Thoughts From A Conservative Mom

Archive for the ‘Nanny State’ Category

This is a fantastic documentary!  I highly recommend that you get a copy and show it to your church, small group, and friends, whether believers or not!

View on YouTube – Part 1

View on YouTube – Part 2

View on YouTube – Part 3

View on YouTube – Part 4

View on YouTube – Part 5

Can Christians be Capitalists?

The 5 Big Lies About American Business: Combating Smears Against the Free Market Economy

Money, Greed, and GodThe Ugly Side of “Social Justice” Theology

Evangelical Left Twists the Gospel in ‘Social Justice’ Fervor

Barack Obama’s Marxist Spiritual Advisor

Is Socialism Biblical?

The Base Metal of Christian Socialism

TRUE Social Justice: Transforming Lives In Need

Charlotte Iserbyt served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America’s classrooms. She has written a book called “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America”, which is now available as a free e-book download.

View on YouTube

The Shocking Origins of Public Education

The 7-Lesson Schoolteacher

Abolish the Unconstitutional Department of Education

Do You Know What Textbooks Your Children Are Really Reading?

How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students

Want to Teach? Toe the Ideological Line!

Think about it. Out of all the world regimes over the past century, which ones do you think would be most opposed to homeschooling? Nazi Germany, communist Russia, and nations enforcing Islamic Sharia Law first come to mind. And what is the common tie to all of these? Control. Unfortunately, with socialist agendas sweeping the globe, the mindless conformity of youth through indoctrination at government-run schools to the government’s point of view on social, political, and moral issues is a top priority of many nations falsely aspiring for a global community of “tolerance.”

But today, the suppression of parental rights to teach and influence their own children isn’t restricted to overtly fascist regimes. Take a look at Sweden, home of Ikea and Volvos. A couple months ago in June, attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and the Home School Legal Defense Association filed Johansson v. Sweden with the European Court of Human Rights so that that the Swedish government will return a seven-year-old homeschooled boy to his parents. Dominic Johansson was forcibly seized by Swedish authorities from his parents in June 2009 after they had boarded a plane in their move to India. The reason? He was homeschooled. No warrant was issued before taking him into state custody, and the family was charged with no crime. Young Dominic was abducted because officials deemed home instruction to be an unsuitable method of raising a child, insisting that the government knows better about how to rear children.

Dominic is now in foster care and attends a government school. Heartbreakingly, his parents are only allowed to see their son for one hour every five weeks. To “justify” their action, Swedish authorities cited the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and quite shockingly, the White House and some members of Congress have expressed interest in ratifying this authoritarian treaty so that this type of government control could be exercised on our shores.

Despite the proliferating homeschooling movement in the U.S., with between two and four million children now being taught from home, the education and judicial systems have had a hard time leaving the influence of youth to their parents. Case in point: In the Matter of Kurowski and Kurowski, a legal matter that demonstrates how the courts have leaned toward state influence over parental influence when it comes to the education of children. Following a divorce, the father of 10-year-old homeschooled Amanda Kurowski had second thoughts about his former wife homeschooling their daughter, even though she performed well both socially and academically. The father contended that his daughter’s strong Christian beliefs needed to be sifted and challenged in a public school setting, and the lower court agreed in July 2009, issuing an order for her to enroll in a government-run school and discontinue homeschooling.

Now, of course, sometimes divorced parents do not agree on details of how to raise their child. Courts may rightly be called to resolve such disputes. But a judge must exercise the right standards when called upon to break a deadlock. When a dispute between these parents arose over homeschooling, the court looked past traditional arguments and made the chilling observation that Amanda’s “vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.” In other words, the court was attempting to say that it knows better than a parent when a child is getting too much religious teaching. Such reasoning goes to show that, even in the U.S., it has become a main priority of public schools to challenge and convert students’ thinking to reflect that of the state, rather than those espoused at home.

Read more at Advancing Religious Liberty

Court orders Christian homeschooled girl to attend public school

California Court Rules Homeschooling Illegal

Swedish court refuses to return homeschool boy to family

US grants home schooling German family political asylum

The Shocking Origins of Public Education

Threat to Parents’ Rights a Bigger Issue than Rights of a Child

In April, 2002, Minnesota parents concerned about curriculum content in a freshman class at Big Lake High School were invited to sit in on the class and see the content for themselves. That is, until principal Darrel Easterly found out. Suddenly, the morning of their scheduled visits, several moms learned that they had been banned from the school due to “privacy laws.” Mary Stultz, one of the moms, was stunned. “I was in total shock and spent the morning talking to a lawyer,” Stultz told writer Laura Adelmann at the time.

Another mom called Big Lake Superintendent Bob Lageson, who assured her it “should never happen again.” Yet, within weeks, the local school board was meeting to discuss adopting a policy requiring parents to make an appointment three days in advance of a visit, and granting to the principal wide discretion to prevent parents from entering the building even then.

After an unprecedented public outcry, the school board softened the three day requirement for parents of students to merely “as much advance notice as possible” – but they passed the new restriction. They even granted to the principal authority to detain unauthorized visitors until law enforcement arrives, citing criminal trespass laws.

Today, the current student handbook (pp.7-8) declares that “Big Lake High School does not allow students to bring guests or visitors to classes,” which includes parents. Even more importantly, the events that unfolded in Big Lake have played out numerous other times as well, throughout the country. And the courts have consistently upheld such decisions.

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution can halt the erosion of parental rights nation-wide, and restore to parents the right to visit their child and see what is being taught. This will not allow individual parents to shape curriculum for an entire school, but it will allow any parent to remain informed of classroom content, and hopefully to opt their child out of material they find offensive.

Please act to protect the right of concerned parents to monitor their child’s education. Sign the petition and get more information at ParentalRights.org.

Parents of 50 Million U.S. Children Soon to Lose Parental Rights

The Obama White House has created an uncertainty surplus as investors and corporations wonder what kinds of anti-business regulation the president might end up supporting.

This uncertainty is why we hear so much speculation about the economy moving toward recovery but not fast enough to create new jobs. Job creation requires investment and investment requires confidence. Even Wall Street adores certainty, and uncertainty over Obama’s intentions is causing businesses to sit on their cash instead of plowing it back into the economy.

As of the end of March, non-financial companies in the U.S. were holding on to $1.84 trillion in cash, a staggering 26 percent increase from a year earlier. Even companies with good earnings are reluctant to convert those earnings into capital investment and hiring until they get a clear sense of the regulatory climate that’s going to take root under Obama. And companies looking for signs of a pro-growth regulatory regime won’t find any comfort in the president’s apparent fondness for net neutrality regulation of the broadband Internet. Call it rent control for the Internet.

Like rent control, the changes being pushed like net neutrality by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski with White House backing are almost confiscatory when it comes to broadband networks that are the backbone of the Internet in America.

Mr. Genachowski’s “Third Way” plan for net neutrality regulation would force broadband operators to sell capacity on their networks to other companies, including rivals, at prices and conditions dictated by government regulators. You know where that leads: innovation is killed; stagnation and capacity shortages ensue.

By reclassifying broadband from an information service to a telecom service, the FCC would give itself sweeping powers to micro-manage America’s broadband networks. Unlike the Bell telephone networks of yesteryear, these broadband networks were not built with government subsidies in the form of monopoly markets and guaranteed returns. They were built and financed by their entrepreneurial owners, at their own risk.

Read more at Fox News

New U.S. Push to Regulate Internet Access

The Internet “Kill Switch”

US Cybersecurity Czar wants online “identity cards”

Perhaps the most difficult economic lesson is that we live in a world of scarcity and everything has a cost. Scarcity exists whenever human wants exceed the means to satisfy those wants. For example, Rolls-Royce produces less than 4,000 cars a year, but it’s a safe bet that more than 4,000 of the Earth’s 6.5 billion people want a Rolls-Royce. That means Rolls-Royces are scarce. But it’s not just Rolls-Royces that are scarce. It’s clothing, food, land and most anything a human would want. There’s not enough to meet every single want.

Scarcity means there’s no free lunch. Having more of one thing requires having less of another. You might say, “Williams, that’s where you’re wrong. Someone gave me this newspaper and I’m reading your column for free!” Not true. If you weren’t spending time reading my column, you might have spent the time reading something else, chatting with your wife or children, or going out for a jog. You’re reading my column for a zero price but you’re not doing so at zero cost. You have to sacrifice something. There are zero-price services such as “free libraries,” “free public schools,” “free transportation” and free whatever. It doesn’t mean costs are not being borne by somebody.

Read more World Net Daily

Walter Williams: Good Intentions

Give Capitalism a Chance

Keynes vs. Hayek: The Great Debate Continues

At first glance, this may seem like an arrogant question.  What right do any of us have to assume that God is on our side?   As Abraham Lincoln said, “I know the Lord is always on the side of right; but God is my witness that it is my constant anxiety and prayer that both myself and this nation should be on the Lord’s side.”

How, then, do we know if we are on God’s side?  By studying His Word.  The more I study the arguments of liberals in regards to “justice” and “compassion”, the more I realize that they often define these terms as Marx did, not as the scriptures do.   That can make a huge difference in how one interprets scriptures which talk about justice and the poor, causing the reader to read socialist interpretations into the scriptures which are not there and twist the meaning to fit their worldview.  May we always be vigilant to allow God’s Word to shape our worldview, not the other way around. 

For more than a hundred years liberals and conservatives have been arguing over the true meaning of justice. The left emphasizes just outcomes—seeking smaller gaps between rich and poor, and a comparably dignified standard of living for all members of society. The right stresses just procedures –making sure that individuals keep the fruits of their own labors and remain secure in their property, without seizure by their neighbors or by government.

Liberals accept unequal, potentially unfair treatment by government in order to achieve fair results; conservatives accept unequal, potentially unfair results so long as every citizen receives fair and comparable treatment by government.

These arguments have raged for generations without definitive resolution, but that doesn’t mean that both sides are right, or that the questions that divide them offer no final answers. In fact, key Biblical passages provide a strong indication that conservative concepts of economic justice comport far more closely to the religious and philosophical foundations of western civilization. If the Bible is indeed the word of God (as a big majority of Americans say they believe it is), then it’s difficult to escape the conclusion that the Almighty would cast his all-important ballot for Republicans.

For instance, as the weeks count down to the Jewish New Year this September, congregations around the world all read the same weekly Torah portions from the Book of Deuteronomy, including the famous exhortation, “Justice, justice, shall you pursue.” (Chapter 16, Verse 20). The obvious question on this verse is why the Bible repeats the Hebrew word, “Tzedek” – which means both “justice,” and “righteousness”. A great Polish sage from the late 1700’s, Rabbi Bunam of P’schischa, recorded a profound answer from the Tradition. The text uses the word “Tzedek” twice to make sure that when you pursue justice, you only use just-and righteous-means. In other words, the Biblical view directly contradicts the leftist inclination: no, you can’t unjustly confiscate wealth from those who created it to fulfill the righteous goal of helping the poor. The Bible insists that no matter how worthy your purposes, you must employ only righteous means in achieving them.

This understanding turns up repeatedly in Scripture. For instance, a key passage in the Book of Leviticus (19:15) declares: “You shall not commit a perversion of justice; you shall not favor the poor and you shall not honor the great; with righteousness (Tzedek) shall you judge your fellow.” Amazingly, the Bible warns us not to “favor the poor” even before we’re instructed “not to honor the great,” because partiality for the unfortunate counts as an even stronger human temptation.

And what about all the Biblical demands, in both Old and New Testaments, to show compassion to widows, orphans and the poor?

Read more at Townhall.com

‘Social Justice’ Versus Biblical Justice

The Ugly Side of “Social Justice” Theology

Evangelical Left Twists the Gospel in ‘Social Justice’ Fervor

Barack Obama’s Marxist Spiritual Advisor

TRUE Social Justice: Transforming Lives In Need

Is the Tea Party a Christian Movement?

The real costs of Social Security far exceed the taxes collected: The compulsory pay-as-you-go retirement system has denied people the choice of using those funds for private investment, diminished the culture of responsibility and strengthened the redistributive state. People have become more dependent on government, and the retirement decision has become politicized. Social Security now accounts for 20% of the U.S. budget, with expenditures of $686 billion last year.

Reforms in 1977 and 1983 increased payroll taxes and the retirement age, but made no fundamental changes to the system in terms of empowering workers by allowing them to put part of their Social Security taxes in personal accounts.

The U.S. system has accumulated surpluses, but they have been used to expand the size and scope of government. The so-called trust fund has no real assets, only IOUs that taxpayers must eventually pay.

In contrast, Chile’s Social Security Reform Act of 1980 allowed workers to opt out of the defined benefit plan and set up personal accounts. Today Chilean workers are no longer burdened with payroll taxes and no longer dependent on government for their retirement income.

The lack of private property rights in Social Security means that individuals have no secure claim to future benefits and cannot pass them on as part of their estates.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has the power to change promised benefits or other terms of the “social contract” — that is, Congress has the power to break the contract and to renege on past promises.

Indeed, Social Security statements now state: “Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2037, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 76% of scheduled benefits.”

What kind of a contract is that? Would anyone voluntarily sign such an uncertain agreement? Of course not! That’s why Social Security is compulsory.

The deal is bound to get worse. This year OASDI will run a deficit of $41 billion, with a smaller deficit in 2011, and surpluses in 2012-14. Beginning in 2015, revenues will be insufficient to pay full benefits, according to the just-released Social Security Trustees’ Annual Report to Congress, and the cash-flow deficit will rapidly increase.

Read more at the CATO Institute

Is the Welfare State a Ponzi Scheme?

The Entitlement Rip-Off

In the Red: Social Security to See Payout Exceed Pay-In This Year

300 Million, Social Security, and Solvency

Obama’s Pension Grab

U.S. Will be Like Greece in ‘Seven to 10 Years,’ Say Congressmen, Experts

Social Security Reform: A Free-Market Alternative

There go the 4th and 5th Amendments!

Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn’t violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway – and no reasonable expectation that the government isn’t tracking your movements.

That is the bizarre – and scary – rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants – with no need for a search warrant.

It is a dangerous decision – one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.

This case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana. They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle’s underside.

After Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA’s actions, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in January that it was all perfectly legal. More disturbingly, a larger group of judges on the circuit, who were subsequently asked to reconsider the ruling, decided this month to let it stand. (Pineda-Moreno has pleaded guilty conditionally to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and manufacturing marijuana while appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained with the help of GPS.)

In fact, the government violated Pineda-Moreno’s privacy rights in two different ways. For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the “curtilage,” a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government’s intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy.

The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno’s driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month’s decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people’s. The court’s ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.

Read more at Yahoo News

Senate Democrats Pass Bill Allowing Govt to Collect Addresses, ATM Records of Bank Customers

The Cyber Space Two Step: Privacy vs. Washington’s Big Brother Agenda

This was originally published in 1979.  We are much further down this road now, and are moving at a faster pace.

Why did Rome decline and fall? In my belief, Rome fell because of a fundamental change in ideas on the part of the Roman people—ideas which relate primarily to personal responsibility and the source of personal income. In the early days of greatness, Romans regarded themselves as their chief source of income. By that I mean each individual looked to himself—what he could acquire voluntarily in the marketplace—as the source of his livelihood. Rome’s decline began when the people discovered another source of income: the political process—the State.

When Romans abandoned self-responsibility and self-reliance, and began to vote themselves benefits, to use government to rob Peter and pay Paul, to put their hands into other people’s pockets, to envy and covet the productive and their wealth, their fate was sealed. As Dr. Howard E. Kershner puts it, “When a self-governing people confer upon their government the power to take from some and give to others, the process will not stop until the last bone of the last taxpayer is picked bare.” The legalized plunder of the Roman Welfare State was undoubtedly sanctioned by people who wished to do good. But as Henry David Thoreau wrote, “If I knew for certain that a man was coming to my house to do me good, I would run for my life.” Another person coined the phrase, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Nothing but evil can come from a society bent upon coercion, the confiscation of property, and the degradation of the productive.

Someone once remarked that the Welfare State is so named because, in it, the politicians get well and you pay the fare! There is much truth in that statement. In Rome, the emperors were buying support with the people’s own money. After all, government can give only what it first takes. The emperors, in dishing out all these goodies, were in a position to manipulate public opinion. Alexander Hamilton observed, “Control of a man’s subsistence is control of a man’s will.” Few people will bite the hand that feeds them!

Civil wars and conflict of all sorts increased as faction fought against faction to get control of the huge State apparatus and all its public loot. Mass corruption, a huge bureaucracy, high taxes and burdensome regulations were the order of the day. Business enterprise was called upon to support the growing body of public parasites.

In time, the State became the prime source of income for most people. The high taxes needed to finance the State drove business into bankruptcy and then nationalization. Whole sectors of the economy came under government control in this manner. Priests and intellectuals extolled the virtues of the almighty emperor, the Provider of all things. The interests of the individual were considered a distant second to the interests of the emperor and his legions.

Rome also suffered from the bane of all welfare states, inflation. The massive demands on the government to spend for this and that created pressures for the creation of new money. The Roman coin, the denarius, was cheapened and debased by one emperor after another to pay for the expensive programs. Once 94% silver, the denarius, by 268 A.D., was little more than a piece of junk containing only .02% silver. Flooding the economy with all this new and cheapened money had predictable results: prices skyrocketed, savings were eroded, and the people became angry and frustrated. Businessmen were often blamed for the rising prices even as government continued its spendthrift ways.

Read more at the Freeman

Rome and the Great Depression

When Will the U.S. Go the Way of Rome?

From GOP Policy News:

As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, out-of-control spending by the Democrat controlled Congress has added an astounding $4.4 trillion in deficits to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) ten year budget projection.  And despite claims of fiscal responsibility from the Democrats, nothing changes.  The harmful effects of the Democrats’ runaway spending on growth and prosperity are vast.  Crowding out of private investment, growing interest payments, and dependence on foreign competitors are all consequences of the federal government’s profligate spending and debt.  

Additionally, the debt explosion created to fuel Washington’s recklessness has a personal impact on every American: it is ultimately borne by every man, woman and child in the nation.  According to CBO and Census Bureau long-term estimates, the amount of debt placed on the backs of children born today is about to explode.  If nothing is done, our generation will have the sad legacy of being the first to lower the standard of living of the next generation. 

A TIMELINE OF THE PERSONAL PUBLIC DEBT BURDEN FOR A CHILD BORN IN 2010
 
2010:  By the end of 2010, CBO predicts that the total U.S. debt held by the public (as opposed to the gross national debt which includes inter-governmental holdings) will be $9.05 trillion.  That means that children born in 2010 will start life with a personal share of the public debt equaling $29,178. 

2020:  When children born today celebrate their tenth birthday, their share of the nation’s public debt will have already increased by 70 percent to reach $49,694 per child. 

2023: By the time they are 13 years old, their share of public debt will have doubled to $58,971. This is also the first year that per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will be surpassed by the per capita share of the public debt for every American.

2028: When those children born in 2010 reach their 18th birthdays, they will have inherited an individual debt responsibility of $80,650.

2032: As children born in 2010 begin to graduate from college and enter the work force, their public debt responsibility will have tripled.  As they begin their adult lives, the next generation will already be saddled with $103,826 of the government’s debt. And, unfortunately, as interest payments and entitlement spending increase more rapidly, their share of the nation’s debt will begin to grow at an accelerated rate.

2040: At the age of 30, their public debt responsibility will be approximately $166,500—an increase of 471 percent from the time that they were born. 

2050: If government spending is not immediately restrained, our nation’s public debt is projected to increase from $9.1 trillion in 2010 to $122.8 trillion by 2050.  As a result, when children born today reach 40 years old, their share of the U.S. public debt will be $279,738—an increase of 859 percent above what it is today.  For a family of four, the total household debt share would be approximately $1.119 million.

THE OUTLOOK FOR THE NEXT GENERATION: DEBT EXPLODES AND PROSPERITY STAGNATES

• According to estimates from CBO and the Census Bureau, per capita GDP in the U.S. is approximately $47,000 in 2010, which is $17,883 more than the current level of public debt per person ($29,178).  Reckless Washington spending will soon send the individual public debt burden skyrocketing past per capita GDP as spending and debt replace private economic growth.
• In 2023, the amount of U.S. public debt shared by every man, woman, and child in the nation will exceed their share of our nation’s GDP as debt rapidly out paces growth.
• While the individual public debt burden is projected to increase by $250,560 over the next 40 years, the GDP per American is only estimated to grow by $34,258.
• Over the next 40 years, estimates predict that spending will cause the debt held by the public to increase by 859 percent for every U.S. citizen.  By comparison, per capita GDP is projected to grow by only 73 percent over the same period.
• Unless drastic actions are taken to reduce spending now and in the future, debt will dwarf growth and future generations will be less prosperous than those that preceded them.

Saddling the next generation with massive debt

An Action Alert from ParentalRights.org:

If your children attend public school, you are among those parents whose rights will end the moment your child enters the school. That’s because in 2005 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in Fields v. Palmdale School District “that the Meyer-Pierce right [of parents to direct the upbringing of their children] does not exist beyond the threshold of the school door.”

You read that right. Parental Rights “[do] not exist beyond the threshold of the school door.”

“We conclude that the parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on the subject [of sexuality] to their students in any forum or manner they select” (emphasis added).

Of course, most parents contend they don’t have a choice in where their children are schooled. Either economic constraints or personal circumstances leave them with no practical alternative to the local public school. And that leaves no parental rights at all.

Please act to reverse this assault by big government courts against parental rights. Sign the petition and get more information at ParentalRights.org.

Then, please pass this on. Every parent of a public school student needs to know the extent to which the courts have robbed them of their rights. Add this message to your Facebook account, or it on virtually any other social network.

Looking Ahead

This is the first of several court cases we plan to review for you in the coming weeks. The courts’ disregard for the traditional formative role of parents in a child’s life needs to be brought to light. And while the Parental Rights Amendment will not give parents any greater power to control the school’s choice of curriculum, it will protect their right to pull their individual child out of any program of an outrageous or offensive nature, like the program in the Palmdale case. (To read more from this case, click here.)

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey
Communications Director

School condom distribution program includes first graders, denies parental notification

Threat to Parents’ Rights a Bigger Issue than Rights of a Child

View on YouTube – Part 1

View on YouTube – Part 2

View on YouTube – Part 3

View on YouTube – Part 4

View on YouTube – Part 5

View on YouTube – Part 6

Attacks on Freedom

The Original Tea Party

View on YouTube

The Civil War and Gilded Age

View on YouTube

Progressivism

View on YouTube

FDR’s State And LBJ’s Society

View on YouTube

Big Gov’t and Tea Parties

View on YouTube

The Constitution and Freedom

Woodrow Wilson and the roots of Progressivism

Barack Obama and “The Second Bill of Rights”

America’s Ruling Class – And the Perils of Revolution

We the Serfs

WHO has changed how the constitution is interpreted?

View on YouTube

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced –a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.“   – From ICLEI‘s “Agenda 21“, signed by G.H. Bush, 1992

One reason that Portland is so hell-bent on pursuing unsustainable “sustainability” projects is that they’ve signed an ICLEI agreement to reduce carbon emissions by up to 80%, making themselves accountable to an international body of radical environmentalists who don’t have to live with the results at the local level.

Agenda 21 and the United Nations

Freedom Advocates explains the danger:

Right now, in your town and neighborhood, policies are being implemented that will ultimately eliminate your freedoms and destroy your way of life. You need to know what’s going on to stop this process. Many town officials are selling us out to global regional development with help from the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI): Local Governments for Sustainability. ICLEI is used as one of the mechanisms to undo the political recognition of unalienable rights.

ICLEI uses the false premise and outright lies of anthropogenic* global warming to change our way of life, for the worse!

ICLEI: Local Governments for Sustainability promotes Local Action 21, Local Agenda 21 and other United Nations programmes implemented through local town councils, planners, mayors and local governments.

Why should you care?

Social engineering and behavior modification are some of the true objectives being implemented under the guise of environmental and climate protection. This is accomplished by exploiting people’s desire to maintain a healthy and lasting environment in the name of “sustainability.” Here is an example of how ICLEI changes behavior, jut like another organization called “Fostering Sustainable Behavior”.

It is also ICLEI’s job to implement United Nation’s policies that restructure our representative form of government through global and regional development (< click and then view slide show). Policies and programs take control from our representative government and put it into the hands of regional, non-elected boards.  This allows elected officials to shirk their responsibilities. It turns us into a soviet system that is based on Regionalism.  It facilitates both communism and fascism. Representative government with defined limits is the basis of a free and just society.

Cool Mayors Fire-up Hot Debate

ICLEI methods include infiltrating local government. Organization representatives seek to be hired into local planning departments or they provide “toolkits” to staff. Too many elected officials such as Cool Mayors allow ICLEI to influence policy changes through the use of funding incentives and rewards. While some of these policies sound good on the surface, they result in consequences such as:

• High-density housing scams
• Traffic congestion
• Open space where access is not allowed
• Government “partnering” with favored private businesses and non-profit agencies, using your tax money
• Undermining Constitutional administration of government
• Managed control over your life
• Mismanagement of public utilities
• Prohibitions on natural resource management leading to increased fire hazards, lack of water, and private property restrictions,
• Increased taxes, fees, regulations and restrictions

Is ICLEI running your town or coming to a town near you?

Are your elected officials being lured into enacting ridiculous rules and regulations in exchange for funding?  Do your elected officials know that there are long term consequences to their irresponsible actions?

Currently there are more than 550 communities in North America paying membership dues to ICLEI.  Upon becoming a member of ICLEI, members become governed by ICLEI Charter. If your community is one of these, you are paying for the loss of your unalienable rights.

Has your town, city or county signed on with ICLEI?  Find out here.

Patriot and AFP activist Roxanne Ross wrote an editorial on page 7 of the August edition of the Northwest Connection about how the ICLEI agenda threatens Multnomah county.

ICLEI is behind national schemes, as well:

How Obama is Locking Up Our Land

And now: The stealth Obama ocean grab

David Horowitz on Democrats’ Shadow Cabinet and the Green Communists

Global Warming Alarmism is a Grave Threat to our Liberty

Environmentalism: The New Communism