After 18 years of fighting, APC’s efforts to stop the UN’s Agenda 21 has just received an amazing boost!

Because the Republican National Committee (RNC) just UNANIMOUSLY passed a resolution opposing Agenda 21!

That means that our fight is no longer hidden from the main stream of the American political debate.

It means no longer can our opponents succeed in labeling us “fringe conspiracy nuts” as they have tried so hard to do.

One of the two main political parties in the United States of America – the Republican Party – just said Agenda 21 is a threat to our freedom!

This is a huge victory. And it is energizing our activists across the nation.

It means we can now use this resolution as a weapon against Agenda 21. It means Republican elected officials, from Congress on down to your city councilmen will be much more willing to listen to our protests.

But, of course, the battle is far from over.

You and I must use this new weapon effectively. We must demand that Republicans at every level be pressured to support the platform of their party.

That’s why it’s urgent that you sign the enclosed Petition to Speaker of the House John Boehner urging him to oppose any Agenda 21 legislation that comes before the House of Representatives.

The petition includes the exact language used in the RNC resolution.

Speaker Boehner is the highest elected Republican office holder in America. He leads all policy decisions that come before the House.

He is the man who can block Sustainable Development grants, comprehensive development schemes, energy controls, and federal land grabs – all part of Agenda 21.

For the past year APC has been gaining success in waging battles against Agenda 21 in city councils and county commissions, helping more than 54 communities to end their memberships with the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). And we’ve started to have some success in state legislatures as well.

Now for the first time we have the opportunity to take the battle to Congress because the Republican Party – on a national level – has taken this action to officially oppose Agenda 21.

It is now our duty to take up this courageous action by the Republican National Committee and use it to apply pressure on Congress.

So please, today, right now, sign your petition to Speaker Boehner and it will be instantly emailed to him.

Every Republican office holder in the nation must be made to toe the party line – starting with Speaker Boehner!

Your signed petition is the first step. Sign your petition here.

And please, as you send your signed petition please also include your most generous contribution to the American Policy Center. APC is the recognized leader in the nation in the fight to stop Agenda 21.

I must have your continued financial support to win this battle for American liberty. Without your support I can do nothing.

Every dollar counts. If you want to make a contribution that makes a difference then your dollars to APC is your best investment.

APC is scoring victories in a battle they said we could never win!

So please sign your petition to Speaker Boehner and make a contribution to APC today.

I’ve never been more energized or more convinced that we will win. Your support is making this possible.

Sign your petition to Speaker Boehner by clicking here

Thank you!

Tom DeWeese
President

P.S. The best way you can help APC financially is to pledge a monthly contribution of $10 or $15 or more. That gives me a guarantee of income and helps me through the lean months. And it helps me plan our battles. Whatever you can send is vital to our efforts. Thanks so much for your loyal support. Click here to make a donation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Principle One called for the consolidation of all international agencies under the direct authority of the UN.
• Principle Two called for UN regulation of all transnational corporations and financial institutions, requiring an “international code of conduct” concerning the environment and labor standards.
• Principle Three explored various schemes to create independent revenue sources for the UN – meaning UN taxes including fees on all international monetary transactions, taxes on aircraft flights in the skies, and on shipping fuels, and licensing of what the UN called the “global commons,” meaning use of air, water and natural resources. The Law of the Sea Treaty fits this category.
• Principle Four would restructure the UN by eliminating the veto power and permanent member status on the Security Council. Such a move would almost completely eliminate U.S. influence and power in the world body.  In turn Principle Four called for the creation of an “Assembly of the People” which would be populated by hand-picked non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which are nothing more than political groups with their own agendas (the UN calls NGOs “civil society”).  Now, the UN says these NGO’s will be the representatives of the “people” and the Assembly of the People will become the new power of the UN.
• Principle Five would authorize a standing UN army.
• Principle six would require UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies “as part of a multinational global security system” under the authority of the UN.
• Principle Seven would require individual and national compliance with all UN “Human rights” treaties and declarations.
• Principle Eight would activate the UN Criminal Court and make it compulsory for all nations — now achieved.
• Principle Nine called for a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring “Sustainable Development.”
• Principle Ten would establish an International Environmental Court
• Principle Eleven demanded an international declaration stating that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires the creation of a “high level action team” to allocate carbon emissions based on equal per-capita rights – The Kyoto Global Warming Treaty in action. 
• Principle Twelve demanded the cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions and for the “equitable sharing” of global resources, as allocated by the UN – here is where Obama’s Global Poverty Act comes in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Supporters somehow think a Con Con is the solution to saving our Republic. They want to amend the Constitution to force a balance budget. They want to shore up ambiguous language to make the meaning clear. They want to assure there is no doubt what America is and should be. For most pushing such an agenda, their intentions are honest.

Their solution will be a disaster for one simple reason – no one can control a Constitutional Convent. It doesn’t matter how well intentioned its purpose. It doesn’t matter how well planned. It doesn’t matter what the actual resolution says and the people think they are approving. A Con Con has no oversight or rules other than those made by the actual participating delegates themselves. There are no rules for selecting delegates.

Once a ConCon is called for by the legal number of states, as laid out in Article V of the Constitution, It is the duty of Congress to call for one. Period. That’s as far as it goes. In this day, when Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House was able to twist enough arms to force through the Health care plan against the wishes of a strong majority of Americas; when the current Congress was able to flimflam the American people into believing it had really cut the budget; when these same people are the ones who will set the rules for a Con Con, from establishing the delegate-selection process, to dictating who will be qualified to be delegates, how on earth can anyone support such a disaster in the making. A Con Con will result in one thing- our precious Constitution laid out on an operating table to be dissected and bludgeoned by Dr. Jekyll.

But still, a growing number of “conservative” leaders across the country and in the media are joining the chorus for the need for a ConCon. Some actually claim that they aren’t calling for an out and out Constitutional Convention, rather for an “Article V Convention. There is no such distinction. To suggest that some other category exists that isn’t as serious or dangerous than a Con Con is simply an untruth.

Here are the facts. The main groups pushing for a Con Con are the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative association of state legislators; and a new group calling itself the 10 Amendments for Freedom, Inc, chaired by William Fruth, President of POLICOM Corporation, which provides independent economics research.

While ALEC is working behind the scenes to build support for a Con Con among state legislators, Fruth and his 10 Amendments for Freedom group has moved into the public eye to sell the Con Con idea to mainstream America. In March, 2010, Fruth kicked off his campaign by mailing out a slick, expensive package to conservative leaders and to over 7,000 state legislators. The package contained a book written by Fruth entitled “10 Amendments for Freedom.”

In the book, Fruth lays out an argument for the need for, not just a balanced budget amendment, but a total package of 10 Amendments to the Constitution including, the balanced budget; repay the national debt in 50 years; government transparency; line item veto; term limits for Congress; control illegal immigration; English-speaking nation; no foreign law shall bind us; government restraint (preventing the Federal Government from growth beyond constitutional powers; and finally, an amendment declaring “in God we trust.” Of course, there is no doubt that these amendments have great appeal for most conservatives, answering their growing frustration and fear of government expansion.

Arguing that Congress “will not likely take any action to cause the 10 Amendments for Freedom to become law of the land,” Fruth calls for all ten amendments to be packaged by state legislatures to be passed in a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention. His package would include specific instructions to Congress as to how the delegates would be selected and outlining rules that would be enforced to assure only the ten amendments would be voted on.

Arguing the advantages of the Con Con, Fruth says, “Can you imagine the excitement in the nation leading up to the Convention? Schools will have to dust off history books which teach how our nation was founded. Many people for the first time will read the Constitution. The issue will be discussed at length, exposing what happened to our country over the years.”

Fruth then scoffs at our fears of a Con Con and efforts to stop it. He says, “Simply, it is not reasonable to assume there can be enough delegates sent to a convention who will propose amendments which ‘repeal the bill of rights’ or ‘legalize socialism.’ Even if they did, the amendments would never be ratified,” concludes Fruth.

Anticipating opposition to his scheme for a Con Con, Fruth says that those who opposed the effort in the 1980’s, to call for a Con Con for a balanced budget amendment, told the American people that the delegates at the convention can “change the Constitution any way they want.” Argues Fruth, “We know that is not true.”  He says, “it is both irresponsible and disingenuous for anyone to publicly say that the convention can change the Constitution.” And he says, “any recommended changes must be approved by three-fourths of the states.

These are the arguments now being presented to every single state legislator and Governor in the nation as Fruth and ALEC put on a full-court-press to call for a Constitutional Convention. While the intention may be an honest desire to reign in the power of government, the fact remains that every one of these arguments for a Con Con is wrong.

The fact is, once 34 states petition Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention, the matter is completely out of the States’ hands. There is absolutely no ability to control what the delegates do in the convention. Attempting to instruct delegates to discuss only a specific issue like a balanced budget – or the whole package offered by the 10 Amendments for Freedom group — is absolutely impossible. Instead, once the convention starts, the delegates become super delegates which can take any action they desire concerning the Constitution. In short, at the convention the Constitution can be literally change any section, or even the entire document if they desire.

What proof do I offer? Here are the exact words of Article V of the Constitution:

“…on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, (Congress) shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which…shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States.”

Article V gives absolutely no guidelines as to how it will be run, how delegates can be selected and who can do the selecting. Once the 34 states make the request, the entire matter is in the hands of Congress to decide. It does not matter if the states passed resolutions as Fruth proposes, containing absolute guidelines for delegate selection. The Constitution provides no rules – it is up to Congress to decide how delegates are selected and what qualifications they will have. The guidelines proposed by Fruth carry absolutely no weight in the final process – even if every state passes the exact same resolution including those rules. Again, Article V simply says that when 34 states have called for a Con Con the Congress “shall call a Convention…” Period.

And there is more legal proof in support of the argument that delegates are not bound by an instructions or resolutions from the states.

First, of course, is the famous letter written by former Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger to Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum. In the letter Burger writes, “…there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederated Congress…”

And there is more legal documentation proving that Congress or the states can control the agenda of a Con Con. Corpus Jurus Secundum is a compilation of State Supreme Court findings. The following is the collection of findings regarding the unlimited power of the delegates attending a Con Con. (From Corpus Jurus Secundum 16 C.J.S 9) “The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people (1) and, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vesting in the people of the state. (2) They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: (3) And, hence, their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature. Under this view, it is a Legislative Body of the Highest Order (4) and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate, Constitution. (5). The foot-note numbers after the citation quoted reference the particular cases from which the citations were made. (1) Mississippi (1892) Sproule v Fredericks (11 So. 472); (2) Iowa (1883) Koehler v Hill (14N.W. 738); (3) West Virginia (1873) Loomis v Jackson (6 W. Va. 613); (4) Oklahoma (1907) Frantz v Autry (91 p. 193); (5) Texas (1912) Cox v Robison (150 S.W. 1149).

Clearly, the position put forth by Fruth, and ALEC, that state legislatures can pass a resolution dictating the rules of the Con Con is simply wrong.

Delegate selection is another dangerous trap waiting to spring. Again, Article V provides no guidelines. The process is left for Congress to decide. That means the current Congress could control the entire delegate selection. Under the rules that Congress could set, States may not even be represented. If the states are allowed to choose delegates, then what would be the method? Again, Congress will decide. Will the governor or the state legislature appoint delegates? Or could it be a bicameral panel or blue ribbon commission? Or could it be a plebecite – a vote of the people? If so, then who would be eligible to vote? Would it be all eligible voters? Or taxpayers only? Or would we possibly, in the interest of “enfranchisement,” allow all citizens, and potentially foreign nationals (illegal immigrants) to vote for this “special election?” There are no guidelines and anything is possible.

And what would be the qualifications to be a delegate? Would it be exclusively lawyers? A mix of professionals? So-called “proportional representation” of all special interest groups – NGO’s? Will some be excluded because of “extreme” convictions? Of course, according to the Federal Department of Homeland Security, “extreme convictions” includes those who want to protect the Constitution. So, what will the criteria for eligible delegates be? All of these choices would be made by Congress.

But again, none of that will matter, according to those calling for the Con Con.  William Fruth argues that no matter what such a convention does, it still must be ratified by two- thirds of the states, making it very difficult to do bad things against the will of the people. A history lesson is in order.

There has been only one Constitutional Convention in the history of the nation – that was in 1787. At the time, the nation was held together by the Articles of Confederation. The states were having a difficult time performing commerce among themselves. So it was decided to hold a Constitutional Convention to simply discuss how interstate commerce might be better organized. As the delegates were selected, delegations from a majority of states were given specific orders by their states to discuss nothing else beyond the commerce issue.

However, some delegates including James Madison had a very specific agenda planned for the convention and as soon as the delegates arrived at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, they closed and locked the door, pulled down the shades and met in secret for a month. When they were finished, they had created an entirely new nation. We were very lucky that the convention was attended by men like Ben Franklin and George Washington and Madison. They produced the most magnificent document ever devised for the governance of man.

Today, we have entrenched power forces led by the likes of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. And we have notoriously weak leaders like current House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who rarely miss a good compromise to keep the peace.  These are the people who will decide the rules for the convention, including delegate selection. Do you trust them to follow the rules dictated by state legislatures? Do you think Pelosi and Reid would pass up an opportunity to set their own rules to guarantee a Constitution to their liking?

And there is more. Concerning the argument that no matter what the delegates produce, the states still must ratify it – thus serving as a safeguard to tomfoolery, consider this fact: The Articles of Confederation required that any changes be ratified by 100% of the states. That was the document that was the law of the land – until something else was put into place. But, when the new Constitution was put to the states for a vote of ratification, suddenly they needed only two thirds to approve it. Why? The fact is, Article V of the new Constitution was used – even before the Constitution which contained it was approved. Now, what do you think Reid and Obama and company would do with that precedent? What if the new document produced by the Con Con said ratification only required a vote of Congress – or of some special commission? The precedent of 1787 says that could happen. So much for protection by the states.

And rather than an excitement in the nation with a rebirth of study of the Constitution, as Furth envisions, there would in fact be a long, hard, ugly and expensive battle over the process, guaranteed to leave the nation split along ideological lines. It’s not difficult to envision civil unrest, riots or even civil war as a result of any re-writing of the current Constitution.

These are the reasons why I, and many others around the nation, adamantly oppose a Constitutional Convention at this time. We fear a Con Con because the subject matter cannot be controlled. And if the worst happens, there is no guarantee that we can stop ratification. There has never been a worse time in the nation’s history to consider changing this grand document. The Con Con delegates could literally put the Constitution on an operating table and use their scalpels to slice it up, creating an entirely new form of government. That new document, as precedence has shown, could be enforced without ratification by the states. Remember, our current Constitution was not ratified by the rules set forth in the Articles of Confederation, but by an Article V that wasn’t yet law of the land. Now that the precedence is there, it can happen again. The Pelosi’s of the nation, proven to have the power and the will to twist any issue or initiative as they desire, are rubbing their hands together at the prospect of a Con Con.

No doubt there is great need for several of the amendments Fruth and his group propose. But he seems to ignore the fact that there is a powerful, organized opposition. Again, I call your attention to the continuing battles over Health Care, taxes, illegal immigration and massive government spending. These are child’s play compared to what will happen in a Con Con. Do Americans really want to risk that in these uncertain times? Every freedom-loving American must stand up against this misguided call for a Con Con. Tell your state legislators NO.

Nice, very civil. If we said it we would be accused of promoting violence. But these are the compassionate progressives, not the racist, violent Tea Party. Following are more of their compassionate, civil quotes and actions, just for the record.

“It’s a fight literally for our right to exist. Don’t misunderstand what this is. Don’t misunderstand – not a joke, not a joke, not an applause line. You are the only folks keeping the barbarians from the gates… You are the only non-governmental power…The only one who has the power and capacity to stop this onslaught…You know, to state simply what I stated two years ago…the other side has declared war on labors house and it’s about time we stand up!” Vice President of the United States Joe Biden, speaking to the same Teamster labor Day rally with James Hoffa. Hoffa also publicly told Biden that the teamster army is ready to march for Obama.

Also on Labor Day a major video game producer (StarvingEyes Advergaming) released their new product called – “Tea Party Zombies must die.” The game features several different levels where the only objective is to mercilessly slaughter everyone on the screen, from Fox News stars, or Americans for Prosperity employees. IN the game you can brutally kill Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michele Bachman, Glenn Beck and many more conservative leaders. The head of the company, Jason Oda, said “the game was just a personal project. I am not worried about it affecting business.” Pretend to kill a lousy conservative – business as usual. “Progressive civility.”

Then there is the new video produced by Progressives (don‟t you love them calling themselves that – as if conservatives are anti-progress). The video is a compilation showing liberals on Twitter wishing death upon Republicans.

A few examples:
“On the subject of Rick Perry: will someone please shoot the motherf**er?”
“F*ck one, kill one, marry one: Michelle Bachaman, Sarah Palin and Rick Perry.”
“Michele Bachman is going to swallow her knee at the rate she keeps sticking her foot in her mouth. Or get shot in the head.”

Then there is comedian and “Progressive” firebrand Janeane Garofalo appearing on that stalwart of unbiased news, Keith Olbermann‟s show. She of course needed to talk about the Tea Party as well. She told him of her belief that black businessman and presidential candidate Herman Cain is being paid to run. Said Garofalo:

“In this presidential race, because he deflects the racism… that is inherent in the Republican party, the conservative movement, the Tea Party certainly, and the last 30 years the Republican Party has been moving more and more to the right, but also race-baiting more, gay-baiting more, religion-baiting more, but Herman Cain I feel like he’s being paid by somebody to be involved and to run for president so that… „Oh yeah, you can be racist, it’s a black guy asking for Obama to be impeached. It’s a black guy who’s anti-Muslim or it’s a black guy who’s a Tea Party guy‟ and I just feel like, well wouldn’t that suit the purposes of whomever astroturfs these things, whether it be the Koch brothers or ALEC or Grover Norquist or any religious – any anything, or it could even be Karl Rove. Let’s get Herman Cain involved so it deflects the obvious racism of our Republican party” And in “Progressive” living rooms across the nation, heads were shaking up and down in complete agreement. Civility is of course the central concern of them all.

And finally there is Al Gore who compared those who don’t accept his global warming theories with the pro-segregation forces of the early 60s. The former vice president recalled how society succeeded in marginalizing racists and said “climate change skeptics must be defeated in the same manner.”

This is wonderful, positive news, indicating that more and more elected officials are starting to hear our arguments against this wrenching transformation of our country. For the first time I’m getting calls and letters from elected officials asking for more information. I am getting invitations to appear on new radio shows that have never aired this issue before. In June, I was contacted by the Glenn Beck show as he prepared an entire program on Agenda 21. He even linked APC information to his blog. I’ve now been contacted by one leading presidential candidate, along with a possible major donor who is considering helping us fund the fight. In addition to all of that, daily I hear from an ever growing list of activists working in their communities to stop Agenda 21. A revolution is certainly under way across the country.

However, as we are gaining success, we are also beginning to face stiffer resistance from the proponents of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development. More than ever we are hearing their charges of “conspiracy theories,” “fringe nuts,” and “extremism.” It’s to be expected. We are openly challenging them and they are feeling the heat. That means, as we move forward, it’s vitally important that anti-Agenda 21 activist be very careful with how they approach local government to express their opposition.

I’m finding that there is a bit of a misconception in regard to one of the main proponents of Agenda 21, and it is hurting our ability to make progress in the fight. It is vitally important that we all get the following facts right when launching our attacks against ICLEI. Please read carefully. The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) has been a main target by the anti-Agenda 21 forces. We targeted ICLEI because it has a clear United Nations connection, making it easier for us to make our case to elected officials about the UN connection to Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development policy. However, some have misunderstood the ICLEI role and have misrepresented who it is and what it does. The result, in some cases, is that our legitimate arguments have been be ignored and even laughed at.

Let me try to set the record straight and provide some ideas on how to deal with the ICLEI situation. First, the following facts are certainly true and need to be understood by all anti-Agenda 21 activists: ICLEI is a UN NGO organization that helped write Agenda 21 for the 1992 Earth Summit and then set, as its mission, to bring Agenda 21 policy to every city in the world. It does this by meeting with local officials, signing contracts with them to set standards for energy and water use, building and development codes, farming policy, etc. It brings in training for city hall staff; soft ware to manage the programs; guidelines for legislation; networking with other communities, other NGO and Stakeholder groups and other agencies of state and federal government. They reach out to other public officials in the communities, including newspaper editors, school superintendents, local college presidents, and chamber of commerce leaders – all designed to assure everyone who helps make decisions and policy in the community are on board. And of course, ICLEI leads the officials to the most important ingredient to impose Agenda 21 – money – grant money that comes with specific strings to guarantee that Agenda 21 is enforced. That grant money is like heroin in the veins. Once there, the addiction and dependency is in force. Once ICLEI has done its job, the community is hooked, and an entirely new attitude and community atmosphere of top-down control is enforced by the government. ICLEI’s influence basically creates an entirely new culture in the community where it becomes natural and basically unquestioned to expect local government to be involved in every aspect of your property, job, family and your whole life.

Now, that’s what ICLEI does and that’s why we targeted it and why it is so dangerous. However, the manner in which we expose and oppose ICLEI is very important and I have heard some enthusiastic activist go about it in a damaging and ineffective way. First, ICLEI is NOT the United Nations, as I have heard some charge before city councils. It is a private organization with its own agenda – of course it is promoting Agenda 21. But to say the city council is paying dues to the UN is just not accurate.

Another misconception is that ICLEI IS Agenda 21 and if the community stops paying dues and ends their contract with ICLEI the battle is over. I am receiving messages from people who are dismayed to learn their community is still moving forward with Sustainable Development programs even after they ended the contract with ICLEI. The fact is, ending the contract with ICLEI is just the first punch. From there you must be active in an effort to undo any programs ICLEI helped put in place. That includes changing the very culture of City Hall and its ICLEI-trained staff. It means an active campaign to dismantle non-elected boards and councils that are the prime source for enforcement of policy. It means removing your community from regional government councils. And it probably means electing new officials who oppose the Agenda 21 policy and have the ability and courage to stand up to an assault by federal and state agencies who will not be happy that you are rejecting their agenda. And through all of that you will have to be prepared to counter the attacks from the entrenched NGOs and the lackeys down at the local paper. Withdrawal from the drug of Agenda 21 can be deadly.

Finally, I believe there is a more effective way to attack Agenda 21/ Sustainable Development polices in your community, at least initially. You may be fired up about the UN, but others are not. As I wrote a few months ago in my article “How to Fight Back Against Sustainable Development,” rather than rushing into city hall and immediately start accusing them of implementing a UN program, take some time to research the policy being proposed or implemented. Determine the effect it will have on the community or your property. Who else will be affected and how? These are the victims of the policy and the most likely to support you efforts to stop it. In that way, you will recruit new people to the cause. You will find it much more effective than sounding like a rabid bear growling about the UN.

For example, smart meters or energy audits affect everyone in town. What is the problem: government is dictating your energy use that you are paying for. It is a violation of your right to choose how much energy you are willing to buy. It denies you the right to determine how warm or cool your house will be. It denies you the choice of taking a hot shower or not. It even affects your health if you can’t get warm enough – or if you are denied access to hot water, allowing germs to grow.

I believe such an argument will gain more support for your cause across the city and across party and philosophical lines than rushing to bring up the UN? Yes, the policy certainly did originate in the bowels of the UN. But why are we opposed to it – because of what it does to us. And that is the place to start to oppose it. As people come to your side, if they want to know more, then will be the time to teach them the rest of the story about Agenda 21 and its UN origins.

So, focus on the victims and the impact the policy will have on the well being of the community and you. Question how they intend to enforce the policy (such as having government agents come into your home). Make your officials explain that. They won’t want to. This will show the heavy hand of control required to make the policy work. Put the officials on the defensive over their enforcement efforts and watch them retreat as it’s exposed.

The same approach can be used effectively in dealing with plans to put meters on private wells, or in dealing with plans for historic preservation schemes that suddenly disallow private property owners to change or improve anything on their house because “Robert E. Lee didn’t see that change.” (You have to live in Virginia to understand that reference.)

Ask your County Commissioners this question: “name one thing I can do on my property without your permission.” To answer that question honestly will force them to admit that under these policies there is no private property. The important message here is to keep your fight local to stop their global agenda.

Agenda 21 is a vast, complicated structure. The organizations promoting it number in the thousands and include Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), public policy groups, federal state and local agencies, self-proclaimed “stakeholders,” Congress, the White House, 50 state houses, and your local officials. You can’t fight them all individually. Instead, fight the policy and watch them come out of the woodwork to challenge you. By attacking the policy you have made them defend it and you will have shaped the debate. Then we’ll see who is really wearing the tin foil hats!

Here are the details:

The House of Representatives have cut funding from Obama’s 
Partnership for Sustainable Communities program. The program has been targeted for elimination from the House FY 2012 spending bill.

Defunding Sustainable Development has also come through a Department of Transportation bill, a draft of which completely eliminates funding for what are called TIGER grants, which provides funding for the largest grants through the Partnership for Sustainable Communities program.

This is great news for those of us opposed to Sustainable Development. It means less money and fewer weapons coming out of Washington, DC to enforce this assault on property rights and America’s way of life.

Now the spending bill is moving to the Senate – the danger zone. Sustainablists are planning a major push to get the Senate to replace the appropriations for the Sustainable Communities budget. The American Planning Association (APA) is leading the charge, calling for massive pressure to be put on Senators in what the APA is calling “Planners Day,” set for September 20th.

The APA’s message to the Senators is that the cuts “ignores both our nation’s jobs crisis and the drastic need for infrastructure investment.” In fact, the House action is not only fiscally responsible in a day when the government is completely broke, but it is a lie that the program will help either jobs or infrastructure. The exact opposite is true. Sustainable Development is a jobs killer and it destroys infrastructure – refusing to build roads, tearing down dams and the like.

We can strike a huge blow against Sustainable Development.

Action to take:

On September 20th, call both of your U.S. Senators and demand that they maintain the House restrictions on the sustainability planning grants and the caps on planning expenses now called for in the Fiscal Year spending bill. Tell them America cannot afford these grants. The cuts will save billions of dollars and keep special interests out of your community’s planning decisions. Tell them you oppose Sustainable Development.

The Senate switchboard is (202) 224-3121

Make the calls and counter the impact of one of the nation’s most powerful forces behind Sustainable Development (APA). Win this fight and we will show that we are now strong enough to turn the tide away from top down control and soviet-style government – and towards freedom!

2. If you have a chance, call your Representative in the House and thank them for standing firm against this Sustainable Development monster. And ask them to continue to stand firm if the final bill goes to a conference committee. Defund Sustainable Development and strike a blow for fiscal sanity and freedom.
Thank you for reading,

Tom DeWeese
President
American Policy Center
tom@americanpolicy.org
americanpolicy.org

Specifically, Mr. Steward accuses me of misrepresenting Lincoln’s local Comprehensive Development Plan, and it’s imposition of Sustainable Development as a “cover for a United Nations based international conspiracy…” I have worked on this issue for more than eighteen years and have routinely experienced similar attacks against my message and my character in cities where I have appeared. For some reason those working to enforce Sustainable Development policies scramble to discredit me and blow a well orchestrated smokescreen to cover their work. Apparently honest debate and disagreement are not part of their plans.

But debate and discussion is the traditional American way. I’ll present my case point by point. First, there is a very clear connection between the United Nations and local Lincoln comprehensive development plans. The very term “Sustainable Development” first appeared in a 1987 report entitled “Our Common Future,” produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. The term was first offered as official UN Policy in 1992 at the Earth Summit in a document that is today simply referred to as Agenda 21. IN their own words here is what proponents of Agenda 21 said it is: “Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities if ALL people…Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced…” Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1992).

At that Earth Summit, President George H.W. Bush signed American acceptance of the Agenda 21 plan. The next year, in compliance with Agenda 21, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12858 establishing the “President’s Council on Sustainable Development” in order to “harmonize” US development policy with UN policy as outlined in Agenda 21. The Executive Order directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort to “reinvent” government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21.

What are these guidelines and policies, and do you see them today in Lincoln? Agenda 21 calls for reduction in energy use; reduction in water use; enforcement of alternative energy use, specifically wind and solar; controls over development, specifically the creation of mixed use neighborhoods that contain high-density housing units (high rise or extremely small lots) along with office space, stores and open space that will eliminate the use of cars; development of public transportation and high speed, light rail trains; etc. All of these policies are based on the scare tactic that man is creating global warming, a charge that is now in great disrepute throughout the world. Yet, proponents continue to press these policies. Literally everything related to sustainable policy leads to higher prices, shortages of goods and calls from planners for sacrifice by citizens.

In Lincoln, literally all of these Agenda 21 guidelines can now be found. Lincoln has “smart-growth” policies that enforce high-density housing with a mix of commercial and residential properties, bike-friendly streets, and walking space. The goal is to eliminate the use of cars as much as possible. Residents are instead encouraged to walk and ride bikes to work and shopping. Electric companies are now installing smart meters which take away homeowner control of electric use. Energy audits are being conducted to determine the energy efficiency of homes. If Lincoln follows suit of other cities that are using this practice to set energy reduction goals, then soon city government will set strict standards for energy use. Homeowners will have to spend thousands of dollars to comply. Non-compliance will bring fines. To enforce alternative energy schemes, there are plans to force homeowners to cut back trees in their yards in order to allow open access to solar panels on roofs. And, of course, there is the very important policy to force drivers to “share the road” with bikes – the “complete street,” they call it. In short, Lincoln sustainable policies match perfectly those outlined in Agenda 21. Coincidence?

The bottom line is, city planners, and those like Mr. Steward, have set themselves up as an elite force which believes it knows better how the rest of us should live. They have “reinvented” Lincoln government as top down control to enforce a life style on us, rooted in a one-size fits all international policy called Agenda 21, on the excuse of a questionable environmental risk called Global Warming. And they certainly don’t want to be questioned by anyone as they do it.

Well, here are some very specific questions I would suggest every citizen of Lincoln ask their planners who are busying themselves in your personal lives: Ask them to name a single thing you can do on your private property without their permission. Ask them what guarantees for protection of private property rights they have included in their comprehensive plans. And above all, ask them, especially Mr. Steward, how often they ride their bikes to work.