Benghazi and Obama's Ambition to Be U.N. SecGen

American Thinker
May 25, 23013
by James Lewis

Washington rumor has it that Obama wants to be U.N. Secretary General.


There are several reasons that make that likely, and if it's true, it throws new light on a lot of Obama's oddities -- including his Royalty Bows, his Apology Tours, his Muslim Sellout, and the Benghazi Cover-Up.

But first -- why would Obama be planning to become the chief of the U.N. before he has even finished his second term?

1. Obama's unbounded ego.

In three and a half years, Obama will be out of a job. He is 50 now and wants to soar to greater heights, because that's what matters more than anything else in his life.

What's better to Obama's Napoleonic self than being U.N. Sec Gen? He is a man who wants to be worshiped by the world, and the path to that goal is clear. It is also an opportunity to carry out his internationalist and pro-Muslim convictions.

Personalities like his need the excitement of taking big risks for big gains. Obama's slogan "the audacity of hope" comes from Napoleon's general, who described his war strategy as "Audacity, audacity, always audacity!" Alinsky's Rules advise: "Always act outside of the experience of the enemy." It now looks like Obama has never won a single clean election, because he has always violated the rules. He always gambles, and as long as his opponents play by the rules, he wins.

Mitt Romney is a good and decent man, and IRS intimidation of political enemies is just not his way. Knowing that, the Obama campaign violated the rules deliberately, cynically, and with malice aforethought. It worked.

2. Obama's internationalist ideology.

The Communist anthem is The Internationale. When Obama gave his big speech in Berlin even before the first inauguration, his first words were "Citizens of the world!" That was meant as Marxist symbolism. All the leftists in the world cheered themselves hoarse.

Berlin was Marx's city, the capital of the Prussian Empire that was the model for the Communist Worker's Paradise, to be guided by the new Prussian Junkers, the Communist Party. "Citizens of the world!" was an echo of "Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!"

The American media didn't bother to tell us that, but they knew. They knew.

Obama constantly pulls stunts with obvious Marxist overtones. His inner circle laughs at his audacity, and he likes to clown it up for Valerie Jarrett, Michelle, Ayers, and Axelrod.

Obama is a trickster, power-hungry, insatiable, and sociopathic. His enemy is us, or what Jeremiah Wright would call "middleclassness," the values that most of us try to live by.

As a European Socialist, Obama does not believe in the U.S. Constitution. His appointees have no conscience about violating the Constitution, as is obvious from today's news about fundamental IRS violations, fundamental invasion of news reporters' privileges under the First Amendment, and fundamental violations of the ethics of combat commanders -- leaving soldiers under fire to the tender mercies of a vicious enemy.

Obama is audacity man -- violating decent values is his specialty. Bill and Hillary found that out when he played the race card against them at the 2008 Democratic Convention. Democrats always play the race card, but never against each other. In 2008, Obama violated that rule, and he got away with it.

3. Butt-kissing tyrants.

If Obama wants to run for U.N. SecGen after 2016, he needs two things: a U.S. nomination by a Democratic president and a majority vote in the U.N. General Assembly.

Let's say Hillary gets elected in 2016, as Democrats now are hoping. She nominates Obama to be U.N. SecGen, to rousing cheers from the New York Times and Washington Post, the U.K. Guardian, and Workers' World.

Now Obama needs a majority of U.N. General Assembly votes.

By butt-kissing every throwback tyrant in sight, Obama is buying U.N. votes for himself. Obama's public bows to throwbacks like Saudi's King Abdullah and the emperor of Japan are not just another weird thing about this guy. They are strategic, with the purpose of lining up support for the future.

There are 57 Muslim states. (Remember Obama's slip of the tongue when he talked about "all 57 states"? He wasn't thinking about Heinz 57 flavors. He was thinking about Muslim states.)

Europe is the home of imperialist socialism. The European Union is the successor to the Soviet Union, run by an appointed political machine just like the USSR. Obama is a EuroSoc, and he will get enthusiastic support from there.

South America will vote for him, because he is actively supporting leftist regimes below the border. Obama's recent trip to Mexico was full of bowing and scraping to Mexico's tender feelings about losing Texas and California in the 19th century. Blowing open the border is just another favor Obama is doing for Latin America.

If you combine his unbounded ego with his penchant for audacious trickery, it becomes clear why Obama would want to be U.N. Secretary General. To U.N.-worshipers, the SecGen is the basis for a world presidency. Even if it remains a weak position, it could be a wonderful bully pulpit for Obama's endless speech habit. It would crown Obama's life achievements and allow him to crow over the United States with its old-fashioned constitution designed to limit the powers of such as The Trickster.

President Obama could have used the Benghazi attack on 9/11 last year to look like the commander in chief, a role he loves to play. He could have allowed Air Force jets to strafe and bomb the gaggle of Ansar al Shari'a gunmen who overran the compound and killed what are now admitted to be six Americans, including Ambassador Stevens.

This might have been Obama's Heroic Capture of bin Laden, part 2.

When Obama skips a chance to boast and strut on the stage just before an election, we have to wonder why. He is not usually shy about putting himself in the limelight.

Michael Barone and Charles Krauthammer believe that Benghazi was covered up because Obama and Hillary were afraid to admit that al-Qaeda wasn't dead -- that AQ is very much alive, and dangerous as a snake.

On 9/11 last year, there were not one, but two simultaneous assaults on American targets: the Cairo Embassy and the Benghazi compound. The front pages that day showed the black AQ flag flying over a burned part of the U.S. Embassy. Double-simultaneous assaults are an al-Qaeda signature, as we know from 9/11/01, when the Pentagon was assaulted simultaneously with the Twin Towers. Double-bomb attacks spell AL-QAEDA.

Everybody in the Muslim world understood that on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11/01, AQ was telling the world it could strike us at any place and time. Bin Laden may be dead, but jihad keeps marchin' on.   CONTINUE READING:  http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/benghazi_and_obamas_ambition_to_be_un_secgen.html#.UaTFPB2r8DM.email   Note:  CCTA is a non partisan organization.  We do not endorse any particular candidate or political party.  News items are presented for you the reader to help you become informed and reach your own conclusions.

Recent U.S. House Votes

Energy Efficiency – Suspension - Vote Passed (398-2, 1 Present, 30 Not Voting)
In a rare moment of bipartisan agreement on an energy measure, the House came together to pass a bill clarifying federal efficiency standards for a variety of heavy appliances, including air conditioners and commercial refrigerators (excluding walk-in refrigerators). Though the measure appears uncontroversial, its prospects are not clear in the Senate given the crowded calendar.
Rep. Walter Jones voted YES     Rep. G.K. Butterfield votes YES

Global Internet Governance – Adoption - Vote Passed (397-0, 34 Not Voting)
The House unanimously agreed to Senate language expressing the sense of Congress that the Internet should remain “free from government control.” The concurrent resolution was adopted amid the backdrop of a meeting of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a United Nations body broadly responsible for fostering cooperation among governments and the private sector on international telecommunications governance. Technology companies such as Google have voiced concern that the ITU conference could lead to adoption of restrictive regulations making it easier for national governments to censor content.
Rep. Walter Jones voted YES     Rep. G.K. Butterfield votes YES

Amending Language in Federal Law – Suspension - Vote Passed (398-1, 32 Not Voting)
In its final action of the week, the House cleared a Senate bill that would remove the pejorative “lunatic” from the United States Code. The lone House dissenter was Texas Republican Louie Gohmert, who insisted that lunatic should be retained, pointing to his fellow Members of Congress as living, breathing examples of the term. The bill awaits the president’s signature.
Rep. Walter Jones voted YES     Rep. G.K. Butterfield votes  YES

UPCOMING VOTE
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 - H.R.4310
The House is scheduled to consider several bills under suspension of the rules, as well as a Motion to go to Conference on the defense authorization bill.

Recent U.S. Senate Votes

Disability Treaty – Ratification - Vote Rejected (61-38, 1 Not Voting)
Despite a last-minute appearance by former GOP Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas in support of the treaty, Senate Republicans mustered enough opposition to defeat the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Supporters, including Dole and Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., described the treaty as essentially enshrining the Americans with Disabilities Act (PL 101-336) as an international standard. Kerry highlighted the treaty’s support among veterans groups. The treaty’s detractors, including Republican presidential candidate and former senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, raised the possibility of “international bureaucrats” making child-care decisions in place of parents, including potentially restricting home schooling. All international treaties require a two-thirds majority of those present and voting, so supporters fell five votes short. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada vowed another vote in the next Congress.
Sen. Richard Burr voted NO      Sen. Kay Hagan voted YES
Defense Authorization – Final Passage - Vote Passed (98-0, 2 Not Voting)

Following a Monday cloture vote, last week the Senate gave unanimous support to its FY 2013 defense authorization bill. The measure provides funding for all branches of the armed services (excluding the Coast Guard), nuclear security operations at the Department of Energy, and “overseas contingency operations,” i.e., funding for the war in Afghanistan and other overseas conflicts. Fiscal 2013 funding in the bill would come to roughly $631 billion, $88 billion of which covers war costs. Major amendments adopted during debate would further toughen sanctions against Iran; clarify that U.S. citizens and permanent residents may not be detained without charge or trial if apprehended on American soil; prohibit transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay to a U.S. facility; and ensure that the Pentagon is able to purchase alternative fuels. The provision on alternative fuels is likely to be a sticking point in conference negotiations with the House, whose bill prohibits purchase of such fuels if they are more expensive than traditional options such as petroleum. Despite President Obama’s veto message, both chambers’ bills contain restrictions on Guantanamo detainee transfers, retirement of Air National Guard planes, and TRICARE enrollment fees. Though conferees have not been named for either side (that is likely to happen this week), staff discussions have already begun.
Sen. Richard Burr voted YES      Sen. Kay Hagan voted YES

Russia/Moldova Trade Relations – Final Passage - Vote Passed (92-4, 4 Not Voting)

The Senate cleared the way for more open trade with the Russian Federation and the tiny Eastern European republic of Moldova last week with passage of a House measure that lifts 1970s-vintage restrictions on both countries. The move was necessitated by Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization over the summer; had trade restrictions not been rescinded, the U.S. would have been vulnerable to retaliatory actions by the Russians. Moldova has been a WTO member since 2001 and appears simply to have hitched a ride on a moving legislative vehicle. Despite cheers from the business community for the free trade measure, the Russian government is deeply unhappy with accompanying language chiding its poor human rights record and sanctioning individuals associated with the imprisonment and death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. The bill is currently before the president and will likely be signed into law shortly.
Sen. Richard Burr voted YES     Sen. Kay Hagan voted YES

Upcoming Vote


To temporarily extend the transaction account guarantee program, and for other purposes. - S.3637
The Senate is scheduled to hold a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to a bill that would extend the Transaction Account Guarantee (TAG) program through the end of 2014. TAG is a program administered by the FDIC that provides full deposit insurance coverage for noninterest-bearing transaction accounts. The program was created in the midst of the financial crisis in late 2008 and later extended for two years in late 2010. It is set to expire at the end of this year, however, and lobbyists for small and independent banks are making a heavy push to extend the program again. Republicans are wary of keeping it alive, so invoking cloture is no guarantee.

Senate rejects UN treaty for disabled rights in 61-38 vote

A United Nations treaty to ban discrimination against people with disabilities went down to defeat in the Senate on Tuesday in a 61-38 vote.

The treaty backed by President Obama and former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kansas) fell 5 votes short of the two-thirds needed for confirmation as dozens of Senate Republicans objected that it would create new abortion rights and impede the ability of people to home-school disabled children.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) argued the treaty would infringe on U.S. sovereignty, an argument echoed by other opponents.

“This unelected bureaucratic body would pass recommendations that would be forced upon the United States if we were a signatory,” he said.

Supporters of the treaty argued that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would simply require the rest of the world to meet the standards that Americans already enjoy under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act.

The treaty was negotiated and first signed under President George W. Bush and signed again by Obama in 2009. At least 153 other countries have signed it.

Republican Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), John Barrasso (Wyo.), Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Dick Lugar (Ind.), John McCain (Ariz.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) voted with Democrats in favor of the treaty.

CONTINUED:  http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/270831-senate-rejects-un-treaty-for-disabled-rights-in-vote

Treaties and the "AUTHORITY" to make them

A Defense of the U.S. Constitution From Its Domestic Enemies.
by Publius Huldah

If President Obama signs a “global warming” treaty at the United Nations’ “Climate Change” Conference in Copenhagen this December; and if the U.S. Senate ratifies it, will it become part of the supreme Law of the Land?

We hear it said that whenever the President signs, and the Senate ratifies, a Treaty, it becomes part of “the supreme law of the land”. But is that True? Not necessarily! Walk with me, and I will show you how to think through this question, and how to analyze other constitutional questions which come your way.

You must always ask: Is this authorized in the Constitution? Where exactly in the Constitution? And precisely what is authorized by the Constitution? Let us start at the beginning:

1. Does the federal government have authority to make treaties? Can treaties be about any subject? Or, are the proper objects of treaties limited by The Constitution?

Art II, Sec. 2, cl. 2, U.S. Constitution, says, respecting the powers of the President:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur…

Article VI, cl. 2 says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]

Thus, we see that the federal government is authorized to make treaties. Now, we must find out whether there are limitations on this treaty making power.

2. It is a classic rule of construction (rules for understanding the objective meaning of writings) that one must give effect to every word & phrase. The clause does not say, “Treaties made by the United States are part of the supreme Law of the Land”. Instead, it says Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, are part of the supreme Law of the Land.

So we see right away that a Treaty is part of the supreme Law of the Land only if it is made “under the Authority of the United States“.

3. From where do the President and the Senate get Authority to act? From The Constitution. The objects of their lawful (as opposed to usurped) powers are enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, the President and Senate must be authorized in the Constitution to act on a subject before any Treaty made by them on that subject qualifies as part of “the supreme Law of the Land”.
If the Constitution does not authorize the President or Congress to act on a subject, the Treaty is not “Law” –
it is a mere usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such (Federalist No. 33, 6th para). Because the Constitution is “fundamental” law (Federalist No. 78, 10th -11th paras), it is The Standard by which the legitimacy of all presidential acts, all acts of Congress, all treaties, & all judicial decisions is measured. (e.g., Federalist No. 78, 9th para).

4. The Federalist Papers were written during 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, in order to explain the proposed Constitution to The American People to induce them to ratify it. Because of this, The Federalist is the most authoritative commentary on the meaning of The Constitution. Thus, we must always consult The Federalist to learn what it says about any constitutional provision. In Federalist No. 44 (7th para from end), James Madison said that a treaty which violates a State constitution would have no effect in that State:

…as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law of great and equal importance to the States would interfere with some and not with other constitutions and would consequently be valid in some of the States at the same time that it would have no effect in others. [emphasis added]

Madison thus illustrated the Principle that a treaty which interferes with the Constitution has no effect. I found no other discussion in The Federalist on this point. So, let us turn to Thomas Jefferson:

In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise. –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408 [emphasis added]

Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way. –Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:442 [emphasis added]

According to the rule established by usage and common sense, of construing one part of the instrument by another, the objects on which the President and Senate may exclusively act by treaty are much reduced, but the field on which they may act with the sanction of the Legislature is large enough; and I see no harm in rendering their sanction necessary, and not much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power, except as to making peace. –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1796. ME 9:330 [emphasis added]

5. So! We see from the above that the treaty making power of the United States is very limited! What, then, are the proper objects of treaties? To find the answer, we must go to The Constitution to see what it authorizes the President and the Congress to do! The Constitution delegates to Congress powers “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations…and with the Indian Tribes” (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 3); and “To declare War…and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 11). The Constitution authorizes the President to “…appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls…” (Art II, Sec. 2, cl. 2).

The Federalist Papers discuss the treaty making power of the United States. John Jay said treaties relate to “war, peace, and to commerce” and to the promotion of “trade and navigation” (Federalist No. 64, 3rd and 6th paras). Madison said treaties also relate to sending and receiving ambassadors and consuls and to commerce. (Federalist No. 42, 1st and 3rd paras).

In addition, Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 8, authorizes Congress “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”. Thus, The United States could properly enter into treaties respecting patents and copyrights.

6. Now, let us consider the proposed “climate change” treaty. There exists somewhere a 200 page draft agreement which, during December 2009, is to be hammered out, put into final form, and signed in Copenhagen. If signed by Obama and ratified by the Senate, would it become part of “the supreme Law of the Land”?

To answer that Question, we must first ask: Does The Constitution authorize Congress to make laws about the objects of the proposed “climate change” treaty? One wants to see the actual 200 page draft agreement, but it appears, from various web sites, that the gist of the scheme is for the governments of the “rich” nations to reduce the “greenhouse gas emissions” within their borders and to send money to the “poor” nations to bribe them to sign the treaty and to compensate them for our “past emissions”. There seem also to be provisions for entrepreneurs like AlGore to sell “carbon offset credits” or “emission reduction units” to those who emit more than “their share” of “greenhouse emissions”. [By the way, from where does AlGore get them to sell?]

And just what, pray, are “greenhouse emissions”? Primarily, carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor. Carbon dioxide: the gas which humans and other animals exhale, and which plants must have for photosynthesis [sounds like a good system to me]. Methane: The gas which animals belch. All very easy to control: Kill most of the people and most of the animals! Shut down our remaining industries. Stop the cars. Turn off the electricity. Cut off supplies of propane. Prohibit the burning of wood. And water vapor! Oh! We must stop poisoning the world with Water!

So! The Questions are these: Does The Constitution grant to Congress the power to make laws respecting the reduction of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, etc. “emissions”? Is transferring wealth from Americans to “poor” nations to compensate them for our “past emissions”, one of the enumerated powers of Congress? Does The Constitution grant to the Executive Branch jurisdiction over carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor?

The answer is NO! Accordingly, if the Senate were to ratify the “climate change” treaty, the treaty would NOT become part of “the supreme Law of this Land”, because it would not have been made under the Authority of the United States. It would be a mere usurpation and would deserve to be treated as such. Do not forget: The federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties. It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution.

7. While the statist-in-chief will surely sign a Treaty in Copenhagen, ratification requires two thirds of the Senators present (Art. II, Sec. 2, cl.2). Are we such a corrupt people that we elected 67 U.S. Senators who will vote to ratify the Treaty? But even if 67 faithless Senators vote to ratify it, then we may take heart from the words of James Madison in Federalist No. 44 (16th para):

… in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers…

and Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 33 (5th para):

…If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [The Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify….

Read again the foregoing passages! The statists can not enslave us without our acquiescence. For too long, we have blindly accepted whatever we hear others say. Someone on TV says, “If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it will become part of the supreme law of the land!” We are told that “The Rule of Law” requires us to obey every order, law, court opinion, or treaty coming out of the federal government. And not only do we believe such nonsense, we repeat it to others. And thus, we became part of the misinformation dissemination network. In order to restore our constitutional republic with its federal form of government, we must rediscover the lost art & science of Learning, Thinking and Analysis. And then, we must learn to say, “They don’t have authority under The Constitution to do that!” Pay attention to the words of our beloved James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. PH

October 27, 2009

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2734278%3ATopic%3A383154&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

A First-Week Roundup from the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty Conference

Here are a few notable events and themes that caught my eye during my first week at the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference:


• The totalitarian states are deviously brilliant. Their representatives have been around for years, so they know everyone, and they know the drill. They waste time expertly and are not at all shy about raising points of order and asking the same question over and over again. Their favorite tactic is to imply that everyone else is acting in bad faith, which works only if others have what they lack: a conscience. They are completely unabashed about making declarations of principle (such as Cuba’s demand for “objective criteria” in the treaty, which really means criteria that will never be used against Cuba) that are even more self-interested than most diplomacy. They don’t much like the glare of publicity, but it doesn’t really put them off. They either coordinate with each other or sing from the same song sheet instinctively. And they are shameless about playing to the many small states in the room.

• The small, poor states really do suffer for their size. During one break, I heard a collection of African delegates discussing their astonishment that the U.S. had spoken on behalf of the Permanent Members of the Security Council. The U.S. did the same thing a year ago, but evidently the delegates hadn’t noticed. Even more astonishing was Australia’s statement on Tuesday, when it proudly announced that it had paid for 50 delegates from 35 of the less developed nations to attend the conference. Australia is one of the ATT’s biggest backers, and it’s hard to imagine that these delegations, who are enjoying a very pleasant month-long trip to New York at Australia’s expense, will be anything other than completely compliant with its wishes. It’s not unknown for left-wing nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to staff the delegations of smaller nations or even take their place entirely, and while I saw no sign of that at this conference, the flood of propaganda that the pro-treaty NGOs put out is remarkable. If you are an impoverished nation that lacks the time, money, and expertise to pay even marginal attention to the ATT, you might well be very grateful for Cuban patronage, Australian funding, and NGO leaflets. So what if it’s all biased? You wouldn’t do any better on your own—in fact, you wouldn’t even be there.

CONTINUED:  http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/09/a-first-week-roundup-from-the-u-n-s-arms-trade-treaty-conference/?roi=echo3-12503574293-9092373-0fe0a7d901ed8b967a4eca03bfd919c6&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

Sun Journal Letter to the Editor: A threat approaches…

By CCTA Member Lou Call

June 22, 2012

There are forces at work in our nation’s Capitol that wish to dismantle our Constitution and will do so by bypassing Congress by any means possible.


Perhaps the most dangerous threat to our liberties comes from the United Nations Small Arms treaty which is supported by the Obama administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.


Our Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Our Founding fathers lacked trust in any government including our own to respect the rights of free citizens. They placed in the hands of the law abiding individual(s) the means by which to forcefully oppose a tyrannical government in our Nations future, both foreign and domestic.

The Oath of Office for the President of the United States affirms this in these words: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;”

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty is going to be used to circumvent our Second Amendment and eventually our total Bill of Rights. They believe that a one world government is sovereign whereas Americans believe that the individual is sovereign.

Appearing before the U.N. Small Arms committee last summer, Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, had this to say in regards to the make up of the committee:


“Their member list reads like a who’s who of human rights abusers. I was in New York to testify before this committee. I stood in front of representatives from China, North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Sudan — all those great bastions of freedom.”

Under our laws all treaties must be passed by a 2/3 majority in the Senate; no problem you say! Yet we have a president that just bypassed the Senate when, by Executive Order 13547, ratified the LOST Treaty. A Google search for Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) ratified by Obama’s Executive Order 13547 will support this.

We live in dangerous times and it’s becoming obvious that elements within our government are out of control. The man in the oval office has no problem side stepping the legislative branch of government when it suits his agenda.

Perhaps Samuel Adams said it best when he wrote, “Let the Constitution never be construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

A closing thought. America is still a beacon for the rest of the World … proof that ordinary people can be trusted with extraordinary power and that set free, we can live in peace, govern ourselves and control our own fates.

Louis Call, New Bern
http://www.newbernsj.com/sections/letters-to-the-editor/?fabc=1&catid=14374

A CALL TO ACTION--A Message from Tea Party Patriots

This week:

Insisting Republican Senators Uphold American Values and Interests by OPPOSING LOST ( the Law of the Sea Treaty)!

PASSION: This treaty is designed to get more money from the U.S. to fund Left-wing globalist projects which are rarely in the interest of the United States. The proposed treaty also nibbles away at U.S. sovereignty which now extends to the outer edge of the Continental shelf. Potential revenues from mining resources in the seabed may run to trillions of dollars. Why should we give control of this area, important to us for both financial and security reasons, to the United Nations, the vast majority of whose members are openly hostile to us and to our interests?

ACTION: Today's passion to action focuses on those Senators who have not signed the letter from Senator Inhofe to Majority Leader Harry Reid, declaring their opposition to the LOST Treaty. We are demanding that they sign immediately. Start calling now and don’t stop until they do. Go team: let’s melt the phone lines to our senators’ offices.

Click Here to Call Now!

Letter to the Editor: A threat approaches... by CCTA Member Lou Call

May 29, 2012

A threat approaches…

There are forces at work in our Nation’s Capitol that wish to dismantle our Constitution and will do so by bypassing Congress by any means possible.

Perhaps the most dangerous threat to our liberties comes from the United Nations Small Arms treaty which is supported by the Obama administration and our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

Our 2nd Amendment reads: ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’ Our Founding fathers lacked trust in any government including our own to respect the rights of free citizens. They placed in the hands of the law abiding individual(s) the means by which to forcefully oppose a tyrannical government in our Nations future, both foreign and domestic.

The Oath of Office for the President of the United States affirms this in these words: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;”

The UN Small Arms Treaty is going to be used to circumvent our 2nd Amendment and eventually our total Bill of Rights. They believe that a one world government is sovereign whereas Americans believe that the individual is sovereign.

Appearing before the UN Small Arms committee last summer, Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA had this to say in regards to the make up of the committee.

“Their member list reads like a who’s who of human rights abusers. I was in New York to testify before this committee. I stood in front of representatives from China, North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Sudan-all those great bastions of freedom.”

Under our laws all treaties must be passed by a 2/3 majority in the Senate; no problem you say! Yet we have a president that just bypassed the Senate when, by Executive Order 13547, ratified the LOST Treaty. A Google search for Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) ratified by Obama’s Executive Order 13547 will support this.

We live in dangerous times and it’s becoming obvious that elements within our government are out of control. The man in the oval office has no problem side stepping the legislative branch of government when it suits his agenda.

Perhaps Samuel Adams said it best when he wrote, “Let the Constitution never be construed to authorize Congress..to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

A closing thought. America is still a beacon for the rest of the World…proof that ordinary people can be trusted with extraordinary power and that set free, we can live in peace, govern ourselves and control our own fates.

Louis Call
New Bern, NC

Obama, Clinton Selling Out U.S. Sovereignty in Secret

Is the Obama administration secretly negotiating treaties with globalist bodies, in violation of the Constitution? That’s the question on the minds of a number of political watchdogs, who argue that the White House is doing an end run around Congress and the American people in order to lock the country into agreements on the environment, fishing rights and even gun ownership with the United Nations (UN).


On Feb. 7, former Bill Clinton campaign manager Dick Morris dissected a host of international “sneaky treaties” that, he says, “Once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.”

The most egregious of these would be U.S. membership in the International Criminal Court(ICC). This tribunal that has jurisdiction across the globe could prosecute elected U.S. leaders for entering into a war without UN approval. These “crimes of aggression”—even if approved by Congress under an official declaration of war—could still land the president or cabinet members in prison. The ICC’s reach supersedes the rulings of any U.S. court, thereby posing a serious threat to constitutionally-guaranteed trials by a jury of our peers.

CONTINUED:  http://americanfreepress.net/?p=4207

It is time for the first step to restore the Constitution

May 27, 2012
by David DeGerolamo

The 92 Syrians killed by the Assad regime will become the rallying point for Western intervention in yet another war or kinetic action. The truth is that there never was a UN ceasefire. Like Iran, Syria talks and the West appeases. This is not a call for war; although war will be the convenient excuse to misdirect our attention from an EU (and then US) economic collapse. The truth is that Syria knows that whatever they do, Putin will back them up militarily. The same reasoning applies to Iran. If Putin is the key to the Middle East, why is Obama not concentrating on the root cause? Or is he waiting to be reelected in order to have more flexibility? We have to consider the possibilities that:

1. The president of the United States has no interest in the Middle East other than to establish a Muslim caliphate.

2. The president has every reason to appease Putin as a fellow Communist as he was taught by his childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.
3. The president has placed Islam over Israel.
4. The president has made the United States a "paper tiger" in the world's eye.
5. Congress, the Supreme Court and the US military are not going to save our nation.

Item number five needs to be further explained.

As the UN, the US Congress has been rendered impotent by individual greed, partisan politics and the administration. Obama's plan to bypass Congress and the Constitution went unchallenged by both Congress and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is more concerned with prestige than power. Proof? Eric Holder's mismanagement of the Department of Justice. We now live in a country "without rule of law" (WROL). Any country which does not (or will not) enforce its laws is only a precursor to tyranny or revolution. Our military generals and admirals have sworn allegiance to the commander-in-chief. However, the more important points are the politics, power and money that these military leaders are enjoying or constrained by. What does a retired military leader do? They start (or work for) a military subcontractor where their monetary spoils are used to purchase Plan B estates outside of the United States. This Ayn Rand scenario as outlined in Atlas Shrugged is also the same strategy as the "leaders" in Washington. If Plan A works, they will enjoy even more power under a dictatorship. If Plan A fails and the people restore Liberty and the Constitution, Plan B is also a great life. What did you think a $5 trillion deficit last year was buying besides votes? So where does that leave the People? If the Constitution is not being obeyed by our government, it is up to the former soldiers who have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution to take action. Your oath and sacred honor dictate it. Your country is calling for you to save it. It is time for the first step to restore the Constitution. Or do we want our children to be shown in movies like below?

Commentary on Agenda 21 by Mattie Lawson

March 29, 2012


Over the last few months, along with many others, I've become educated on the threat of the United Nations program called Agenda 21 (Agenda for the 21st Century) and the impact it has already had on the lives of freedom-loving citizens all over the world, including us in North Carolina. Acts of the United Nations – because it carries international law and not US Constitutional law - are considered "soft laws" so they are not legally binding on us until accepted by our US Congress. That is the potential danger.  However, they are surprisingly often treated as biding law. That is the present danger.

Governing agencies within the United States, like the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have already warmed up to the one-world-government concepts of Agenda 21 under our noses. The goals of Agenda 21 are evident in nearly every aspect of our lives since its inception in 1992 at the United Nations Earth Summit. There is another UN Earth Summit scheduled for July 2012 where a proposed UN Environmental Constitution For the World will be presented. This constitution, as presented, is a repressive system of global governance. We want no part of it – our leaders must not agree to this on our behalf in any form.

Through insidious stealth depending on misrepresentations and infiltration, the promotion of "collective" over "individualism" has crept into our schools; our local, state and federal governments; our corporations and even our churches. Such comments as "for the common good" and "sacrifices of the individual for the many" and the elevation of "teamwork" over "personal achievement" or "self-reliance" and the concept of self-esteem without actually doing anything noteworthy are commonplace. What is "fairness" except the exploitation of the "haves" for the benefit, earned or not, of the "have-nots"? Life is not fair and to think otherwise is delusional. Community planning has sought out "sustainable development", a code word for removing otherwise legal human access to property or "smart growth" intended to limit human access to rural lands. Buy-in to the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) (also called Local Governments for Sustainability), a UN accredited Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), is in violation of Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution which prohibits states and their subdivisions from entering alliances with foreign operatives.

Implementation of Agenda 21 concepts takes the form of public/private partnerships. The underlying principle is that government, not God or the people, is the maker of rights. Complicit private corporations/consultants/facilitators take control of organizations to cripple its economical standing and eventually to take over its private property. Methodologies include pretending to care for the environment and wildlife while instituting programs that endanger or kill the environment and wildlife. Kill hundreds of otters to save a handful of birds. Play god with life and liberty. Confusion reigns. An example is wasting billions of dollars on so-called sea-rise knowing full well scientists have demonstrated ocean levels are routinely cyclical. Teaching children to care for hypothetical environmental issues to the detriment of a basic solid education of American History, geography, spelling, creative thinking, etc. Spread of death through abortions, eugenics, death panels, so-called "quality of life" over "sanctity of life" decision-making and the shocking increase in suicides among our youth has found a home in our modern culture. Social justice replaces rule of law. Public debate is limited to politically correct topics. It is all connected.

Where this hits home for Eastern North Carolina is the senseless persecution of our hard-working commercial fishermen an loggers, the community-killing decisions to block our public beaches and charge excessive fees for access in the name of saving 38 nesting plovers (beachside only, the island nesters don't count – how convenient is that), the outrageously expensive home-owner and dwelling insurance policies, the dumbing down of our schools regardless of the $8K per pupil per year dumped into our technologically blessed schools and countless other regulations and laws that leave us scratching our heads in wonderment and despair. Why has the war on drugs failed? Why are more people on the dole than paying taxes? Why so many overlapping organizations all charging fees and making more legal demands on property owners? This is no accident.

Case in point is Currituck County. A new Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) is being considered by the Currituck Commissioners. A meeting on this topic is scheduled for Monday, April 2nd. The UDO appears neutral. Perhaps it is perfectly fine with no threat to liberty. Maybe those property owners who attend facilitated sessions actually had the chance to speak their piece without being manipulated. However, considering the now known potential for organizations to insert United Nations One World Order concepts into town planning and development, as responsible citizens it is our duty to stop long enough to fully scrutinize every regulation to weed out ideas targeting the private property rights and self-reliant spirit of every law-abiding citizen and business.

Understand that the end goal of Agenda 21 is to create a one-world-government led by an elitist class of overlords. Population control is paramount. Sounds like socialism? How about communism? Though sold as a utopia where everyone does whatever they want and no one owns anything more than the shared collective, think North Korea. Think Cuba. Think East Germany. Think Soviet Russia. Think the Tragedy of the Commons. The experiment of a one-world-government will always end in tyranny as surely as a democracy tends to end in apathy unless it is carefully guarded and passed on intact to future generations.

The Republican National Committee approved a resolution against Agenda 21 in January. The Dare County Commissioners approved a resolution against Agenda 21 in February. Many other counties in North Carolina have also resolved to reject Agenda 21. Now the real work begins: recognize it, undo damage already done and put up a wall of protection from further erosion.

Learn more about the plans the United Nations has for us. Learn about Gaia, the earth goddess worshipped by the UN. More importantly, teach the miracle of the US Constitution to our children. Build committees to review existing building codes, communities planning documents, budgets, social programs, school curriculum, etc. Resist the temptation to spend outside our government and personal income levels. Challenge any touted science lacking documented proof and shilled as the newest crisis de jour (which is fixable, of course, for a price). Protect private property rights. Maintain gun rights. Become involved in your community. VOTE! Meet your neighbors. Love your families. Remember that the Creator who gave us our unalienable rights, as documented by our Founding Fathers, is still in control. Let's acknowledge Him as we move forward in the 21st Century in freedom.

Mattie Lawson is a candidate for N. C. House in the upcoming elections.

AMERICAN THINKER: The Executive Order Controversy

On Friday, 3/16/2012, President Obama issued an executive order called "National Defense Resources Preparedness" (NDRP), posting it on the White House's official website. Almost immediately, the blogosphere exploded with the news. Citizens began calling their TV stations, radio stations, and newspapers, demanding coverage. At the time of this writing, the furor has yet to abate.


The NDRP traces its origin to the Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950, which attempted to establish a framework for placing the nation on a "war footing" as quickly and in as efficient a manner as possible should events warrant. In an age of highly industrialized warfare, the basic building blocks of military success are composed of mundane elements such as supply chains, resource availability, parts, access to raw materials, and skilled labor.

Over the years, the DPA has seen many revisions, and the executive orders issued to implement those revisions presupposed an imminent threat of war. In 1994, then-President Clinton issued Executive Order 12919, which expanded the provisions of the DPA rather dramatically, declaring its applicability to peacetime.

The need for the DPA is legitimate. A great deal of our energy infrastructure, utilities, and financial system are in fact entirely private enterprises, not public/government entities. Getting the government running again in the event of a catastrophic attack is one thing, but not providing the same reconstitution effort for the privately owned elements of the nation's infrastructure would still leave us without electric power generation, food distribution, etc.

In the event of cataclysmic war or a natural disaster of similar scope, we could not afford to wait on the private sector to recover at an ordinary pace with purely private funds. Under such circumstances, the need would be urgent and the resources few.

The issue is how to balance the necessity of granting sufficient power to the only entity large enough to do the job -- government -- while still maintaining the private ownership and control of the means of production and the economy as a whole.

The Executive order issued by Obama on 3/16 is largely a restatement of the 1994 Clinton order with a few functional changes. It moves the authority for implementing the provisions of the DPA from the director of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not exist at the time of Clinton's presidency. There have been pedestrian additions of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, to the purview of the secretary of energy (as well as a curiously specific redefinition of bottled water as a "food resource" rather than a water resource), but nothing is particularly out of step with the order Obama's EO supersedes.

So what is the problem? Well, considering that the authority of the DPA has never been meaningfully exercised, and that the pre-emption of authority claimed by the Clinton-era EO 12919 has been similarly dormant, why would the Obama administration choose this particular time to update an obscure and unused authority? It is this question many believe must be asked and answered, and sooner rather than later.

In an attempt to provide that answer, allow me to don an appropriately stylish tinfoil hat before I present a plausible scenario.

1) In early March 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee that it is the position of this administration that international organizations such as NATO or the United Nations have at least as much, if not more authority to deploy U.S. troops, with or without congressional notice or permission.

2) A week later, the NAACP petitioned the U.N. Human Rights Council to involve themselves in our election process -- specifically our November presidential election, in order to monitor the vote for instances of voter suppression. It is the fantasy of the NAACP that laws requiring presentation of a photo ID to cast a ballot are in actuality thinly veiled efforts to keep the poor, elderly, and non-white populations from voting, presumably for Obama.

3) Attorney General Eric Holder has spent his tenure creating a hair-trigger system of race-conscious prosecutions, most notably in reference to cases involving voter fraud. His previous employee, J. Christian Adams, has built a second career from simply exposing the injustice of Holder's Department of Justice.

4) Most recently, Holder struck another blow against the concept of verifiable voting by forestalling Texas's proposed Voter ID law, saying it "goes against the arc of history." Aside from the attorney general basing his decisions on perceived "historical arcs" rather than clear and established law, the end result is the same: the creation of an air of uncertainty surrounding the upcoming election.

Now (as I adjust my tinfoil hat to a jauntier angle), let me tie these points together.

By employing repetitive reporting of "uncertainty about the reliability of the presidential election tally" by the major media, compounded by expressions of the same uncertainty by administration officials, the left could install that narrative amongst the segments of the population that pay little or no attention to the day-to-day practice of politics.

Could the NAACP then, with support from the Department of Justice and the administration, make the case to the U.N. that the election was in fact tainted, and subsequently persuade the member nations of the U.N. to declare the election invalid? It is possible, and such a declaration is certain to bring chaos to the streets of every major city in our country, as well as a great deal of smaller ones. To restore order, the president might need to deploy troops. Should the Congress resist the move, the administration might simply appeal to the U.N., which could request/order the deployment of troops by a willing and complicit Secretary Panetta.

And of course, President Obama would simply continue in office, for the sake of stability, until this could all be sorted out.

CONTINUED:http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/03/the_executive_order_controversy.html

Letter to the Editor: America as a Sovereign Nation? by CCTA Member, Lou Call

Check out first:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/defense-sec-panetta-stresses-importance-of-legal-basis-international-permission-for-military-action/

March 12, 2012

Letter to the Editor

America as a sovereign Nation?

Since the election of Barack Obama I have maintained that he has no regard for our Constitution or our position in world events as a sovereign Nation.

Recently our Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, when speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee made the following declaration.

He said that the President should not consult the Congress but look to the globalist power of NATO and the United Nations for direction when deciding to openly engage in foreign war.

When asked by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama about what legal authority the Administration of Barack Obama has to intervene in Syria as it did it Libya, the Secretary responded. He made clear that the Administration answers not to the American people, the Congress or the Constitution, but to NATO and the U.N.

Panetta stunned Senator Sessions by saying “that the U.S. would seek a legal basis and international permission for military action in Syria” (especially if the action was the work of a coalition). The Obama administration would commit our sons and daughters to a hostile act without the approval of Congress; a clear violation of the War Powers Act.


We have a dictator who sits in the Oval Office; he has used our Constitution for a door mat since he has taken office. He has surrounded himself with socialist/Marxists in cabinet posts, answerable only to him. For our Republic to survive Obama must be removed from office. The future of our grandchildren is at stake and for this there is no compromise.

Louis Call
River Bend, NC

UN to propose planetary regulations of water, food

Written By Kelley Vlahos


Published March 01, 2012--FoxNews.com

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/01/un-to-propose-planetary-regulations-water-food/?test=latestnews#ixzz1o4JkSlRi

An environmental report issued by an agency of the United Nations last month has some critics sounding the alarm, saying it is a clarion call for "global governance" over how the Earth is managed.

The report, “21 Issues for the 21st Century,” from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Foresight Process, is the culmination of a two-year deliberative process involving 22 core scientists. It is expected to receive considerable attention in the run-up to the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, which will be held in Rio, Brazil, in June.

The scientists who wrote the report say it focuses on identifying emerging issues in the global environment, and that it is not about mandating solutions.

But its critics see an agenda lurking in its 60 pages, which call for a complete overhaul of how the world's food and water are created and distributed -- something the report says is “urgently needed” for the human race to keep feeding and hydrating itself safely.

“This is more utopianism, pie-in-the-sky pleading for ‘global governance,’ including what they acknowledge as ‘novel governance arrangements,’ including, ‘alliances between environmentalist and other civil society groups,’” charged Chris Horner, author of Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed, and a senior fellow for energy and environment at the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) in Washington, D.C.

We are not talking about a world government.

- Professor Oren Young

The Foresight Report suggests actions to save humanity from starvation, the overheating planet and the collapse of the world’s oceans -- options that include new “constitutional frameworks,” “international protocols” and a “shared vision” for land and water management that essentially rewire existing treaties and governments.

But the group insists it’s not a call for global governance.

“We are not talking about a world government,” said Dr. Oren Young, professor of institutional and international governance and environmental institutions at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and one of the scientists who issued the report.

He said the panel’s conversations included questions like, “How do we resolve these problems without creating this monster entity?”

Young said the panel wasn’t tasked with finding all the answers.

“We realize that government can be part of the problem,” he told FoxNews.com. “But we can’t close our eyes and say, ‘oh well, everything will work out,’ without us even looking at it.”

Even environmentalists don’t believe that planet-wide accords are particularly popular.

“I don’t think there is a global appetite right now for new institutions … or a world environmental organization like we have, say, with the World Trade Organization,” said Janet Redman, co-director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network at the progressive Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C.

“There are a lot of places -- especially the oceans and food security -- where everyone is saying that doing this piecemeal is not going to address the bigger sense of these environmental issues.”

But on the whole, she said, global government probably won’t work.

“I think everyone agrees this is not the right time,” Redman told FoxNews.com.

The State Dept. has already weighed in on many of the issues presented by the Foresight Panel in its own statement, titled “Sustainable Development for the Next Twenty Years United States Views on RIO+20.”

Submitted to the U.N by the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OIES) in November, this policy vision makes it clear the State Dept. will back global government solutions -- whether they be in addressing the overfishing of the oceans, making national laws and regulations more transparent, addressing land and ocean-based pollution, or water management.

The U.S. also is wholly supportive of strengthening the UNEP as “a body through which governments can cooperate to recommend environmental policies, promote best practices, and build national capacity for governance, monitoring and assessment,” according to the vision statement.

Yet UNEP is unsuited for that, by the agency’s own admission.

An internal U.N study obtained by Fox News last June found that the $450 million organization is an administrative mess, not knowing how its money is spent or how many public and private partners it might be working with at any given time.

Questions about the ability of nations to work with global bodies such as the U.N, and whether they should subscribe to transnational guidelines or mandates, will no doubt be a subject of concern in the run-up to the Rio summit.

Just as global governance solutions are raised in the report, so are local solutions that involve local governments, private industry and promoting individual and community shifts in the way people live and tend to the environment in their daily lives and workplaces.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/01/un-to-propose-planetary-regulations-water-food/?test=latestnews#ixzz1o4KF4wD6

Ask Your State Legislators to Introduce a Stop Agenda 21 Bill

Starting in 2011 there has been an amazingly fast growth in interest among Tea Party and other conservative groups in learning about, then stopping the implementation of the UN's Agenda 21 in their local area as well as their state and the nation as a whole.


If you want to learn about Agenda 21, you could start by reading "Stop the UN's Agenda 21 & 'Sustainable Development'" or "Your Hometown & the United Nations’ Agenda 21." Or, if you prefer to learn from videos, try viewing a recent Agenda 21 video by Tom DeWeese that describes the overall progress of the Stop Agenda 21 movement or another recent video by Don Casey that provides many details of just how far the implementation of Agenda 21 has already gone. Another excellent resource for learning more about Agenda 21 and what you can do about it is our web page "Choose Freedom -- STOP AGENDA 21."

Starting in 2012, New Hampshire, Tennessee, and Georgia have already introduced bills to help publicize the downsides of implementing Agenda 21. Furthermore, in Tennessee a bill has been introduced in both House and Senate to prohibit that state and all of its political subdivisions from spending money implementing Agenda 21. We expect the number of states in this list to grow very rapidly this year and next.


Since most states are either out of session or winding down by this point in even-numbered years, the big push for Stop Agenda 21 state bills should happen in 2013 after this fall's elections. However, let's not wait for 2013. Let's start educating our state legislators now and urge them to introduce Stop Agenda 21 bills at the earliest possible time.

The tools you have for doing this can all be found at our "Choose Freedom -- STOP AGENDA 21" web page.

To get the ball rolling in your state, send a message to your state legislators asking them to introduce a Stop Agenda 21 bill in your state legislature. The prewritten, editable message to them contains a link to our "Choose Freedom -- STOP AGENDA 21" web page and a link to our "Model Stop Agenda 21 Bill for State Legislatures."

Phone calls can also be very effective, and of course, the most effective way to educate your state legislators is by making personal visits to their offices. Click here for contact information for your state representatives.

Thanks.

Your friends at The John Birch Society

Could You Be A Criminal? US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure

State Department partners with Organization of Islamic Cooperation in what could lead to criminalizing free speech. “That could never happen here.” When we shine a light on the conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria for “denigrating religion,” that’s how some people respond. Or when we warn about sharia law creeping into America. Or 85 sharia courts in Britain. Or “no go zones” in France. And of course, our State Department would NEVER agree to a UN resolution that has the practical effect of criminalizing free speech, right? The column below that recently appeared in Forbes (highlights added) is longer than we normally put out, but it is SO IMPORTANT that you be aware of what’s coming our way. Please take a few minutes to read it—because your first amendment rights may soon be in jeopardy. Of course, that could never happen here.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailesman/2011/12/30/could-you-be-a-criminal-us-supports-un-anti-free-speech-measure/

The NAACP Sics The UN On Our Sovereign States

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is petitioning the United Nations to investigate alleged disenfranchisement of black and Latino voters in anticipation of next year’s presidential election. According to the NAACP, which issued a report on December 5, 2011 entitled Defending Democracy: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America, more than a dozen states have passed laws aimed at unfairly restricting the constitutionally protected right of black and Hispanic voters to vote.


http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43082?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=7d364b1203-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email

UN Agency Grants Palestine Full Membership

Palestine became a full member of the U.N. cultural and educational agency (UNESCO) Monday, in a highly divisive move that the United States and other opponents say could harm renewed Mideast peace efforts. U.S. lawmakers had threatened to withhold roughly $80 million in annual funding to UNESCO if it approved Palestinian membership. The United States provides about 22 percent of UNESCO’s funding. The New York Post reports:


CONTINUED:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/un-agency-approves-full-palestinian-membership/

Letter to the Editor: “Never let a crisis go to waste…” by Lou Call, CCTA

Sun Journal New Bern
September 25, 2011

“Never let a crisis go to waste…”

Most of you don’t know or have forgotten how World War II started. September 1, 1939 was the beginning of hostilities when Germany invaded Poland. It actually started the day before when a staged attack by Nazi forces, posing as Polish soldiers, attacked the German radio station in Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia, Germany. Under the operational code name of Operation Himmler, it created the appearance of Polish aggression which was subsequently used by the Nazi’s to justify the invasion of Poland and was arguably the first act of the Second World War.



What does this all have to do with what is going on in our Country today you might ask? For starters, Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are supporters of the United Nations Small Arms Treaty which, if passed in the Senate, will do an end run around our 2nd Amendment. It’s no secret that Obama, Clinton, Chuck Schumer and Mayor Bloomberg of NYC are rabid anti gunners; add to this list Attorney General Eric Holder.


And that brings me to Operation Holder and the investigation of the BATF’s operation Fast & Furious. Some of you have probably overlooked the implications of this operation and it’s ramifications. The deadly ATF operation allowed the Sinaloa drug cartel to purchase illegal guns, obtained in our Country, and used against both Mexicans and Americans for countless acts of violence. Last December, U.S. border patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered in a firefight with three Mexican nationals in Arizona. Two guns recovered at the crime scene were traced back to an ongoing Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms (ATF) investigation, informally known under the code names “Gunwalker” and “Fast and Furious.” A further investigation revealed that the ATF allowed the sale of more than 2,000 guns to Mexican criminal gangs with no plan to interdict or recover these weapons. What better venue for a UN Small Arms Treaty then a crisis on our borders? What better background to impose gun control over our free society? We should remember Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel’s proclamation, “Never let a good crisis go to waste”. I would add, especially when we have the will and means to create it. The election of 2012 will be the turning point in our Nation’s history. We will either stand together as Americans to save our Republic or we will abdicate to the order of national socialism, the leader of which sits in the Oval Office. The choice is yours; chose wisely.
 
Louis Call
CCTA