UPDATE ON THE CONCERTED EFFORT NOW GOING ON AGAINST THE SECOND AMENDMENT...

BEWARE SOMETHING CALLED, AGENDA 21...MORE SINISTER DIRTY WORK SPONSORED BY THE U.N....

Most Americans are completely oblivious to something that could prove to be one of the greatest threats to their freedom that we have ever faced and is yet another program that has as its source the United Nations, this program is known as Agenda 21. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development created this entity, this Agenda 21, as a sustainability agenda which is arguably an amalgamation of both socialism and extreme environmentalism brushed with some anti-American and anti-capitalist overtones, just for good measure. If you do not know about it, you should, because what you don't know, in this instance, can do you, and this country, some very serious harm. To begin with, Agenda 21 is a two-decade old, grand scheme for something called, global ’Sustainable Development,’ and it is being brought to you, as I said, by a organization that should be setting off alarm bells all over the place and that should make you highly suspicious. That venerable organization is, of course, the United Nations. Good old George H.W. Bush (and 177 other world leaders) agreed to it way back in 1992, and in 1995, our old friend "BJ" Clinton signed Executive Order #12858, which created a Presidential Council on ‘Sustainable Development.’ What this did was to effectively push the UN plan into America’s large, churning government machine without the need for any review or discussion whatsoever by either Congress or, more importantly the American people, all very much under our radar. The seeds for Agenda 21 were planted back in 1987 when the writings of some socialist fanatic, Gro Harlem Brundtland (a woman who at the time was Vice President of the World Socialist Party) caught the eye of the UN. Dr. Brundtland wrote a report for the UN called, ‘Our Common Future’ eventually got into the business of environmentalism as a tool to control all the people of the world and establish a global government. The growth of ICLEI and the framework being put in place by supporters of Agenda 21 appear to be bringing Dr. Brundtland’s ideas much closer to a scary reality.

Now I suppose we can all agree on some level that ‘Sustainable Development’ sounds pretty innocuous, it even sounds like a nice idea, right? All warm and fuzzy, right? But that’s just it, it only sounds nice. Because once you scratch the surface and peer inside you very quickly find that Agenda 21 and this Sustainable Development consists of plans cloaked in secrecy that are designed to impose the tenets of Social Justice/Socialism upon the world. At risk from Agenda 21 are: 1) Private Property ownership, 2) Single-Family homes, 3) Private car ownership and individual travel choices and last but not least, 4) Privately owned farms. The Agenda 21 plan openly targets private property. For over thirty-five years the UN has made their stance very clear on the issue of individuals owning land; "Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole." Oh, really.


There are two very good reasons to be wary of something called the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). First, because of the unscrupulous involvement of that leftwing billionaire loon George Soros and the second is, of course, that the sponsor of all this nonsense is the United Nations. It should come as no big surprise to anyone that plenty of Soros money has been tracked to funding parts of ICLEI going all the way back to 1997 when George Soros’s Open Society gave ICLEI a $2,147,415 grant to support its Local Agenda 21 Project. As regards to the UN, that organization‘s deeply rooted problems with America’s appreciation of freedom and self-determination are ones that, unless you've been living under a rock, need virtually no explanation. As I have mentioned on any number of occasions, this corrupt and highly dysfunction organization needs to be banished from our soil once and for all and as soon as possible. We can't afford to waste any more time and money on it. It has most definitely outlived what little usefulness it may have at one time possessed. It has America firmly in its sights and is it many corrupt members are determined in their efforts to bring America down to their level.


For instance, currently in California, the land of the fruits and the nuts, those supportive of the goals of Agenda 21 are working very diligently to implement plans for creating what is called, sustainable management of ‘open spaces.‘ The definition of what exactly is to be considered an ’open space’ has sparked some rather heated exchanges between those directing the planning meetings and citizens who are demanding that private property rights be respected and protected. This type of global plan could not be implemented without a large and well-funded group pushing through its priorities. For that, Agenda 21 has something called the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives, previously mentioned. ICLEI over time has become very deeply entrenched in America. ICLEI USA was launched in 1995 and has grown from a handful of local governments participating in a pilot project to a solid network of more than 600 cities, towns and counties actively striving to achieve tangible reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and create more sustainable communities. ICLEI USA is the domestic leader on climate protection and adaptation, and sustainable development at the local government level.


Over six hundred cities, towns and counties all across America are now members of ICLEI. Do you support your local government agreeing to rules and regulations set up by an anti-American, UN-based organization that has as one of its primary objectives the transferring of private property to government control? If you would like to see if your community is a member of ICLEI, all you need to do is to visit their website at www.icleiusa.org. Austin, Texas is one city that seems to have fallen for the ICLEI/Agenda 21 and was heavily consuming the ‘Communitariasm’ Kool-aid, which is kind of strange really, with it being in Texas and all. But a local group called "Texans For Accountable Government" saw what was happening and attempted to stop the Austin City Council from adopting some Agenda 21-friendly initiatives. One of TAG’s members, John Bush, delivered a succinct presentation on ICLEI and Agenda 21 that was virtually ignored. Over in the world of business, Agenda 21 is far from being any kind of a friend to the free market, instead, preferring PPPs or Private Property Partnerships where the government, in its infinite wisdom, decides which companies will receive tax breaks and allowed to stay in business. In light of this realization, the cozy relationship between the current administration and GE, a company that paid zero taxes in 2010, should raise eyebrows. And the White House efforts to tell Boeing in which state they can operate seems to further bolster the belief that Agenda 21 ideals are already making headway in America. Which, I suppose, should come as no surprise since we have a president who loves nothing more than to kowtow to this UN group of thugs.


Undoubtedly, residents of any town, county, or city in the United States that treasure their freedom, liberty, and property rights couldn't care less whether it's called Agenda 21 or smart growth. A recent example of this can be found in Carroll County, Maryland, where a smart growth plan that was innocuously referred to as "Pathways" was drafted by the County Planning Department. The plan, if enacted, proposed a breathtaking reshuffling of land rights: 1) Rezoning of thousands of acres of beautiful, low-density agricultural farmland and protected residential conservation land into office parks, 2) Down-zoning of agriculture land to prevent future subdivision by farmers, 3) Up-zoning of low-density residential land around small towns into higher density zoning to permit construction of hundreds or possibly thousands of inclusive housing units, including apartments and condominiums, 4) Inclusive housing with placement of multi-family construction on in-fill lots within existing residential single family communities, and 5) Endorsement of government-sponsored housing initiatives (subsidies) to ensure healthier, balanced neighborhoods.


Smart growth plans usurp property rights and constitutional rights. Local officials, at the behest of State Government, revise zoning laws to fit into a "smart code" zoning template. A massive reshuffling of property rights ensues. Farmers may lose subdivision rights; conservation land adjacent to population centers may be rezoned into commercial employment centers; and low-density land in small towns is re-designated as growth area and rezoned to accommodate diverse housing including high-density apartments and condominiums. Finally, a healthy dose of federal- or state-sponsored housing initiatives is embraced to ensure communities are properly balanced. The net effect of these plans is to create highly urbanized population centers throughout otherwise-rural counties, while simultaneously limiting the availability of land for suburban and estate subdivisions, as these are considered an unsustainable waste of land by Agenda 21 disciples. Clearly, smart growth plans will impact Americans' future choices in where and how they live. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal and state agencies may attempt to deny grant funds to states and cities that do not adopt smart growth plans.


Most Americans will remain unaware of the implications of smart growth and Agenda 21 until after it is promulgated in their own backyards. Ironically, these plans are more insidious than even the Eminent Domain ruling by our illustrious Supreme Court back in the case of Kelo v City of New London. Under Eminent Domain rulings, property owners usually receive just compensation for their losses. Conversely, smart growth municipal plans, required by statute, enable municipalities to change zoning laws and engage in other regulatory actions that devalue property, restrict off-conveyances, and otherwise erode property values without payment of any compensation to the property owner. Smart growth has another interesting unintended consequence: it can disrupt conventional alliances and lead to strange political bedfellows. Rural urbanization plans may raise the ire of environmental groups while simultaneously stirring the wrath of both conservative and liberal residents that want to maintain the rural fabric of their communities. Conversely, developers, sensing opportunity, may side with government smart growth bureaucrats in support of these plans. Regardless of political orientation, two indisputable facts remain. Agenda 21 is a direct assault on private property rights and American sovereignty, and it may soon be coming to a neighborhood near you, if it isn’t there already.

THE UN IS COMING FOR YOUR GUNS, AND OBAMA IS ONLY TOO HAPPY TO HELP!

Here's one more example that very clearly demonstrates the urgency with which we need to address the issue of America severing all ties with the obviously corrupt, and grossly dysfunctional, organization known as the United Nations. This dysfunctional cadre of dictators, despots and tyrants needs to now be officially and by force if necessary, escorted off of American soil and relocated to some far off distant land where it can do the least amount of damage, especially to America. Because now it's readying itself for a full frontal assault on our Constitution by coming gunning for our second Amendment rights. How, you may ask, can it do that? Doesn't our Constitution make us immune to whatever cockamamie ideas this group of misfits, malcontents and miscreants can come up with? Well folks, that only works when you have a president who actually takes serious his oath to protect and defend our Constitution. And that's just not Barry "Almighty." He views our Constitution as being nothing more than an impediment. The method now being contemplated by that venerable organization comes at us in the form of something called the U.N.’s “Small Arms Treaty.” This twisted body of international psychopaths is attempting to pass the measure off as an effort intended to do nothing more than to combat terrorists and insurgents, but you can be sure that the measure has a very different, and much more sinister, purpose. Because under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty”…you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being formulated, one that would have dire consequences for our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. This supposed international treaty, at least from the Barry "Almighty" administration’s perspective, is seen as being an ideal vehicle by which he can orchestrate efforts to increase domestic gun control. If implemented, Barry believes it will be then be able to enforce rougher licensing requirements, create more red tape, create an “international gun registry,“ ”confiscate and destroy all ‘unauthorized’ civilian firearms’” and severely impede Americans’ right to bear arms. Ah, more of that "Hope and Change" that all of you morons voted for! Sadly, this plan is very real chance with the U.S. having already joined with 152 other countries to endorse a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will lead to a 2012 conference. It is during this meeting that plans to enact these international new controls will take place. Secretary of State, Mrs. "BJ" Clinton has already said she that will actively encourage the Senate to ratify the resolution as well.

It may come as surprising news to many of you, but the United Nations does not now, and never has, exactly approved of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. It's viewed as being a bit Neanderthal, or cowboyish. And they very much hope to do something about it with the help of some very powerful American friends, such as our "community agitator" president. What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail? While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:


1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.


2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).


3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).


4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.


5. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.


Have no doubt, this plan is very real and very dangerous, posing a very serious threat, and with it enjoying the very strong support of our Dear Beloved Leader, Barry "Almighty," it stands a very good chance of becoming a reality. We need to be leaning very heavily on the Republicans in the Senate and stress to them, in no uncertain term, that we need to turn this thing back, ratification of this "obamanation" must be prevented at all costs. As I said, it was only January of last year that the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish the 2012 conference assigned the responsibility of drafting up the blueprint for enactment of this insidious attack on American sovereignty. And with Mrs. "BJ" Clinton having already pledged her full support in pushing hard for Senate ratification of this blatant violation of our Constitution, it's readily apparent that she too has taken a position of standing very firmly against the God given rights that have been bestowed upon the American people. Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.” Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her failed presidential election bid, Mrs. "BJ" Clinton is far from being generally known as a gun rights enthusiast, ranking right there with Barry himself as being obvious in her disdain for our Second Amendment rights. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As a New York senator she ranked among the National Rifle Association’s worst “F”-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.


Barry "Almighty's" "community agitator" record on citizen gun rights is pretty sad to say the least, which I'm sure comes as no big surprise to anyone. And it doesn’t reflect his ever being much of a gun rights advocate. Take, for example consider, his appointment of rabid a anti-gun rights advocate and former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate U.S. representative to the U.N., or his choice of Andrew Traver who has worked to terminate civilian ownership of so-called “assault rifles” to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. And as an Illinois state senator, Barry "Almighty" was a very aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws of all sorts, and ,in one of the few times he managed to do more than to vote present, even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the "radically activist" anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001 when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations. So, if someone were to break into your home when you are there, which would you prefer to have close at hand: 1) a telephone to call 911, or 2) a loaded gun of respectable caliber? That’s a pretty easy question for me to answer. There are many like me all across this great country, and fewer of them would be alive today were it not for the exercising of their gun rights. In fact law-abiding citizens in America used guns in self-defense 2.5 million times during 1993 (about 6,850 times per day), and actually shot and killed 2 1/2 times as many criminals as police did (1,527 to 606). Those civilian self-defense shootings resulted in less than 1/5th as many incidents as police where an innocent person was mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).


Finally, just how effective do you really think gun bans have been in making citizens safer in any of the other countries where they have been enacted? Sorry to say, but the success rate has not been very high! Lets just take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indicator. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home. Sounds like a big plus for gun rights to me. So in recognizing that clear statistical benefit evidence, 41 states now allow competent, law-abiding adults to carry permitted or permit-exempt concealed handguns. As a result, crime rates in those states have typically fallen at least 10% in the year following enactment. Sounds like another big plus. So, the majority in our Senate is smart enough to realize that the U.N.’s gun-grab agenda is unconstitutional, politically suicidal for those who support it, and down-right idiotic—right? Well we can only hope so. Because if I've learned anything over the years from watching our stellar members of Congress, you can never entirely count on being able to do the right thing. Their egos always seem to get in the way. And while there are a relatively few loyal Barry "Almighty" Democrats who are truly “pro-gun”, many are loathe to vote against treaties that carry the president’s international prestige, causing him embarrassment. Let's see, preventing any further embarrassment to Barry, who constantly embarrasses himself, or protecting the Constitution, now that'd be a tough decision. Also, don’t forget that the Senate did confirm anti-gun Barry nominee Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Many within the few who voted against her did so only because of massive grassroots pressure from constituents who take their Constitutional protections very seriously. Now, more than ever, it’s imperative to stick by our guns in demanding that all Constitutional rights be preserved. If not, we will surely lose both.