed in the past 2-3 years.

On-line searches of anti-American U.N. bias and statements will show you just how much this organization despises the success of our country. We are railed against by the likes of Hugo Chavez, the Castro brothers, Daniel Ortega, Moammar Khadaffy and other anti-American leaders not just from their capitols, but worse, from the United Nations building in New York City!

The ultimate goal of United Nations' Agenda 21 is global governance with the U.N as the head agency.

Many of my council colleagues from other jurisdictions have gotten together to find ways to fight this cancer that has crept into our government. We all took an Oath to support our state and United States constitutions and protect our citizens and community against all enemies...foreign and domestic...and this is the statement our city made tonight to this effect.

We believe other cities and counties have made such stands and we hope others will join us.

I ask that if you have not done so, to at least [sic] research this program and come to your own conclusion.

In closing, I want to stress that this is not a Republican v. Democrat v. Libertarian, left v. right, religious [sic] v. atheist issue...this is purely an anti-American issue aimed at eliminating our national sovereignty!

In continued service to my country and community,

Ken Delfino

Councilman

City of Colfax, CA

2. Nancy Pelosi Pushes Agenda 21 On House Floor

http://noisyroom.net/blog/2012/02/29/nancy-pelosi-pushes-agenda-21-on-house-floor/

What you are about to see in this video is Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) spearheading HC Res 353 on the House floor to pursue United Nations (UN) Agenda 21. She calls out “Agenda 21” twice and clearly states that it is the “United Nations Sustainable Development” program…

3. RESOLUTION No. 12-2012: City of Colfax, California (see page 21 at this link: http://www.ci.colfax.ca.us/3-Docs/PDF/Agenda/4-11-12%20Agenda.pdf)

R E S O L U T I O N No. 12-2012

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF COLFAX, CALIFORNIA EXPOSING THE UNITED NATIONS’ AGENDA 21 PROGRAMME…

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering and global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992 and…

WHEREAS the United Nations Agenda 21 has been and continues to be covertly pushed into local communities throughout the United States of America through what was the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local “sustainable development” policies such as ‘Smart Growth’, ‘Wildlands Projects’, ‘Resilient Cities’, ‘Regional Visioning Projects’ and similar names and…

WHEREAS this United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called “sustainable development” views the American way of life of private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices and privately owned farms all as destructive to the environment and…

WHEREAS according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment which would be accomplished by redistribution of wealth and…

WHEREAS according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, National Sovereignty is deemed a social injustice.

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that in order to help protect property rights of our citizens, the Council of the City of Colfax, California recognizes the destructive and insidious nature of United Nations Agenda 21 and hereby exposes to the public and public policy makers the dangerous intent of the plan and be it further

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that neither the United States government nor state or local government is legally bound by the United Nations Agenda 21 treaty in that the treaty has never been endorsed by the United States Senate and therefore be it further

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the implementation of the United Nations Agenda 21 destructive strategies for “sustainable development” at the federal, state and local governments across the country will have harmful repercussions and we hereby reject all of its radical policies that are not in the best interests of our citizens and the City of Colfax and our Sphere of Influence.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 11th day of April, 2012, by the City Council of the City of Colfax, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Steve Harvey Karen Pierce

Mayor City Clerk

It is time to recognize evil, inform others about it and defeat it.

Friday, March 30, 2012

Globalist Plan to Disarm America

Globalist Plan to Disarm America:

PL87-297 Arms Control and Disarmament Act /
State Department Publication No.7277

by Bernadine Smith  -  h/t to AJ

If someday your children or grandchildren ask you how Liberty died in America and what happened that caused the demise of the Nation, read this and you will be able to answer them.

If they ask you why the Citizens have been disarmed, you'll know. If you want to know why, go to your local library, no matter where you live in the United States. Tell the librarian to show you where the 'United States Code books' are shelved. There are 25 books in the set. They are reddish-brown in color. They are printed by the Government Printing Office in Washington, DC. These hard-covered books are printed every 8-10 years. They are updated with annual soft-back supplements each year until a new hard cover issue comes out. At the present time, the 1988 hardbacks are on library shelves.

OPEN VOLUME 9. The page numbers are in the center near the middle binding. The section numbers are along the edges.

TURN TO PAGE 651. Here you will find Public Law 87-297 which calls for the United States to eliminate its armed forces. This law was signed for the United States in 1961. John F. Kennedy signed it and every president since has worked to enact its provisions. The government knows you will not approve which is why they want to take away your firearms.

(This is Title 22 USC section 2551)

TURN TO PAGE 652. Here you will find the definition of what the government means by "disarmament." The disarmament calls for the elimination of our armed forces. It also calls for the elimination of weapons of all kinds.

(This is Title 22 USC 2552 (a).

TURN TO PAGE 654. Here you will find it stated as item (a) "control, reduction and elimination of armed forces..." and as Item (d)" ...Elimination of armed forces...." What you need to know is that your armed forces are being eliminated and relinquished from national control which, in turn, wipes out our sovereignty as a nation. In two stages, we will have no more army, no more navy, no more air force. In the third stage, we shall have a "zero" military. Before Stage I closes, all citizen owned guns are to be banned.

(This is Title 22 USC Section 2571 (a).

Public Law 87-297 is further explained in the State Department Document called Publication 7277. Your librarian can also furnish you a copy. Also ask the librarian to get you a copy of "The Blue Print for the Peace Race." It is a 35-page booklet printed by the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency as Publication No. 4 - General Series 3 - Released May of 1962. Publication No. 4 is the unabridged version of State Department Document 7277.

Both of these booklets explain how our military is to be reduced to 2.1 million men. China and the Soviets are to be reduced to that level also. At this point, we are at Stage I at which time we are to transfer (on a permanent basis) one-half of our armed forces to be merged with the Russian and Chinese armies. In Stage II, the remaining one-half of our armed forces is then turned over to this same Security Council of the United Nations. The person in charge of the merged armies must, by agreement, always be a Russian. The world's smaller nations turn 100% of their armies over to the same under-secretary of the Security, Council in Stage II. President George Bush and Admiral Wm. J. Crowe [have referred] to this process as being "in transition."

TURN TO PAGE 655. On this page in Volume 9 of the United States Code, read "Policy Formation." The directives there (written in 1963 to pacify objectors) are supposedly to restrain anyone from disarmament, reducing or limiting our armaments, or taking guns away from the people unless it is pursuant to the treaty-making power of the president, or if it is authorized by further legislation by the Congress. (This is title 22, Section 2573.)

Every couple of years the House of Representatives votes to appropriate funds for this on-going program. Since P.L. 87-297 was first passed into law in 961, there have been 18 updates to it - all bad - with no deletions of these issues I lay before you now. The Congress knows that the plan includes the policing of the United States by foreign troops. (The world army they are forming in Europe.) The Congress is allowing our military bases to be closed down, except for those that will be used by the world army. You will find that plan in Publication 7277 and in "The Blueprint for the Peace Race."

If the president and Congress can promote a "Constitutional Convention" you will find yourself with two new constitutions (communist in structure) which in one states in Article VIII, Section 12: "No person shall bear arms or possess lethal weapons except the police and members of the armed forces...."

The Congress has praised these documents and is on record in Senate hearings seeking ways to install these constitutions. Ask your librarian for "Revision of the United Nations Charter - Hearings Before a Subcommittee (Foreign Relations) Feb. 2-20, 1950 U.S.Government Printing Office." Nothing has changed since. They are still viable. The ultimate goal to be reached in Stage III of the disarmament process is to "proceed to a point where no state [nation] would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force...."

Anyone who doubts the truthfulness of what has been presented here is free to go to the library and go through the steps which have been outlined above. While you are at it, look up Public Law 101-216.

State Department Publication 7277 is available at:

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/guns/dos7277.htm and in electronic form as file PUB_7277.ZIP on at least the following bulletin boards:

Paul Revere - San Jose (408) 947-7800 or (408) 279-0872

The Rising Storm (408) 739-8693

If in future years your children or grandchildren ask why you allowed their freedom to slip through your fingers, now you can’t say you didn’t know.

People ask how and why the Holocaust happened… Germany let themselves be disarmed!!

For those who think it can’t/won’t happen here in the U.S.:

See Lieberman’s Bill to Kick Off Internment Camps


Dear fellow Patriot,

Gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced the Obama Administration will be working hand-in-glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”

Disguised as an “International Arms Control Treaty” to fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN Small Arms Treaty is in fact a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.

I’m helping lead the fight to defeat this radical treaty in the United States Senate and I want your help.

Please join me by taking a public stand against this outright assault on our national sovereignty by signing the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey.

Ultimately, the UN Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.

So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps.
But looking at previous versions of the UN Small Arms Treaty, you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.

If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN Small Arms Treaty would almost certainly FORCE the U.S. to:

*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.
Ever since its founding 65 years ago, the United Nations has been hell-bent on bringing the United States to its knees.

To the petty dictators and one-world socialists who control the UN, the United States of America isn’t a “shining city on a hill” -- it’s an affront to their grand designs for the globe.

These anti-gun globalists know that so long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they’ll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide power they crave.

And the UN’s apologists also know the most effective way to finally strip you and me of ALL our freedoms would be to DESTROY our gun rights.

That’s why I was so glad to hear that the National Association for Gun Rights is leading the fight to stop this assault on our Constitution!

The truth is there’s no time to waste.

You and I have to be prepared for this fight to move FAST.

The fact is the last thing the gun-grabbers at the UN and in Washington, D.C. want is for you and me to have time to mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical legislation.

They’ve made that mistake before, and we’ve made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt to ram the UN Small Arms Treaty into law since the mid-1990s.

But now time may not be on our side.

In fact, we’re likely to only have a few weeks to defeat the treaty when they make their move.

And we definitely don’t have a President in the White House who will oppose this treaty.
So our ONE AND ONLY CHANCE to stop the UN Small Arms Treaty is during the ratification process in the U.S. Senate.

As you know, it takes 67 Senate votes to ratify a treaty.

With new pro-gun champions joining me in the Senate, rounding up enough votes to kill this thing should be easy, right?

Unfortunately, that couldn’t be further from the truth.

Even with the Republican tidal wave in 2010, there still isn’t a pro-gun majority in the Senate to kill ratification of the treaty.

You know just as well as I do how few Senators are truly “pro-gun.”

Not only that, but many Senators get “queasy” about killing treaties for fear of “embarrassing” the President -- especially with “international prestige” at stake.

They look at ratifying treaties much like approving the President’s Supreme Court nominees.

Remember how many Senators turned their back on us and voted to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor?

A dozen more only voted against Sotomayor after receiving massive grassroots pressure from the folks back home.

So if we’re going to defeat the UN Small Arms Treaty gun owners have to turn the heat up on the U.S. Senate now before it’s too late!

Do you believe the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment are the supreme law of the land?

Do you believe any attempt by the United Nations to subvert or supersede your Constitutional rights must be opposed?

If you said “Yes” to these questions, please sign the survey the National Association for Gun Rights has prepared for you.

Your survey will put you squarely on the record AGAINST the UN Small Arms Treaty.

And along with your signed survey, I hope you’ll send a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or even just $35 to help finance this battle.

With your generous contribution, the National Association for Gun Rights will continue contacting Second Amendment supporters to turn up the heat on targeted U.S. Senators.
Not only that, but they’re preparing a massive program to launch the second this treaty is brought before the Senate.

Direct mail.  Phones.  E-mail.  Blogs.  Guest editorials.  Press conferences.  Hard-hitting internet, newspaper, radio and even TV ads if funding permits.  The whole nine yards.
Of course, a program of this scale is only possible if the National Association for Gun Rights can raise the money.

But that’s not easy, and we may not have much time.

In fact, if gun owners are going to defeat the UN Small Arms Treaty pro-gun Americans like you and me have to get involved NOW!

So please put yourself on record AGAINST the UN Small Arms Treaty by signing NAGR’s Firearms Sovereignty Survey.

But along with your survey, please agree to make a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or even just $35.

And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference.

Thank you in advance for your time and money devoted to defending our Second Amendment rights.

For Freedom,

Rand Paul
United States Senator

P.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced the Obama Administration will be working hand in glove with the United Nations to pass a new GLOBAL, “Small Arms Treaty.”

If we’re going to defeat the UN Small Arms Treaty gun owners have to turn the heat up on the U.S. Senate now before it’s too late!

Please return your Firearms Sovereignty Survey and put yourself squarely on the record AGAINST ratification of the UN Small Arms Treaty.

And if you can, please make a generous contribution to the National Association for Gun Rights of $250, $150, $100 or even just $35 right away!
And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference.

Remember, in future years your children or grandchildren will ask why you allowed their freedom to slip through your fingers!

Thursday, January 12, 2012

A21 are changing name to Millennium Development Goals: GLOBAL POVERTY ACT IS BACK

Wow! Awesome article that tells us everything we need to know about their master plan.  It's more than a name change; this article describes their blueprint to achieve world domination. Everything they're doing (NDAA included) appears to me to fit their blueprint.

go to http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom208.htm ....you will see that the evildoers at the A21 (Agenda 21) are changing their name to Millennium Development Goals.  Just be on the lookout for the new terms.  Remember:  these people are changelings... and evil to the very core.

GLOBAL POVERTY ACT IS BACK

by Tom DeWeese  -  January 11, 2012  -  NewsWithViews.com  - h/t to AJ

He might be a whiz kid at creating computer software, but beyond that Bill Gates has proven time and again that he hasn’t a clue about why or how freedom works.

He constantly teams up with anti-free market types like the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) to produce “educational programs” in his software packages, misdirecting unsuspecting children with political propaganda. In 2002 he gave the NWF $600,000 worth of software to help these environmental radicals run their programs to block the drilling of American oil. Apparently Gates doesn’t understand that he needs oil to create power to run computers. Most recently his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donated $3 million to eight universities to reinvent the flush toilet. Environmentalists call that device “one of the world’s most destructive habits.”

Clearly Gates is a captive of his own wealth, suffering the usual rich man’s guilt over being rich – rushing full speed ahead to “give back to the world.” Funny how such giving back always seems to mean supporting socialist causes with money gained from the free market. Up till now, Gates has just been giving his own money voluntarily. Even if it’s to bad causes, he is certainly free to use his money anyway he chooses.

Now, however, his misguided meddling is about to involve the misdirecting of everyone’s income, and so the world’s richest useful idiot just became dangerous to freedom.

In November, as part of the G20 summit, Gates, representing his foundation, presented a report on a plan to eradicate world poverty. Said Gates, “I am honored to have been given this important opportunity. My report will address the financing needed to achieve maximum progress on the Millennium Development Goals, and to make faster progress on development over the next decade.” Gate’s report proposes a financial transaction tax (FTT) on tobacco, aviation, fuel and carbon (energy), to be enforced by all members of the G20 nations. The financial transaction tax has been excitedly talked about in the halls of the UN for a decade. Called the Tobin Tax, named after a Yale economist who dreamed it up, FTT would give the UN almost unlimited funding by taxing every stock and monetary transaction in the world.

Gates didn’t just dream this up on his own accord. He is actually resurrecting legislation a bill introduced in 2008 by then Senator Barack Obama. It was called the Global Poverty Act. Obama introduced the bill during his one abbreviated term in the U.S. Senate.

The bill was one of the only pieces of legislation ever introduced by Senator Barack Obama, and it wasn’t just a compassionate bit of fluff that Obama dreamed up to help the poor of the world. This bill was directly tied to the United Nations and served as little more than a shake down of American taxpayers in a massive wealth redistribution scheme. The Global Poverty Act would provide the United Nations with 0.7% of the United States gross national product. Estimates indicated that would add up to at least $845 billion of taxpayer money into UN coffers, to be spent (or wasted) by UN bureaucrats. The excuse for the taxing, of course, is to help end poverty in third world countries. The bill died in Congress in 2008 after passing unanimously in the House. Now Bill Gates has resurrected it.

Of course the United States has had an ongoing program of supplying billions of dollars in foreign aid and assistance to the poor for decades. In addition, the U.S. pays most of the bills at the UN for its many unworkable poverty programs. So what’s new about the Global Poverty Act, and why is it dangerous?

First, some history that led up to the Global Poverty Act. In 1999 and 2000 non-governmental organizations, NGOs held numerous meetings around the world to write what became known as the Charter for Global Democracy. The document was prepared as a blue print for achieving global governance. In reality it was a charter for the abolition of individual freedom, national sovereignty and limited government.

The Charter for Global Democracy outlined its goals in 12 detailed “principles:”

Principle One called for the consolidation of all international agencies under the direct authority of the UN.

Principle Two called for UN regulation of all transnational corporations and financial institutions, requiring an “international code of conduct” concerning the environment and labor standards.

Principle Three explored various schemes to create independent revenue sources for the UN – meaning UN taxes including fees on all international monetary transactions, taxes on aircraft flights in the skies, and on shipping fuels, and licensing of what the UN called the “global commons,” meaning use of air, water and natural resources. The Law of the Sea Treaty fits this category.

Principle Four would restructure the UN by eliminating the veto power and permanent member status on the Security Council. Such a move would almost completely eliminate U.S. influence and power in the world body. In turn Principle Four called for the creation of an “Assembly of the People” which would be populated by hand-picked non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which are nothing more than political groups with their own agendas (the UN calls NGOs “civil society”). Now, the UN says these NGO’s will be the representatives of the “people” and the Assembly of the People will become the new power of the UN.

Principle Five would authorize a standing UN army.

Principle six would require UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies “as part of a multinational global security system” under the authority of the UN.

Principle Seven would require individual and national compliance with all UN “Human rights” treaties and declarations.

Principle Eight would activate the UN Criminal Court and make it compulsory for all nations — now achieved.

Principle Nine called for a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring “Sustainable Development.”

Principle Ten would establish an International Environmental Court

Principle Eleven demanded an international declaration stating that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires the creation of a “high level action team” to allocate carbon emissions based on equal per-capita rights – The Kyoto Global Warming Treaty in action.

Principle Twelve demanded the cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions and for the “equitable sharing” of global resources, as allocated by the UN – here is where Obama’s Global Poverty Act comes in.

Specifically, the Charter for Global Democracy was intended to give the UN domain over all of the earth’s land, air and seas. In addition it would give the UN the power to control all natural resources, wild life, and energy sources, even radio waves. Such control would allow the UN to place taxes on everything from development; to fishing; to air travel; to shipping. Anything that could be defined as using the earth’s resources would be subject to UN use-taxes. Coincidentally, all twelve principles came directly from the UN’s Commission on Global Governance.

There was one major problem with the Charter for Global Democracy, at least as far as the UN was concerned. It was too honest and straightforward. Overt action displeases the high-order thinking skills of UN diplomats. The UN likes to keep things fuzzy and gray so as not to scare off the natives. That way there is less chance of screaming headlines of a pending takeover by the UN. So, by the time the UN’s Millennium Summit rolled around in September 2000, things weren’t quite so clear.

At the Summit, attended by literally every head of state and world leader, including then-president Bill Clinton, the name of the Charter had been changed to the Millennium Declaration and the language had been toned down to sound more like suggestions and ideas. Then those “suggestions” were put together in the “Millennium Declaration” in the name of all of the heads of state. No vote or debate was allowed — just acclamation by world leaders who basically said nothing. And the deed was done. The UN had its marching orders for the new Millennium.

Now the principles were called “Millennium Goals,” and there were eight instead of twelve. Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty; Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education; Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women; Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality; Goal 5: Improve Maternal Health; Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases; Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability; Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development.

Yes, these are sneaky guys, well trained in the art of saying nothing. Who could oppose such noble goals? The Millennium Project, which was set up to achieve the “goals” says on its website that it intends to “end poverty by 2015.” A noble goal, indeed. So what happened to the 12 Charter principles? Take a hard look – they are all still there.

Principles One, Two, and Twelve are right there in Goal 8 – to develop a global partnership for development. Now almost every world organization such as the World Bank carries a section on their web sites calling for “Millennium Development Goals” which control international banking and loan policy. They set policy goals for each country and sometimes communities to measure if nations are keeping their promise to implement the Millennium goals.

Principle Seven is clearly Goal 3, the only way to assure Gender Equality is to enforce compliance with UN Human Rights treaties. Principle Eight has already been achieved. Principle Nine is Goal 7. Al Gore is doing his best to enforce Principle Eleven. Global Warming, no matter how well the theory is debunked, just won’t go away because it is one of the Millennium Goals.

And then there is Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Act. Can you see which Principle that is? Of course, Principle 12 and Goal 1. Obama’s 2008 bill specifically mentioned the Millennium Goals as its guide and the 0.7% of GNP is right out of UN documents. In order to eradicate poverty by 2015, they say, every industrial nation must pony up 0.7% of their GNP to the UN for use in eradicating poverty.

The UN is now becoming an international collection agency, pressing to collect the promises the world leaders made at the Millennium Summit. The UN wants the cash. In 2005 former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said, “Developed countries that have not already done so should establish timetables to achieve the 0.7% target of gross national income for official development assistance by no later than 2015…”

At the Summit in 2000, the UN set clear goals to establish its power over sovereign nations and to enforce the greatest redistribution of wealth scheme ever perpetrated on the world. Now it has the Criminal Court; Sustainable Development (Agenda 21) is fast becoming official policy in every corner of the nation—only today we call it “going green;” and there is a full court press on to enforce Global Warming policy, in spite of the fact that there is now overwhelming evidence pouring out of the scientific community to fully debunk the scam.

Obama introduced the Global Poverty Act as he campaigned for the Presidency with the obvious and clear intention of showcasing the then little known Senator as a world leader. But the bill died in the Senate. Now, Bill Gates is proving his “useful idiot” status (a term coined by Lenin to describe capitalists who would sell the rope to hang capitalism), by serving as Obama’s lackey to resurrect the Global Poverty Act.

And right on cue, just after Bill Gates made his report to the G20 Summit calling for a financial transaction tax, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) introduced legislation to put a tax on “certain trading activities undertaken by banking and financial firms.” The bills, of course, are the Tobin Tax and in line with Gate’s report.

Clearly, Obama needs to show that, under his leadership, the United States is falling in line with the Millennium Declaration and its 2015 deadline for implementation. Truth, science and American taxpayer interests be hanged, as Bill Gates offers the rope, Harkin and DeFazio provide the knot, and Obama gets to pretend to be a “world” leader.

© 2012 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved

Related Articles:

1- Tea Party Candidate Warns of UN and Obama's Agenda 21