Those who are working to enforce Agenda21 operate from a three-pronged attack; Social Justice, which dictates that ―community‖ needs take precedent over ―individual‖ wants; Public/Private Partnerships, a dangerous melding of private corporations with government resulting in government-sanctioned monopolies; and Environmental control, which translates into the proposition that all actions by man lead to environmental Armageddon and therefore must be tightly regulated by a central force of power.

One major target in the crosshairs of this attack is private property ownership and control by individuals. Across the nation reports are pouring in of government land grabs that lock away private land in the name of protecting a sucker fish, or a spotted owl, or a historic site. The results are destroyed industries such as timber, ranching or mining. Valuable and desperately needed natural resources are put out of reach for use.

Much closer to the average homeowner, property rights are being violated as restrictions are put on a homeowner’s ability to add on to the house or make improvements. In some extreme cases, access roads to houses are disallowed; even normal repairs are interpreted as new building and are banned. There are new building restrictions that dictate the kinds of materials that may be used for building and repairs. Now private homes are being invaded by electric companies, replacing, without permission, electric meters to comply with new regulations. Homeowners are losing their ability to even control their own thermostat.

In some communities, to meet arbitrary energy restrictions, local government is forcing homeowners to install new energy efficient appliances and windows,and even new roofs, on occasion. There are reports of inspectors actually entering homes and systematically removing incandescent light bulbs and replacing them with the new green models, without the knowledge and against the will of the property owner. Repairmen are instructed to lower temperatures on water heaters as they repair them, and so forth.

In short, private property rights, meaning the control of property by the owner is fast disappearing. While Agenda 21/Sustainable Development-inspired legislation gives lip-service to private property ownership, the language usually says something like, ―balance the rights of individuals and property owners with the needs of the community.‖ That line is, in fact, a direct quote from the ―Growth Policy‖ for Great Falls, Montana. Such wording is nearly universal in comprehensive development plans across the nation.

That mindset is growing in local government regulations as Agenda 21 practices are enforced. The promoters understand that their policies are literally ripping apart private ownership of property, but they lack the intestinal fortitude to be honest about their actions. So they acknowledge ―property rights,‖ and hope we don’t question how private control of ones own property is ―balanced‖ with the ―needs‖ of the ―community. How is that done? Who stands for the rights of the individual property owner or private business as government makes the rules to decide the ―needs‖ of the community?

To defend such a policy, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) and planning professionals such as the American Planning Association (APA) which contract with local governments to create such rules, come armed with an arsenal of experts ready to defend the anti-property rights policies whenever challenged. So, if a property owner appears before the County Commissioners to complain that a certain regulation has damaged his property rights, or perhaps has damaged his ability to conduct business, for example, the NGOs immediately jump into action to defend the policy. They bring in a battery of ―experts‖ with officials titles to write official sounding reports that serve to overwhelm the elected officials and cut off any honest debate. A local citizen simply has no chance to fight back against this heavily-funded, powerfully-connected onslaught.

Obviously, if Agenda 21 and its mindset of government control is to be reigned in, clearly, something needs to be done to provide a strong voice for protection and defense of the property owners. Such a plan of action has now been developed by County Commissioner Cornel Rasor of Bonner County, Idaho. He calls it a Property Rights Council.

Rasor, Chairman of his County Commission, has been an opponent of Agenda 21 and a proponent of property rights for many years. After being elected to the County Commission several years ago he recognized the threat centralized control of development posed to private property and set out to develop a strategy to protect constituents’ property rights and their right to control their own property. As a result, the concept he created is a ―Property Rights Council‖ (PRC) as an official arm of the county government. It now exists in Bonner County, complete with a full time director on the County payroll.

Key to the success of a Property Rights Council is the proper definition of property rights. Scott Bauer, county attorney for Bonner County, Idaho and one of the driving forces to get it established, explained their approach in defining property rights this way: ―Practically speaking for each PRC case -file we translate the expression p”roperty right”with the expression c”ontrol right.” We take a property right to be a right to control some asset, resource, or physical thing. A PRC case is analyzed in terms of whether the proposal advances public control or private control (code for public/socialized property or private property).Property controlled by a ‘public entity’ is property controlled by an entity that utilizes a measure of socially sanctioned coercion to control the private assets in its possession and to take those assets from private individuals or groups without their full/complete consent. Applying this to land-use controls, new proposed zoning (anti- development or anti-use controls) socialize preexisting privately controlled real property and place it coercively into public control. Using this framework the PRC looks for the mix of public/private control over an asset or assets and promotes more private control and less public.

Further, Bauer explains that the root property rights philosophy used in the PRC is based on John Locke’s theories of natural property rights. This is the same root used by America’s founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, when they created the US constitution. So using such definition as the basis of PRC policy is right in line with imposing Constitutional law through PRC decisions.

Here’s how the Property Rights Council works, as both a protector for property owners and as an official advocate for private property rights: A PRC is a citizen’s council of between 7 – 9 citizen volunteers, vetted and approved by the County Commission and assigned the task of researching and offering free market recommendations to resolve property rights conflicts.

The mission of the PRC is to review county government activities and inter-governmental activities to determine whether the activities may cause adverse impact to private property rights. The PRC then is charged with supplying to county officials an opinion on that impact. The review includes study of county, state and federal regulations to assure County Commissioners are aware of their impact on property rights and help them prepare proper action that, at all times, assures protection of private property rights in the legal framework of local government. In short, the PRC does the research and provides free market solutions to elected officials that don’t normally have the time or education to do so.

The PRC will also be charged with training county employees to look for property rights violations as they go about their daily tasks in running county government. This could impact the permit process; the way inspectors treat property owners; elimination of invasive or unnecessary regulations; and over-zealous ticket writers.

Perhaps of most importance, the PRC provides the framework for countering the Sustainablist’s legal assault. Specifically, the PRC will interface with a network of free market think tanks which can and will provide legal opinions, reports, and even lawyers to substantiate the property rights legal position. They provide expertise, credibility and a legal force to counter the massive force of the Sustainablists that now overwhelm county officials when a property rights question is at issue. There is a nation-wide network of free market think tanks through the State Policy Network (SPN).There are other such think tanks available in every state. So, when a constituent comes before the Commission with a complaint, now he will not be alone. He will benefit from the PRC’s efforts to protect his rights.

The PRC will deal with issues ranging from wetlands regulations that usurp private property rights; watershed overlays; and zoning. The process can be used to determine the damage caused by such federal regulations as Endangered Species, Conservation Easements, EPA regulations on water and energy use, etc. Decisions made by one PRC could have far reaching effect on those made by other PRCs across the nation. A national database can be established of pending and resolved issues, providing guidance to other PRCs. It will be a precedent-setting decision-making body that could mark the beginning of the restoration of property rights for all Americans.

To assure the PRC contains the proper members (those who advocate and support private property rights) it will be vitally important that the County Commission submit applicants to intense scrutiny as to their ideas and philosophy. PRC members can request the dismissal of another PRC member for cause. The public can request a PRC member be removed for cause. There will be term limits for each member to assure constant movement in the council. The members of the Council will be volunteers.

Commissioner Rasor and Bonner County attorney Scott Bauer are succeeding, under great pressure and criticism, to establish a Property Rights Council to protect citizens and their property from the massive force of the planners who are implementing Sustainable Development across the nation. Their goal now is to help others establish such councils in every community, in every state.

Rasor and Bauer are making themselves available to anyone seeking to create a council. They have created tools and an action plan to help local activists start the process to create their own local PRC. They will teach those interested how to lay the ground work; how to select and approach the proper commissioner to get the ball rolling in their community; and finally to get the whole concept on the docket for consideration. To help with that process, Karen Bracken, a property rights activist from Tennessee is serving as the main contact to help activists get started with their own Property Rights Council. Karen will provide preliminary information, and as the process moves forward, she will connect activists directly with Commissioner Rasor and Scott Bauer for more detailed planning. Karen can be reached at her email address: karenbracken5@gmail.com.

Contact Karen and get started in the battle to secure private property rights as the first step to countering the massive fire power of the vast network of planning advocates, self-appointed stakeholders, and NGOs that have invaded communities across the nation to enforce top-down control over every aspect of your life and property. Property Rights Councils can and will be the ultimate weapon to defeat Agenda 21 and restore freedom.

According to the United Nation’s Millennium Project, there are currently 1.2 billion people living in poverty. 50,000 deaths per day occur worldwide as a result of poverty. Every year more than 10 million children die of hunger and preventable diseases. More than half of the world’s population lives on less than $2 per day and 800 million people go to bed hungry every night.

To combat the situation, there are massive efforts underway, from churches, to charitable organizations, to local, state, federal and international government programs designed to eradicate poverty. Billions of dollars in foreign aid have been distributed to countries around the world to help feed the poor. Poverty reduction targets have been set. International goals have been announced. Deadlines have been determined. Agreement has been reached by every national leader that poverty must be eradicated.

There are faith-based programs designed to feed the children; education programs designed to create awareness of poverty and starvation; corporate programs designed to enhance global development, helping to create business or to bring existing corporations into nations to provide jobs; and government programs designed to build hospitals, schools and businesses to create jobs and improve healthcare and education. Charitable contributions and government money, either from the local level or through foreign aid are the main source of funds for the efforts.

Yet little progress is being achieved as, in fact, the problem continues to escalate. There is an ever-growing disparity between rich and poor. Why?

To date, nearly every effort to eradicate poverty has focused on temporary relief of the suffering rather than getting to the root of the poverty and creating real solutions to actually eradicate poverty permanently. The result of such efforts while well intended, and perhaps necessary in the short run, to assure the poor are at least kept alive, will not solve the problem of poverty. In fact, such programs may actually make the situation worse.

Frankly there is not much new in this type of activity. For more than fifty years governments and charities have been focused on rushing aid to the poor and starving. Yet none of these efforts address the basic reason poverty exists in the first place. The solutions which call for more and more aid simply respond to the visual effects of poverty such as starvation, ignorance and poor health. None truly address the cause. As a result, rather than easing the situation, the number of poor continue to grow.

Most of the current anti-poverty efforts focus on redistributing funds from wealthier nations to poorer ones, either through mandatory taxation or charitable donations. This system ignores the fact that tomorrow the poor need to be fed again. Taxpayers or the voluntary donor must dig into his own funds yet again to help. The process is repeated daily, each time the poor recipient is only temporarily helped, as the tax payer or the donor become poorer themselves. Meanwhile, as massive funds are moved in and out of governments, bureaucracies are institutionalized to run the system. More and more money goes to feed the machinery of poverty than gets into the hands of the intended poor. Such a system sustains poverty rather than eradicates it.

Meanwhile, some corrupt and totalitarian governments also learn how to divert funds into their own coffers, again, depriving the poor of their daily bread. A system of bribes and local corruption often exist making it nearly impossible for average citizens to receive government services. Such a system forces many of the poor to live outside of society in a virtual underground economy. This actually serves to sustain poverty against the efforts of those trying to eradicate it.

In addition, some international policies essentially institutionalize poverty. Policies which prevent or severely restrict development and energy use result in the violation of the most basic human rights, denying economic opportunities and the chance for better lives, the right to rid their countries of diseases that were vanquished long ago in Europe and the United States. For example, lack of electricity means no water purification or sewage treatment, no power for offices or hospitals, and no stoves to replace pollution-belching, lung-disease-causing open fires.

It is becoming increasingly clear that poverty will never be eradicated unless those working on the problem will allow themselves to look for a drastically new way to attack it. Simply put, rather than constantly applying band aids to the effects of poverty, they must look for the cause and fix it.

One must first look at the world and see where wealth is created and why it is so. The greatest example of wealth creation is obviously the United States. It is the beacon of wealth and freedom for the entire world. Most in the world envy the US’s wealth and seek ways to share it, yet very few look at how the nation got there or care to try to copy its system for success.

Why did the United States become so wealthy? Was it the possession of vast natural resources? Africa has more. Was it the existence of greater industry? Japan has more. Was it the existence of a superior education system? The US now ranks below the top ten nations in education.

The reason the United States has led the world in wealth, standard of living and abundance is that the average resident of the United States has had the ability and the opportunity to invest and produce capital.

Why could ordinary citizens of the United States produce their own capital to create personal wealth, and yet most of the rest of the world failed at such an attempt? The answer is actually very simple. The United States created a very easy, immediate, complete system for recording and securing ownership of private property.

Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto explains the root of American wealth in his book, The Mystery of Capital. de Soto asks, “Why does Capitalism thrive only in the West, as if enclosed in a bell jar?”

Capital, he argues, “is the force that raises the productivity of labor and creates the wealth of nations, It is the lifeblood of the capitalist system, the foundation of progress, and the one thing that the poor countries of the world cannot seem to produce for themselves.”

Why not in other countries? Because the laws and practices of most countries in the world make it nearly impossible for average citizens to own property or to prove ownership of property. There are vast obstacles to gaining legal ownership. For example, in Mexico it takes twenty years before a piece of property can be recorded. In Peru it took de Soto’s team of experts 289 days to legally register a new business, even after paying over $1,200 in registration fees. In the Philippines a prospective property owner would first have to organize an association with his neighbors in order to qualify for a state housing finance program. The entire process could take 168 steps, involving 53 public and private agencies and taking 13 – 25 years. And so it goes in country after country.

The impact of a fee of $1,200 in a poor nation is enough to forever discourage even the attempt to register property. Such an amount, in many developing countries may equal an entire year’s income. It is important to note the impact free markets and private property have on the income of a nation’s citizens. The per capita income for Americans is $41,400 per year. For Europeans, where more government control is exercised, the per capita income is $27,400. In the former Communist nations of Eastern Europe it is now $3,295. Yet, just a few years ago it was $2,047. As more freedom and greater ability to own property grows, so does the per capita income.

If ownership of property cannot be properly recorded and able to be traced directly to the owner, then it cannot create equity and cannot be used as collateral for credit. It is not of value to the owner, only an expense. This situation has created, in deSoto’s estimate, over $9.3 trillion in “dead property.” That is property that cannot be used by anyone to create equity and therefore wealth.

Where it is common practice in the United States to buy property, hold it for a few years and sell it at a substantial profit or move up to a better home, thereby creating individual wealth, such a system is basically unheard of in most nations of the world. If one doesn’t have or can’t prove title, then no bank will make loans on the property. In nations where property cannot be easily and legally registered, the only recourse is to go to friends and relatives, get a smaller loan (thereby reducing ones ability to build a company) and still never have title to the business or the business property financed that way. Though people may live on and pay for property for years, it is hidden in an underground economy not beneficial to the individual or the national economy because ownership cannot be shown.

“In the West, by contrast,” de Soto argues, “every parcel of land, every building, every piece of equipment, or store of inventory is represented in a property document that is the visible sign of a vast hidden process that connects all these assets to the rest of the economy.” 70% of all small businesses in the United States are started by equity loans on personal homes. Small, independently-owned businesses employee the majority of people in the U.S.

This then is the hidden secret of why the West became so wealthy and the rest of the world has been mired in poverty. I put this statement in past tense because the United States is now losing wealth as a result of a massive campaign to reduce private property ownership through the policy of Sustainable Development. If not reversed, the United States will find itself in Third World status for exactly the same reasons other nations have landed there – destruction of private property rights.

Obviously poverty can never be eradicated – and will actually increase – until government gets out of the way and everyone has the equal opportunity to own and benefit from the wealth associated with private property ownership.

There are many corporations and private and government programs which are working to establish industry and create jobs in poor nations. Certainly having a job is necessary to living a better existence. Such jobs, while certainly a step up from daily aid, are not the complete answer. Simply working a job and paying for ones daily needs does not build wealth and it does little to help make citizens independent to fulfill their dreams. Yet, “providing jobs” has become the most advocated method of eradicating poverty.

As stated in the beginning, there are literally thousands of programs designed to provide a subsistence for life. It is, however, a life of perpetual bread lines and dependency on the charity of others — necessary to exist, but hardly an answer to fulfill dreams, wants and desires.

During the great depression of the 1930s when many were out of work and flat broke, they were, of course, grateful for the assistance of private charities and government agencies. Such relief efforts helped them feed their families and provide the bare essentials of life. But they weren’t happy. They weren’t satisfied. Instead they had a drive to stand on their own — to make their own way – to live independently. In the United States most finally did break free of the assistance and create an independent life. As a result, the U.S. economy soared, new industries rose and a vibrant economic engine grew out of the ashes of the Depression. For most Americans the drive to own their own private property was the goal to be achieved. The process became known simply as the American Dream.

Today’s poor in undeveloped nations certainly want the same opportunities to advance. Yet many now live in societies that are in some ways 3,000 years behind the modern world. Because of its system of private property ownership, the West has created a world of advanced technology, health and leisure where life expectancy is increased each decade. In the West, people truly can pursue a life of happiness.

In most of the world where poverty continues to increase, life is one of hopeless drudgery, where the constant drive for survival leaves little or no time for dreams or personal happiness or achievement. The West pours money into a broken system that simply does not address the problem. As we rush to provide each day’s aid, few charities or government programs seem to take the time to understand that hopes and dreams aren’t constant breadlines. Daily aid doesn’t allow the poor the opportunity to live their lives on their own terms.

Eradication of poverty in the world won’t come from endless aid designed for mere existence, nor will it come from simply providing jobs. The answer to poverty in the world will come only from providing the tools needed to create new, independent wealth. That tool is private property ownership.

ICLEI is now operating in more than 600 American cities – mostly in relative secrecy. More cities are being pressured to give ICLEI control of development policy making. In most cases that includes creating non-elected boards, councils and regional governments answerable to no one. City Councils and County Commissions, which should be answerable to the people, are now able to defer decision making to these non-elected bureaucrats, leaving the people without the ability to question or overturn policy. It’s the definition of a perfect“Soviet.”Yet most people had never heard of ICLEI or the power it holds over so many American communities. So, APC set out to change that, exposing the process and then asking Americans if they agree with such actions.

Since the mailings began, APC’s phones ring steadily with requests for reprints of the report. Moreover, it has sparked others to join the cause against Sustainable Development. More and more Tea Party rallies are featuring speakers on the subject. I am now giving more radio interviews andspeeches on the subject than ever before. Clearly, APC’s education campaign is having a dramatic impact on the effort to expose and stop both Sustainable Development and ICLEI. Below are the results of the Survey, so far.

Question 1: Have you heard the term Sustainable Development before?
Yes 38%    No 57%    Not Sure 5%

Question 2: Are you aware that Sustainable Development policy means severe restrictions on your local natural resources like water, and on private property use?
Yes 39%    No 59%    Not Sure 2%

Question 3: Have you heard of ICLEI?
Yes 23%    No 75%    Not Sure 2%

Question 4: Are you aware of ICLEI activities in your community?
Yes 5%    No 91%    Not Sure 4%

Question 5: Did you know that your community is enforcing international policy and laws, hiding them behind excuses like environmental protection and historic preservation?
Yes 10%    No 78%    Not Sure 12%

Question 6: Do you believe your community should be paying taxpayer dollars to an international organization like ICLEI to dictate local development policy?
Yes 2%    No 95%    Not Sure 3%

Question 7: If ICLEI is already in your town, do you want your City Council, Mayor, or County Commissioners to end its contract and stop paying ICLEI?
Yes 96%    No 3%    Not Sure 1%

Question 8: If ICLEI is already in your town, do you want your City Council, Mayor, or County Commissioners to continue its contract and allow ICLEI to proceed with its programs through non-elected boards and councils?
Yes 3%    No 96%    Not Sure 1%

Question 9: If ICLEI is not yet in your community, do you want your city leaders to allow them to get involved in your town?
Yes 2%    No 97%    Not Sure 1%

From the Survey responses, it’s obvious that Americans, when they know the facts, do not want international organizations pushing Sustainable Development on their community. Americans must get the facts and then confront their elected officials to stop these actions. The special report on Sustainable Development is available from the American Policy Center at 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton, VA 20816, or on the website at www.americanpolicy.org.

Greens on the run

A year ago, the Environmental Movement seemed on the verge of total victory. With Obama in the White House; Reid in the Senate and Pelosi in the House, it seemed nothing could stop them. Cap and Trade appeared to be a done deal. But today, even in the hottest summer on record and a massive oil spill in the Gulf, the Greens can’t get any traction for their once popular (now disgraced) cause. The Greens’ charges that big oil and industry have used their money and power to destroy the earth and stop vital environmental legislation, is falling on deaf ears. The Greens have lied too many times and now their house of cards is tumbling with unprecedented speed. Their intimidation of editors of science journals to not publish anything but the party line has been exposed. Global Warming is a proven hoax. People around the world have clearly learned that the Green’s efforts to turn back society are not only costly, but unnecessary. The sky is not falling and it never was.

A New Dark Ages

Sustainable development is the policy Mr. Sagar’s thought control was created to implement. Ant to Mr. Sagar, these concepts we call freedom are nothing more than delusion. And that’s why he and his fellow travelers are so dangerous to us.

They use every sort of deception, half-truth and non-science to implement this concept for the virtual captivity of the human spirit. Through the policies of Sustainable Development and “globally-acceptable truth” we are very quickly being led back to the tyranny and to the darkest ages of human history.

The last time the human race was faced with such an attack on reason and free thought was during the Inquisition in the 13th Century. Then, most of Europe lived under the tyranny of one small, self appointed gang — which made the decision about what proper thought and conduct was to be.

Anyone who disagreed was charged with heresy and called a lunatic. Most were automatically found guilty and were ruined, tortured or killed. People lived in terror. Human progress ground to a half.

“Evacuate” – “Eliminate”

But, you say, that could not happen today. We are alerted. We are dedicated. We will fight to our dying day!

I will give you this warning. It is entirely possible that in just a very short time, all of us could be following Mr. Sagar’s rants – and actually praising them as our own.

How could this happen? Let me explain by calling your attention to a film I viewed recently. It was called “Conspiracy.” This film dramatically documents a real event. The entire screenplay takes place during a single two-hour meeting.

As the opening credits role, we see the staff of a very fine resort preparing the food, which will later be served on the finest china. Wine will be enjoyed from the finest crystal. There couldn’t be a more genteel, civilized setting. The participants of the scheduled meeting are some of the most accomplished and respected leaders of their nation.

In a short time they begin to arrive. One by one, fifteen invited participants eventually enter the room and take their place around the table. The mood is jovial as they exchange greetings to friends and acquaintances. Though none is fully aware of the purpose for the gathering, they anxiously await the arrival of the meeting’s leader. He is known and respected by them.

With a flourish, he arrives. He is jovial, soft-spoken, smiling, calm, congenial, and he makes sure to address each participant with a warm greeting or a quick personal remark. All are at ease.

The day is January 20, 1942. The meeting begins. The leader is Reinhard Heydrick. He is the top aid of Heinrick Himmler and the head of the main office of the Nazi SS. His second in command is Adolph Eichmann. The meeting has been called specifically to discuss the “storage problem of the Jews.”

They calmly discuss the problems the government will soon face as they conquer more countries with Jewish populations. It is described as a simple logistics problem. Soon 11 million Jews will be under Nazi control. What to do?

They begin to discuss the need to remove Jews from everyday society. The administrator in charge of the Warsaw Ghetto discusses the health problems he is facing. He brings up the need for suitable housing.

The administrator in charge of German public works projects discusses the need for using more Jews in work crews. He seeks to keep them healthy for more work.

The discussion turns to Jewish immigration – the need to move them from country to country. Then the term “evacuation” is used. One participant asks what the difference is. Col. Heydrick smiles and asks if he might postpone that answer just now. He calmly lets the discussion continue around the room.

Concerning the issue of immigration, Col. Heydrick says calmly, once the policies are in place “there will be no Jews in Europe.” There is applause around the table.

As the meeting progresses, protests to issues are calmly put aside. Several times, Col. Heydrick asks that the objections be postponed because they will be dealt with later in the discussion.

One official, who works directly with the German Chancellery to carry out the government’s Jewish policy, argues that “We had an understanding about what the policy with the Jews was to be.” We are to use them in the work force,” he says. Suddenly, as if a revelation has just come to him, one military leader said, “I shot 30,000 Jews. Is what I did an evacuation?” “I need a clarification of words.”

The discussion pauses as Col. Heydrick considers the answer. Before he can answer, the Chancellery bureaucrat  says, “That is not what the Furer` told me. He has denied that killing the Jews is to be our policy.” Col. Heydrick calmly answers him, “and it will continue to be denied.” The room goes silent, as all understand the meaning of that comment.

When the discussion gets heated, Col. Heydrick calls for a break and asks for snacks and drink to be brought in. As the participants break up into small groups to eat and talk, the Colonel pulls the protesting official aside for a private discussion. Before it is over, the protesting participant is calmed and agreeable.As the meeting resumes, Col. Heydrick says with satisfaction,

“If I may speak for the group, we are moving along.” He firmly, but softly guides the discussion.

Finally, the discussion of evacuation takes a turn. Some Jews, the group is told, will be evacuated swiftly. “Can we all agree that ‘evacuation’ means ‘elimination?’” says Col. Heydrick. In that one moment, everyone understands the direction of the meeting.

The discussion turns to methods. And then Adolph Eikeman reveals the creation of the gas chambers and discusses their incredible efficiency.

They break for lunch. As they return the Colonel says, “It is now our purpose to make the plan work — not to discuss the ifs.” It becomes clear what the policy is to be.

As the meeting moves to conclusion, Col. Heydrick asks each of them if there are any disputes left to face “with what we have agreed.” There are no disputes.One by one, each agrees to the plan “we have made.” The meeting ends as Col. Heydrick says, “Good, we have accomplished something.”

In the course of two hours, over good food and wine, respected politicians and political leaders have sat in a room and have been slowly and expertly maneuvered to agree with a plan to completely eliminate an entire race of human beings from the face of the Earth. This was a professionally facilitated consensus meeting.

What does the story mean to you today? That is exactly the tactic being used in every single city council meeting, county commissioner meetings, state government hearing and Congressional hearing in this nation to impose the UN’s agenda 21 into American policy. The use of a professionally-trained facilitator, armed with a predetermined outcome.

This is how Sustainable Development is being implemented to replace our Republic. And they are making you think it’s your idea.

Words have no meaning. Principles and the rule of law are just quaint ideas. First, we accept Mr Sagar’s globally-acceptable truths – removing reason from the discussion. Then we just fill in the blanks. Evacuate. Eliminate. Same difference.

But the story about the Nazi’s creation of the final solution of the Jews may relate to each of us in a much more personal way.

A New Storage Problem

Consider this: replace the word “Jew” with the word “Patriot,” and then review the story again. Harsh, you say? Over the top? Let me remind you that today we have a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its sole mission is to define and find enemies of the state.

While most Americans think the Agency’s job is to protect us from Middle East terrorists, the DHS has spent an incredible amount of time issuing reports and warning about threats this government faces from one group specifically – American right wing extremists.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, an extremist bordering on terrorism, is anyone concerned over the economy; loss of jobs; foreclosures; has antagonism toward the Obama Administration; has criticism of free trade programs like NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership; is anti-abortion; opposed to same sex marriage; believes in the “end times;” stock piles food, ammunition, and weapons; opposes illegal immigration; opposes a New World Order; opposes the United Nations; opposes loss of US prestige; and uses the Internet or alternative media to express any of these ideas.

In short, anyone holding personal or political opinions different from that held by the federal authority is a potentially violent threat to the government. According to that description, the only people in the nation who fit the proper mold, and therefore are the perfect model citizens for the village are the mindless couch potatoes who watch Oprah and get their news from John Stewart on Comedy Central.

The threat from Right wing extremists is becoming globally-acceptable truth.

Since the reports have been released and the threat defined, now, each time there is an act of violence against an abortion clinic the news media says see – just like the DHS warned.

The shooting at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC just a few weeks after the release of the DHWS report on “Right Wing Extremism” was followed immediately by news reports and special side bar articles repeating the DHS reports – justifying the warnings.As your TEA Parties are monitored by federal agents, perhaps as this conference is being monitored, as the federal government places our biometric profiles in international data bases with cameras using software to watch how we walk, dress or sweat to determine if we have bad thoughts – as due process is replaced by intimidation – most Americans ignore it, happy to be protected.

And now, at Town Hall meetings, where Americans are supposed to take up issues with their elected representatives, union goons are intimidating and assaulting honest Americans.

Yet, like sheep, the news media dutifully report the globally-acceptable truth that these protests are actually orchestrated by malcontents and extremists.

This government, you see, has a new storage problem to deal with – those pesky patriots who keep quoting the Founding Fathers, whom the government keeps trying to eliminate from the history books.

To fully impose the agenda, you must be silenced. How far will they go? Does silence mean “evacuate” or “eliminate?”

My friends, can you connect the dots? Do you understand? This control of the ability to think and act on ones own is the root — the key – to who and what we are up against. It is the horror unveiled.

As my friend Dr. Ed Berry so eloquently put it, those who ignore these warnings, believing all is well, are “partying on the train to Auschwitz.”

Our Global Elders

Of course, the alternative to the chaos of a free society is the global village. Peace, order, harmony. Everyone in their place. Strict enforcement of the rules assures crime stops.

Rather than the din of millions of individual voices, confusing us with science and facts and absolutes, we’ll have the calming voices of the village elders – whose wisdom will save us all from the need to think or act for ourselves.

Tell us, our fathers, what should we do? Again, you say – over the top. DeWeese is just playing with fantasy. Well, not so fast. Let me introduce you to our self-appointed Elders of the Global Village.

Recently, they boldly announced themselves and even set up a website. Their announcement said, “We are moving to a global village and yet we don’t have our global elders. The Elders can be a group who have the trust of the world, who can speak freely, be fiercely independent and respond fast and flexibly in conflict situations.”

It seems, with all the chaos in the world, our need is great for the strong hand of gods on high – with the ability to look out over the Earth and see danger and swoop in to fix it.

And who could such super men be? There are 12 of them, including Nelson Mandela; the terrorist who actually practiced “necklacing” on his own people – you know – put a burning rubber tire around their necks.

Then there is Desmond Tutu, the great humanitarian whose great answer to poverty is life-long bread lines; And Gro Bruntland, the inventor of Sustainable Development; and Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General who did more to create UN global governance than any other; and Jimmy Carter, the joke who just won’t die. These are the ones you most likely have heard of.

They are serious. They are meeting. They are involved with the transformation you and I are fighting and they are committed to take power.

These self appointed saviors represent the end of self government and your ability to own your life. They won’t have time to be bothered with trivial issues like your home, your family or your dreams. They have much loftier goals to deal with.

And oh yes, the Executive Director of the Global Elders, the man working to put them on the throne is none other than Robert Pastor – the man who gave away the Panama Canal and is now working to create the North American Union.

Sustainable Development; Total Surveillance Society; Department of Homeland Security; Global Village; Globally-acceptable truth; Global Elders; Global Governance.

This is the blue print for the creation of a new dark age of pain and misery, fueled by mindless superstition and ignorance and the drive to control the world. It is the destruction of our civilization.

Equality 7-2521

To fully understand the massive changes to our society that we are witnessing I suggest you read a tiny little book, written decades ago by Ayn Rand called “Anthem.”

It describes a society that emerged after a great war. A society built on the top of an old order – now forgotten and forbidden, called the Unmentionable Times.

The people now exist only to serve the state. They are conceived in Controlled Palaces of Mating. They die in the Home of the Useless. From cradle to grave, the crowd is one – a great WE – led and controlled by The Elders.

They have no names, no individuality and no identity – only numbers – like in EVerify.

As in today’s School to Work program, jobs are assigned to them. As in today’s Smart Growth policy, there is a wall around the city, beyond which no one can travel into what is called the Uncharted Forest.

But the Elders hadn’t counted on one who didn’t go along. One who insisted on the ability to think for himself. His name is Equality 7-2521. He is a street sweeper who longs to be in the Council of Scholars, to work with science and knowledge.

One day, while sweeping the streets, Equality 7-2521 discovers a hole and inside he finds a tunnel – left from the Unmentionable Times. He discovers an odd, unknown device – an electric light.

He takes it to the Council of Scholars, certain they will be thrilled with the discovery that will make their lives better. Surely now they will let him stay with them. Not only is he rejected – he is threatened with death for trying to question the wisdom of the Elders and disrupting the harmony of the village.

He runs, into the Uncharted Forest – there to find a house from the Unmentionable Times – and in it a library. There he finds words he has never heard before. The words he needs to understand who he is – the word “I,” the word “Ego” and the word “Individual.”

All words the elders tried to destroy – because they are the words that threaten their power over the masses. Those words give the people their own power – the power to think for themselves.

That is the power you must never surrender. We are in a battle between liberty and tyranny.

The social, economic, and political transformations Sustainable Development requires will mean the suppression of the human spirit. This is the enemy we face. Every other issue is just a symptom. Understand that fact alone and become a very dangerous enemy to their schemes.

Those armed with Donald Sagar’s blue print now haunt the upper levels of the UN, the federal government, our state houses and your city council chambers.

They have achieved many of their goals, but they have not yet won. And their arrogance and impatience is resulting in a stirring of the American people. Their whole agenda is built on a house of cards that stands only when you are ignorant and compliant.

Now is our time. Now is the time to write, speak out, protest, demonstrate. Demand. Refuse.

As Gandhi said, “First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then we win.”

Do you feel it? It’s everywhere. On television. In the newspaper. At any public gathering. In any discussion – even among friends. It’s a feeling of mistrust. Nervousness. Suspicion. Even rage. Mostly, it’s just under the surface. But more and more it’s bubbling to the top. Political debate is breaking into outright war. Just say the words, “I don’t believe government should do that…” and the war is on. Take a side. Feel the heat. Tolerance is a thing of the past.

There is an all out, vicious attack on anyone who doesn’t respond properly. Ridicule. Intimidation. Public shunning. Destruction of careers. Removal from public meetings. All await those who express thoughts outside the politically-correct box.

Climate change skeptics are scientists who have gone beyond the hype and conducted their own research, and made their own findings. It’s what scientists do.

For their efforts they have been fired – discarded – blocked from receiving grants – banned from publications – and threatened. They’ve been compared to holocaust deniers – called nuts, crazy, and dangerous. Al Gore himself has called for violence against them. Others have called for Nuremberg-style trials – government show trials – to present them as enemies of humanity – simply because they disagree with official government reports – reports that are proving more and more to be wrong in the first place.

In other examples, property owners seeking to ask questions at city council meetings about a new regulation that may affect their land are denied the microphone – sometimes even bodily removed from meetings by armed guards.

A pickup truck in Shreveport, Louisiana, is pulled over by a cop. When asked why, the cop simply points to the bumper sticker on the back of the truck that says “Member of the NRA.”

And then there is the beauty queen, Miss California, USA, who was asked about her views on gay marriage – by the openly gay blogger and activist Perez Hilton. Her answer – very honest and very middle of the road.

She said, “Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offence to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.”

For that answer she was attacked in headlines across the nation, calling her a bigot, a dumb bitch, and sarcastically and mockingly calling her “biblically correct.”

And then, just last week, at a town hall meeting to discuss the health care plan with his congressman, a black man, Kenneth Gladney was beaten by union goons and sent to the hospital for disagreeing with the Obama plan.

Why? Why the hatred? Why the venom? Why the intolerance to what used to be called a “personal opinion” or political debate?

The fact is we are witnessing an all-out drive to impose thought control that seeks to ban the ability – the right- to think or speak for one’s self. Thinking is becoming a crime.

Today, there is one acceptable idea – government is the answer. Stray from that premise – even a little, as did Miss California, — and there will be no mercy for you. Your life will be destroyed.

There are forces in this nation who want total power to dictate their agenda and they will stop at nothing to achieve it. For them there is no compromise or polite discussion or differences of opinion. The wants, needs, desires of your life, your family, your home, are not to be considered.

Some describe their efforts as a conspiracy. If so, it isn’t very secret. The goal has been outlined in detail many times.

In the UN’s report on Global Governance; in Agenda 21; in various programs of UNESCO, like its International Baccalaureate program, which teaches global citizenship in a global village; it was in the Biodiversity Treaty; the Kyoto global warming accord; and it’s in the Cap and Trade initiative. It is most certainly in Obama’s health care bill.

All of these policies are blatant in their intent. Top down control; no sovereign, independent nations; no individual thought; no private property; no self defense; no morality; no personal pride of achievement; no questions. Anything that goes against the plan, anything that would cause anyone to hesitate in moving toward the agenda, must be eliminated or neutralized. .

Educate, indoctrinate, intimidate. Above all, destroy reason and control the ability to think.

The real question for which we must all learn the answer is how they are doing it. How have they taken a nation created on the ideals of individual liberty, limited government, and free markets, and gotten us to accept the opposite?

Globally Acceptable Truth in the Land of Eden

A few years ago, I found the answer and I wrote about it, believing I was now arming our movement with the ammunition we needed to fight back. But that article was met with a resounding thud. Too intellectual, perhaps? Too academic? People want red meat. They want names and numbers of the culprits. They want to keep it simple.

Well, now that we have moved so much closer to fulfillment of their agenda – now that tyranny can be more clearly found in almost every aspect of our lives – perhaps now is the time to try again.

Ask yourselves this question: when did the ability to think rational thought become replaced with Zombie-like programmed responses? Where do these ideas come from?

Believe it or not, there is an organization, part of the UN, of course, whose purpose is to define what we are allowed to think. Its process is called “globally-acceptable truth.”

The organization is called the Eden Foundation and the head of it is a man named Donald Sagar. He is a representative to the United Nations’ Association for World Education.

He is dangerous to you and me because he has written the blue print on thought control and is now enlisting the self-proclaimed leaders of the world to enforce it.

Mr. Sagar sent me an e-mail one quiet Sunday afternoon to disagree with some of my articles dealing with global warming. His first line told me everything I needed to know about Mr. Sagar’s value system. The e-mail began, “Science aside…” Obviously Mr. Sagar didn’t want to be bothered by mere science when he had loftier goals in mind.

But he went on to say, “it is inherently illogical and otherwise irresponsible to suggest that human activity does not posses the potential to alter the Earth’s climate.”

What he’s saying is, no matter what science tells us, I “FEEL” that man is damaging the Earth, therefore I insist that it be true.

Incredibly he then argued, with obvious horror that, “energy usage worldwide is increasing at an alarming rate of speed as 3rd world countries continue to modernize.”

One must not miss the completely astonishing rationale of his statement. My first thought is that he is one of those who advocate that people who live in third world countries are simply animals who should always live in mud huts, walk five miles a day for their filthy water and cook over the quaint campfire in the center of the village. Because, you see, that is good for the environment.

And he certainly does believe that. But his reasoning is astounding. He says, Because of advances in technology, everyone in the world is now at similar risk – rich and poor alike.” He believes that science is only a force for destruction.

And that’s why Mr. Sagar advocates that all technological advances must be first approved by a higher authority – safely out of the hands of individuals.

Too Much Knowledge

But fear not, Sagar’s Eden Project, he says, can define our problems on Earth and fix them. And here is how Donald Sager defines that problem: “Because of the relentless increase in the quantity and complexity of knowledge in the world, we are experiencing a clash between cultures that prevents all but the most capable of surviving with any meaningful identity in tact.”

Did you catch that? The reason we have wars, poverty and misery is because there is too much knowledge. Based on that premise, Sagar then set out to create the blue print to define acceptable ideas and thoughts – those that would bring harmony to the world.

That leaves no room for new ideas or innovation. Because new ideas bring change, causing confusion, shifts in living conditions and unemployment as old industries die to make way for the new.

So, instead, we must set up a system of thought control. Certain ideas are the only ones safe to think. Globallyacceptable truth. And there must be a top-down control to assure bad thoughts are controlled or obliterated.

For it to work, the rest of us must be convinced or forced to stop thinking or using our  own experiences, along with academic and scientific absolutes, to draw our own conclusion.

Once that is established, it is easy to reject morality, and then only a short step to accepting the idea that people of third world nations should live out their days in total poverty – just for the common good. And by way, eventually it would be good for all of us to live that way too.

It is then just as short journey to accepting euthanasia as a means to rid us of the elderly who are no longer useful for the village. And then, it’s an even shorter step to accepting the final solution of forced abortion for population control.

Gathering the Power of the World Elite

Once Sagar put this idea together, he began to contact world leaders to convince them of his plan. For success, he needed them to be the enforcement hammer. You’ll find on his website a series of letters from world leaders, as they praise and endorse the plan.

One is a letter from none other than Robert Muller, former Assistant Secretary General of the UN, and affectionately known as the “philosopher” of the UN.

Said Muller in his letter: I am referring to the need to establish a body of objective, globally acceptable information to serve as a foundation for global education…”

Other supporters include K.B. Mathur, Director General of UNESCO, the man in charge of implementing global education policy in our public schools. There is also Dale Ott, of the World Council of Churches, and many more heads of global and international organizations – the infamous Nongovernmental organizations that are responsible for writing policies and treaties that seep out of the UN and into national law.

Most telling was a quote from a man named Keith Smiley, president of a UN consultant group who said “The planet and its people have been experiencing an information explosion. The uncontrolled expansion of information is dangerous since it tends to diffuse meaning and purpose.”

And then there is this endorsement from Alexander King – the founder of the Club of Rome: King writes to Sagar, “ One aspect of your letter… struck me forcibly – it was when you said, ‘it is actually our thought process that is responsible for the predicament we find ourselves in.’ Concluded King, “I couldn’t agree with you more. Unless we find the means to change our thinking I can see little hope in solving the supreme problem for humanity – its impending extinction.”

These powerful people are telling us that humans, armed with knowledge are dangerous to the new order of peace and harmony they intend to establish for us.

Zombies and the End of Human Progress

No matter what you call it, this is thought control – globally acceptable truth. It is the only way you will be permitted to think. Imagine the consequences such thought control will have on the human race.

Thomas Edison wouldn’t have been allowed to even think about such radical changes as alternatives to candle wax in our well-ordered society. The Wright Brothers would have been hanged as heretics to suggest man could fly.

This is the process by which your children are being deliberately “dumbed down” in government schools. The premise of “globally-acceptable truth” is the very root of today’s public school curriculum.

And the process is working like a well-oiled machine. Americans have been giving up their liberty and way of life with barely a blink of an eye – for decades.

Misleading sound bites are replacing reasoned thought. Just say “Go Green,” and the eyes of the masses glaze over and the people comply. Or, “it’s for the children,” and we give up control to the state. Or, “it’s just to keep you safe,” and we openly encourage the creation of a total surveillance society.

The process is so all encompassing, so all pervasive, that most people don’t recognize that it’s being employed.

Enemies from Within

And a lot of people who should know better, who should be in the fight to stop it are actually helping them do it.

For example, in the name of stopping illegal immigration, mainstream conservatives, both in congress and in trusted organizations, are embracing and promoting policies like Real ID and E-Verify.

Both of these programs are major tools in creating an international surveillance society, which will make it easier for control of individuals in the global village. But people many of you trust are telling you to accept these policies, actually saying “I would rather give up some freedom to be safer!”

To promote this argument, they actually use the phrase, “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” What they are really saying with that phrase is that the government always gets it right. That phrase also indicates that the Bill of Rights was actually written to protect the guilty. What do we need guarantees for – if benevolent government is there to protect us?

As for E-Verify, which demands the use of a social security number for every single American at every age, so the government can grant you the ability to get a job—is it really the position of the freedom movement that every baby born in America should be stamped with a number at birth?

Some who proclaim themselves to be freedom advocates also argue that Public/Private Partnerships are free enterprise and that “free trade” policies will actually help to restore the Republic. I’m really trying to understand how the creation of governmentsanctioned monopolies represents a free market. And how does that concept fall in line with the ideas of the Founding Fathers?

Our Founders believed it was government’s job to protect the ability of business to compete – not to guarantee profits. They certainly didn’t mean for government and business to get into bed together.

And then there is the growing defense in conservative circles of the Social Security system as the vital tool necessary to take care of the elderly. When did that shift take place in our movement? Social Security was part of Franklin Roosevelt’s socialist New Deal.

When you start to defend Social Security, it’s much easier to find yourself defending welfare, Medicare and Obama’s health care scheme. It’s all from the same bone.

See how quickly we begin to accept ideas we would not normally support? That’s the power of Globallyacceptable truth. It’s all around us.

New Truths for a New Order

Global Warming is globally-acceptable truth.

The United Nations’ Declaration on Human Rights is globally-acceptable truth.

Universal health care is globally-acceptable truth.

Mandatory purchase of a Prius is globally-acceptable truth

The common good over the individual is globally-acceptable truth.

Independent, sovereign nations as a source of war is a globally-acceptable truth.

Global governance for the future peace of man-kind is a globally-acceptable truth.

Global citizenship is a globally-acceptable truth.

Severe reduction of the population is globally-acceptable truth.

The UN Gets in the Game

And they are steadily putting these “truths” into practice. Just a few weeks ago, the United Nation held the “Conference on the World’s Financial and Economic Crisis.”

UN General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto blatantly moved the conference to denounce the free market system, saying, “Capitalism cannot be reformed…”

He went on to say, “Egotism and greed cannot be corrected …we must go beyond controls and corrections… to create something that strives towards a new paradigm of social coexistence.”

Those words clearly show that the UN is now moving to implement the Eden Project plan of Globally-acceptable truth into the world economy.

The End of Reason

Sagar’s project is the key to understanding what is being done to our society and how it is being implemented – right before our very eyes. We must learn that we are not facing a scattering of issues that are just wrong headed. Instead, it’s being orchestrated with a specific mindset behind it.

Step by step, we have surrendered the ability to reason and to take responsibility for our own lives – and instead are giving our lives to government to be cradled in its warm and safe cocoon from birth to death.

There is an endless supply of examples to show how the process is destroying our once free society. In fact, what was once a slow process – perhaps moving so slowly that most people didn’t even notice – has become a tsunami.

The public school system is a major example. There are now more psychologists on the payroll of public schools than teachers. The result is an abuse of innocent minds beyond description. Today, dumbed-down children emerge from classrooms like zombies – modern children of the corn, unable to question authority, unable to think for themselves. The perfect citizens of the global village.

The imposition of environmental regulations has become the greatest threat to ownership and control of private property. Our Supreme Court has now declared that there is no private property and that any community is free to take any property it desires for private development – all for the common good of the community.

We have accepted the rise of a horde of powerful non-elected government agencies like planning commissions, transportation commissions, homeowners associations, neighborhood development councils, historic preservation councils, and stake holder councils – and we call them a proper role for government.

Yet, the more non-elected councils making the rules – the less power for the elected representatives chosen by  the people – the less say we have about our own lives.

The true purpose of this new government structure is to create and enforce the global village. The policy of choice to make it happen is, of course, Sustainable Development.

Sustainable Development has three components: global land use, global education, and global population control. Sustainable Development is anti-free enterprise; anti- limited government and anti-individual liberty. But most communities and government entities have accepted it as a proper role for government.

Can you name one single elected official – anywhere in the United States – at any level of office – who speaks out against Sustainable Development? Can you name one who has stood up to stop this policy? But there sure are a lot of them who like to get up at political meetings and rouse the faithful about how they are working to restore the Republic and our free society.

A free society protects its property owners and businesses and helps them to go about their lives unencumbered. A free society doesn’t set up spy mechanisms to track the whereabouts of its people through ID cards and biometric databases. A free society doesn’t close down whole industries and towns at the whim of special interest groups using made up excuses like spotted owls. A free society defends its borders and protects its citizens from outside invasion.

But all of these things are being done through the process of Sustainable Development – and the politicians sit on their hands and ignore it.

Like a bad plastic surgery, our society is being transformed into a hideous monster. And it will destroy everything you hold dear in life.

In the name of Sustainable Development, there are now movements to ban over the counter, natural supplements; and fast food; and air conditioning; and recreational vehicles; and the consumption of meat; and cars; and suburban housing; and the family pet; and plastics; and fireplaces, and on and on.The floodgates have been opened. And so many of our fellow Americans don’t even question why. Was it not always so?

Ban it. Ban it. Ban it. Ban it. These are the sounds of the bombs going off in a war for control. The war against freedom. The one statement that should never be uttered in a free society is “ban it.” A free society cannot exist under this weight.

(End of Part 1)

Tom DeWeese is the President of the American Policy Center and the Editor of The DeWeese Report. TThe DeWeese Report is now available online, for more information click here.

By Tom DeWeese

Africa has more natural resources than the United States. Yet its people wallow in poverty and a horrible existence, not because the land doesn’t provide for them, but because of bad governments.

Case in point is Zimbabwe which, by all accounts, should be the richest of all African nations. It was once called the breadbasket of Africa because of its rich soil and prosperous farmers. Today, under the brutal, unending dictatorship of insane ruler Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe sits in ruins. As The Washington Times reported, “People are starving and compete in the countryside with baboons, jackals and goats for roots and wild fruits; health care has imploded and cholera is on the march as water and sewer systems collapse.”

Why the collapse of this once wonderful country? Robert Mugabe. He hates whites, wants them out of the country, and so has literally stolen their land – mostly the once-rich farms. Then he gave the farms to his cronies or to just poor people living on the street. Most of these people had never even seen a farm, let alone worked one. The result was certainly predictable — instant starvation. Mugabe maintains power through a gang of thugs which roam the streets and savagely beat and murder anyone who dares stand in opposition.

In spite of that, Mugabe has a strong, organized opposition that has bravely struck back, forcing elections and even winning them to throw out Mugabe. Twice. But he refuses to go. He just ignores the election results. In desperation, the opposition then tried to force at least a coalition government, allowing both Mugabe and opposition leaders to run the government. That lasted a couple of minutes. Mugabe made clear his position on the collation government when he said, “This thing called democracy is a problem. It’s a difficult proposition because always the opposition will want much more than what it deserves.”

The world has rightfully vilified the corrupt and brutal regimes in North Korea and Iran. The UN has condemned the genocide in Darfur and rung its collective hands over the fighting in the Gaza Strip. The UN has even sent agents to the United States to investigate our legal system and look for human rights violations.

But what of the tragedy in Zimbabwe? What of the brutal rule of Mugabe? Is he considered an international outlaw? Has the UN sent out a call for troops? Is there an international movement to have him removed from office? Has the UN Security Council met to demand action? Is there an international outrage aimed at Mugabe, as there was against the white Apartheid government of South Africa? Sanctions? Blockades? Protest songs by Bono? Anything? No.

Mugabe did speak at the UN’s Sustainable Development Conference in South Africa a few years ago. The 15-nation South African Development Community continues to deal with Mugabe. The South African government continues to “mediate” with him as he ignores the will of his own people and stays in office. Mugabe simply told the Associated Press, “Zimbabwe is mine.” Apparently that’s OK with the UN and the international community.

Meanwhile, rather than divert attention to Zimbabwe and its petty problems, the UN knows it’s much more interesting to get back to the investigations against human rights violations in the United States. There’s so much more wealth to plunder here.

By Tom DeWeese

The race is on for a new chairman of the Republican Party. The outcome is important because the party has become so lost over the past few decades. No longer is it the party of limited government, low taxes and free enterprise. To the contrary, under the reign of terror by the Bush Administration, the GOP had been the force behind the largest growth of government in the history of the United States: record-setting budgets and deficits, assaults on our national sovereignty, invasion of our personal privacy, destruction of private property rights, illegal amnesty, international ID cards and the collapse of the greatest economy in the world.

Yes, it’s certainly time for a change in GOP leadership and direction. The candidates for Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman include former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele, current RNC Chairman Mike Duncan, Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis, South Carolina party chairman Katon Dawson, and Chip Saltsman, the presidential campaign manager of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Each of these candidates is working to convince the GOP rank and file that they are the more conservative candidate and best qualified to lead the Republican Party back to its roots of limited government. It’s a tall order.

But here’s a true test of where they really stand. One question every true Republic should ask the wanna-be chairman is this: Which document would you choose as the guiding principle for your vision of government – the Decla ration of Independences, as written by America’s Founding Fathers, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as produced by the United Nations?

Do you think that is a strange question to ask a potential chairman of the Republican Party? Would you assume that he would naturally stand with the Founding Fathers? Then you are about to be surprised.

Not many Americans, particularly Conservative Republicans, have heard of the International Democrat Union (IDU), but most would be very surprised to learn the names of its membership and its true goals.

Formed in 1983, the IDU says it’s a “working association of over 80 Conservative, Christian Democrat and like minded political parties of centre and centre right.” Some of the political party members of the IDU include the German Christian Social Union; British Conservative Party; Norway Conservative Party…and the U.S. Republican Party.

In the IDU’s 2005 Declaration, issued after a meeting in Washington, DC, it stated, “Our common goal is free, just and compassionate societies. We appreciate the value of tradition and inherited wisdom. We value freely elected governments, the market-based economy and liberty for our citizens. We will protect our people from those who preach hate and plan to destroy our way of life. Free enterprise, free trade and private property are the corner stones of free ideas and creativity as well as material well-being. We believe in justice, with an independent judiciary. We believe in democracy, in limited government and a strong civic society.”

Such a statement gives one the impression that the IDU is on a mission to spread the ideals of the American Revolution around the globe. Here, at last might be an international organization that brings the good news of our own Declaration of Independence to the far corners of the oppressed world. No other document on earth more strongly declares the principles of liberty that made the United States the guiding light of freedom in the world. With the Republican Party as an active member, it would certainly be expected that American documents and principles would be the basis of policy for an international organization that declares it promotes “free enterprise, free trade, and private property.”

But a careful look at the IDU’s founding Declaration of Principles reveals a very different message. The second paragraph of the IDU document states: “Being committed to advancing the social and political values on which democratic societies are founded, including the basic personal freedoms and human rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…” That, of course, is the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights that the IDU document is promoting as its guiding principle.

There are two conflicting philosophies of governance in the world. One, the American view, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, states that all people have rights they are born with and that government’s only job is to protect those rights at all costs. The Declaration says that these rights are forever and unquestioned. It is the foundation of human freedom. It is what makes the United States a Republic, where the rights of minorities (even of one) are firmly defined and protected.

The other philosophy says that government grants our rights, professing that all such rights give way to an undefined common good whenever it’s warranted – which is often. That means that all so called rights are subject to the whim of whatever gang is currently in power at the time, dictating the definitions of what constitutes the “common good.” Today that is commonly called a democracy, where the power of majority rule can and does obliterate the rights of minorities.

As an example of how this second system works in practice, The Constitution of the old Soviet Union said that Soviet citizens had most of the same rights as Americans. Except that it also said individual rights were secondary to the common good. In the case of the Soviet Union, the common good was defined as creating a worldwide communist utopia where individual wants and needs simply didn’t count. We all know how that worked out for the Soviet citizens.

While veiled in language designed to sound much like the Declaration of Independence, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights actually takes this second approach, outlining specific rights it says we should all have. It says nothing of “unalienable” rights, instead referring to “rights under the law.” Who or what is the law, according to the Human Rights Declaration? It says, “the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.” Now, at first look, that sounds like America. Democracy. People voting – the opposite of dictatorship. But such a concept ignores the very root of American freedom – that our rights are guaranteed, no matter what the majority thinks or wants. Moreover, Article 29, Section 3 of the Declaration says “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” So much for “unalienable” rights.

Suppose the majority of people vote to abolish your business (Wal-Mart?) or take your home (to protect bird habitat?)? The reason is always to protect the common good, or the children, or the environment, or whatever is the fad of the day. This is called majority rule, but it is still just another form of dictatorship. It’s what led to the ravages of the guillotine in revolutionary France. It’s rule by fear; fear of the wrong gang changing the rules; fear of standing against the crowd. Majority rule is simply a lynch mob – or more graphically, three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

This is the root of the philosophy entrenched in the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights. It is the basis for the political policy behind Sustainable Development and the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision on eminent domain. It’s the philosophy that dictates a common good must be served, no matter the consequences. Personal liberty must give way to the whims of the crowd.

Now, based on its endorsement of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights rather than the unique American founding document – the Declaration of Independence — this destructive, anti-human philosophy is entrenched and being passed off as freedom by the International Democrat Union. The IDU is an international organization that dares pretend to speak for those of us who advocate limited government and human liberty. The IDU documents are filled with rhetoric about compassion for human rights. Yet, does it show compassion to support policy that says no one’s property is safe from confiscation; no one’s dreams may be fulfilled if they aren’t approved by a jealous mob?

Is this truly what the Republican Party now supports? Well, that’s a question for those candidates now campaigning for its chairmanship. All say they seek a new direction to move the party back to its roots. So here is the question every Republican in the grassroots should ask each of these candidates: Will you remove the Republican Party from the International Democrat Union and again use the Declaration of Independence as your guide for the proper role of government? It’s a fair question they should be ready to answer.

Action to Take

Every concerned American should directly ask each of the candidates for the GOP chairmanship if they intend to remove the Republican Party from membership in the IDU. Their answer will tell you everything you need to know about their philosophy and political goals. If they refuse to act on the IDU then you will know they have no intention of restoring the Republican Party to its roots of Constitutional-mandated limited government, free enterprise and individual rights.

Write to each candidate at their personal website -

1. Ken Blackwell: http://kenblackwell.com/

2. Saul Anuzis: www.anuzisforchair.com/

3. Mike Duncan: www.mikeforchairman.com/

4. Katon Dawson: www.katondawson.com/Home.html

5. Michael Steele: www.steeleforchairman.com/

6. Chip Saltsman: http://chipsaltsman.com/

Most, except Duncan, can be contacted on Facebook, and all (except Duncan) can be reached on Twitter.

As Grover Norquist (president, Americans for Tax Reform) said, “Never again should the RNC chair be appointed by anyone. Every center-right activist should have a say in questioning the candidates and communicating with RNC members who cast votes…just like lobbying your Congressman and Senators. The route to a freer America begins with each of us caring enough to engage on this first election in the campaign for 2010, 2012 and beyond.”

Tom DeWeese is the President of the American Policy Center and the Editor of The DeWeese Report. The DeWeese Report is now available online.

By Tom DeWeese

Senator Barack Obama has introduced a dangerous bill and it’s on the fast track to Senate passage, probably because of his high profile position as the expected Democrat presidential nominee. Obama hasn’t done much legislatively in his freshman Senate term, but this one is very telling about what we can expect from a President Obama.

The bill is the “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) and is not just a compassionate bit of fluff that Obama dreamed up to help the poor of the world. This bill is directly tied to the United Nations and serves as little more than a shakedown of American taxpayers in a massive wealth redistribution scheme.  In fact, if passed, The Global Poverty Act will provide the United Nations with 0.7% of the United States gross national product. Estimates are that it will add up to at least $845 billion of taxpayer money for welfare to third world countries, in addition to the $300 billion Americans spent for the same thing in 2006.

The situation is urgent because the Global Poverty Act has already passed the House of Representatives by a unanimous voice vote on September 25, 2007. The senate version has been passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by unanimous consent and ready for a full Senate vote.

Of course the United States has had an ongoing program of supplying foreign aid and assistance to the poor for decades. And the U.S. pays most of the bills at the UN for its herd of programs. So what’s new about Obama’s bill, and why is it dangerous?

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 to be a blueprint 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 Cort
• 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 opposes 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 bill specifically mentions 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 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 much evidence surfacing to debunk the theory.

Clearly, Obama’s bill has been introduced to assure the United States falls in line with the Millennium Declaration and all that it stands for. After all, the UN needs the money to pay for its new found power. Truth, science and American taxpayer interests be hanged. Barack Obama wants to be a “world” leader.

By Tom DeWeese

I’ve been waiting for the disbelief and outrage to emerge from Republicans across the nation over the Republican Party’s recent announcement. Incredibly, the RNC announced that it is endorsing the poverty eradication program of rock star Bono. There hasn’t been any outrage yet from GOP rank and file. Is there nothing left of the old GOP?

For those who missed it, in August, the Republican National Committee took steps to endorse Irish rock star Bono’s proposal to spend $30 billion in U.S. taxes to eliminate global poverty. Bono, lead singer of the rock group U2, has dogged political leaders around the world, using his rock star status to pressure them into accepting his brand of global guilt. However, the GOP’s capitulation to Bono’s charms goes much deeper than getting excited about the passions of a rock star.

This time, Bono is acting as the messenger boy for the United Nations. You see, back in 2000 every head of state in the world agreed to the UN’s Millennium Declaration which calls for the end of poverty by the year 2015. There, the world’s leaders agreed to put up the money for UN poverty programs. Now the UN is working to collect. Bono has declared himself to be the collection agent. And the Republicans jumped when he called.

How can it be that the Republican Party, which once advocated free enterprise, limited government and individual liberty, could fall for such a wealth redistribution scheme, and at the request of an avowed Marxist like Bono? The two should have nothing in common, what so ever. Or don’t they?

Eradication of poverty is certainly a noble cause. People throughout the world are suffering from hunger, poor health and filthy water. The number of poor in the world is growing higher each year. There is no doubt that something must be done.

Of course, there are thousands of efforts in the world aimed at eradicating poverty or feeding and clothing the poor. From churches to charitable organizations to local, state, federal and international government programs, billions of dollars are collected and presumably distributed to the poor.

Yet, every day we have more poor. Why? Because none of these efforts focus on the source of poverty. None of them take steps to reverse the situation and help the poor to help themselves. And neither will the GOP’s new Bono-inspired scheme. And that is what’s so astounding about the GOP’s announcement. It should know better.

Poverty, as run by the international poverty cartel headquartered in the United Nations, is big business. As in almost every case where there is unlimited cash and little accountability by mindless, faceless bureaucrats and all-powerful potentates, corruption, embezzlement, exorbitant salaries and inside procurement deals fatten the pockets of a few and leave the poor hungry and left out.

Adam Lerrick, visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) told the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Security and International Trade and Finance that he estimates between $100 billion and $500 billion in World Bank funds intended for African development have been smuggled into offshore accounts.

As poverty grows ever greater, Bono establishes himself as the self-proclaimed savior of Africa. He uses his concerts to enflame young audiences to hate the rich. He postures. He snarls. He marches up and down the stage waving a red flag while the music pounds a steady, military beat. And political leaders cower as he shakes them down for the cash.

Yet, where is Bono’s indignation over the theft by the very organizations he promotes? Where are his revelations of radical environmental groups who openly advocate that African villagers must continue to live in mud huts and walk five miles for water, because that is “sustainable?” In fact, Bono, and the ilk he supports, arrogantly deny the poor the opportunity to live in the Twenty First Century because they don’t want them to have electricity, cars, better roads and modern homes. This, they say would damage the environment. And this is the policy the Republican National Committee has chosen to support?

Even as the poverty cartel demands the eradication of poverty by 2015, how do they propose to achieve that success? How are the poor supposed to climb out of poverty? They aren’t. Ending poverty would mean the end of the stolen funds and the political power that the poverty cartel has come to expect.

Instead, they have condemned the poor of the world to live in life-long bread lines, dependent on others for daily existence, no hope for a future of betterment. The poor are mere pawns in the game. And this is the policy the Republican National Committee has chosen to support?

Moreover, even without the corruption, redistribution schemes are not the answer to saving the poor. The GOP should know that taking money from hard working people and giving it to those who must instantly consume it solves nothing. It’s a momentary band-aid. Tomorrow the poor and hungry will need more. And more will be taken from the providers. Anyone who has ever studied economics 101 should know that the only possible outcome of such a scheme is to make everyone poorer. And this is the policy the Republican National Committee has chosen to support?

So why are some nations so poor, and others are so rich? What is the real answer to eradicating poverty? The “2007 Index of Economic Freedom,” published jointly by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal may hold the answer. It examines 10 economic characteristics of 157 countries. Those include, property rights, monetary stability, freedom from government, trade restrictions, business regulations and government corruption.

The report includes a color-coded map showing the nations that are free, mostly free, moderately free, mostly unfree, and repressed. Does it surprise anyone to discover that the most repressed nations also contain the poorest people in the world? People who lack freedom have no ability to produce wealth.

As Economist Walter Williams points out, “Extensive government control, weak property rights and government corruption almost guarantee poverty.” Those three factors are almost universal in United Nations’ anti-poverty programs and the very reasons why none of it programs will ever achieve the goal of eradicating poverty.

If the GOP was actually interested in helping the poor and making itself a hero to the masses it should abandon any connections with Bono and the UN. It should renounce any such wealth redistribution schemes. It should advocate the policies that made the United States the wealthiest nation on earth – the policies of private property ownership, limited government and free enterprise.

The United States isn’t wealthy because of an abundance of natural resources or good Karma. The United States is rich because it’s free. And every nation on earth could be as wealthy if they too allowed their people to live their own lives without interference from busybodies who want to dictate how others should live – or seek to confiscate the fruits of someone’s labor. Every nation could have it, no matter the education level of the country or the population.

If the GOP needs a hero to follow why not choose a real one – with real solutions – those which actually reflect the freedom the GOP insists it promotes? Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto is such a man.

De Soto wrote a book, “The Mystery of Capital, Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else.” That book has become an international phenomenon with those who truly want to do something about eradicating poverty. De Soto has been sought out by at least 50 heads of state, each asking him to come to their country to help establish programs and guidelines for eradiating poverty, helping the poor build their own wealth.

So why hasn’t the GOP endorsed de Soto’s brand of freedom instead of Bono’s tired old socialism? The answer may surprise most GOP supporters, for it is no accident or miscalculation.

Few Republicans are aware of an organization called the International Democrat Union (IDU). But they should know it because the GOP is a major player in it. It’s no accident that every four years, at the same time and in the same city as the GOP National Convention, the IDU holds its own meeting.

Formed in 1983, the IDU says it’s a “working association of over 80 Conservative, Christian Democrat and like minded political parties of centre and centre right.” Some of the political party members of the IDU include the German Christian Social Union; British Conservative Party; Norway Conservative Party – and the U.S. Republican Party.

Now one would expect that an organization which is made of “centre and centre right” organizations which advocate “free enterprise, free trade and private property,” as the IDU claims – an organization with the Republican Party as a major active member, would also advocate the greatest collection of ideas for freedom ever written – the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. What an opportunity for the GOP to advance American ideals for eradicating poverty throughout the world.

But such is not the case with the IDU. A careful look at the group’s founding Declaration of Principles reveals a very different message. The second paragraph of the IDU Declaration states: “Being committed to advancing the social and political values on which democratic societies are founded, including the basic personal freedoms and human rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…” That, of course, is the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights that the IDU is promoting.

There are two conflicting philosophies of governing in the world. One, the American view, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, states that all people have rights they are born with and that government’s main job is to protect those rights at all costs. America’s founding document says that these rights are forever and unquestioned. It is the foundation of human freedom.

The other view says that government decides the rights we should have, professing that all such rights give way to an unidentified common good whenever the situation is warranted. That means that all so-called rights are subject to the whim of whatever gang is currently in power. This is the position promoted in the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights. Moreover, Article 29, section (3) of the document says, “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

To understand why the Republican Party has embraced the socialism of Bono instead of the freedom of de Soto, one only has to connect the dots. As an organization advocating human freedom, the Republican Party is a fraud.

“This House believes that the United Nations is a dead loss”

It is reasonable that honest, compassionate people seek a means for governments to come together to discuss and air their differences.

It is also reasonable that honest, compassionate people should desire some way to voluntarily pool resources to provide charitable aid to those who are starving or are victims of natural disaster.

Indeed this is the image of the United Nations that has been sold to the world since its inception.

It is not, however, the reality.

The world is in chaos and, quite frankly, it’s the UN’s fault. It gives validity to zealots and petty bigots. It helps to keep tyrannical dictators in power. It gives a voice to international terrorists.

Delay. Negotiate. Recommend. Study. Reconsider. Do nothing. This is the game the UN has played in nearly every international crisis.

It is the reason North Korea remains a threat after 50 years.

It is the reason Zimbabwe’s murderous Robert Mugabe is able to steal his election and then steal the land of white property owners, drive the nation into economic ruin and starvation – without an international protest, boycott, or sanction.

Instead, Mugabe is given a voice in the UN’s Sustainable Development conference in South Africa.

It is the reason why the Chinese government is able to ignore UN rules not to its liking — while growing as an international military and economic threat.

And it is the reason why a terrorist nation like Syria can be given a seat on the UN’s Human Rights Council.

The United Nations, internally, is a mess. It now finds itself buried under scandals.

It has Oil-for-Food scandals. Smuggling scandals. And theft scandals.

Peace keeping missions actually bring fear to the local citizens they are supposed to protect. Rob, rape and pillage seem to be the UN’s modus operandi.

How can we be surprised by such revelations?

Who has the power to oversee and control its actions?

The people don’t vote on UN actions. The media has little access behind the scenes. Who audits the accounting books?

Of course, even its supporters will readily agree that such problems exist. They are quick to jump in and call for “reform.”

However, when talking reform, one must be very careful of what the word may mean.

UN reports on reform don’t indicate a simple desire to plug holes in UN spending — or to clear up scandals.

Quite the contrary. According to Kofi Annan, Maurice Strong and many others, reform means global governance.

Since its inception, the UN has advocated the desire to eradicate sovereign nations — while imposing what it calls “world-mindedness.”

A 1949 UNESCO document said, “…nationalism (is) the major obstacle to the development of world-mindedness.”

In the 1990’s, Maurice Strong said, “it is not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation/states, however powerful.”

There in lies the true goal of the United Nations. And that belies its public image of simply a place where nations may come to air their differences and act responsibly.

Instead, the UN is openly working to gain power for itself in order to become independent and supreme over its member nations.

To do that it needs the power to tax. On September 19^th plans were approved to begin the creation of a global tax, mostly through airline tickets to help pay for the treatment of aids. They of course euphemistically call it a contribution.

There are several other tax schemes on the UN wish list, including a carbon tax on Co2 emissions, a currency tax on transactions of foreign currency exchanges, and taxes on the Internet, to name a few.

If the UN gains the power to tax and the enforcement power necessary to collect them, then the UN will become an unstoppable force in the world. A monster free of its chains.

And, of course, the UN wants its own military. It already has its own court.

These three things, the ability to collect taxes to provide near unlimited funds from independent sources; the ability to enforce its will with a military force; and a court system to impose its own brand of justice, are all that is required to create a government.

Imagine a world run by the justice of China, with the economics of Cuba and the military might of the United States. Such is the world of the future under United Nations global governance.

Public relations propaganda aside, clearly, the United Nations wants to be much more than a place where nations can come together to air their differences under a voluntary membership association.

The truth is, today, fifty years after the inception of the United Nations, the international community is a dangerous place.

Today the world has more wars, more poverty and more suffering that anytime in human history.

Obviously, the United Nations is irrelevant as a body to deliver world peace.

Just as obviously, the UN is more interested in meddling in the sovereign affairs of nations, seeking to impose its own agenda over development, production and what it calls social equity in a drive to set itself up for global governance.

Using images of dire environmental emergencies or life-threatening diseases or starving children, the UN promotes an agenda which really seeks to redistribute the world’s wealth.

Its only answer is government control – and confiscation of individual wealth and property.

Nowhere is there mentioned in a single UN document that I have read an advocacy for the right to own private property.

In fact, quite the opposite is the case as nearly every UN document, report, working paper, program, treaty, protocol, declaration and resolution – is dedicated to the confiscation, redistribution, regulation and tax of someone’s property.

And it is a fact that the inability to own private property creates poverty.

It is also a fact that confiscation of private property never helps to eradicate poverty.

It is bad economic policy. Yet that is the UN’s only solution to the massive suffering throughout the world. Take it from one source to give to another.

And that, I contend, is the very root of the suffering – not the solution.

The UN was wrong from its very beginning and wrong now because it has always sought to interfere with national sovereignty rather than to provide a unique forum to help keep the peace.

That is why the UN is a dead loss. It should be tossed on the trash heap of history so that we may start over and create an honest enterprise that seeks to help nations, not eradicate them.

The United Nations is not “dysfunctional” as some “reformists” have claimed. It is a criminal enterprise in which no moral nation should ever participate, let alone perpetuate.