Policing In Australia By Consent for the last 200 years? News to me!!!

Click here to view the original post.









PLEASE sign & share this petition. Is The Australian Government Lawful?

Click here to view the original post.

Please share this post widely for all Australians.
Thank you.
Regards, Keith.


The Hunger Games. Could it happen?

Click here to view the original post.
Maintain that lifestyle, don’t rock the boat. Things are not perfect, but hey, they could be worse.


The Hunger Games. Could It Happen?!

I don’t know about the rest of the world, but in Australia right now we are seeing a lot of stuff going down that does not look good. In the cities people seem to be isolated from what is going down in the country areas; the banks taking farm land, mining companies taking farm land, now the government its self is seizing farm land because of a deal it has made with a foreign country to train its military troops. There are millions of dollars involved in this deal, but I doubt that the average Australian citizen will gain any benefit from this & over 70 farming families are about to lose their homes & livelyhood.

We have lost so much freedom & so many of our rights in the name of terrorism. The government uses the perceived threat of terrorism to pass more & more legislation that controls our lives. Rates rises on land means that some people can no longer afford to pay rates, so they are evicted & their land & house is sold. These people are now forced to live in the towns or cities & once again are now dependent on the government & the services they supply. People are being taxed for using their own water supplies & there has been talk of taxing people who live off grid & supply their own electricity!

Country people receive no backing from people living in the cities, this I realise is a broad statement, & I have no doubt that there are some city dwellers that do care, but on the whole the city is not where you will find rebels, it is a place where you will find people that do not want to rock the boat; they like conformity, they like order. They are content to bury their heads in the sand in order to maintain their present lifestyle. They are insulated from the troubles of the world & are content so long as they are making money & live a comfortable lifestyle.

Can you see where I am going here? Have you seen the Hunger Games? Think about the number of times country people have gone to the city to protest at the treatment they are receiving from the government, do you ever recall seeing city people coming out to back these protests? I don’t. Right now the Australian government is giving money to the Indonesian government; the Indonesian government are committing genocide in West Papua. Women are raped & murdered, children are murdered & of course the men are also being killed. These West Papuans were Australia’s allies in WW2, helping our diggers survive, carrying our wounded to safety. Now our government is sanctioning their genocide! Does this sound like a caring & benevolent government? They are doing this for greed, money & power. They do not care who has to suffer for them to get what they want. What makes you think that they care any more for you? My Father was a great believer in keeping your head down & looking after number one. Don’t draw attention to yourself; don’t get involved in other people’s problems. There is a great deal in favour of this attitude when it comes to survival, but what happens when you are those other people? What happens when after keeping your head down you suddenly realise that you have been manipulated. Whilst you were keeping your head down & thinking this will keep me safe, the government has usurped your freedoms & your rights as a citizen.

We in the country, & those like us in the cities, do not have the backing of the majority. We alone can’t stop this corrupt government machine from rolling right over us. Our farms are disappearing, & with them our home grown food supplies! Our countryside is being polluted by mining & big corrupt corporations are polluting our environment. Recently a Japanese fishing vessel was caught poaching in one of our reserves, will they go to prison? Unlikely, will their ship be confiscated? Unlikely. Yet our government is continuing to make more & more restrictive legislation on our freedoms & these laws if we rebel against them will make us criminals. The city people will not help us; the government are right now our biggest enemy. Whilst our politicians grow wealthy we find that we can no longer retire at age 60, we are slaves to the system & alone there is nothing we can do about it. We are expected to work in the future until we are 70, that is if we live that long. They don’t have to pay a pension to dead people. Now I hear that even our pensions are under threat, I thought that money was being extracted from our earnings all these years to pay for our pension entitlements, now I hear that the government has decided to keep some of that money for themselves!

I wish I had answers for you, but I don’t. My greatest fear is that this government & this whole corrupt system will eventually take more from us than we can bear. I guess that is exactly what has already happened with the farmers that have committed suicide. Will the police & military continue to do the government’s bidding even when they know it is wrong? Yes I think they will. That is what they are trained to do. All this has happened over time with such stealth that no one seems to have realised what was happening, & I don’t think it will stop there. I don’t like the way things are going in this country & none of it bodes well for our future. I think we will lose more of our rights, our freedom has already gone. We will be forced to pay more & earn less, our government is NOT leading, it is RULING, we have a dictator government. Gone are the referendums in the main, gone are our rights to protest. Gone are our rights to protect ourselves & our families by any means we think necessary. Gone are our rights to privacy as the police are now legally allowed to invade our homes at any time without a warrant & arrest the occupants. We are all seen as being guilty until proven innocent.

My hope is that one day the majority will wake up & sack our government & institute a new fairer government system where the people have a voice. Right now we are between a rock & a hard place, no matter who we vote for, we can’t win. Be very aware of further firearms legislation that will further control the ownership of firearms. Confiscation of all firearms from law abiding citizens will be a sign that the end is near. Already present gun control measures have made it difficult if not impossible to own certain firearms, that has made us vulnerable against criminals & government forces!

Take care everyone.

State Governments Passing Laws to Abolish Private Property Rights

Click here to view the original post.

The level of encroachment of government into our lives correlates very closely to the amount of freedom a person enjoys.  It should come as no surprise that the more the

The Pension Assets Test to be implemented on 1 January 2017.

Click here to view the original post.
The Pension Assets Test to be
implemented on 1 January 2017.

So here’s fair warning to all politicians of any persuasion, this group of aged voters may be about to make the greatest impact on any Federal election in history, ignoring them may be the start of a changed political
environment in this country.

Change the Entitlements I absolutely agree, if a pension isn’t an entitlement, neither is
theirs. They keep telling us that paying us an aged pension isn’t sustainable.
Paying politicians all the perks they get is even less sustainable!
The politicians themselves, in Canberra, brought it up, that the Age of Entitlements is over: The author is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.
In three days, most people in Australia will have this message. This is one idea that really should be passed around because the rot has to stop somewhere.
Proposals to make politicians shoulder their share of the weight now
that the Age of Entitlement is over:
1. Scrap political pensions.
Politicians can purchase their own retirement plan, just as most
other working Australians are expected to do.
2. Retired politicians (past, present & future) participate in Centrelink. A Politician collects a substantial salary while in office but should receive no salary when they’re out of office.
Terminated politicians under 70 can go get a job or apply for Centrelink unemployment benefits like ordinary Australians.
Terminated politicians under 70 can negotiate with Centrelink like the rest of the Australian people.
3. Funds already allocated to the Politicians’ retirement fund be returned immediately to Consolidated Revenue.
This money is to be used to pay down debt they created which they expect us and our grandchildren to repay for them.
4. Politicians will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Politicians pay will rise by the lower of, either the CPI or 3%.
5. Politicians lose their privileged health care system and participate in the same health care system as ordinary Australian people.
I.E. Politicians either pay for private cover from their own funds or accept ordinary Medicare.
6. Politicians must equally abide by all laws they impose on the Australian people.
7. All contracts with past and present Politicians men/women are void effective 31/12/16.
The Australian people did not agree to provide perks to Politicians, that burden was thrust upon them.
Politicians devised all these contracts to benefit themselves.
Serving in Parliament is an honour not a career.
The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so our politicians should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people, then it will only take three or so days for most Australians to receive the message.
Don’t you think it’s time?
THIS IS HOW YOU FIX Parliament and help bring fairness back into this country!

Off Grid and Preppers Beware. It is coming here!

Click here to view the original post.
The government is set on making Australian citizens totally dependent on their services. In some places they are trying to charge land owners for the use of their own dam water, in some towns rainwater collection is banned. This in a country as dry as ours! We live off grid, & yet we have to pay rates/taxes for services that they do not supply, nor do we want or need their services. We are even charged a fee for our use of our own compost toilets!!! Meanwhile the government still has disarmament of all civilians high on its list of restrictions. We have already lost so many of our rights & freedoms in the name of safety from terrorism!!! 
There may come a time when we will have to go silent on the net. The local councils are corrupt & already know of people like us who are off grid, but we can at least do our best to lower our profile.

Keith.

My thanks to Stephen M.C. for bringing this news video to my attention.

POLITICIANS ACT AS AGENTS OF THE UNITED NATIONS TO ENFORCE AGENDA 21 UPON AUSTRALIANS

Click here to view the original post.
POLITICIANS ACT AS AGENTS OF THE UNITED NATIONS TO ENFORCE AGENDA 21 UPON AUSTRALIANS Politicians Show Preference for Covert Undemocratic AG21 Policy Graham Williamson Revised edition January 2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This paper is about Agenda 21 and its implementation in Australia. Its primary purpose is to examine the implementation process and assess its democratic foundations and whether the public have truly been permitted to make an informed democratic choice. Its secondary purpose is to evaluate whether Agenda 21 is beneficial and necessary for Australians. Using extensive documentary evidence from experts, combined with personal correspondence documented in the Appendices, the following fundamental facts have been established. 1. Agenda 21 is a fundamentally undemocratic, sovereignty threatening, UN designed and monitored program which is being banned overseas because of the threat it poses to fundamental human rights. Agenda 21 is found to pose a serious risk to freedom and human rights and is unnecessarily foreign in its origin and control. 2. All three levels of government have been undemocratically implementing this program throughout Australia, on behalf of the UN, for 10-20 years. All the evidence indicates the consistent political refusal to publicly declare AG21 policy has been non-negotiable & bipartisan. 3. In 20 years, all major political parties have refused to openly declare their Agenda 21 policy during elections to enable citizens to make an informed democratic choice. All major parties have preferred to implement Agenda 21 as undeclared or covert policy. As a result, community ignorance about AG21 and its implications are widespread. 4. Although pervasively embedded into government (undeclared) policy at all levels, when directly questioned about AG21 our elected representatives go to extraordinary lengths to either avoid the subject or pretend it is not being implemented. From all my enquiries, not one politician or bureaucrat eagerly responded by openly detailing the many ways in which the tentacles of AG21 are being implemented through the various government departments. Implementation of Agenda 21 is based upon a failure to accurately and truthfully inform Australians. It is based upon deception and trashing of democracy. AG21 is a policy far bigger than any other policy. It is a policy of 20 years duration. It is a policy implemented by both major parties and all 3 levels of government around Australia. It has penetrated from Canberra to local communities everywhere. It shapes our legal system, our economic system, our environmental system, our political system, and even the education of our children. It is not possible to imagine a more massive political policy, yet it is excluded from the electoral agenda and the official policies of all major parties. This policy is being enforced upon us and we have been denied any democratic choice. Why? This is a massive scandal and it is why our politicians are desperately trying to shut the debate down. It is a scandal that dwarfs even the CO2 tax and climate change which form just one part of it. The past 20 years, and my correspondence detailed in the Appendix, show quite clearly that a change of government will not solve this issue. What is needed is a return to democracy, dramatically increased political accountability, strengthening of sovereignty, and a renewed political commitment of allegiance to the people rather than an allegiance to the UN. Introduction All 3 levels of government in Australia, and all major political parties, have chosen to implement a foreign United Nations designed and monitored ‘sustainability’ program called Agenda 21. Governments have been implementing this program around Australia for 10-20 years although all major parties have been unanimous in their decision not to give Australians a democratic choice on this issue at election time. Further, this foreign program has pervasively infiltrated local councils and the legal system so that property rights are being insidiously and progressively transferred from humans to plants and the environment. And our politicians, without the knowledge or permission of the overwhelming majority of Australians, have even seen fit to embed this foreign program into the school curriculum to ensure our children are indoctrinated with UN propaganda. In view of these developments I contacted various political parties in an attempt to clarify their policy regarding Agenda 21. This paper documents more than 12 months research into Agenda 21 & the response of political parties & elected representatives to simple questions regarding the implementation of this foreign UN program. It documents the difficulties involved in obtaining clear truthful answers from our elected representatives, irrespective of the party they represent. And it documents the death of democracy in Australia as political parties present one policy to the people during elections, but when elected they proceed to implement undeclared or covert policies, or policies of which they are apparently so ashamed they refuse to openly discuss them. This paper documents this disturbing abandonment of democracy. How is it possible to have a pervasive far reaching program such as Agenda 21 implemented by government departments and councils throughout Australia for 10-20 years and yet this program is omitted from official policy? And when our elected representatives are directly questioned about implementation of this UN program, why do they feel the need to go to extraordinary lengths to refuse to discuss it or even pretend it is not being implemented? It is astonishing that my exhaustive attempts to obtain simple answers from our elected representatives have met with such a solid brick wall of deception or obfuscation. In order to supply background information, and evidence from experts and from government departments, I have included the following detailed Appendices below. Most of the Appendices are self-explanatory. Appendix J documents some of the real life results of the government drive to support the ecocentric rewriting of the legal system and the erosion of property rights as proposed by Agenda 21. Appendix K documents the involvement of councils which are at the forefront of the implementation of UN AG21 restriction of land use and property rights while Appendix L documents my complaint to the NSW Ombudsman regarding council involvement. Appendix A – Introduction & Background to Agenda 21. Appendix B – Evidence of the Extent to Which Governments Having been Implementing AG21 Around Australia Without Giving Australians any Democratic Choice. Appendix C – Rewriting the Legal System to Support Ecocentrism & Transfer Property Rights from Humans to Plants & the Environment. Appendix D – Response to Correspondence from the Victorian Minister for Local Government – Jeanette Powell. Appendix E – Correspondence with the NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell Appendix F – Correspondence with the NSW Minister for the Environment Robyn Parker. Appendix G – Correspondence with the NSW Attorney General Greg Smith. Appendix H – Correspondence with the Minister for Local Government Don Page Appendix I – Correspondence with the NSW Minister for Planning & Infrastructure Brad Hazzard Appendix J – Transferring Property Rights from Humans to Plants & the Environment: Submission to the NSW Government BioBanking review Appendix K – Correspondence With Eurobodalla Shire Council Appendix L – Complaint to NSW Ombudsman Appendix M – Correspondence With Greg Hunt, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage Witness below the extraordinary determination of politicians not to openly discuss a policy they have been enforcing upon Australians for up to 20 years. And witness their continuing determination to implement Agenda 21 covertly and prevent Australians from having any say. The Politicians Speak, or Refuse to Speak, About AG21 On 8th September 2012 I asked the following politicians or political parties to state their policy regarding Agenda 21. That correspondence, based upon the fact that the WA Greens are the only party that openly state Agenda 21 policy, typically asked as follows: Dear Sir, I notice that the WA Greens openly endorse the Agenda 21 program in their policy platform as below. Do you, and the NSW Liberal Party, agree with this policy and support Agenda 21 also? If so, why is it not included in your official policy? Since the NSW Liberal Party has been endorsing Agenda 21 or implementing it for nearly 20 years, will you be adding it to your official policies or do you prefer to continue to implement it without mentioning it in your policies? Why? If you have no intention of adding it to your official policies will you be proactively seeking to ban it as has been done in Alabama? Regards Graham Williamson http://wa.greens.org.au/policies/local-government-0 The Greens (WA) want: · the Local Government Act amended to require the principles of ecological sustainable development in Agenda 211 be the basis of local government policy This correspondence was directed to the following. NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell The NSW Liberal Party The Queensland Liberal National Party The Liberal Party of Victoria Vic Minister for Local Government – Jeanette Powell Leader of the National Party of Australia – Warren Truss The National Party of Australia The NSW National Party Deputy Premier & Leader of NSW National Party Andrew Stoner The Greens NSW Liberal Party of Australia Opposition Leader – Tony Abbott Australian Greens – Senator Christine Milne The Queensland Greens The Australian Greens Victoria In addition, detailed questions regarding Agenda 21 were addressed to NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell, NSW Attorney General Greg Smith, NSW Minister for the Environment Robyn Parker, NSW Minister for Planning & Infrastructure Brad Hazzard, Minister for Local Government Don Page, & Greg Hunt, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage. The responses & non-responses of our elected representatives to very simple questions are alarming in their consistent evasiveness & dismissiveness. These responses are documented below. NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell – See Appendix E In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the Premier on 21st July 2012, 8th September, 23rd September, 24th September, 25th November, & 2nd December, no response has yet been received. Yet, in spite of this non-response, the issues raised with the Premier were very serious, including deceit and misinformation about AG21 and the abandonment of Ministerial responsibilities by the Attorney General. NSW Minister for the Environment Robyn Parker – See Appendix F Correspondence with the NSW Minister for the Environment is documented in Appendix E. Since I received no response to my correspondence of 4th October, I sent a further reminder to the Minister on the 25th November. No attempt has been made by the Minister to answer the issues I raised and I have yet to receive any response to this correspondence. NSW Attorney General & Minister for Justice Greg Smith – See Appendix G Correspondence with the NSW Attorney General is documented in Appendix F. When I wrote to the Minister asking about the use of laws based upon foreign programs like AG21 to penalise NSW citizens, and the conversion of the NSW judicial system from its traditional anthropocentric basis to an ecocentric basis, he responded that “The matters raised do not fall under the portfolio responsibility of the NSW Attorney General and Minister for Justice.” But when I responded by asking him: “Please explain why you consider that overseeing the direction of the legal system of NSW is not your responsibility and please name the person who is responsible?”; he opted to completely avoid all the issues I raised by issuing the following evasive dismissive response. Dear Mr Williamson (final response from Minister – 30th Nov 2012) If you have concerns about Australia’s adoption of Agenda 21 you should contact the Federal Government. If you have concerns about the adoption of a particular policy associated with Agenda 21 then you should contact the Minister, Council etc responsible for that decision. Elections are regularly held at a local, state and federal level. This affords you the opportunity to vote for the candidate that you believe best reflects your policy preferences. I have referred your matter to a number of Ministers and should you send further correspondence this will be placed on file without response. Kind regards Office of the Attorney General and Minister for Justice. The Attorney General clearly seems to agree with other Ministers that Agenda 21 must continue to be implemented while pretending to the public that it is not happening and denying them any democratic choice. The NSW Minister for Local Government Don Page – see Appendix H In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the Minister on 21st July 2012, 23rd July, 25 th September & 25th November, no meaningful response has yet been received. The final response received from the Minister’s office, dated 17th Dec 2012, continued the same dismissiveness and evasiveness. In my correspondence I asked various questions of the Minister including: 1. Has the NSW government warned residents of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans, their UN origin, and their full agenda and final goals? If so please supply documentary evidence (notices, media releases etc). 2. Does the NSW government have a clear policy to ban all such UN derived Agenda 21 related policies to protect local residents? Please supply documentary evidence, including the time frame for implementation. 3. Has the NSW government offered local residents the choice between a locally designed, monitored and implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative to plans designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? 4. Although you are overseeing the implementation of AG 21 at the local government level you not only expressed no concern whatsoever about the above matters, you even chose to pretend implementation of Agenda 21 by local government in NSW is not your responsibility. Why? In response to these questions regarding AG21 the Minister’s office replied: The government’s determination to implement AG21 without giving residents any choice, and without even discussing it, is once again made perfectly clear by the Minister’s refusal to respond. The NSW Minister for Planning & Infrastructure Brad Hazzard – see Appendix I In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the Minister on 29th June, 21st July 2012, 31st July, 9 th August, 23 rd September & 25th November, no meaningful response has yet been received. The response from the Minister’s office dated 19th Dec is also evasive and completely avoids all the issues I raised concerning AG21. The NSW Liberal Party After writing to the leader of the NSW Liberal Party on 8 th September, 23rd September, & the 25th November, I received the following response on the 26th November. Dear Graham, The Liberal Party is committed to environmental action and is why we are establishing a Green Army which will deliver real benefits to local communities. It is suggested you contact your local member to find out more about this. Kind Regards, Liberal Campaign Headquarters LIBERAL PARTY OF AUSTRALIA (NSW DIVISION) T 02 8356 0300 | F 02 9331 4480 | E chq@nsw.liberal.org.au The Queensland Liberal National Party In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the Queensland Liberal National Party on 8 th September, 23rd September & 25th November, no response has yet been received. The Liberal Party of Victoria The Liberal Party of Victoria responded on 25th September stating they had nothing to do with policy & I should contact the Minister for Local Government, Jeanette Powell. Victorian Minister for Local Government – Jeanette Powell – See Appendix D On 23rd of November I received a response from the Minister’s office, signed by Chief of Staff, James Lantry. Mr Lantry stated, on behalf of the Minister: “Please note that the Victorian Government has not adopted the Agenda 21 policy platform as part of its policies, but continues to undertake actions in accordance with sound environmental policies for the benefit of all Victorians.” Of course this is totally untrue which I point out in my response which is documented below in Appendix D, below. Government documents I cite clearly confirm that the government has in fact been implementing Agenda 21 programs in Victoria for more than 10 years. The Minister’s denial of the facts raise serious questions, as I indicate in my response: “Unless you can supply current documentation proving you have outlawed or banned UN Agenda 21 and other imported sustainability programs from Victoria, then to suggest your government is not part of the implementation of this program is at best extremely misleading, and at worst, a deliberate untruth designed to deliberately deceive the public. Which is it? Why is it apparently so important to you NOT to openly declare this program as policy? Or will you immediately ban it and all such imported programs?” To date I have received no further response from the Minister. Leader of the National Party of Australia – Warren Truss In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the leader of the National Party on 8 th September, 23rd September & 25th November, no response has yet been received. The National Party of Australia In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the National Party on 8 th September, 23rd September & 25th November, no response has yet been received. The NSW National Party In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the NSW National Party on 8 th September, 23rd September & 25th November, no response has yet been received. Deputy Premier & Leader of NSW National Party Andrew Stoner After writing to the leader of the NSW National Party on 8 th September & 23rd September, I received the following response on the 24th September. Dear Mr Williamson Thank you for your emails dated 8 September 2012 and 23 September 2012. Your request is currently receiving attention and a response is forthcoming. Kind regards Office of the NSW Deputy Premier. Due to the fact that I received no further response from Mr Stoner, in spite of the promise made by his office, I sent a further reminder to him on the 25th November. No response has yet been received. The Greens NSW After writing to the NSW Greens on 8 th September, 23rd September, & 25th November, I received the following response from NSW Greens MP, Mr David Shoebridge, on the 30th November. Dear Graham, Thank you for your email. Australian Greens constituent bodies (i.e. states and territories) create policies independently of each other, within the broader framework of the Australian Greens. It would probably be incorrect to assume that simply because one state mentioned an item in their policy and another didn’t that this means the states are at loggerheads over the issue. All Greens parties in Australia develop policies based on local circumstances through grassroots processes. To my knowledge Agenda 21 has not been raised in NSW as part of our Local Government policy development process in the past. If you are interested, you can find the Greens NSW local government policy online here: http://nsw.greens.org.au/policies/local-government. The Greens NSW will be working through a process of reviewing all of our policies ahead of the next state election through our grassroots democratic processes. If you are interested in policy development in the area of local government, and supportive of the four main principles of the Greens, I recommend you join the party (if you are not already) and get involved with the grassroots discussions with other members. Thanks again for your email. David David Shoebridge Greens MP in the NSW Legislative Council P: (02) 9230 3030 |Media: 0433 753 376 |T: @ShoebridgeMLC SIGN UP TO STAY IN TOUCH at davidshoebridge.org.au/sign-up Liberal Party of Australia In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the Liberal Party of Australia on 8 th September, 23rd September & 25th November, no response has yet been received. Opposition Leader – Tony Abbott In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from Mr Abbott on 8 th September, 23rd September & 25th November, no response has yet been received. Australian Greens – Senator Christine Milne After writing to the leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Christine Milne, on the 8 th September, I received the following response from her office on the 23rdth of September. Dear Graham Thank you for your e-mail. Agenda 21 is an international blueprint that outlines actions that governments, international organisations, industries and the community can take to achieve sustainability. These actions recognise the impacts of human behaviours on the environment and on the sustainability of systems of production. The objective of Agenda 21 is the alleviation of poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy worldwide while halting the deterioration of ecosystems which sustain life. As such it provides a framework and statement of principles that you will find incorporated into many Australian Greens policies – copies of which you can find at http://greens.org.au/policies . The Australian Greens Party is a federation within which the WA Greens are entitled to establish their own policies relevant to their specific areas of interest and responsibility. They have chosen to apply one aspect of Agenda 21 – “the principles of ecological sustainable development” to underpin the operations of the Local Government Act in WA. This falls a long way short of “openly endorsing the Agenda 21 program in their policy platform” as you claim. Regards John Dodd Office of Senator Christine Milne Leader of the Australian Greens Level 1 Murray St Pier Hobart 7000 | Ph: 03 6224 8899 | Fax: 03 6224 7599 www.christinemilne.org.au | http://greens.org.au On 23rd September I sent the following response to Mr Dodd from Senator Milne’s office. Dear John, Thank you for your response. You state that “the objective of Agenda 21 is the alleviation of poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy worldwide while halting the deterioration of ecosystems which sustain life,” but yet you claim that the Greens (WA & National?)do not fully endorse the Agenda 21 program. Which objectives do you support and which do you find unacceptable? You failed to answer the following queries which I therefore repeat below. 1. Do you, or the Australian Greens, agree with this policy and support Agenda 21 also? 2. If so, why is it not included in your official policy? 3. Will you be adding it to your policies or do you disagree with the WA Greens? 4. If you have no intention of adding it to your official policies will you be proactively seeking to ban it? Regards Graham Williamson Due to the fact that no further response was received from the office of Senator Milne, I sent a further reminder on the 25th November. No response has yet been received. The Queensland Greens After writing to the Queensland Greens on the 8 th September & the 23rd September, I received the following response from the office of Senator Larissa Waters on the 9 th of October. Hi Graham, Apologies for the delay in getting back to you on this! Larissa had a quick through of your question and wanted to let you know that the concepts in Agenda 21 are imbued through all of the party’s policy platform, whether explicitly outlined or not. I’ve copied in a recent report which came out of our office regarding commitments which were made in Rio 20 years ago and where we’re up to now. Hope that helps Graham, Dominic DOMINIC JARVIS Office Manager Office of Senator Larissa Waters Australian Greens Senator for Queensland http://larissa-waters.greensmps.org.au/ Amazingly, It seems there are 2 fundamental types of political policies, namely, openly declared policies, or, on the other hand, concealed or embedded policies. Since Agenda 21 is an embedded policy there is apparently no need for the democratic approval of the electorate. The Australian Greens Victoria In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the Victorian Greens on 8 th September, 23rd September & 25th November, no response has yet been received. Greg Hunt, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage In my correspondence with Greg Hunt I asked the following questions with his partial responses in blue below (see Appendix M for details). 1. When your government warned in their 2006 SOE report that councils around Australia were exceeding their legislative authority in implementing Agenda 21, what steps did you or the Liberal party take to prevent this? Did you lobby the state parties? Did you or the party follow this up? What action was taken? Do you still agree with this assessment? 2. So what will your Agenda 21 policy be should you win government? Will you be seeking to work with the Premiers to discipline Councils which are implementing Agenda 21? Or will you be more proactive and encourage Premiers to introduce legislation banning Agenda 21, as is occurring overseas? To summarise. Fact 1 Agenda 21 is being implemented nationwide by state governments and councils. (see encl) Do you deny this? Fact 2 Though you claim that I had never heard of it raised once during the entire period of the Howard Government in the party room or in ministerial discussions” in fact it was included in 2006 SOE report under your watch. Do you deny this? Fact 3 Since the continuing implementation of AG21 is a simple fact, this raises serious questions about who is taking political responsibility for this since the electorate has never been given a democratic choice and politicians, like yourself, deny knowledge of it even though bureaucrats under their portfolio are implementing it (as is clearly evidenced from enclosed) Do you deny this?. Part of the problem of course was the decision by successive governments that Australia needed an imported sustainability program, one that was designed by a foreign agency and was monitored by the CSD(part of UN). Of course, governments, such as the Howard government, were required to send annual implementation reports to the CSD. Response from Greg Hunt. “There is nothing to ban. It is a 20 year old non binding declaration. I can honestly tell you that I had never heard of it raised once during the entire period of the Howard Government in the party room or in ministerial discussions….. For the final time i had never heard of the issue, heard it raised by Ministers, MP’s or constituents until 19 years after the ing was apparently signed…… Given that for the first 19 years the issue appears to have escaped both of our attention can I respectfully suggest that the discovery of a dead, irrelevant declaration 19 years after the fact may cause everyone to be calm…… I will respectfully draw this engagement to a conclusion and encourage you from here to approach State based Governments as we have no powers over local Governments.” I replied to Greg by citing well documented evidence from his former government of the extensive government resources used to comply with the implementation requirements of AG21 (see Appendix M), arrangements which he claims complete ignorance about. I have as yet received no response. If we are to believe Greg’s claim of his complete ignorance of AG21 then the extreme level of incompetence that this would necessarily involve would immediately disqualify him from suitability for parliamentary office. Of course, should this be the case, then Greg, now his ignorance has been rectified, would be itching at the bit to now put things right by banning AG21. But alas, this is not the case. He refused to answer any of my questions about the Liberal Party’s AG21 policy at the next election. Conclusion It is clear that AG21 has been pervasively and undemocratically embedded into government (undeclared) policy at all levels. It is also clear that when directly questioned about AG21 our elected representatives go to extraordinary lengths to either avoid the subject or pretend it is not being implemented. From all my enquiries, not one politician or bureaucrat eagerly responded by proudly detailing the many ways in which the tentacles of AG21 are being implemented, and are benefiting Australia, by the various government departments. Implementation of Agenda 21 is based upon a failure to accurately and truthfully inform Australians. It is based upon deception and trashing of democracy. So far, the AG21 policy of both major political parties is…’more of the same’. In other words continue to implement AG21 but continue to do this covertly and refuse to give voters a choice at the next election. This of course is entirely consistent with their historical bipartisan determination NOT to give Australians a democratic choice by openly declaring their AG21 policy during the election campaigns of the past 20 years. The past 20 years, and my correspondence detailed in the Appendix, show quite clearly that a change of government will not solve this issue. What is needed is a return to democracy, dramatically increased political accountability, strengthening of sovereignty, and a renewed political commitment of allegiance to the people rather than an allegiance to the UN. It is up to you. Do you care enough? APPENDIX APPENDIX A Introduction & Background to Agenda 21 · AG21 is a foreign United Nations (UN) program aimed at controlling all aspects of people’s lives. It reduces or eliminates individual human rights such as private property rights (1, 2, 3, 4). AG21 is a UN program adopted by the Keating government in 1992, later ratified by the Howard government, & implemented by successive federal, state & local governments of all political persuasions ever since. In 20 years of implementation, neither of the two major political parties has declared AG 21 as official policy, nor given voters a democratic choice. · AG21 is an attempt to undemocratically enforce upon Australians a ‘foreign solution’ for what are termed “sustainability” issues. It is vitally important to understand that AG21 is undemocratic. It is an imported agenda that has been designed by, & its implementation monitored by, a foreign agency (the UN). Control must be increasingly surrendered to the UN & its foreign agencies with absolutely no limits being placed upon this process. · AG21 is very much a blank cheque with no clearly defined goals & no clearly defined limits regarding costs, legislative changes, loss of sovereignty, as well as loss of individual rights & democracy. · Implementation of Agenda 21 around the world has been monitored by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). Participating countries are required to report back to the UN on a regular basis (5, 5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8). The CSD, which included despotic dictators from other countries, has been overseeing Australia’s compliance! The CSD however, is now being dissolved to be replaced by a high level political forum to be established in 2013 while ECOSOC will become responsible for sustainability & Agenda 21. The Australian government approves of these changes. · The guiding principle behind AG21 is a belief in Gaia or ecocentrism (22, 23, 24), or the supremacy of the rights of plants & the environment (25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35) & an abandonment of traditional anthropocentrism (36). In other words, rights are progressively transferred from humans to plants & the environment with the result that private property rights are being surrendered, piece by piece (37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43). · Two fundamental concepts upon which AG21 is based are intragenerational equity & intergenerational equity. a) Intragenerational equity states that common goods such as nature, environment, the ecosystem & therefore private property, must be shared amongst all. No one has exclusive rights of ownership (44, 45, 46, 47). According to the principle of intragenerational equity, the rights of those who have less may be used to take from those who have more, simply because of this disparity & not because of the existence of any legal debt. b) Intergenerational equity grants equal rights to those who may exist in the future but who are not yet born (44, 45, 46, 47). With this bold new sense of ‘justice’ an assumption is made that the actions of one or more persons currently in existence will somehow reduce the quality of life of one or more persons who do not yet exist! Of course we should all be mindful of our responsibility to care for the environment, but to legally convict a perpetrator when the victim cannot be named, does not exist, & his/her degree of suffering cannot be determined, is an astonishing corruption of traditional legal & moral principles. Yet, this has now become reality. · Under Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 the UN established Local Agenda 21 or LA 21 for implementation by local councils around the world (48, 49, 50, 51,52 ,53 , 54, 55,56 , 57, 58 , 59). Though Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 suggests that “each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations & private enterprises & adopt a local Agenda 21”, in practice the public has largely been kept ignorant of AG 21 & has been denied a democratic choice by councils & governments around Australia. These concepts are currently being used by councils & state governments in Australia to tie up land use with regulations, LEP’s, zonings & green tape so that private landholders are progressively losing control of their land, with resultant loss in land value. · Implementation of LA21 is also promoted by ICLEI, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, the name now being changed to Local Governments for Sustainability. In fact, Section 7.21 of Agenda 21, specifically recommends involvement with ICLEI. According to Maurice Strong in the Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, “The task of mobilizing & technically supporting Local Agenda 21 planning in these communities has been led by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) & national associations of local government.” ICLEI supports the “Cities for Climate Protection Campaign & the Local Agenda 21 Initiative.” · The UN Tentacles of ICLEI in Local Councils ICLEI “will continue connecting cities and local governments to the United Nations and other international bodies” and ICLEI will “serve as a global entry point for cities and local governments to engage with the United Nations and international and national policy processes” and will “pursue more radical solutions.” ICLEI will “Advocate direct access to climate finance and other funds by local governments and an inversion of climate finance mechanisms to enable the implementation of needs-driven local development.” ICLEI will promote “Management of global environmental goods” such as” Climate, Biodiversity, Water, Food.” In other words, ICLEI intends to convert them to controllable tradeable commodities. ICLEI will promote “Municipal planning and management” or, in other words, they will help councils control land use. ICLEI will promote Local Agenda 21, that is, ICLEI will continue to assist councils to undemocratically implement foreign UN monitored sustainability programs. ICLEI will “Maintain and enhance ecosystems services” and “Promote the global implementation of “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) chapter for Local and Regional Decision Makers” developed under UNEP.” Economic services are defined: “Ecosystem services are the transformation of a set of natural assets (soil, plants and animals, air and water) into things that we value. For example, when fungi, worms and bacteria transform the raw “ingredients” of sunlight, carbon and nitrogen into fertile soil this transformation is an ecosystem service.” ICLEI will also “Continue Local Government climate advocacy through the Local Government Climate Roadmap. Continue supporting and acting as Secretariat of the World Mayors Council on Climate Change.” No need for scientific evidence—no exit strategy if cooling continues. ICLEI will “Develop EcoMobility program modules” to help councils get rid of cars. ICLEI will “Support local governments in introducing a local “happiness index” drawing on the Kingdom of Bhutan’s experiences with replacing the GDP through “Gross National Happiness”. · Many authorities prefer to mislead the public by avoiding the term “Agenda 21”, using instead terms such as (60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65) “sustainability”, “smart growth”, “growth management”, “local environmental plans” or Sustainable Development 21 or SD21 (66, 66b, 67, 68, 69). Some local authorities have also changed the name of Local Agenda 21 to ‘Local Climate Strategy’ (66, 66a, 66b). The United Nations Sustainable Cities program is yet another spin off of Local Agenda 21 & the UN Habitat agenda (70, 71, 72, 73, 74). Deliberate deception or failure to fully inform the public is fundamental to the success of the program (75, 76). · Some local authorities overseas are now moving to ban Agenda 21 because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature & the threat it poses to basic human rights, not least, our property rights (9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21). According to Agenda 21 (77, 78), Australians can only have “improved living standards”, a “more prosperous future” & “managed ecosystems”, if we form a “global partnership”, a partnership of course which will ultimately be under the control of one global authority. By ourselves we are doomed to failure according to Agenda 21 (77, 78). Chapter 8.31 of Agenda 21 states that countries are required to (80 ) “incorporate environmental costs in the decisions of producers & consumers, to reverse the tendency to treat the environment as a ‘free good’ & to pass these costs on to other parts of society, other countries, or to future generations.” This is described in Agenda 21 as a (80) “fundamental objective.” Ratepayers & ordinary Australians will be increasingly required to fund local UN Agenda 21 schemes & ‘green’ programs with growing rates & taxes such as the CO2 tax. However, these funds will be diverted AWAY from local infrastructure projects to further the global ambitions of the UN, not least their stated goals of central World Governance. Agenda 21 & LA 21, inspired by Mikhail Gorbachev & Maurice Strong who formed the original Earth Charter, amounts to a global power grab & land grab to control & outlaw private land ownership (81, 82, 83, 84, 85). Agenda 21 & Local Agenda 21 aims to change our lives, that of our children & future descendants, forever. And yet the political promoters of this program have continually refused to expose this program to the light of truth during an election campaign. It is urgent that we restore democracy to our local area & insist that the voting public are permitted to make an informed democratic choice. APPENDIX B Evidence of the Extent to Which Governments Having been Implementing AG21 Around Australia Without Giving Australians any Democratic Choice · Agenda 21: The political program that has been implemented around Australia by all 3 levels of government for 20 years without giving voters a democratic choice. · Agenda 21: The program that all major political parties have decided, for the past 20 years, is best to implement without including in official party policy. · Agenda 21: The bipartisan supported program which both political parties have consistently decided to exclude from electoral campaigns. · Agenda 21: For 20 years the most universally politically popular and democratically and electorally unpopular program which has been completely ignored by the mainstream media. The undemocratic invasion of Australia by the United Nations Agenda 21 Agenda 21 is an undemocratic United Nations designed and monitored program (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights (7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19). It is absolutely disgraceful that such anti-democratic sovereignty undermining foreign designed and monitored programs such as Agenda 21 have been implemented by all three levels of government throughout Australia for 20 years. Further, during this 20 year implementation, both major political parties have consistently decided it best to exclude Agenda 21 from their official policies to prevent voters from having a democratic choice. The Australian government has paved the way for the undemocratic infiltration of Agenda 21 in Australia by the support of the United Nations Earth Summit by the Howard government followed by ratification by the Keating government and implementation by successive governments (5, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 51 ). No doubt because of the undemocratic regressive nature of Agenda 21, various experts and government officials often prefer to mislead the public by avoiding the term “Agenda 21” and using instead terms such as (40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45) “sustainability”, “smart growth”, “growth management” or “local environmental plans”. Deliberate deception of the public it seems, is fundamental to the success of the program (45): “Agenda 21 is being implemented in the U.S. under various names to deceive the unsuspecting public as to the source and real purpose of the program. However identifying the programs is relatively easy. All you have to do is look for the keywords……..Everything associated with this program is deceptive. The language they use, the names they give the projects, the means by which they lure local governments into the trap and then slam the door – absolutely everything is deceptive from beginning to end.” And the deceit about the full implications and origin of AG21 is endemic throughout Australia (46): “Throughout Australia it seems that there has been widespread uncertainty about the meaning, scope and value of the term ‘Local Agenda 21’……..Some councils have chosen, for a variety of reasons, not to call their initiatives ‘LA21′ “…….”However, this is not to say that LA21 is not happening within Australia. On the contrary there is Local Agenda 21 activity in every state and territory and many councils are working on projects that have at their core the processes of LA21, although they may not necessarily be using that terminology.” Since many aspects of AG21 need to be enforced at the local level, the federal government was compelled to enlist the co-operation of state and local governments in order to satisfy the implementation requirements of the United Nations. As a result, all Australian states, including NSW (47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 , 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,94 ,95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 100, 101, 102, 103 ), Queensland (104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114) Victoria (115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126), SA (127, 128, 129, 130, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144), and WA (145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151), proceeded to implement Agenda by changes to state legislation and by enforcing local changes at the local council level. In fact, so important were local councils in the global plans of the UN that the UN specifically incorporated a section promoting so called ‘Local Agenda 21’ or’ LA 21’ into Chapter 28 of the Agenda 21 document. Local Agenda 21 has been adopted by Councils around Australia under the guidance of their respective state governments (46, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 70 , 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 104, 110, 111, 112, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159). In Victoria, the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) “has established a statewide partnership of councils involved in ecological sustainable development (ESD) /Triple Bottom Line/Local Agenda 21(LA21) initiatives. A successful first meeting of 17 member councils from around the State was held on 15th August 2001 to establish the MAV Victorian Local Sustainability Partnership.” And “By 2001, at least 20 local councils in Victoria were working towards implementing Local Agenda 21 action plans to help their communities become involved in sustainable development. “ Eric Smith draws attention to some of the regressive effects of AG 21 in Melbourne: “Has anyone noticed that the streets around Melbourne aren’t as bright as they used to be?…….. That’s because various local councils have been rolling out “energy-efficient” street lights, which cost the tax-payer a fortune, while making our streets significantly darker and hence less safe……It’s all being done under a United Nations treaty, signed and ratified by Australia in the early 1990s, known as Agenda 21, which is a manifesto for sending humanity back to the pre-industrial era, a time when you had to wash your clothes in the local river and the average life expectancy was little more than 30.” Smith cites The Municipal Association of Victoria: “Local government has a key role to play in promoting environmental sustainability and taking action that sees the concept incorporated into everyday life. Steps toward this are part of the Local Agenda 21 model and the MAV is helping to push the sustainability agenda further through various council networks, showcase forums and other initiatives.” To further disguise the true goals of Agenda 21 the name has been changed to Sustainable Development 21 or SD21 (160, 161, 162, 163, 163a), while some local authorities have changed the name of Local Agenda 21 to ‘Local Climate Strategy’ (161, 161b, 161a). The United Nations Sustainable Cities program is yet another spin off of Agenda 21 and the UN Habitat agenda (173, 174, 175, 176, 177). The United Nations has found from 20 years experience that implementation of their global agenda by local authorities has been their most effective strategy (160, 161, 162), especially given the impediments of national sovereignty. Not surprisingly, according to the United Nations Sustainable Development in the 21st Century Summary for Policymakers, the future of their global agenda depends largely upon giving more power and recognition to local councils (161): “Empowering lower levels with means to act on their own Progress towards more sustainable outcomes does not need to wait for a hypothetical consensus on what the future of the world should be, or how global affairs should be managed. Actions at lower levels can and should be taken as soon as possible……… Empower lower levels of governments to act as agents of change on their own and try new approaches to sustainability…. Local governments also have a critical role to play as agents of change, as their closeness to their constituents enable them to embark on bold experiments of different paths to sustainability…… Providing appropriate mandates and resources to all levels of governments Ultimately, the success or failure of sustainable development will largely depend on decisions and actions that are taken at the local level. This was well recognized by Agenda 21.” But the UN went further in their Review of Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles (Draft – Jan 2012), even suggesting that local governments should be empowered by state and federal governments to communicate directly with the United Nations (160): “All governance levels from local through global need to be vertically interconnected for bottom-up energy to meet top-down support. In order to bridge the gaps between different levels of governance well as between agenda and action, local governments need to be given a more prominent role in global UN processes. The intergovernmental level should recognize that local authorities have similar legitimacy compared to national governments, and with many local authorities governing bigger populations than the 150 smallest UN member states, it would be reasonable if they could get voting rights in the UN. New institutional arrangements for sustainability should be based on a multi-level concept of governance and include elected representatives from local, sub-national, national, regional and ultimately global levels. In the other direction, it is imperative that decentralization policies are accompanied with all the needed political, legal and financial support that local authorities need for implementing their localized strategies for sustainability.” Since the United Nations have issued their directives for governments around the world, it is hardly surprising that the current Labor government plans to conduct a referendum at the next election to constitutionally recognise and give more rights to local councils (163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168). The commitment to hold a referendum was part of an agreement signed by the Greens Party and the ALP in order to form government (166, 168, 169). Astonishingly, even though ecologically sustainable development in Australia is enforced by state law (86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,94 ,95, 96, 170, 171, 172), the public have yet to be made aware of either its UN Agenda 21 origins or the totality of its global goals. APPENDIX C Rewriting the Legal System to Support Ecocentrism & Transfer Property Rights from Humans to Plants & the Environment Agenda 21 is firmly rooted in the Gaia philosophy of the Earth Charter and Agenda 21 architects such as Maurice Strong. The Gaians or earth worshippers support a biocentric world view or ecocentric world view where humans become of secondary importance to the environment and ecosystem. In other words, plants come first humans come last. This biocentric or ecocentric Gaian world view is pervasively infiltrating our legal and political systems and scientific facts no longer matter. As has been noted by Henry Lamb in The Rise of Global Green Religion: “The paradigm shift from anthropocentrism to biocentrism is increasingly evident in public policy and in the documents which emanate from the United Nations and from the federal government. Public policies are being formulated in response to biocentric enlightenment, rather than in response to scientific evidence.” According to Bosselmann and Taylor in their essay about the Significance of the Earth Charter in International Law, The Earth Charter “challenges the anthropocentric idea of justice”. The Earth Charter was initiated by Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev , and was adopted by the Australian government in 2005. Anthropocentrism, the traditional basis of NSW laws (32), has now been overturned and replaced by a Gaia driven (39, 40) UN Agenda 21 ecocentric world view where the environment, and animals, reign supreme and man’s place in the world is secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38). This philosophy now forms the basis of new environmental laws and the flourishing NSW environmental legal system (25, 26 ). As has been noted by Pain (25, 26): “environmental legislation has moved away from being ‘anthropocentric-and-development orientated’ towards legislation that is ‘more environment-centred’.” In regard to an ecocentric view of property rights, Peter Burdon notes in his thesis, Earth jurisprudence: private property and earth community: “The central argument of this thesis is that the institution of private property reflects an anthropocentric worldview and is contributing to the current environmental crisis. ……It advocates a paradigm shift in law from anthropocentrism to the concept of Earth community. The thesis first provides an example laws anthropocentrism by exploring the legal philosophical concept of private property. ….It concludes that the dominant rights-based theory of private property is anthropocentric and facilitates environmental harm. The second component of the thesis explores contemporary scientific evidence supporting the ecocentric concept of Earth community. This concept argues that human beings are deeply connected and dependent on nature. It also describes the Earth as a community of subjects and not a collection of objects. Assuming that the social sphere is an important source for law, this thesis considers how a paradigm shift from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism can influence the development of legal concepts. To catalyse this shift, it considers the ‘new story’ proposed by cultural historian and theologian Thomas Berry. This story describes contemporary scientific insights such as interconnectedness in a narrative form Third, the thesis uses the alternative paradigm of Earth community to articulate an emerging legal philosophy called Earth Jurisprudence. It describes Earth Jurisprudence as a theory of natural law and advocates for the recognition of two kinds of law, organised in a hierarchical relationship. At the apex is the Great Law, which represents the principle of Earth community. Beneath the Great Law is Human Law, which represents rules articulated by human authorities, which are consistent with the Great Law and enacted for the common good of the comprehensive Earth Community. In regard to the interrelationship between these two legal categories, two points are crucial. Human Law derives its legal quality from the Great Law and any law in contravention of this standard is considered a corruption of law and not morally binding on a population. Finally, the thesis constructs an alternative concept of private property based on the philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence. It describes private property as a relationship between members of the Earth community, through tangible or intangible items. To be consistent with the philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence, the concept of private property must recognise human social relationships, include nonreciprocal duties and obligations; and respond to the ‘thing’ which is the subject matter of a property relationship. A theory of private property that overlooks any of these considerations is defective and deserves to be labelled such.” Supporters of this world view, who believe property rights should be transferred from humans to plants and the environment, are insidiously rewriting our laws to support their bizarre world view. According to Justice Preston, Chief Judge of the NSW Land & Environment Court, Earth should be run like a spaceship: “An increasing recognition of the first law of ecology – that everything is connected to everything else27 – and that the Earth’s ecosystem is, in a sense, a spaceship,28 may necessitate more sweeping positive obligations on landowners. Sax argues that ‘property owners must bear affirmative obligations to use their property in the service of habitable planet’. Sax recommends that: ‘We increasingly will have to employ land and other natural resources to maintain and restore the natural functioning of natural systems. More forest land will have to be left as forest, both to play a role in climate and as habitat. More water will have to be left instream to maintain marine ecosystems. More coastal wetland will have to be left as zones of biological productivity. We already recognise that there is no right to use air and water as waste sinks, and no right to contaminate the underground with toxic residue. In short there will be – there is being – imposed a servitude on our resources, a first call on them to play a role in maintaining a habitable and congenial planet … We shall have to move that way, for only when the demands of the abovementioned public servitude of habitability has been met will resources be available for private benefits. To fulfil the demands of that servitude, each owner will have to bear an affirmative responsibility, to act as a trustee insofar as the fate of the earth is entrusted to him. Each inhabitant will effectively have a right in all such property sufficient to ensure servitude is enforced. Every opportunity for private gain will have to yield to the exigencies of a life-sustaining planet.’ Sax’s call for private gain to yield to the existences of a life-sustaining planet is encapsulated in the concept of ecologically sustainable development.” Justice Preston summarises ecocentrism thus: “Ecocentrism involves taking a nature-centred rather than a human-centred approach, where the earth is valued not as a commodity belonging to us but a community to which we belong. Development of an earth jurisprudence requires the internalisation of ecocentrism in environmental law. It involves listening to the earth and adapting law to ecology. It values and gives voice to the environment. This paper surveys some ways in which environmental law can embrace ecocentrism” The NSW government has integrated Agenda 21 and Agenda 21 related biocentric/ecocentric programs into its environmental/sustainability policies, its planning policies, its local government policies, and its education policies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). The decision of the NSW government not to utilise a democratic locally designed sustainability program, but rather to import an ecocentric sustainability policy which has been designed by a foreign agency (UN), and is monitored and supervised by a foreign agency (UN), poses a fundamental and ongoing threat to the sovereignty and democracy of NSW and all of its residents. Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent the ecocentric principles of this imported undemocratic sustainability program are frequently used to pass judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). Otherwise law abiding citizens are being dragged into court as politicians and lawyers seek to enforce their ecocentric philosophy upon ordinary people. How is this possible? How can any democratic NSW government permit an undemocratic foreign agency such as the UN to attack the human rights, particularly property rights, of NSW residents by legislating to enforce the ecocentric dictates of the UN? This new environment centred ecocentric philosophy or environmental ethics (41, 42 ) has led to an explosion in both the complexity and number of new environmental laws (25 ) and these laws are increasingly being undemocratically used by State and local government to override and erode property rights of NSW landholders (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85). According to David Farrier and Paul Stein in the Environmental Law Handbook: Planning and Land Use in NSW: “The perspective presented by the law has been quite clearly human-centred, or anthropocentric. Instead of looking at the natural environment as having value in its own right, we have looked at it from the point of view of humans. Before a 1997 amendment to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, ‘environment’ was defined in it as including ‘all aspects of the surroundings of man whether affecting him as an individual or in his social groupings’ (s.4(1)). The problem with the human-centred approach to the natural environment is that it leads to an irresistible temptation to view it simply as a resource to be used for our benefit. Decisions are made on the basis of what is good for people rather than what is good for the natural environment. The natural environment becomes a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Perhaps this is inevitable, given that it is human beings who make the law and the decisions. No matter how motivated the human decision-maker is to give some kind of equal status to the integrity of the natural environment, we cannot avoid the fact that a human interpretation of the needs of the natural world will prevail. Recently, there have been attempts to modify the anthropocentric focus of environmental law. There is a changing consciousness about the interconnectedness of all living species and systems, encapsulated in a concern for the conservation of biological diversity. This has given rise to a new definition of ‘environment’ in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act (see page 4), and the enactment of legislation such as the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, which seeks to protect ecological communities and the critical habitat of threatened species (see chapter 11). This change in emphasis, however, can also be justified in terms of the future interests of humanity. For example, restrictions on certain developments can be justified because of the need to preserve plants whose pharmacological properties have not yet been identified. And there are ecological processes, many of them still poorly understood, that provide ecosystem services such as water purification and soil fertilisation. Humans ultimately depend on, and benefit from, these processes.” The decline of anthropocentrism and the rise of modern environmentalism is creating a future where basic human rights, including the right to private property, will be challenged on environmental grounds. Not only the rights of plants and ecosystems, but also the rights of future generations will be utilised to justify removal of the human rights of the present generation. We can therefore look forward to a future where fundamental human rights will be considered secondary to the rights of the “environment” and persons who do not exist. According to Justice McClellan: “It cannot be assumed that environmental law and the role of the Land and Environment Court will be free of controversy in the future. Some of the issues which the Court must deal with raise questions of fundamental human rights. All of them affect the lives of some or a group of people in our community. Many will involve very substantial money profits or losses to individuals or corporations. The court must contribute to the task of balancing the immediate needs of the present generation with the trust we hold for those who will come after us.” Increasingly, the rights of private land owners are being eroded under the guise of environmental concerns, the UN biodiversity programme and Agenda 21, and the principles of distributive justice and intergenerational justice. According to Gerry Bates at the Conference on Rural Land Use Change: “Government has progressively moved to wrest management of natural resources away from private control and unlimited public access. It is common now for water, fish and biodiversity to be vested in and controlled by the Crown*. Legislation then creates government authorities charged with the task of managing these resources, and implementing and enforcing the statutory scheme. Environmental restrictions imposed by legislation, of course, cut across common law rights; but centuries of legal and cultural tradition that support the pre-eminence of the rights of private landowners cannot be easily overcome; and such rights still have a considerable influence on the development of environmental policy and therefore of environmental law. The governmental approach to environmental management and protection has had to be applied in the context of a social system, supported by the common law, that hitherto placed few restrictions on the exploitation of natural resources by private landowners.” *Emphasis added Agenda 21, which all levels of government continue to enthusiastically embrace, is an undemocratic biocentric/ecocentric United Nations designed and monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77). It is absolutely astonishing and completely unacceptable that foreign designed and monitored biocentric/ecocentric programs such as Agenda 21 have been actively and pervasively embedded into NSW planning and legislation while residents have NEVER been given a democratic choice. APPENDIX D Response to Correspondence from the Victorian Minister for Local Government – Jeanette Powell (Please note: My response to the Minister also included the following 3 back up documents not included here: The Australian Government Agenda for the 21st Century – The Invasion of Australia by the United Nations; Local Environmental Plans & the Covert UN Agenda 21 Takeover: Councils, Property Rights & Democracy, What you Should Know) Vivien Leizer|Reception Office of the Hon Jeanette Powell MP Minister for Local Government |Aboriginal Affairs 17/8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne VIC 3002 Phone(03) 9637 8938 | Fax(03) 9637 8920 Email vivien.e.leizer@dse.vic.gov.au Dear Vivien, Thank you for your forwarding the response on behalf of the Minister. I refer the following extremely serious matters to the Minister’s urgent attention. I refer to the following part of the Minister’s response. In spite of this claim, according to the voluminous evidence below and enclosed, your government has clearly been implementing, and permitting to be implemented, the Agenda 21 program for near 20 years, yet you have never declared it as policy. Why? Are you saying you have now banned Agenda 21 from Victoria and you now utilise a local sustainability program with no UN connections? Will you be officially declaring it as policy at the next election or do you prefer to continue implementing it without declaring it as policy? Why? Please refer me to relevant documentation. And do you now reject the Commonwealth Governments Local Agenda 21 guide? And have you now prevented Victorian Councils from importing foreign UN sustainability programs such as Agenda 21? Could you please supply documentation? Will you be taking legal action against the Municipal Association and Victorian councils (below) for implementing Agenda 21 when you have not approved it? Or will you be deregistering them? Let’s cut to the chase here. Unless you can supply current documentation proving you have outlawed or banned UN Agenda 21 and other imported sustainability programs from Victoria, then to suggest your government is not part of the implementation of this program is at best extremely misleading, and at worst, a deliberate untruth designed to deliberately deceive the public. Which is it? Why is it apparently so important to you NOT to openly declare this program as policy? Or will you immediately ban it and all such imported programs? Regards Graham Williamson http://www.regional.org.au/au/soc/2002/4/lyon.htm The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) has established a statewide partnership of councils involved in ecological sustainable development (ESD) /Triple Bottom Line/Local Agenda 21(LA21) initiatives. A successful first meeting of 17 member councils from around the State was held on 15th August 2001 to establish the MAV Victorian Local Sustainability Partnership…….In Victoria over the past ten years, about 15–20 local governments have embarked on local processes to engage with their communities and develop a strategic plan to address sustainability. Much of the work of leading councils in this area has developed on the back of the Local Conservation Strategy (LCS) program of the Cain and Kirner Labour governments of the early 90s. During the 6 years of the Kennett government there was no explicit support or acknowledgment of Local Agenda 21 or environment planning initiatives at the local government level. Despite this lack of State support, leading Victorian local governments have developed innovative approaches to sustainability. However, more recently at a State level there has been an explicit focus on ‘sustainability’ with a number of approaches. The Brack’s Labour government elected almost three years ago had an election platform to create a ‘Commissioner for ESD’ and the government has undertaken extensive consultation on the proposed Commissioner. A final government response to these consultations is still being developed. Additionally the Brack’s government has highlighted the importance of triple bottom line (TBL) approaches and sustainability in the ‘Growing Victoria Together’2 policy statement. The still to be released Metro Strategy is to be a major statement by Government on the future of Melbourne, particularly focusing on the growth corridors of outer Melbourne, the urban–rural interface issues and the issues of integrated planning and transport across greater Melbourne. While these major initiatives have still to be launched, many of the programs now being developed by different Victorian government agencies to address sustainability still do not explicitly acknowledge and provide support of local government approaches to ESD such as Local Agenda 21. In fact, a number of recent initiatives could be argued to duplicate or cut across municipal approaches, and in a sense ‘re-invent’ much of the successful local sustainability work already underway through local government. The Liveable Neighbourhood approach attempts to develop a community driven local approach to environmental management, providing a planning tool that is more responsive to community and to arguments for greater local autonomy and control of planning and environment issues.3 Like Local Agenda 21, the NEIP model seeks to tackle sustainability at the local level by creating a form of local community involvement. However, as with the Victorian residential planning system where a Minister or VCAT (administrative tribunal) can override a local planning decision, the EPA is the final approver and arbiter of NEIPs. While the work in developing an NEIP is undertaken by a local council (or other ‘protection agency’) and though a community process, the plan is still at the end of the day sanctioned or ‘approved’ by the State though the EPA. http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/40787/73366_1.pdf?sequence=1 Examples of governments’ reluctance to devolve power and control can be found in attempts to implement the Agenda 21 at the local level. For instance, as part of the sustainability discourse, local governments were ascribed the role of promoting better public dialogue to deal with complex environmental issues (Khakee, 2001). At the centre of that rhetoric was the establishment of the Agenda 21 at the local level (Bulkeley, 2000). Khakee (2001) states that the public dialogue advocated with Agenda 21 was a community-wide learning process which could assist in the definition of objectives as well as install institutional capital that would enable the achievement of sustainability. However, a study about the implementation of the Agenda 21 in the Victorian context (Mercer & Jotkowits, 2000) suggests that the fact that local governments’ role changed from being one which governs to a more administrative entity did not result in the devolution of power and control; instead, it contributed to impede the implementation of programmes with a more structural changing character such as the one proposed by the Agenda 21. Governments, particularly at the local scale, appear to prefer to embrace less contentious initiatives such as the ICLEI’s Cities for Climate Protection Campaign (CCPC) (Bulkeley, 2000). While this campaign has established as one of its objectives the strengthening of local communities, its key outcomes are heavily associated with tangible results. These include targets and timetables and related economic benefits rather than more comprehensive measures which would demand better public engagement (Lindseth, 2004). Thus when faced with the challenge of implementing major structural changes and policies similar to the ones advocated by the Agenda 21, local authorities tend to buy time by implementing easier policies (Whittaker, 1997). Additionally, they also tend to do business-as-usual and repack existing programmes under new banners as observed in the case of adoption of the CCPC by American cities (Betsill, 2000). https://www.geelongaustralia.com.au/common/public/documents/8cbc79e88419896- EnvironmentManagementStrategy2006-2011.pdf Council recognised the importance of sound environmental management in the late 1990’s when it adopted its first Environmental Management Strategy- Local Agenda 21 in February 1999……. In 1992 a meeting of the World Commission on Environment and Development met in Rio de Janeiro at the Earth Summit. A strategy called Agenda 21 was adopted by over 100 countries to encourage more sustainable development. A Local Agenda 21 is a strategy prepared by government and all sections of the community to establish a vision and to integrate programs for change. The City’s new Environment Management Strategy is Council’s Local Agenda 21 and represents a commitment to addressing global issues at the local level. http://www.nre.vic.gov.au/melbourne2030online/content/policies_initiatives/07h_policy78.html Melbourne 2030 – Local sustainability initiatives in Victoria Local Agenda 21 This is based on the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, which aimed to establish a global agenda for social, economic and environmental sustainability. Australia joined with 177 other member nations to adopt Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and subsequently local authorities were encouraged to prepare a ‘Local Agenda 21’ with their communities. Since then, some 100 local governments throughout Australia have made a commitment to Local Agenda 21 or ecologically sustainable development through municipal plans and strategies. By 2001, at least 20 local councils in Victoria were working towards implementing Local Agenda 21 action plans to help their communities become involved in sustainable development. http://www.gswreportcard.org/_opes/publications/IntegratingRegionalSustainabilityProgram.pdf Local governments across Australia have recognised an integrative role in community sustainability and thus traditionally address local sustainability through the Local Agenda 21 model. Local Agenda 21 encourages all local authorities to enter into dialogue with their communities on developing an action plan for sustainability that seeks to integrate social, ecological and economic sustainability. This approach was reendorsed in 2002 by local government representatives at the Johannesburg World Summit. The next step for those attempting to implement such action plans is to be able to demonstrate that such plans and strategies are making a difference. http://www.markbirrell.com/Vital.htm (Speech on the Agenda 21 infrastructure initiatives for our Capital City – outlining progress in implementing the Liberal/National policy on Melbourne first announced by Mark Birrell on 16th. August, 1991) In this address I wish to outline the aims and objectives of the Coalition Government’s agenda for our capital city. It is important for me first of all to put on record my thanks to the Institute for the work that it has done to assist us in progressing elements of the “Agenda 21″ program. http://www.la.org.au/opinion/011010/back-dark-ages-melbourne%E2%80%99s-streets Has anyone noticed that the streets around Melbourne aren’t as bright as they used to be?…….. That’s because various local councils have been rolling out “energy-efficient” street lights, which cost the tax-payer a fortune, while making our streets significantly darker and hence less safe……It’s all being done under a United Nations treaty, signed and ratified by Australia in the early 1990s, known as Agenda 21, which is a manifesto for sending humanity back to the pre-industrial era, a time when you had to wash your clothes in the local river and the average life expectancy was little more than 30. The Municipal Association of Victoria states on its website: “Local government has a key role to play in promoting environmental sustainability and taking action that sees the concept incorporated into everyday life. Steps toward this are part of the Local Agenda 21 model and the MAV is helping to push the sustainability agenda further through various council networks, showcase forums and other initiatives.” http://www.ccmaknowledgebase.vic.gov.au/resources/COGG.pdf A Local Agenda 21 is an environment strategy prepared by government and all sections of the community to establish a vision and to integrate programs for change. This EMS is therefore Council’s Local Agenda 21 and represents a commitment to addressing global issues at the local level…. The importance of ESD was highlighted in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, where agreements aimed at providing a broad framework for global sustainable development such as Agenda 21, to which Australia is a signatory, were signed. The emphasis of Agenda 21 is the achievement of the objectives of ESD at the global scale through action at the local level, which is encapsulated in the statement `think globally, act locally’. A copy of Chapter 28 from the Agenda 21 Charter is attached as Appendix One. In the Australian context, the concept of sustainable development has been incorporated into National policy documents, such as the 1992 Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment and the 1995 CommonwealthLocal Government Accord on the Environment. The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) is a party to these, which place responsibilities on all local Councils to prepare strategies and policies that will foster sound environmental management and sustainable development. ALGA is also a signatory to `The Newcastle Declaration’, which was endorsed at the International Conference – Pathways to Sustainability in June 1997. A copy of this is attached as Appendix Two… This EMS is the City of Greater Geelong’s response to acting locally and will be Geelong’s Local Agenda 21 Action Plan. It is an action-oriented document outlining a range of actions that can be undertaken within the municipality to achieve ecologically sustainable development. Background – the undemocratic invasion of Australia by the United Nations Agenda 21 Graham Williamson Agenda 21 is an undemocratic United Nations designed and monitored program (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights (7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19). It is absolutely disgraceful that such anti-democratic sovereignty undermining foreign designed and monitored programs such as Agenda 21 have been implemented by all three levels of government throughout Australia for 20 years. Further, during this 20 year implementation, both major political parties have consistently decided it best to exclude Agenda 21 from their official policies to prevent voters from having a democratic choice. The Australian government has paved the way for the undemocratic infiltration of Agenda 21 in Australia by the support of the United Nations Earth Summit by the Howard government followed by ratification by the Keating government and implementation by successive governments (5, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 51 ). No doubt because of the undemocratic regressive nature of Agenda 21, various experts and government officials often prefer to mislead the public by avoiding the term “Agenda 21” and using instead terms such as (40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45) “sustainability”, “smart growth”, “growth management” or “local environmental plans”. Deliberate deception of the public it seems, is fundamental to the success of the program (45): “Agenda 21 is being implemented in the U.S. under various names to deceive the unsuspecting public as to the source and real purpose of the program. However identifying the programs is relatively easy. All you have to do is look for the keywords……..Everything associated with this program is deceptive. The language they use, the names they give the projects, the means by which they lure local governments into the trap and then slam the door – absolutely everything is deceptive from beginning to end.” And the deceit about the full implications and origin of AG21 is endemic throughout Australia (46): “Throughout Australia it seems that there has been widespread uncertainty about the meaning, scope and value of the term ‘Local Agenda 21’……..Some councils have chosen, for a variety of reasons, not to call their initiatives ‘LA21’ “…….”However, this is not to say that LA21 is not happening within Australia. On the contrary there is Local Agenda 21 activity in every state and territory and many councils are working on projects that have at their core the processes of LA21, although they may not necessarily be using that terminology.” Since many aspects of AG21 need to be enforced at the local level, the federal government was compelled to enlist the co-operation of state and local governments in order to satisfy the implementation requirements of the United Nations. As a result, all Australian states, including NSW (47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 , 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,94 ,95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 100, 101, 102, 103 ), Queensland (104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114) Victoria (115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126), SA (127, 128, 129, 130, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144), and WA (145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151), proceeded to implement Agenda by changes to state legislation and by enforcing local changes at the local council level. In fact, so important were local councils in the global plans of the UN that the UN specifically incorporated a section promoting so called ‘Local Agenda 21’ or’ LA 21’ into Chapter 28 of the Agenda 21 document. Local Agenda 21 has been adopted by Councils around Australia under the guidance of their respective state governments (46, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 70 , 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 104, 110, 111, 112, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159). To further disguise the true goals of Agenda 21 the name has been changed to Sustainable Development 21 or SD21 (160, 161, 162, 163), while some local authorities have changed the name of Local Agenda 21 to ‘Local Climate Strategy’ (160). The United Nations Sustainable Cities program is yet another spin off of Agenda 21 and the UN Habitat agenda (173, 174, 175, 176, 177). The United Nations has found from 20 years experience that implementation of their global agenda by local authorities has been their most effective strategy (160, 161, 162), especially given the impediments of national sovereignty. Not surprisingly, according to the United Nations Sustainable Development in the 21st Century Summary for Policymakers, the future of their global agenda depends largely upon giving more power and recognition to local councils (161): “Empowering lower levels with means to act on their own Progress towards more sustainable outcomes does not need to wait for a hypothetical consensus on what the future of the world should be, or how global affairs should be managed. Actions at lower levels can and should be taken as soon as possible……… Empower lower levels of governments to act as agents of change on their own and try new approaches to sustainability…. Local governments also have a critical role to play as agents of change, as their closeness to their constituents enable them to embark on bold experiments of different paths to sustainability…… Providing appropriate mandates and resources to all levels of governments Ultimately, the success or failure of sustainable development will largely depend on decisions and actions that are taken at the local level. This was well recognized by Agenda 21.” But the UN went further in their Review of Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles (Draft – Jan 2012), even suggesting that local governments should be empowered by state and federal governments to communicate directly with the United Nations (160): “All governance levels from local through global need to be vertically interconnected for bottom-up energy to meet top-down support. In order to bridge the gaps between different levels of governance well as between agenda and action, local governments need to be given a more prominent role in global UN processes. The intergovernmental level should recognize that local authorities have similar legitimacy compared to national governments, and with many local authorities governing bigger populations than the 150 smallest UN member states, it would be reasonable if they could get voting rights in the UN. New institutional arrangements for sustainability should be based on a multi-level concept of governance and include elected representatives from local, sub-national, national, regional and ultimately global levels. In the other direction, it is imperative that decentralization policies are accompanied with all the needed political, legal and financial support that local authorities need for implementing their localized strategies for sustainability.” Since the United Nations have issued their directives for governments around the world, it is hardly surprising that the current Labor government plans to conduct a referendum at the next election to constitutionally recognise and give more rights to local councils (163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168). The commitment to hold a referendum was part of an agreement signed by the Greens Party and the ALP in order to form government (166, 168, 169). Astonishingly, even though ecologically sustainable development in Australia is enforced by state law (86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,94 ,95, 96, 170, 171, 172), the public have yet to be made aware of either its UN Agenda 21 origins or the totality of its global goals. In further support of the global implementation of LA21 is ICLEI , the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, the name now being changed to Local Governments for Sustainability. In fact, Section 7.21 of Agenda 21, specifically recommends involvement with ICLEI. According to Maurice Strong in the Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide (173), “The task of mobilizing and technically supporting Local Agenda 21 planning in these communities has been led by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and national associations of local government.” And further, according to ICLEI, the UN requested that ICLEI present a draft of Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 including a mandate for all local authorities to prepare a ‘local Agenda 21’.” In fact, ICLEI stated they had two fundamental programs, the “Cities for Climate Protection Campaign and the Local Agenda 21 Initiative.” According to ICLEI (174): “In 1991, at the invitation of Secretariat for the UN Conference on Environment and Development, ICLEI presented a draft of Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 including the mandate for all local authorities to prepare a “local Agenda 21.” The final version of Chapter 28 approved at the Earth Summit stipulates that “by 1996 , most local authorities in each country should have undertaken a consultative process with their population and achieved a consensus on a local Agenda 21 for the(ir) communities.” Following the adoption of the LA21 at the Earth Summit, ICLEI began organizing to ensure that this mandate would be used to advance sustainable development. In particular, ICLEI was concerned that LA21 processes be truly participatory and that they result in new commitments by municipalities and their communities to improve and extend urban services in a sustainable way. To address these concerns, ICLEI established a Local Agenda 21 Initiative with three elements. The Local Agenda 21 Model Communities Programme was a research and development project which supported a select group of municipalities to design, test, and evaluate planning frameworks for sustainable development. These local frameworks were guided by a general ICLEI framework called “Strategic Services Planning” which addresses many of the organizational and institutional problems related to governance and public sector service delivery in the sustainable development context. With the creation of its Local Agenda 21 Campaign, ICLEI has positioned itself in the growing LA 21 “movement”-which presently counts more than 2,000 communities involved-as a developer and promoter of standards for LA 21 planning. The LA 21 Model Communities Programme established the guiding principles for LA 21 planning and tested a variety of participatory planning tools. The experiences of the MCP participants resulted in the publication, in English, Spanish, and now Turkish, of the ICLEI Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide: An Introduction to Sustainable Development Planning(1996). This guide is being increasingly used in university and local government institute training courses around the world. ICLEI also developed with participating municipalities, the Local Agenda 21 Declaration. This declaration consists of a set of milestones and principles which are formally adopted by local councils as their standard for LA 21 planning. In 1998, ICLEI directly assisted more than 180 municipalities in the establishment of LA 21 planning and projects that are consistent with the declaration’s standards. According to the United Nations, Agenda 21 requires that local authorities, as part of their new global role, also enter into partnerships with (175) “relevant organs and organizations such as UNDP, the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) and UNEP, the World Bank, regional banks, the International Union of Local Authorities, the World Association of the Major Metropolises, Summit of Great Cities of the World, the United Towns Organization.” This has given rise to bottom up movements where local government and local councils are given progressively more power as compared to national governments. The implementation of Agenda 21 is of course, monitored by the UN, participating countries being required to report back to the UN on a regular basis (176, 177, 178, 179). The UN describes the monitoring and reporting provisions for Agenda 21 in chapter 38.11. The Commonwealth of course, provides these reports to the UN from implementation progress at state and local government levels. In fact, the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development was established to oversee the implementation of Agenda 21 around the world (176, 177, 179). According to the Commonwealth Government in this regard (179): “The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was established by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) with a mandate to review implementation of the outcomes of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, in particular progress in the implementation of the program of action known as Agenda 21. The CSD held its first substantive session in June 1993 and has met annually since. The 10-year review of the implementation of Agenda 21 culminated in the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) which was held in Johannesburg, South Africa (September, 2002). While the CSD successfully built a profile and improved understanding of sustainable development during its first 10 years, it was recognised at the WSSD that some reforms were required to ensure the continued relevance of its work. The WSSD Plan of Implementation (POI) called for reform of the CSD within its existing mandate (as adopted un UNGA resolution 47/191). In particular, the POI recommended : · Limiting negotiating sessions to every two years; · Re-considering the scheduling and duration of intersessional meetings; and · Limiting the number of themes addressed in each session. An enhanced role for the CSD in monitoring and reporting on progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and in facilitation of partnerships was also recommended.” Strangely, membership of the CSD which oversees Australia’s compliance with the requirements of Agenda 21, includes various extremist and despotic regimes who deny basic human rights to their own citizens. So at a time when (180) “many of the world’s worst violators of human rights and democratic standards have joined in loose coalitions at the United Nations to deflect attention from their records of repression”, the United Nations and the Australian government want such countries to judge Australia’s sustainability progress. But as if all this isn’t bad enough, representatives of Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and Libya in the United Nations Human Rights Council, recently criticised human rights violations in the USA (181,182): “Recommendations to improve the U.S. human rights record included Cuba’s advice to end “violations against migrants and mentally ill persons” and “ensure the right to food and health.” Iran – currently poised to stone an Iranian woman for adultery – told the U.S. “effectively to combat violence against women.” North Korea – which systematically starves a captive population – told the U.S. “to address inequalities in housing, employment and education” and “prohibit brutality…by law enforcement officials.” Libya complained about U.S. “racism, racial discrimination and intolerance.” Interestingly, “North Korea is not only on the Human Rights Council. It was appointed to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UN CSD) even though many of its people routinely suffer from starvation because of the regime’s totalitarian nature”(181, 183). APPENDIX E Mr Barry O’Farrell, MP Level 40 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sir, As you can see below, the NSW Attorney General was unwilling to answer simple questions regarding the use of the ecocentric principles of the Agenda 21 program to rewrite and reshape the NSW legal system (as backed up by voluminous evidence of implementation across numerous government departments). I asked the Attorney the following specific questions. Please explain why you consider that overseeing the direction of the legal system of NSW is not your responsibility and please name the person who is responsible? Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent the principles of this imported undemocratic sustainability program are frequently used to pass judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). I then asked: How is this possible? How can any democratic NSW government permit an undemocratic foreign agency such as the UN to attack the human rights, particularly property rights, of NSW residents by legislating to enforce the dictates of the UN? For some reason you chose to ignore this legal question and refer it to other Ministers such as the Minister for Planning and Minister for the Environment? Why? Do you feel they are better qualified to answer legal questions about human rights, property rights, and NSW sovereignty? But the Attorney General refused to answer, seeking to avoid the subject of implementation of AG21 by NSW and even go so far as to pretend it is only a Commonwealth matter. I quote: “If you have concerns about Australia’s adoption of Agenda 21 you should contact the Federal Government.” Clearly this is ridiculous. We have a situation in NSW where numerous judges and legal experts acknowledge that the NSW legal system is being restructured to support the ecocentric principles of the United Nations Agenda 21 program and yet we have an Attorney General who accepts no responsibility and seems to profess complete ignorance. Could he possibly be so ignorant, or is he being deliberately misleading or deceptive. Either way, he should be instantly dismissed. Will you be sacking him? Could you please state what action you will be taking and the government’s policy in regard to implementation of the foreign UN Agenda 21 program? Will you be banning it? Or do you intend to continue to implement it throughout the various state departments which have embedded it into policy? And could you please advise who is responsible for overseeing the direction of the NSW legal system and administration of justice in NSW as the Attorney General continually seeks to distance himself from any such responsibility. Regards Graham Williamson From: Public Smith’s Office Email [mailto:Office@smith.minister.nsw.gov.au] Sent: Friday, 30 November 2012 10:33 AM To: grahamhw@iprimus.com.au Subject: FW: TRIM: FW: Ecocentrism – who is responsible for overseeing NSW laws Dear Mr Williamson If you have concerns about Australia’s adoption of Agenda 21 you should contact the Federal Government. If you have concerns about the adoption of a particular policy associated with Agenda 21 then you should contact the Minister, Council etc responsible for that decision. Elections are regularly held at a local, state and federal level. This affords you the opportunity to vote for the candidate that you believe best reflects your policy preferences. I have referred your matter to a number of Ministers and should you send further correspondence this will be placed on file without response. Kind regards Office of the Attorney General and Minister for Justice. Mr Barry O’Farrell Premier Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Mr O’Farrell, The NSW government has integrated Agenda 21 and Agenda 21 related programs into its environmental/sustainability policies, its planning policies, its local government policies, and its education policies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent it is frequently used to pass judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). Traditionally NSW laws have been based upon “anthropocentrism” (32), the belief that humankind had dominion over the environment and the plants and animals of which it is comprised. In recent years however, this has been reversed so that our legal system is now increasingly based upon a Gaia driven (39, 40) UN Agenda 21 world view where anthropocentrism is overturned and is replaced by a new order where the environment, and animals, reign supreme and man’s place in the world is secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38). This philosophy now forms the basis of new environmental laws and the flourishing NSW environmental legal system (25, 26 ). As has been noted by Pain (25, 26): “environmental legislation has moved away from being ‘anthropocentric-and-development orientated’ towards legislation that is ‘more environment-centred’.” This new environment centred philosophy or environmental ethics (41, 42 ) as opposed to a human centred or anthropocentric philosophy, has led to an explosion in both the complexity and number of new environmental laws (25 ) and these laws are increasingly being undemocratically used by State and local government to override and erode property rights of NSW landholders (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57). Agenda 21 however is an undemocratic United Nations designed and monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77). It is absolutely astonishing and completely unacceptable that foreign designed and monitored programs such as Agenda 21 have been actively and pervasively embedded into NSW planning and legislation while residents have NEVER been given a democratic choice. What will you do about this? Recently, because of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 and the serious threat it poses to human rights, particularly property rights, the following law was passed by the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (78): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1. (b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama. (c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” Are you prepared to represent the interests of NSW residents by giving them this same protection, as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property rights of local landholders? If not, why not? In view of the above facts I seek answers to the following questions. 5. Has the NSW government warned residents of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans, their UN origin, and their full agenda and final goals? If so please supply documentary evidence (notices, media releases etc). 6. Does the NSW government have a clear policy to ban all such UN derived Agenda 21 related policies to protect local residents? Please supply documentary evidence, including the time frame for implementation. 7. Has the NSW government offered local residents the choice between a locally designed, monitored and implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative to plans designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? I look forward to receiving clarification of these vitally important matters. Regards Graham Williamson APPENDIX F Correspondence with NSW Minister for the Environment Robyn Parker. Ms Robyn Parker, MP Minister for the Environment Level 32 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Re response from Ms Danielle Lautrec MD12/3442; MD12/4303 Dear Ms Parker, Thank you for your response, courtesy of Ms Lautrec. As you know, my correspondence (included below) was about various aspects of Agenda 21, none of which Ms Lautrec was able to respond to. To quote Ms Lautrec: The claim that “the decision for Australia to commit to the principals of Agenda 21 was a decision made by the Federal Government” is of course, completely false if you are attempting to deny the NSW state government, and Local Governments, are implementing this program. This statement is at best, extremely and deceptively misleading, and at worst, it is deliberate deception and denial of the facts. Do you condone this dishonesty? Are you denying that both the NSW Government, and Local Councils, are implementing this program and have been doing so for nearly two decades? As you of course realise, the Federal Government is reliant upon State and Local Governments to implement the many local requirements of Agenda 21. Knowing this, why would you feel the need to pretend it was just a “decision made by the Federal Government” and imply it has nothing to do with state and local governments? Let me remind you of some of the issues you failed to address from my earlier correspondence (below). First let me stress that my enquiry is about the 500 page foreign United Nations designed and monitored Agenda 21 program. As I stated previously: The NSW government has integrated Agenda 21 and Agenda 21 related programs into its environmental/sustainability policies, its planning policies, its local government policies, and its education policies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent it is frequently used to pass judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). Do you approve of this adoption of this foreign program and its use to penalise NSW residents? Will you be including this program in official Liberal Party Policy or do you prefer to continue to implement it while excluding it from policy? I continued in my earlier communication: Agenda 21 however is an undemocratic United Nations designed and monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77). It is absolutely astonishing and completely unacceptable that foreign designed and monitored programs such as Agenda 21 have been actively and pervasively embedded into NSW planning and legislation while residents have NEVER been given a democratic choice. What will you do about this? Even though these matters are of vital importance to residents of NSW you expressed no concern whatsoever and failed to advise what action you would take to protect the sovereignty of NSW and the rights of NSW land owners. Why? I continued: Recently, because of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 and the serious threat it poses to human rights, particularly property rights, the following law was passed by the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (78): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1. (b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama. (c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” I then asked: Are you prepared to represent the interests of NSW residents by giving them this same protection, as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property rights of local landholders? If not, why not? But you once again chose to completely ignore this question, apparently preferring NOT to offer NSW land owners any such protections. Is this correct? When will you take decisive action to protect the rights of NSW residents? I continued: In view of the above facts I seek answers to the following questions. 8. Has the NSW government warned residents of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans, their UN origin, and their full agenda and final goals? If so please supply documentary evidence (notices, media releases etc). You were unable to supply even one NSW Government notice alerting residents to these facts. Why? 9. Does the NSW government have a clear policy to ban all such UN derived Agenda 21 related policies to protect local residents? Please supply documentary evidence, including the time frame for implementation. Once again you were unable to supply any such documentation. Why? 10. Has the NSW government offered local residents the choice between a locally designed, monitored and implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative to plans designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? You were completely unable to confirm that you had offered residents any such local program at all, your only option being to force upon NSW residents a foreign (UN) designed and monitored program. Why? As is perfectly clear, the above issues are of vital importance, yet your preferred response was to ignore all of them. When can I expect a meaningful response? Regards Graham Williamson Ms Robyn Parker, MP Minister for the Environment Level 32 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Ms Parker, The NSW government has integrated Agenda 21 and Agenda 21 related programs into its environmental/sustainability policies, its planning policies, its local government policies, and its education policies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent it is frequently used to pass judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). Traditionally NSW laws have been based upon “anthropocentrism” (32), the belief that humankind had dominion over the environment and the plants and animals of which it is comprised. In recent years however, this has been reversed so that our legal system is now increasingly based upon a Gaia driven (39, 40) UN Agenda 21 world view where anthropocentrism is overturned and is replaced by a new order where the environment, and animals, reign supreme and man’s place in the world is secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38). This philosophy now forms the basis of new environmental laws and the flourishing NSW environmental legal system (25, 26 ). As has been noted by Pain (25, 26): “environmental legislation has moved away from being ‘anthropocentric-and-development orientated’ towards legislation that is ‘more environment-centred’.” This new environment centred philosophy or environmental ethics (41, 42 ) as opposed to a human centred or anthropocentric philosophy, has led to an explosion in both the complexity and number of new environmental laws (25 ) and these laws are increasingly being undemocratically used by State and local government to override and erode property rights of NSW landholders (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57). Agenda 21 however is an undemocratic United Nations designed and monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77). It is absolutely astonishing and completely unacceptable that foreign designed and monitored programs such as Agenda 21 have been actively and pervasively embedded into NSW planning and legislation while residents have NEVER been given a democratic choice. What will you do about this? Recently, because of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 and the serious threat it poses to human rights, particularly property rights, the following law was passed by the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (78): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1. (b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama. (c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” Are you prepared to represent the interests of NSW residents by giving them this same protection, as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property rights of local landholders? If not, why not? In view of the above facts I seek answers to the following questions. 11. Has the NSW government warned residents of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans, their UN origin, and their full agenda and final goals? If so please supply documentary evidence (notices, media releases etc). 12. Does the NSW government have a clear policy to ban all such UN derived Agenda 21 related policies to protect local residents? Please supply documentary evidence, including the time frame for implementation. 13. Has the NSW government offered local residents the choice between a locally designed, monitored and implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative to plans designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? I look forward to receiving clarification of these vitally important matters. Regards Graham Williamson APPENDIX G Correspondence with NSW Attorney General Greg Smith. Dear Mr Williamson (final response from Minister – 30th Nov 2012) If you have concerns about Australia’s adoption of Agenda 21 you should contact the Federal Government. If you have concerns about the adoption of a particular policy associated with Agenda 21 then you should contact the Minister, Council etc responsible for that decision. Elections are regularly held at a local, state and federal level. This affords you the opportunity to vote for the candidate that you believe best reflects your policy preferences. I have referred your matter to a number of Ministers and should you send further correspondence this will be placed on file without response. Kind regards Office of the Attorney General and Minister for Justice. From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Sunday, 25 November 2012 7:20 AM To: Public Smith’s Office Email Subject: TRIM: FW: Ecocentrism – who is responsible for overseeing NSW laws Mr Greg Smith, MP Attorney General and Minister for Justice Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sir, I have still received no response to the vitally important issues raised in the below email. When can I expect a meaningful response? Is your continuing non-response indicative of your complete lack of concern about these issues? Regards Graham Williamson From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012 9:18 AM To: office@smith..minister.nsw.gov.au; epping@parliament.nsw.gov.au Cc: office@premier.nsw.gov.au Subject: FW: Ecocentrism – who is responsible for overseeing NSW laws Mr Greg Smith, MP Attorney General and Minister for Justice Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Mr Smith, The below email remains unanswered. When can I expect an answer to the extremely important issues contained therein? Regards Graham Williamson From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, 15 August 2012 8:25 PM To: office@smith..minister.nsw.gov.au; ‘epping@parliament.nsw.gov.au’ Cc: office@premier.nsw.gov.au; ‘kuringgai@parliament.nsw.gov.au’ Subject: Ecocentrism – who is responsible for overseeing NSW laws Mr Greg Smith, MP Attorney General and Minister for Justice Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sir, In response to my previous communication below, which you referred to other Ministers, you stated “The matters raised do not fall under the portfolio responsibility of the NSW Attorney General and Minister for Justice.” Please explain why you consider that overseeing the direction of the legal system of NSW is not your responsibility and please name the person who is responsible? Incidentally, since as a result of my earlier correspondence you have declared that the matters I referred to, including the overseeing of the direction of the NSW legal system, has nothing to do with you, I have cc’d the Premier. Previously I stated as follows. Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent the principles of this imported undemocratic sustainability program are frequently used to pass judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). I then asked: How is this possible? How can any democratic NSW government permit an undemocratic foreign agency such as the UN to attack the human rights, particularly property rights, of NSW residents by legislating to enforce the dictates of the UN? For some reason you chose to ignore this legal question and refer it to other Ministers such as the Minister for Planning and Minister for the Environment? Why? Do you feel they are better qualified to answer legal questions about human rights, property rights, and NSW sovereignty? Traditionally NSW laws have been based upon “anthropocentrism” (32), the belief that humankind had dominion over the environment and the plants and animals of which it is comprised. In recent years however, this has been reversed so that our legal system is now increasingly based upon a Gaia driven (39, 40) UN Agenda 21 world view where anthropocentrism is overturned and is replaced by a new order where the environment, and animals, reign supreme and man’s place in the world is secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38). This philosophy now forms the basis of new environmental laws and the flourishing NSW environmental legal system (25, 26 ). As has been noted by Pain (25, 26): “environmental legislation has moved away from being ‘anthropocentric-and-development orientated’ towards legislation that is ‘more environment-centred’.” This new environment centred philosophy or environmental ethics (41, 42 ) as opposed to a human centred or anthropocentric philosophy, has led to an explosion in both the complexity and number of new environmental laws (25 ) and these laws are increasingly being undemocratically used by State and local government to override and erode property rights of NSW landholders (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85). I then asked: Do you support the Gaia inspired UN driven reversal of our traditional anthropocentric legal system and its replacement with a ‘plants come first humans come last’ biocentric system? Have you advised the public about this? You decided to completely ignore this legal question, preferring instead to refer it to other Ministers such as the Minister for Education. Why? Do you feel you are not qualified to answer legal questions? If you are not responsible for overseeing the direction of the NSW legal system please explain why and refer me to the person who is responsible. I provide further documentary evidence below and ask again: Do you support the Gaia inspired UN driven reversal of our traditional anthropocentric legal system and its replacement with a ‘plants come first humans come last’ biocentric system? Have you advised the public about this? Justice Preston and others confirm that the anthropocentric basis of the NSW legal system is being undermined so the system is being converted into a virtual plants come first humans come last ecocentric system. You are overseeing this process. Are you directly responsible for these changes? Do you approve of these changes? If not, what will you do to restore anthropocentrism in the NSW legal system? REWRITING THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO ENFORCE THE RIGHTS OF PLANTS & THE ENVIRONMENT Agenda 21 is firmly rooted in the Gaia philosophy of the Earth Charter and Agenda 21 architects such as Maurice Strong. The Gaians or earth worshippers support a biocentric world view or ecocentric world view where humans become of secondary importance to the environment and ecosystem. In other words, plants come first humans come last. This biocentric or ecocentric Gaian world view is pervasively infiltrating our legal and political systems and scientific facts no longer matter. As has been noted by Henry Lamb in The Rise of Global Green Religion: “The paradigm shift from anthropocentrism to biocentrism is increasingly evident in public policy and in the documents which emanate from the United Nations and from the federal government. Public policies are being formulated in response to biocentric enlightenment, rather than in response to scientific evidence.” According to Bosselmann and Taylor in their essay about the Significance of the Earth Charter in International Law, The Earth Charter “challenges the anthropocentric idea of justice”. The Earth Charter was initiated by Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev , and was adopted by the Australian government in 2005. Anthropocentrism, the traditional basis of NSW laws (32), has now been overturned and replaced by a Gaia driven (39, 40) UN Agenda 21 ecocentric world view where the environment, and animals, reign supreme and man’s place in the world is secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38). This philosophy now forms the basis of new environmental laws and the flourishing NSW environmental legal system (25, 26 ). As has been noted by Pain (25, 26): “environmental legislation has moved away from being ‘anthropocentric-and-development orientated’ towards legislation that is ‘more environment-centred’.” In regard to an ecocentric view of property rights, Peter Burdon notes in his thesis, Earth jurisprudence: private property and earth community: “The central argument of this thesis is that the institution of private property reflects an anthropocentric worldview and is contributing to the current environmental crisis. ……It advocates a paradigm shift in law from anthropocentrism to the concept of Earth community. The thesis first provides an example laws anthropocentrism by exploring the legal philosophical concept of private property. ….It concludes that the dominant rightsbased theory of private property is anthropocentric and facilitates environmental harm. The second component of the thesis explores contemporary scientific evidence supporting the ecocentric concept of Earth community.. This concept argues that human beings are deeply connected and dependent on nature. It also describes the Earth as a community of subjects and not a collection of objects. Assuming that the social sphere is an important source for law, this thesis considers how a paradigm shift from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism can influence the development of legal concepts. To catalyse this shift, it considers the ‘new story’ proposed by cultural historian and theologian Thomas Berry. This story describes contemporary scientific insights such as interconnectedness in a narrative form Third, the thesis uses the alternative paradigm of Earth community to articulate an emerging legal philosophy called Earth Jurisprudence. It describes Earth Jurisprudence as a theory of natural law and advocates for the recognition of two kinds of law, organised in a hierarchical relationship. At the apex is the Great Law, which represents the principle of Earth community. Beneath the Great Law is Human Law, which represents rules articulated by human authorities, which are consistent with the Great Law and enacted for the common good of the comprehensive Earth Community. In regard to the interrelationship between these two legal categories, two points are crucial. Human Law derives its legal quality from the Great Law and any law in contravention of this standard is considered a corruption of law and not morally binding on a population. Finally, the thesis constructs an alternative concept of private property based on the philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence. It describes private property as a relationship between members of the Earth community, through tangible or intangible items. To be consistent with the philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence, the concept of private property must recognise human social relationships, include nonreciprocal duties and obligations; and respond to the ‘thing’ which is the subject matter of a property relationship. A theory of private property that overlooks any of these considerations is defective and deserves to be labelled such.” Supporters of this world view, who believe property rights should be transferred from humans to plants and the environment, are insidiously rewriting our laws to support their bizarre world view. According to Justice Preston, Chief Judge of the NSW Land & Environment Court, Earth should be run like a spaceship: “An increasing recognition of the first law of ecology – that everything is connected to everything else27 – and that the Earth’s ecosystem is, in a sense, a spaceship,28 may necessitate more sweeping positive obligations on landowners. Sax argues that ‘property owners must bear affirmative obligations to use their property in the service of habitable planet’. Sax recommends that: ‘We increasingly will have to employ land and other natural resources to maintain and restore the natural functioning of natural systems. More forest land will have to be left as forest, both to play a role in climate and as habitat. More water will have to be left instream to maintain marine ecosystems. More coastal wetland will have to be left as zones of biological productivity. We already recognise that there is no right to use air and water as waste sinks, and no right to contaminate the underground with toxic residue. In short there will be – there is being – imposed a servitude on our resources, a first call on them to play a role in maintaining a habitable and congenial planet … We shall have to move that way, for only when the demands of the abovementioned public servitude of habitability has been met will resources be available for private benefits. To fulfil the demands of that servitude, each owner will have to bear an affirmative responsibility, to act as a trustee insofar as the fate of the earth is entrusted to him. Each inhabitant will effectively have a right in all such property sufficient to ensure servitude is enforced. Every opportunity for private gain will have to yield to the exigencies of a life-sustaining planet.’ Sax’s call for private gain to yield to the existences of a life-sustaining planet is encapsulated in the concept of ecologically sustainable development.” Justice Preston summarises ecocentrism thus: “Ecocentrism involves taking a nature-centred rather than a human-centred approach, where the earth is valued not as a commodity belonging to us but a community to which we belong. Development of an earth jurisprudence requires the internalisation of ecocentrism in environmental law. It involves listening to the earth and adapting law to ecology. It values and gives voice to the environment. This paper surveys some ways in which environmental law can embrace ecocentrism” The NSW government has integrated Agenda 21 and Agenda 21 related biocentric/ecocentric programs into its environmental/sustainability policies, its planning policies, its local government policies, and its education policies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). The decision of the NSW government not to utilise a democratic locally designed sustainability program, but rather to import an ecocentric sustainability policy which has been designed by a foreign agency (UN), and is monitored and supervised by a foreign agency (UN), poses a fundamental and ongoing threat to the sovereignty and democracy of NSW and all of its residents. Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent the ecocentric principles of this imported undemocratic sustainability program are frequently used to pass judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). Otherwise law abiding citizens are being dragged into court as politicians and lawyers seek to enforce their ecocentric philosophy upon ordinary people. How is this possible? How can any democratic NSW government permit an undemocratic foreign agency such as the UN to attack the human rights, particularly property rights, of NSW residents by legislating to enforce the ecocentric dictates of the UN? This new environment centred ecocentric philosophy or environmental ethics (41, 42 ) has led to an explosion in both the complexity and number of new environmental laws (25 ) and these laws are increasingly being undemocratically used by State and local government to override and erode property rights of NSW landholders (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85). According to David Farrier and Paul Stein in the Environmental Law Handbook: Planning and Land Use in NSW: “The perspective presented by the law has been quite clearly human-centred, or anthropocentric. Instead of looking at the natural environment as having value in its own right, we have looked at it from the point of view of humans. Before a 1997 amendment to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, ‘environment’ was defined in it as including ‘all aspects of the surroundings of man whether affecting him as an individual or in his social groupings’ (s.4(1)). The problem with the human-centred approach to the natural environment is that it leads to an irresistible temptation to view it simply as a resource to be used for our benefit. Decisions are made on the basis of what is good for people rather than what is good for the natural environment. The natural environment becomes a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Perhaps this is inevitable, given that it is human beings who make the law and the decisions. No matter how motivated the human decision-maker is to give some kind of equal status to the integrity of the natural environment, we cannot avoid the fact that a human interpretation of the needs of the natural world will prevail. Recently, there have been attempts to modify the anthropocentric focus of environmental law. There is a changing consciousness about the interconnectedness of all living species and systems, encapsulated in a concern for the conservation of biological diversity. This has given rise to a new definition of ‘environment’ in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act (see page 4), and the enactment of legislation such as the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, which seeks to protect ecological communities and the critical habitat of threatened species (see chapter 11). This change in emphasis, however, can also be justified in terms of the future interests of humanity. For example, restrictions on certain developments can be justified because of the need to preserve plants whose pharmacological properties have not yet been identified. And there are ecological processes, many of them still poorly understood, that provide ecosystem services such as water purification and soil fertilisation. Humans ultimately depend on, and benefit from, these processes.” The decline of anthropocentrism and the rise of modern environmentalism is creating a future where basic human rights, including the right to private property, will be challenged on environmental grounds. Not only the rights of plants and ecosystems, but also the rights of future generations will be utilised to justify removal of the human rights of the present generation. We can therefore look forward to a future where fundamental human rights will be considered secondary to the rights of the “environment” and persons who do not exist. According to Justice McClellan: “It cannot be assumed that environmental law and the role of the Land and Environment Court will be free of controversy in the future. Some of the issues which the Court must deal with raise questions of fundamental human rights. All of them affect the lives of some or a group of people in our community. Many will involve very substantial money profits or losses to individuals or corporations. The court must contribute to the task of balancing the immediate needs of the present generation with the trust we hold for those who will come after us.” Increasingly, the rights of private land owners are being eroded under the guise of environmental concerns, the UN biodiversity programme and Agenda 21, and the principles of distributive justice and intergenerational justice. According to Gerry Bates at the Conference on Rural Land Use Change: “Government has progressively moved to wrest management of natural resources away from private control and unlimited public access. It is common now for water, fish and biodiversity to be vested in and controlled by the Crown*. Legislation then creates government authorities charged with the task of managing these resources, and implementing and enforcing the statutory scheme. Environmental restrictions imposed by legislation, of course, cut across common law rights; but centuries of legal and cultural tradition that support the pre-eminence of the rights of private landowners cannot be easily overcome; and such rights still have a considerable influence on the development of environmental policy and therefore of environmental law. The governmental approach to environmental management and protection has had to be applied in the context of a social system, supported by the common law, that hitherto placed few restrictions on the exploitation of natural resources by private landowners.” *Emphasis added Agenda 21, which all levels of government continue to enthusiastically embrace, is an undemocratic biocentric/ecocentric United Nations designed and monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77). It is absolutely astonishing and completely unacceptable that foreign designed and monitored biocentric/ecocentric programs such as Agenda 21 have been actively and pervasively embedded into NSW planning and legislation while residents have NEVER been given a democratic choice. You are the Minister responsible for justice. What do you intend to do regarding this unjust treatment and betrayal of NSW residents? And do you intend to continue to support the insidious undemocratic conversion of the NSW legal system to an ecocentric system? If not, what action will you take to prevent this and when? Regards Graham Williamson Dear Mr Williamson Thank you for your recent correspondence to the office of the Attorney General and Minister for Justice, the Hon Greg Smith SC MP. The matters raised do not fall under the portfolio responsibility of the NSW Attorney General and Minister for Justice. Therefore, we have forwarded your correspondence to; 1. The Hon. Robyn Parker MP Minister for the Environment 2. The Hon. Brad Hazzard MP Minister for Planning and Infrastructure &Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW 3. The Hon. Adrian Piccoli MP Minister for Education 4. The Hon. Don Page MP Minister for Local Government I trust your correspondence will receive attention as soon as possible… Kind regards Mr Greg Smith, MP Attorney General and Minister for Justice Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sir, The NSW government has integrated Agenda 21 and Agenda 21 related programs into its environmental/sustainability policies, its planning policies, its local government policies, and its education policies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). The decision of the NSW government not to utilise a democratic locally designed sustainability program, but rather to import a sustainability policy which has been designed by a foreign agency (UN), and is monitored and supervised by a foreign agency (UN), poses a fundamental and ongoing threat to the sovereignty and democracy of NSW and all of its residents. Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent the principles of this imported undemocratic sustainability program are frequently used to pass judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). How is this possible? How can any democratic NSW government permit an undemocratic foreign agency such as the UN to attack the human rights, particularly property rights, of NSW residents by legislating to enforce the dictates of the UN? Traditionally NSW laws have been based upon “anthropocentrism” (32), the belief that humankind had dominion over the environment and the plants and animals of which it is comprised. In recent years however, this has been reversed so that our legal system is now increasingly based upon a Gaia driven (39, 40) UN Agenda 21 world view where anthropocentrism is overturned and is replaced by a new order where the environment, and animals, reign supreme and man’s place in the world is secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38). This philosophy now forms the basis of new environmental laws and the flourishing NSW environmental legal system (25, 26 ). As has been noted by Pain (25, 26): “environmental legislation has moved away from being ‘anthropocentric-and-development orientated’ towards legislation that is ‘more environment-centred’.” This new environment centred philosophy or environmental ethics (41, 42 ) as opposed to a human centred or anthropocentric philosophy, has led to an explosion in both the complexity and number of new environmental laws (25 ) and these laws are increasingly being undemocratically used by State and local government to override and erode property rights of NSW landholders (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85). Do you support the Gaia inspired UN driven reversal of our traditional anthropocentric legal system and its replacement with a ‘plants come first humans come last’ biocentric system? Have you advised the public about this? Agenda 21, which your government continues to enthusiastically embrace, is an undemocratic United Nations designed and monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77)… It is absolutely astonishing and completely unacceptable that foreign designed and monitored programs such as Agenda 21 have been actively and pervasively embedded into NSW planning and legislation while residents have NEVER been given a democratic choice. What will you do about this? Recently, because of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 and the serious threat it poses to human rights, particularly property rights, the following law was passed by the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (78): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1. (b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama. (c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” Are you prepared to represent the interests of NSW residents by giving them this same protection, as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property rights of local landholders? If not, why not? In view of the above facts I seek answers to the following questions. 1. Has the NSW government warned residents of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans, their UN origin, and their full agenda and final goals? If so please supply documentary evidence (notices, media releases etc). 2. Does the NSW government have a clear policy to ban all such UN derived Agenda 21 related policies to protect local residents? Please supply documentary evidence, including the time frame for implementation. 3. Has the NSW government offered local residents the choice between a locally designed, monitored and implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative to plans designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? I look forward to receiving clarification of these vitally important matters. Regards Graham Williamson APPENDIX H Correspondence with Minister for Local Government, Don Page Mr Donald Page MP Minister for Local Government Level 33 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sir, I have yet to receive a response to the issues below. Could you please advise your time frame for a meaningful response to these vitally important issues? Regards Graham Williamson From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012 8:04 PM To: office@page.minister.nsw.gov.au Cc: ‘Anne Rinaudo’ Subject: RE: Agenda item 21 Mr Donald Page MP Minister for Local Government Level 33 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sir, In my previous emails (see below) I asked about your policy in regard to Agenda 21(1, 1a) and its implementation at the local government level. I also provided voluminous back up documentation showing the implementation of Agenda by the NSW government, and by local governments of NSW ( 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23), none of which was refuted by you. Given the fact that the Department of Local Government is overseeing the implementation of Agenda 21 by local Councils throughout NSW ( 24 , 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39) under your guidance, I was absolutely astonished to receive the following response from you: “Dear Mr Williamson Thank you for your emails. However, the matters you raise in relation to the United Nations and changes in laws in Alabama are not issues which fall under the responsibilities of the Minister for Local Government and Minister for the North Coast.” Are you deliberately, for some reason, attempting to avoid discussing your policy regarding implementation of Agenda 21 at the local government level in NSW? If so. Why? Why would you seek to abandon ministerial responsibility for the local government portfolio in such a fashion? Even the Attorney General’s Department has advised me it is your responsibility so your abandonment of your ministerial responsibility raises serious questions indeed. Given your responsibility for the implementation of AG 21 at the local government level I also drew your attention to the undemocratic and foreign nature of this program: Agenda 21 however is an undemocratic United Nations designed and monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77). Recently, because of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 and the serious threat it poses to human rights, particularly property rights, the following law was passed by the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (78): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1. (b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama. (c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” I then asked: Are you prepared to represent the interests of NSW residents by giving them this same protection, as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property rights of local landholders? If not, why not? In view of the above facts I seek answers to the following questions. 14. Has the NSW government warned residents of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans, their UN origin, and their full agenda and final goals? If so please supply documentary evidence (notices, media releases etc). 15. Does the NSW government have a clear policy to ban all such UN derived Agenda 21 related policies to protect local residents? Please supply documentary evidence, including the time frame for implementation. 16. Has the NSW government offered local residents the choice between a locally designed, monitored and implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative to plans designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? Although you are overseeing the implementation of AG 21 at the local government level you not only expressed no concern whatsoever about the above matters, you even chose to pretend implementation of Agenda 21 by local government in NSW is not your responsibility. Why? I further noted that according to various experts government officials often prefer to mislead the public by avoiding the term “Agenda 21” and using instead terms such as (40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45) “sustainability”, “smart growth”, “growth management” or “local environmental plans”. Deliberate deception of the public it seems, is fundamental to the success of the program (45): “Agenda 21 is being implemented in the U.S. under various names to deceive the unsuspecting public as to the source and real purpose of the program. However identifying the programs is relatively easy. All you have to do is look for the keywords……..Everything associated with this program is deceptive. The language they use, the names they give the projects, the means by which they lure local governments into the trap and then slam the door – absolutely everything is deceptive from beginning to end.” And the deceit is endemic throughout Australia (46): “Throughout Australia it seems that there has been widespread uncertainty about the meaning, scope and value of the term ‘Local Agenda 21’……..Some councils have chosen, for a variety of reasons, not to call their initiatives ‘LA21’ “…….”However, this is not to say that LA21 is not happening within Australia. On the contrary there is Local Agenda 21 activity in every state and territory and many councils are working on projects that have at their core the processes of LA21, although they may not necessarily be using that terminology.” Will you be promoting a more honest and open policy in regard to educating the public about Agenda 21? As you realise, the implementation of Agenda 21 is also monitored by the UN, participating countries being required to report back to the UN on a regular basis (47, 48, 49, 50). The UN describes the monitoring and reporting provisions for Agenda 21 in chapter 38.11. The Commonwealth of course, provides these reports to the UN from implementation progress at state and local government levels. In fact, the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development was established to oversee the implementation of Agenda 21 around the world (47, 48, 50). According to the Commonwealth Government in this regard (50): “The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was established by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) with a mandate to review implementation of the outcomes of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, in particular progress in the implementation of the program of action known as Agenda 21. The CSD held its first substantive session in June 1993 and has met annually since. The 10-year review of the implementation of Agenda 21 culminated in the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) which was held in Johannesburg, South Africa (September, 2002). While the CSD successfully built a profile and improved understanding of sustainable development during its first 10 years, it was recognised at the WSSD that some reforms were required to ensure the continued relevance of its work. The WSSD Plan of Implementation (POI) called for reform of the CSD within its existing mandate (as adopted un UNGA resolution 47/191). In particular, the POI recommended : · Limiting negotiating sessions to every two years; · Re-considering the scheduling and duration of intersessional meetings; and · Limiting the number of themes addressed in each session. An enhanced role for the CSD in monitoring and reporting on progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and in facilitation of partnerships was also recommended.” Following are some of the typical United Nations land use questions the government is required to answer to check implementation of Agenda 21 at the local level (51): “4. Agenda 21 called for the review and development of policies to support the best possible use of land and sustainable management of land resources, with a target date not later than 1996. Please describe progress that your country has made towards meeting this target. 6. Please explain briefly, to what extent are plans for expansion of human settlements reviewed with respect to the impacts on farmlands, landscape, forest land, wetlands and biological diversity. ANNEX: OVERALL EVALUATION OF INTEGRATED APPROACH TO THE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF LAND RESOURCES The following section is designed to facilitate an overall evaluation of the progress achieved in various related activities as outlined in Chapter 10. 1. Please provide qualitative rankings on different aspects of integrated land use planning and management that your Government has been able to achieve at different levels of success since UNCED. In order to guide your answers (i.e. giving a rating to every box) the qualitative rankings are ordered on a scale from 1-5: 5 – distinguishing or outstanding achievements 4 – clear and apparent achievements 3 – only slight achievements 2 – no achievements at all 1 – worse than before UNCED Rankings Activities [4] Development of a national policy or strategy on integrated land management [4] Development of policies that have encouraged sustainable land use and management of land resources [5] Review of the regulatory frameworks related to land use and management [4] Formulation and adoption of land use zoning [3] Institutional set-up for monitoring land use regulations [4] Formulation and adoption of market-based measures [4] Information compilation and land capability analysis [5] Identification of data gaps [5] Identification of major challenges and issues related to the implementation of integrated land use and management approach at nation-wide level 82 2. What level of importance is attached to the different functions of land in your country? Please provide qualitative ranking of the major functions or characteristics of land (i.e. give a rating to every box) on a scale from 1-4. 4 – Very high importance 3 – Highly important 2 – only slightly important 1 – not important at all Ranking Major functions/characteristics of land [1] Food security [4] Rural development [4] Rural viability [4] Environmental sustainability (protection/recovery/rehabilitation/enhancement) [4] Improved policies and institutions [4] Economic development [4] Poverty reduction and equity [4] Social cohesion” Will you be publicising the above facts and educating the public (and councils) about the full details and end goals of Local Agenda 21? Will the government be officially including Agenda 21 in government policy or do you prefer to continue to implement this program through local governments without including it as a policy? Regards Graham Williamson From: Anne Rinaudo [mailto:Anne.Rinaudo@minister.nsw.gov.au] Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012 9:51 AM To: grahamhw@iprimus.com.au Subject: FW: Agenda item 21 Dear Mr Williamson, Please accept my apologies, unfortunately the email reply to your request was mistakenly sent to an incorrect email address. The reply is below. Kind regards Anne Rinaudo Policy Advisor Minister for Local Government and the North Coast _____________________________________________ Email: anne.rinaudo@minister.nsw.gov.au Tel: 02 9228 3403 Fax: 02 9228 3442 This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily those of the office of the Minister. Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: Public Page’s Office Email Sent: Monday, 6 August 2012 11:56 AM To: ‘grahamw@iprimus.com.au’ Subject: Agenda item 21 Dear Mr Williamson Thank you for your emails. However, the matters you raise in relation to the United Nations and changes in laws in Alabama are not issues which fall under the responsibilities of the Minister for Local Government and Minister for the North Coast. Kind regards Anne Rinaudo Policy Advisor Minister for Local Government and the North Coast _____________________________________________ Email: anne.rinaudo@minister.nsw.gov.au Tel: 02 9228 3403 Fax: 02 9228 3442 APPENDIX I Correspondence with the NSW Minister for Planning & Infrastructure Brad Hazzard Mr Brad Hazzard, MP Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sir, I have still received no response to the vitally important issues raised in the below email. When can I expect a meaningful response? Is your continuing non-response indicative of your complete lack of concern about these issues? Regards Graham Williamson From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012 9:11 AM To: office@hazzard.minister.nsw.gov.au Cc: office@premier.nsw.gov.au Subject: FW: Agenda 21 policy Mr Brad Hazzard, MP Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Mr Hazzard, The below emails remain unanswered. When can I expect an answer to the extremely important issues contained therein? Regards Graham Williamson From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012 7:31 PM To: office@hazzard.minister.nsw.gov.au Cc: office@premier.nsw.gov.au Subject: FW: Agenda 21 policy Mr Brad Hazzard, MP Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Mr Hazzard, The below emails remain unanswered. When can I expect an answer to the extremely important issues contained therein? Regards Graham Williamson From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Saturday, 21 July 2012 7:16 AM To: office@hazzard.minister.nsw.gov.au Subject: Agenda 21 policy Mr Brad Hazzard, MP Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Mr Hazzard, The NSW government has integrated Agenda 21 and Agenda 21 related programs into its environmental/sustainability policies, its planning policies, its local government policies, and its education policies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent it is frequently used to pass judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). Traditionally NSW laws have been based upon “anthropocentrism” (32), the belief that humankind had dominion over the environment and the plants and animals of which it is comprised. In recent years however, this has been reversed so that our legal system is now increasingly based upon a Gaia driven (39, 40) UN Agenda 21 world view where anthropocentrism is overturned and is replaced by a new order where the environment, and animals, reign supreme and man’s place in the world is secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38). This philosophy now forms the basis of new environmental laws and the flourishing NSW environmental legal system (25, 26 ). As has been noted by Pain (25, 26): “environmental legislation has moved away from being ‘anthropocentric-and-development orientated’ towards legislation that is ‘more environment-centred’.” This new environment centred philosophy or environmental ethics (41, 42 ) as opposed to a human centred or anthropocentric philosophy, has led to an explosion in both the complexity and number of new environmental laws (25 ) and these laws are increasingly being undemocratically used by State and local government to override and erode property rights of NSW landholders (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57). Agenda 21 however is an undemocratic United Nations designed and monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77). It is absolutely astonishing and completely unacceptable that foreign designed and monitored programs such as Agenda 21 have been actively and pervasively embedded into NSW planning and legislation while residents have NEVER been given a democratic choice. What will you do about this? Recently, because of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 and the serious threat it poses to human rights, particularly property rights, the following law was passed by the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (78): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1. (b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama. (c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” Are you prepared to represent the interests of NSW residents by giving them this same protection, as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property rights of local landholders? If not, why not? In view of the above facts I seek answers to the following questions. 1. Has the NSW government warned residents of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans, their UN origin, and their full agenda and final goals? If so please supply documentary evidence (notices, media releases etc). 2. Does the NSW government have a clear policy to ban all such UN derived Agenda 21 related policies to protect local residents? Please supply documentary evidence, including the time frame for implementation. 3. Has the NSW government offered local residents the choice between a locally designed, monitored and implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative to plans designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? I look forward to receiving clarification of these vitally important matters. Regards Graham Williamson UNANSWERED EMAIL OF 29th JUNE Dear Sir, I am alarmed at the pervasive infiltration of foreign UN Agenda 21 (1) associated programs at all levels of state and local government in NSW (3, 4, 5, 6 , 7 ,8 , 9 , 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15 , 16, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61) and the continuing refusal of the NSW government to reverse this undemocratic trend. Rather than inform Australians about the UN origins of Agenda 21 or the intended radical end results of the total agenda, government officials often seek to conceal the truth by using terms such as (2, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28) “sustainability”, “smart growth”, “growth management” or “local environmental plans”. Deliberate deception of the public it seems, is fundamental to the success of the program (28): “Agenda 21 is being implemented in the U.S. under various names to deceive the unsuspecting public as to the source and real purpose of the program. However identifying the programs is relatively easy. All you have to do is look for the keywords……..Everything associated with this program is deceptive. The language they use, the names they give the projects, the means by which they lure local governments into the trap and then slam the door – absolutely everything is deceptive from beginning to end.” And the deceit is endemic throughout Australia also (29): “Throughout Australia it seems that there has been widespread uncertainty about the meaning, scope and value of the term ‘Local Agenda 21’……..Some councils have chosen, for a variety of reasons, not to call their initiatives ‘LA21’ “…….”However, this is not to say that LA21 is not happening within Australia. On the contrary there is Local Agenda 21 activity in every state and territory and many councils are working on projects that have at their core the processes of LA21, although they may not necessarily be using that terminology.” Agenda 21 and LA 21, inspired by Mikhail Gorbachev and Maurice Strong who formed the Earth Charter, amounts to a socialistic global land grab to control and outlaw private land ownership (62, 63, 64, 65, 66). Those behind the United Nations global sustainability push believe more in the rights of animals, plants, and people not yet born, than they do about everyday Australians and their families. Do you support this gaia driven biocentric philosophy which forms the basis of Agenda 21? But, most conspicuously, as with all these United Nations motivated visions for the future, Commonwealth, State, and local governments, seem to have abandoned any concept of democracy, freedom, and ensuring individual rights. Our elected representatives are spending billions of dollars on protecting the rights of plants, animals, and people not yet born. At the same time they are attacking the rights and freedoms of real people and real families. What sort of vision do we have if we do not include exact details of our plans to protect freedom and democracy? Increasingly, the rights of private land owners are being eroded by Australian governments acting as agents of the UN against the interests of the Australian people, all under the guise of environmental concerns (68 ): “Government has progressively moved to wrest management of natural resources away from private control and unlimited public access. It is common now for water, fish and biodiversity to be vested in and controlled by the Crown*. Legislation then creates government authorities charged with the task of managing these resources, and implementing and enforcing the statutory scheme. Environmental restrictions imposed by legislation, of course, cut across common law rights; but centuries of legal and cultural tradition that support the pre-eminence of the rights of private landowners cannot be easily overcome; and such rights still have a considerable influence on the development of environmental policy and therefore of environmental law. The governmental approach to environmental management and protection has had to be applied in the context of a social system, supported by the common law, that hitherto placed few restrictions on the exploitation of natural resources by private landowners.” *Emphasis added Do you support this UN driven process of using environmental concerns to control & restrict the rights of land owners? In Chapter 38 of Agenda 21 the United Nations describes the necessary powers to administer and implement Agenda 21 and initiates the formation of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) to oversee and monitor the implementation of Agenda 21. According to Chapter 39 countries should ensure they cooperate with the requirements of Agenda 21 as set out by the United Nations (67 ): “The parties to international agreements should consider procedures and mechanisms to promote and review their effective, full and prompt implementation. To that effect, States could, inter alia: (a) Establish efficient and practical reporting systems on the effective, full and prompt implementation of international legal instruments; (b) Consider appropriate ways in which relevant international bodies, such as UNEP, might contribute towards the further development of such mechanisms.” Strangely, membership of the CSD which will oversee Australia’s compliance with the requirements of Agenda 21, includes various extremist and despotic regimes who deny basic human rights to their own citizens. According to Windsor (110) “many of the world’s worst violators of human rights and democratic standards have joined in loose coalitions at the United Nations to deflect attention from their records of repression.” Interestingly, “North Korea is not only on the Human Rights Council, It was appointed to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UN CSD) even though many of its people routinely suffer from starvation because of the regime’s totalitarian nature”(111, 112). In fact, the CSD is comprised of many undemocratic totalitarian countries (112, 113). These countries will be overseeing Australia’s progress. Do you approve of this and why haven’t you advised the people of NSW? Meanwhile, Australian schoolchildren are being ‘educated’ in line with the instructions contained within the United Nations global ecological sustainability program ( 69, 70, 71 , 72, 73, 90 ). These educational initiatives are in response to the United Nations Agenda 21 program and their global sustainability requirements (74 ). According to John Aquilina (69): “The New South Wales Government is a world leader in supporting environmental education in schools, with particular attention being given to Agenda 21, a global policy outcome of the 1992 Earth Summit. Agenda 21 has been recognised by the New South Wales Government as the basis for an internationally agreed course of action towards sustainability. This has led to legislation in a number of areas, including the Protection of the Environment Amendment (Environmental Education) Act, 1998.” Do you support this UN driven indoctrination of schoolchildren? Not only have the people of NSW never been given a democratic choice about the NSW government’s implementation of UN based Agenda 21 associated initiatives, but from the evidence above it is clear there have even been attempts to deliberately conceal the true UN origin and goals of the program by the use of more innocuous names. This persistent refusal of the government to properly inform Australians about Agenda 21 and the United Nations global sustainability campaign is not only in breach of fundamental freedoms and the ability to make an informed democratic choice, it is also in direct violation of the basic human right to participate in elections and political processes. These rights (75) “are protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR).” The right to participate in Agenda 21 and other political or public policy processes (which of course, should also include the right not to participate – but that is another matter!) includes the right to be correctly and fully informed, as is noted by Picolotti (76): “Informative participation Informative participation implies an exchange of information and knowledge on certain issues of concern to the community. The community provides information to the state and vice versa, enabling each to make proper decisions about how they administer resources, which leads to more optimal resource management.” Successive Australian & NSW governments have not only been guilty of gross negligence in refusing to fully inform Australians of the long term goals and totality of the Agenda 21 and sustainability initiatives, but further, they are also guilty of consistently violating fundamental human rights relating to the right to participate. Not only have they failed to inform the voting public of the totality and long term goals of the UN Agenda 21 sustainability initiatives, but further, there is even evidence that attempts have been made to conceal the truth by the use of innocuous descriptive labels the aim of which is to distance Australian initiatives from the their UN global origins. But this violation of human rights is still continuing as the government still refuses to publicise the totality and goals of their agenda, thereby actively preventing Australians from making an informed democratic choice. Do you continue to support this removal of democratic choice and refusal to clearly spell out the UN origin of the Agenda 21 program? Or will you follow the overseas precedent (77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89) and ban UN gaia driven (94) Agenda 21 associated programs until residents of NSW have been granted a genuine informed democratic choice? Currently the rights of NSW residents, particularly landowners, are under attack on so many fronts and yet the NSW government appears to be part of the problem, with their UN driven gaia motivated legal pursuit of landowners, rather than part of the solution (91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109). Will you change this? Will you take immediate action to protect landowners and all Australians from intrusive UN driven ‘sustainability’ programs? Will you ban such programs and show allegiance to NSW residents by enabling them to determine their own environmental future or do you feel our future should be determined by foreign undemocratic agencies in a process which is overseen by foreign dictators? Regards Graham Williamson APPENDIX J Transferring Property Rights from Humans to Plants & the Environment: Submission to the NSW Government BioBanking review 1. Putting a Price on Nature: Morality & Responsibility The NSW government seeks to put a price on nature, a price on every blade of grass, every animal, every insect, even microrganisms and the ecosystem itself. Since the ecosystem will be valued and revalued at the whim of government, this of course, includes every rock, leaf, log, or dead tree. A dead tree or log harbouring termites after all, is an important part of the ecosystem. And the government wants the power to control the value of all these components of nature. This clearly is a full out frontal attack on private property, the rights of all land holders (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). It is unjust, immoral, and fundamentally antiAustralian. This aspect has recently been addressed by David Leyonhjelm in an article entitled (3) “Property rights gone for the ‘general good’.” According to Leyonhjelm (3): WHEN the great William Blackstone codified the English common law in the 1760s, he placed great significance on property rights. In his view: ‘So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community.’ Although they are among the inheritors of the common law, farmers have watched in dismay as their property rights have dwindled in the face of government encroachments, always defended as for the “general good of the whole community”. The rain that falls on their property may now comprise part of the water rights owned by someone else. There are major restrictions on the subdivision of land for lifestyle blocks. Riparian rights and biodiversity corridors reduce property options. Mineral rights are owned by the Crown, allowing others to explore without permission. Justin Jefferson has also acknowledged the threat to private property posed by the NSW Native Vegetation Act (2): “For starters, here in the Monaro the overwhelming effect of the Act in practice is actually to promote the spread and restrict the fighting of African lovegrass. This means more weeds and less native vegetation, less biodiversity and less sustainability. So the Act is selfdefeating. It can’t justified be even in its own terms. But it gets worse. The Act simply 1: ASSUMES that all property should and does belong to the state; 2: ASSUMES that the state knows best in all and any decision-making; and it; 3: ASSUMES that social co-operation based on force and threats and central planning is intrinsically better than social co-operation based on consent and freedom and property. All these assumptions are wrong and offensive. They have been disproved both in theory and in practice over and over and over again at enormous cost in human suffering. The Act reverses the onus of proof: you’re guilty until proven innocent. It authorises intrusive search without a warrant. It abolishes the right to silence: it compels you to incriminate yourself. It authorises evidence by executive decree. It effectively confiscates freehold property rights without compensation in breach of the Constitution. The Act is oppressive and abusive.” As has recently been pointed out by Lorraine Finlay (8), the government attack on private property rights, which is occurring on many fronts, is completely at odds with frequent public statements about human rights or individual rights. The fundamental importance of private property rights in regard to human freedom have also been noted by Finlay (8): “the protection of property rights has evolved to mean owners have the right to obtain benefits from their property, including the right to put it to productive use and to dispose of it through sale”8. Property rights therefore encompass “the right to own property, the right to dispose of property and the right to exclude others”9. Since that time leading philosophers and political thinkers have emphasized the link between private property rights and the protection of individual liberty. This was noted by 4 Henry Maine, who claimed that the history of individual property rights and history of civilization “cannot be disentangled”11. Similarly, John Adams observed that12: ‘Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty … The moment that the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of god, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist’. This paper argues that private property rights are just as important today as in the past. The link between property rights and individual liberty remains relevant in the modern context, and the foundations for both individual freedoms and economic security may be found in private property rights. In relation to this point, it has been emphasized that19: ‘Without private property rights there is no way to check the power of the state over the individual. When the state gains control over private property rights the ability to create wealth stagnates or even declines, thereby creating poverty and misery rather than freedom and wealth’. There is a well established causal link between property rights and higher standards of living21, with the ownership of private property motivating individuals ‘to improve the productivity and value of assets in the realization that family and designated heirs may benefit from such endeavour’22. In short, ‘*the evidence is irrefutable that the protection of property rights is the key to wealth accumulation and secure and stable societies’23.” But in spite of the fundamental importance of private property rights, the NSW government is busily involved in plotting against landholders and tying their properties up in so much green tape they become unusable and worthless (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). One case in point is the disgraceful case of Peter Spencer (8). As Finlay indicates, these problems have been noted by the Productivity Commission (8): “In the 2004 Inquiry Report into the Impacts of Native Vegetation and Biodiversity Regulations the Productivity Commission concluded that while the retention, management and rehabilitation of native vegetation and biodiversity were important objectives, “existing regulatory approaches are not as effective as they could be in promoting these objectives and impose significant costs”64. In particular, it was concluded that the effectiveness of the clearing restrictions had been compromised, that “perverse environmental outcomes” often resulted and that landholders “… are being prevented from developing their properties, switching to more profitable land use, and from introducing costsaving innovations. Arbitrary reclassification of regrowth vegetation as remnant and restrictions on clearing woodland thickening in some jurisdictions are reducing yields and areas that can be used for agricultural production”65 Since the Zimbabwe experience shows exactly what happens when private property rights are lost (8), it is up to all Australian governments to respect private property rights, respect landowners, and respect freedom which is so fundamental to all Australians (8): “If we are not able to build an environment in which the general public, politicians and government bureaucrats are all encouraged to respect and value private property rights, then we will continue to see the gradual erosion of property rights regardless of any changes that may be made to the surrounding legal framework.” The moral acceptability of putting a price on everything (17, 18, 19) including water and the air we exhale, is clearly paving the way for putting a price on every component of nature, commonly referred to as ecological economics (20, 21). Of course the idea that a monetary value can be placed upon every animal, plant, insect, microorganism, and ecosystem is not only ridiculous, it is morally reprehensible and scientifically impossible. In fact, reducing nature to a monetary value is necessarily a move to devalue nature and give humans the ability to decide the absolute and relative worth of not only living things, but also systems. It is fundamentally and intrinsically hypocritical and contradictory to suggest that nature will become more valuable, and more readily conserved, by devaluing it and defining it in terms of human currency. According to Monbiot (20): “The UK government’s assessment of the “value” of nature is pure reductionist gobbledegook, dressed up in the language of objectivity and reason but ascribing prices to emotional responses: prices, which, for all the high-falutin’ language it uses, can only be arbitrary. It has been constructed by people who feel safe only with numbers, who must drag the whole world into their comfort zone in order to feel that they have it under control…………The second problem is that it delivers the natural world into the hands of those who would destroy it. Picture, for example, a planning enquiry for an opencast coal mine. The public benefits arising from the forests and meadows it will destroy have been costed at £1m per year. The income from opening the mine will be £10m per year. No further argument needs to be made. The coal mine’s barrister, presenting these figures to the enquiry, has an indefeasible case: public objections have already been addressed by the pricing exercise; there is nothing more to be discussed. When you turn nature into an accounting exercise, its destruction can be justified as soon as the business case comes out right. It almost always comes out right……………….This is the machine into which nature must now be fed. The National Ecosystem Assessment hands the biosphere on a plate to the construction industry. It’s the definitive neoliberal triumph: the monetisation and marketisation of nature, its reduction to a tradeable asset.” The cost of calculating the value of nature seems incomprehensible. It has recently been calculated that in Canberra the planting of 400,000 trees has had (22) “a combined energy reduction, pollution mitigation and carbon sequestration value of US$20–67 million during the period 2008–2012,” or around 11c daily per tree. Whether this allows for the tree having a bad day (or year) from attack by insects is not clear. Clearly there is no moral or scientific basis for reducing nature to a marketable commodity. We have seen that there has been an attack on private property rights by the NSW government as they busily use the environment to tie up landholders. But is their environmental zealotry genuine, or is it just a deliberate devious land grab? What ways has the NSW government legislated to protect the rights of land owners? 2. The Effectiveness of Biobanking or Market Mechanisms for Maintaining or Improving Biodiversity Everyone is concerned about the environment, but is the NSW government drive to control the land of private landowners really about the environment? Historically, as noted by David Leyonhjelm (3), evidence of the environmental benefits of government policies are lacking: “The perverse thing about all this is that there is plenty of evidence to show the environment does better when it is in private hands, away from the tentacles of government. We saw that very clearly in the difference in environmental quality between the former Communist countries and the west when communism collapsed. Here at home we see uncontrolled weeds and feral animals in our government-owned national parks. Quite simply, government control is incompatible with the promotion of environmental values. And as Blackstone would say, the government should stop violating private property”. Indeed, there is no argument that historically it is the governments at all levels who must shoulder the responsibility for degradation of the environment for it is they who have formulated the policies, permitted land development, and organised land planning and land use strategies. In fact, the biodiversity loss and environmental situation today is the result of present and previous government policies (9). Not only have governments presided over wilful habitat destruction and poor town planning, but also they are responsible for most of the enormous environmental damage and biodiversity loss caused by invasive species (9, 10, 11, 12). According to McFadyen (11): “In the 200 years since the arrival of Europeans, over 28,000 foreign plants have been brought to Australia, most deliberately imported for pasture, horticulture or as ornamentals. Their impact is enormous – invasive plants are the main threat to 45% of threatened and endangered species and ecosystems in New South Wales (Coutts-Smith and Downey 2006), and the cost to Australian agriculture is at least $3.5bn per year in lost production and control costs (Sinden et al. 2004). Further, according to the the Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment 2008 (12), “Invasive species and pathogens represent one of the most potent, persistent and widespread threats to Australian biodiversity.” But what have successive government’s done about this? And how is it envisaged that biobanking and other market schemes will reverse or prevent this major threat? Clearly the matter of invasive species alone exposes the whole biobanking/biodiversity marketing scheme as a fraud, somewhat synonymous with the idea that we can control climate by economic instruments. This is highly significant because if environmental policies or biobanking are to be just and have a sound moral basis then the system must be firmly based upon science, and be cost effective, and responsibility for environmental damage must be correctly attributed . The matter of historical responsibility has been considered of the utmost importance when it comes to climate change and a clear precedent has been established in this regard (13, 14, 15, 16). Historical responsibility in fact, because it permits a cumulative assessment of responsibility (13), “is one of the main lines of argument underlying the principle of common but differentiated responsibility for climate change, and the polluter pays principle more generally.” In fact the cumulative aspect is far more important when it comes to biodiversity loss as the permanence and irreversibility are not disputed, unlike CO2. Whether from the point of view of habitat destruction or invasive species, there is absolutely no doubt that all 3 levels of government share most of the responsibility for cumulative biodiversity loss in Australia and therefore, in keeping with a moral and just conservation program, financial penalties should be targeted accordingly. But has biobanking or biodiversity trading been environmentally effective? What are the expectations? Given the above, it is hardly surprising that biobanking or biodiversity trading does not have a history of positive environmental outcomes (23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29). As has been pointed out by the Productivity Commission (28): The high scientific uncertainty associated with biodiversity conservation and salinity mitigation could mean that market creation schemes for these ecosystem services are subject to considerable sovereign risk. In particular, there may be a high probability that the property right associated with a market creation scheme would need to be changed in the future because of new scientific discoveries. This uncertainty could diminish the value of the property right and hence the likelihood that market creation would be effective. We use the term market creation to refer to government intervention to indirectly form markets for ecosystem services whose ownership cannot be enforced. Such intervention involves the definition of a new property right that is both linked to an ecosystem service and can be exchanged for reward. A property right is an entitlement to use a particular good or service in a certain way. For example, the property right for a car entitles its owner to use the car, prevent others from using it, and to sell it to another party.” So the government seeks to redefine every creature, plant or ecosystem as separate property rights and then value, revalue, or devalue each or all at will. But as has been pointed out by the Clarence Environment Centre (29), although scientists have predicted a loss of at least 30% of world diversity due to climate change, “BioBanking proposes to lock landowners into contracts that demand biodiversity values be ‘maintained or improved’ in perpetuity. At the same time it is made clear that: “If participants fail to meet their commitments under the scheme, penalties can be applied”. According to the CEC these requirements are bordering on fraud. The CEC further notes that biobanking is structured to favour developers (29) a view confirmed by Ian Cohen (30), and therefore will result in a net loss of biodiversity (29). Indeed, it must be admitted that the Act is user friendly to developers, the purpose of biobanking being to (31) “streamline biodiversity assessment for development”. Biobanking even offers developers (31) immunity from legal appeals in the Land and Environment Court and (31) “certainty for developers and consent authorities with respect to meeting their threatened species responsibilities.” Landowners however, once locked into biobanking, agree to surrender extensive control of their property forever and this encumbrance, since it is automatically passed to any new land owner, would be expected to devalue the land (31): “Biobanking agreements are registered on the land title and run with the land to bind future landowners. The agreements create a permanent legal obligation for the owner to manage the land either passively or actively, depending on the number of credits sold from the site. Agreements also restrict development, commercial and industrial uses and certain other activities on the land that may have a detrimental effect on biodiversity.” So sweeping and pervasive are these powers that land owners even lose control of the rocks and dead trees on their property (31). Since the emphasis is on the eco “system” rather than individual components of the system, the virtual loss of title surrendered by the land owner is considerable. And if the landholder fails to comply with these requirements there are a range of severe penalties, including an application to have the land title transferred to the Minister under Section 1270 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act (31, 32, 33 ). The transfer of land title under Section 1270 is possible under the following circumstances (33): “(3) An order may be made under this section only where the Court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities: (a) that there is a serious risk to the biodiversity values protected by the biobanking agreement because of the contravention by the person, or (b) that there is no reasonable likelihood of the person complying with the obligations imposed by the biobanking agreement, or (c) that the person has previously committed frequent contraventions of the biobanking agreement, or (d) that the person has persistently and unreasonably delayed complying with the obligations imposed by the biobanking agreement. (4) If the Court makes the order requested, the Court may impose such conditions on the conveyance or transfer of the land as the Court thinks fit. (5) Where land is conveyed or transferred to the Minister, or to a person or body nominated by the Minister, in accordance with an order made under this section, the consideration payable by the Minister, person or body, is to be determined in the same way as the compensation payable under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 in respect of an acquisition of land, but is to be reduced by the amount that, in the opinion of the Court, is equivalent to any outstanding liability of the person to the Minister arising out of contravention of the biobanking agreement. (6) In calculating the consideration payable as referred to in subsection (5), the value of the land is to be determined having regard to the fact that it is subject to a biobanking agreement, and any increase in the value of the land attributable to anything done or omitted to be done in contravention of the biobanking agreement is to be disregarded.” Already these proposals are tying up private land, particularly in rural areas. According to Damien Rogers, these proposals are well advanced in Eurobodalla Shire (36): “Biodiversity Certification is basically a forced version of Biobanking. Few know about it, and fewer understand it. But it is essentially a Development Rights Credit Trading Scheme! Trading development “Credits” taken from land owners, without Just Compensation, or even a requirement to notify owners. Just like Carbon Trading, only this time designed with the cooperation of all three levels of Government (and environmental groups). It is to be run by councils, the DOP and a State Bureaucracy, called the OEH (Office of Environment and Heritage)………..First councils use the “Standard Template LEP” to cover undeveloped Urban and Rural land with numerous restrictive “Overlay” maps, and new Environmental zonings, which severely restrict or stop development. As mentioned, in our Shire, these covered at least 80% (and probably more) of all the private land area of the Shire. (which is already approximately 90% state forest and national parks) Councils can then earn 25% Development Credits for land they restrict in this way. Then when owners on mainly Rural land want to build something, it triggers expensive studies, and funnels most owners into unavoidable “Perpetual Voluntary Agreements”. The more council or the OEH restrict the land, the more Credits they can earn, for perpetual agreements its more like 90%. These “agreements” must then be attached to the owners title deeds, and may now restrict the land forever…….. So here is the real motive. Council, with the DOP and OEH can now control and profit from virtually all future land releases and development. As, for example, unlocking an area of undeveloped urban land, will now likely require a perpetual agreement, and/or that it to be “Biocertified” first. This involves packaging an urban area with a nearby rural area. “Taking” credits from the rural owners (now called “offset” lands). Without Just Compensation, or even a requirement to personally notify owners. Then compelling Urban land owners and developers to bargain with council or the OEH for these Development “Credits”, which were ‘taken’ from others. The deals councils and the OEH make will be in confidential contracts. As developers have pointed out, this will make the cost of new urban land very expensive. But as most Rural blocks will loose their building entitlements, or be sterilized with environmental overlays and zonings, there will be little competition or alternatives for future potential buyers. Giving Councils and the OEH total control, and in effect, a massive monopoly control over urban land development, for their own benefit! Another big plus for Councils and the OEH, is that any urban or rural land they sterilize will then plummet in value.” The suggestion that biobanking schemes may be compulsory, completely and permanently locking up the land of private landholders, is absolutely alarming. Clearly we need a broad ranging enquiry into this exploitation of environmental concerns for short sighted self-interested political agendas. There must be extensive community consultation regarding environmental marketing schemes and biobanking. While the powers over the private landholder are incredibly extensive, the same cannot be said for developers. Under Section 127U and 127S of the Act mining or petroleum activities are specifically exempted, allowing mining companies to trash the environment at will, and existing biobank contracts may be cancelled without compensation (34, 35): “Nothing in this Division: (a) prevents the grant of a mining authority or petroleum title in respect of a biobank site in accordance with the Mining Act 1992 or the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 , or (b) prevents the carrying out, on or in respect of a biobank site, of any activity authorised by a mining authority or petroleum title in accordance with the Mining Act 1992 or the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 .” 127S Prospecting and mining on biobank sites (1) The Minister may, by order published in the Gazette, vary or terminate a biobanking agreement without the consent of the owner of the biobank site if a mining authority or petroleum title is granted in respect of the biobank site and the Minister is of the opinion that the activity authorised by the mining authority or petroleum title: (a) will adversely affect any management actions that may be carried out on the land under the biobanking agreement, or (b) will adversely affect the biodiversity values protected by the biobanking agreement. (2) If the Minister varies or terminates the biobanking agreement under this section, the Minister may, by order in writing to the holder of the mining authority or petroleum title, direct the holder to retire biodiversity credits of a number and class (if any) specified by the Minister within a time specified in the order. (3) A direction may be given to a person under subsection (2) only if biodiversity credits have already been created in respect of management actions that were carried out or proposed to be carried out on the biobank site and have been transferred to any person. (4) The maximum number of biodiversity credits that the holder of the mining authority or petroleum title may be required to retire under the direction is the number of biodiversity credits that have been created in respect of the biobank site. (5) A person must not, without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with a direction under subsection (2). Maximum penalty: 10,000 penalty units. (6) It is not an excuse for a failure to comply with a direction under this section that the person who is the subject of the direction does not, at the time the direction is given, hold a sufficient number of biodiversity credits to comply with the direction. Note: If the person who is the subject of the direction does not hold a sufficient number of credits to comply with the direction, the person may obtain the required number by purchasing them. (7) A court that convicts a person of an offence under subsection (5) may, in addition to or in substitution for any pecuniary penalty for the offence, by order direct the person to retire, in accordance with this Part, biodiversity credits of a specified number and class (if applicable) within a time specified in the order and, if the person does not hold sufficient biodiversity credits to comply with the direction, to acquire the necessary biodiversity credits for the purpose of retiring them. (8) The owner of a biobank site is not entitled to any compensation as a result of the variation or termination of an agreement under this section. (9) Subsection (8) does not affect any right to compensation the owner may have under the Mining Act 1992 , the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 or any other legislation in respect of the grant of the mining authority or petroleum title. (10) In this section: “conviction” includes the making of an order under section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 . CONCLUSION The fact that Biobanking/biodiversity trading schemes are primarily marketing schemes and are therefore NOT primarily intended to generate positive environmental outcomes is evidenced by the following fundamental facts. 1. These schemes completely avoid targeting one of the main causes of biodiversity loss, namely the problem of invasive species. 2. Instead of addressing the causes of cumulative biodiversity loss and pursuing those responsible (governments), responsibility for biodiversity loss is shifted AWAY from those responsible and transferred to current landholders. 3. The underlying philosophy that nature will be conserved by devaluing it and reducing it to a marketable commodity is completely immoral, unjust, and devoid of any semblance of common sense or logic. 4. Biobanking is proposed as a scheme to “streamline” development and prevent legal appeals to the Land & Environment Court. 5. The Act specifically empowers mining companies and oil companies to avoid any environmental responsibilities. The true spirit and essence of environmentalism is completely betrayed by biodiversity trading schemes which are a direct attack on private property rights and an attempt to transfer to government the power to control and put a price on nature. We need to get back to genuine environmentalism and stop exploiting environmentalism for personal or political gain and short sighted self-interested agendas (21): “The scientistic and self-referential controversies in which ecological economists engage drain away the moral power that once sustained environmentalism. This moral power may return if environmentalists employ science not to prescribe goals to society but to help society to achieve goals it already has. Environmentalists may then shape the natural environment of the future rather than model and monetize the environment of the past.” The cost effectiveness of biobanking is a completely unknown quantity. Though I have written to the Department seeking this information I have received no response whatsoever, not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement. Clearly the complete costs of this scheme must be publicised and there must be complete transparency and accountability. The scheme should be discontinued until this is done. Recently there has been an erosion of private property rights under the guise of short sighted self-interested government promoted environmentalism. This exploitation of environmentalism must cease. Property rights should be restored by extensive consultation with landholders. Since the government has no mandate for biodiversity trading schemes such schemes should cease until such a mandate is obtained. Not only has there been no mandate, the level of public ignorance about these schemes is alarming and must be immediately rectified by an extensive education campaign. There should be extensive community consultation, especially with rural landholders. References 1. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/truth-gets-lost-amid-the-debate-onnational-parks-catherine-cusack/story-e6frezz0-1226389879077 2. http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2012/s3535098.htm?site=gippsland 3. http://theland.farmonline.com.au/blogs/agribuzz-with-david-leyonhjelm/property-rightsgone-for-the-general-good/2594167.aspx?storypage=0 4. http://www.nswfarmers.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/62247/Native_Veg_Case_Stud y.pdf 5. https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=ef282b1a-43d5- 44d3-a1e8-e613ee9f4ccb 6. https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=0088ed5f-025e- 4164-81fd-05d062568ff7 7. http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/12/peter-spencer 8. http://www.familyfirst.org.au/files/The-Attack-on-Property-Rights-Finlay.pdf 9. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article1200 9%E2%80%9310?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2009%9610& num=&view 10. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/index.html 11. http://www.weeds.org.au/docs/intro_flora_australia.pdf 12. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/terrestrialassessment/pubs/terrestrial-assessment.pdf 13. http://www.oxfordclimatepolicy.org/publications/documents/Ellermannetal.pdf 14. http://150.229.66.66/bmrc/basic/cawcr-wksp1/papers/Raupach.pdf 15. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/co2-emissions-historical 16. http://globalcitizen.net/Data/Pages/1291/papers/2009103014156814.pdf 17. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/ 18. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/what-money-cant-buythe-moral-limits-of-markets-by-michael-sandel-7711785.html 19. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/ 20. http://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/06/07/putting-a-price-on-nature-a-destructivedelusion/ 21. http://breakthroughjournal.org/content/authors/mark-sagoff/the-rise-and-fall-ofecologica.shtml 22. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/uesd/uep/products/12/psw_cufr704_Brack_Pollution_ Mitig_Urban_Forest.pdf 23. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1053209/biobanking-land-purchase-to-go-ahead 24. http://www.colongwilderness.org.au/media-releases/2010/06/biobanking-credibility-sinksconservation-site-undermined 25. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mine-plan-shows-biobanking-fails-say-green-groups- 20100624-z3px.html 26. http://www.edo.org.au/edonsw/site/pdf/subs/071130assessment_methodology.pdf 27. http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/archives/12356 28. http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/8484/cmfes.pdf 29. http://www.cec.org.au/sub/BioBanking.Submission/index.htm 30. http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/v3ByKey/LC20061025 31. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/biobanking/20120062bbrevdp.pdf 32. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/biobanking/08346biobankingcas.pdf 33. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/tsca1995323/s127o.html 34. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/tsca1995323/s127u.html 35. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/tsca1995323/s127s.html 36. http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/fighting-the-nsw-standard-lep-what-if-we-alljoined-forces?xg_source=activity APPENDIX K Correspondence With Eurobodalla Shire Council Mark Hitchenson Land Use Planning Coordinator Eurobodalla Shire Council Dear Mark, Thank you for your email. Although I am trying to move forward in an attempt to resolve the vitally important issues we have been discussing, you are tending to revisit matters we have already resolved while at the same time completely ignoring fundamental questions from my earlier emails. The matters discussed below are of vital importance to local ratepayers and of vital importance for the upcoming elections. If any of my assertions below are in any way inaccurate, please supply documentary evidence from the vast resources of Council to demonstrate my error/s so that the matters may be resolved. Your inability to do this to date merely prolongs the correspondence and raises more questions. I look forward to resolving the issues below in the interests of local ratepayers and in the interests of the wider community as well. For clarity I will reproduce some of the unanswered questions from previous correspondence at the conclusion of this email and I hope that you will make a meaningful attempt to respond to them. Previously I stated the following facts which you now, for some reason seem to dispute. FACT: Eurobodalla Council has decided to have its environmental and land use policies determined and monitored by an undemocratic foreign agency (the UN), utilising the principles of their Agenda 21/sustainability program. You will note that I have cited authoritative evidence in support of this claim, including evidence from your Settlement Strategy and from the UN but although you disputed the above you were unable to supply any supportive documentation whatsoever to support your position. In fact, the documentation you did provide (Settlement Strategy) supports my claim that Council policy is indeed based upon the UN Agenda 21 program. It is a simple fact that you state the “Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy sets out the Councils policies and strategies for managing land use within the Shire” and it is also a simple fact that this Settlement Strategy clearly states (1): “Eurobodalla Shire Council is committed to the concept and principles of sustainable development and the implementation of Local Agenda 21”. It is also a simple fact that Agenda 21 is a United Nations program, designed by the UN (2, 3, 4, 5). But as you no doubt realise, the implementation of Agenda 21 is also monitored by the UN, participating countries being required to report back to the UN on a regular basis (2, 6, 7, 8). The UN describes the monitoring and reporting provisions for Agenda 21 in chapter 38.11. The Commonwealth of course, provides these reports to the UN from implementation progress at state and local government levels. In fact, the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development was established to oversee the implementation of Agenda 21 around the world (2, 6, 8). According to the Commonwealth Government in this regard (8): “The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was established by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) with a mandate to review implementation of the outcomes of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, in particular progress in the implementation of the program of action known as Agenda 21. The CSD held its first substantive session in June 1993 and has met annually since. The 10-year review of the implementation of Agenda 21 culminated in the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) which was held in Johannesburg, South Africa (September, 2002). While the CSD successfully built a profile and improved understanding of sustainable development during its first 10 years, it was recognised at the WSSD that some reforms were required to ensure the continued relevance of its work. The WSSD Plan of Implementation (POI) called for reform of the CSD within its existing mandate (as adopted un UNGA resolution 47/191). In particular, the POI recommended : · Limiting negotiating sessions to every two years; · Re-considering the scheduling and duration of intersessional meetings; and · Limiting the number of themes addressed in each session. An enhanced role for the CSD in monitoring and reporting on progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and in facilitation of partnerships was also recommended.” Following are some of the typical United Nations land use questions the government is required to answer to check implementation of Agenda 21 at the local level (7): “4. Agenda 21 called for the review and development of policies to support the best possible use of land and sustainable management of land resources, with a target date not later than 1996. Please describe progress that your country has made towards meeting this target. 6. Please explain briefly, to what extent are plans for expansion of human settlements reviewed with respect to the impacts on farmlands, landscape, forest land, wetlands and biological diversity. ANNEX: OVERALL EVALUATION OF INTEGRATED APPROACH TO THE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF LAND RESOURCES The following section is designed to facilitate an overall evaluation of the progress achieved in various related activities as outlined in Chapter 10. 1. Please provide qualitative rankings on different aspects of integrated land use planning and management that your Government has been able to achieve at different levels of success since UNCED. In order to guide your answers (i.e. giving a rating to every box) the qualitative rankings are ordered on a scale from 1-5: 5 – distinguishing or outstanding achievements 4 – clear and apparent achievements 3 – only slight achievements 2 – no achievements at all 1 – worse than before UNCED Rankings Activities [4] Development of a national policy or strategy on integrated land management [4] Development of policies that have encouraged sustainable land use and management of land resources [5] Review of the regulatory frameworks related to land use and management [4] Formulation and adoption of land use zoning [3] Institutional set-up for monitoring land use regulations [4] Formulation and adoption of market-based measures [4] Information compilation and land capability analysis [5] Identification of data gaps [5] Identification of major challenges and issues related to the implementation of integrated land use and management approach at nation-wide level 82 2. What level of importance is attached to the different functions of land in your country? Please provide qualitative ranking of the major functions or characteristics of land (i.e. give a rating to every box) on a scale from 1-4. 4 – Very high importance 3 – Highly important 2 – only slightly important 1 – not important at all Ranking Major functions/characteristics of land [1] Food security [4] Rural development [4] Rural viability [4] Environmental sustainability (protection/recovery/rehabilitation/enhancement) [4] Improved policies and institutions [4] Economic development [4] Poverty reduction and equity [4] Social cohesion” Since the United Nations origin, and monitoring provisions for implementation of Agenda 21, are indisputable, it would seem you must disagree with Council’s commitment to Agenda 21 as stated in the Settlement Strategy. Clearly this would be ridiculous. I was hoping for a more meaningful response, more in accord with the seriousness of these matters. To continue to dispute simple facts while ratepayers struggle with the results of Council policy creates a perception of extreme self-interest and complete indifference towards the everyday concerns of ratepayers. I also asserted in my previous communication: FACT: Eurobodalla Council has decided to continue to deny residents a democratic choice as to whether they prefer Council land use/sustainability policies determined locally, by local authorities and ratepayers, or by an undemocratic foreign agency as is presently the case. Has the situation changed? Has Council decided to fully inform residents of the UN origin and end goals of AG21 at the upcoming election so they make an informed choice? As I asked previously: You are suggesting that if I were to conduct a survey in the local area and ask residents the following questions then I would mostly obtain correct answers. 1. Did you realise council’s sustainability policy is based upon the UN Agenda 21 program? 2. Did council explain the full details and goals of Agenda 21 to you prior to adopting this policy? 3. Did council give you an informed democratic choice and offer you a locally based policy as distinct from a foreign UN policy? Is it true council has been communicating with residents so they can answer these very basic questions? Not only was this question completely ignored by you, but further, In your response you were unable to supply any documentary evidence whatsoever (media releases, ratepayers notices) confirming that Council had fully advised residents of the UN origin, end goals, and UN monitoring, of Agenda 21 prior to its introduction and incorporation into Council policy. Why do you continue to refuse to supply this information if in fact you have accurately and truthfully advised residents as you claim? I have repeated some of your statements below with my responses in red. “Agenda 21 is an international framework agreement for pursuing global sustainable development that was endorsed by national governments, including the Australian Government, at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.” Correct, it is a program designed by the UN and overseen and monitored by the UN as noted above, but it appears you did not explain this to ratepayers. Eurobodalla Shire Council is not a signatory to the framework.” The fact that Council is implementing Agenda 21, without giving residents an informed democratic choice has already been established. The fact that you may not be a direct (Council of course must answer to state and federal governments which in turn answer to the UN) ‘signatory’ is completely irrelevant. “Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to have its environmental and land use policies determined by any foreign agency.” You have already conceded that Council’s Settlement Strategy, is based upon the dictates of the United Nations Agenda 21 program. Are you suggesting the UN is not a foreign agency? “Council does not report to the United Nations or any other foreign agency. No foreign agency has any involvement in Council’s processes for determining environmental or land use policy. There is no monitoring of Council’s environmental or land use policies by any foreign agency.” You have stated in your Settlement Strategy (1): “Eurobodalla Shire Council is committed to the concept and principles of sustainable development and the implementation of Local Agenda 21”. How is it possible that you have based the Shire Settlement Strategy on Agenda 21, which states in chapter 38.11, that the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development will be established to monitor progress and implementation, and yet you claim no involvement from the UN or a foreign agency? Of course, whether it is monitored directly, or indirectly through state or federal governments, is irrelevant. “Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to deny residents a democratic choice in terms of the setting of environmental or land use policy.” Council has so far been unable to provide any evidence whatsoever that it fully informed residents of the UN origin and total goals of Agenda 21 before implementation. “Further, Eurobodalla Shire Council is not promoting or implementing any foreign based and initiated restrictions on Eurobodalla land owners. All of Council’s environmental and land use policies are determined by Council in consultation with the Eurobodalla community.” I have already dealt with these issues above. Council agreed to implement Agenda 21 and one of the provisions of Agenda 21 is an agreement to be monitored by the UNCSD as already noted. “All of Councils policies are set by the democratically elected Council of the day, this includes the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy which sets out the Councils policies and strategies for managing land use within the Shire.” Since the Settlement Strategy, which is based upon the UN Agenda 21 program, will determine “Councils policies and strategies for managing land use within the Shire,” does this mean you will be following the lead of US States and Councils which are banning the UN Agenda 21 program? I note that Minister for Planning, Brad Hazzard, has recently passed the new LEP (9, 10,) in spite of the numerous protests and complaints from local ratepayers, including a petition with 5000 signatures (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25) and in spite of your claims that you continue to work with local residents rather than against them. I note the long list of complaints and adverse results of Council policies (12): “· Lost sales due to new Overlays / E-Zones · Owners cost of DA applications and associated expensive consultancy studies i.e., native vegetation, endangered species, aboriginal artefacts, environmental impact, sea inundation, acid soil test, flora and fauna studies, bush fire report, catchment management study, energy rating report, geotechnical report and section 94 contributions · Owners/buyers being compelled to sign agreements to further restrict land uses or forced to donate private land to get a DA approved. · Council requesting owners to submit DA’s despite knowing the DA would be rejected on crucial issues · Council applying new Draft (LEP) to current DA applications · More recently the Council not wanting DA’s submitted until the new LEP is adopted · 1c zoned land owners are losing their entitlements · Subdivision approved with onerous restrictions – i.e. No hoofed animals allowed on lifestyle properties (Hobby farms) · Increasing minimum size lots from 450m² to 550m² · Council selling public land · Private buyers finding the Eurobodalla Council too difficult and frustrating to deal with and therefore abandon their pursuit of buying within the shire · Commercial developers claiming similar issues as above · Council becoming a Quasi Developer – viewed as a conflict of interest and possibly anticompetitive · Some residents have left the area and others are looking to leave due to frustrations with Council · Council stating to purchasers not to touch certain properties “With a 40 foot pole” · Down-zoning land for Councils’ future acquisition with no communication to owners · The implementation of Bio-certification is inequitable and will divide our Community. This will also add further costs and restrictions to landowners and developers, further exasperating our struggling economy · Owners restricted from removing dead wood and slashing/mowing their land · Property owners promised 4-5 lot subdivision and eventually badgered into accepting a 1 lot subdivision · The Rural Lands Strategy Steering Committee will neither remedy nor compensate negatively affected land owners.” I urge you to reconsider your stance and ban UN/Agenda 21 associated policies as mentioned below. How do you propose to protect landowners from restrictive repressive anti-Australian Agenda 21 policies? When will you commence such action? Regards Graham Williamson PREVIOUS UNANSWERED QUESTIONS Recently the following law was passed by the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (1): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1. (b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama. (c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” Are you prepared to represent the interests of Eurobodalla residents by giving them this same protection, as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property rights of local landholders? If not, why not? If you prefer to continue to have landowners property rights determined and monitored by a foreign agency, will you make this an election issue at the upcoming elections so residents may make an informed democratic choice? When the local government of College Station in Texas recently withdrew from Agenda 21, Councilman Jess Fields commented (2, 3): “I am truly excited to announce that the proposed 2013 College Station budget will not include funding for this organization (ICLEI-an Agenda 21 organisation)…..It is an insidious, extreme institution that does not represent our citizens, and for our taxpayers to continue to fund it would be ridiculous…. This organization is a threat to our individual rights and our local government’s sovereignty in decision-making…..ICLEI’s Charter and its Strategic Plan both reinforce what could already be surmised by examining its founding and history…..This is an international organization with an extreme environmentalist bent, which desires to impose its vision of ‘sustainability’ on the citizens of member cities and connect to the United Nations in a way that furthers that goal……..We do not need international organizations leading the way for us in how we develop our planning and development tools and regulations. It is better for policies to reflect the actual needs of our community than some amorphous concept of greenness or sustainability, promoted by an overarching international body.” Do you agree or disagree? Do Eurobodalla residents “need international organizations leading the way for us in how we develop our planning and development tools and regulations?” Are Eurobodalla residents any less deserving of having their property rights protected from foreign agencies? “Especially since the restrictive requirements of Agenda 21 are being banned overseas (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15), why is Council moving in the opposite direction? Does Council intend to continue following the dictates of Agenda 21 program or do you intend to ban this foreign interference and represent the interests of ratepayers instead?” From: Mark Hitchenson [mailto:mark.hitchenson@eurocoast.nsw.gov.au] Sent: Monday, 16 July 2012 4:30 PM To: ‘Graham’ Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher; Shannon Burt Subject: RE: Land use Dear Graham, Apologies for the delay in replying to your email. Your concerns regarding the process of determining local land use and sustainability policies are unfounded. Agenda 21 is an international framework agreement for pursuing global sustainable development that was endorsed by national governments, including the Australian Government, at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Eurobodalla Shire Council is not a signatory to the framework. Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to have its environmental and land use policies determined by any foreign agency. Council does not report to the United Nations or any other foreign agency. No foreign agency has any involvement in Council’s processes for determining environmental or land use policy. There is no monitoring of Council’s environmental or land use policies by any foreign agency. Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to deny residents a democratic choice in terms of the setting of environmental or land use policy. Further, Eurobodalla Shire Council is not promoting or implementing any foreign based and initiated restrictions on Eurobodalla land owners. All of Council’s environmental and land use policies are determined by Council in consultation with the Eurobodalla community. As I have previously advised, the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy was developed in consultation with the Eurobodalla community. I have also previously advised that there was extensive community consultation in the preparation of the Eurobodalla Community Strategic Plan. In both of these consultation processes, the community told Council that protection of the environment was important to them. Council will therefore continue to work with the community to develop local solutions to local environmental issues. All of Councils policies are set by the democratically elected Council of the day, this includes the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy which sets out the Councils policies and strategies for managing land use within the Shire. This should leave you in no doubt that Council has and will continue to provide all Eurobodalla residents with the opportunity to be involved in the setting of local policies and that Council is not undemocratically implementing any foreign agenda. As all of your questions have now been fully answered, there should be no need for any further correspondence on the matter. Regards, Mark Mark Hitchenson Land Use Planning Coordinator t 02 4474 1314 | m 0400 784 515| f 02 4474 1234 From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Thursday, 12 July 2012 7:49 AM To: Mark Hitchenson Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher Subject: RE: Land use Dear Mark, I have yet to receive a response to my communication of 2nd July and the issues raised therein (see below). When can I expect a response to these issues and questions? If you feel incapable of making a meaningful response could you please forward this communication to the appropriate authority. In order to save your valuable time, the matters may be summarised as below. FACT: Eurobodalla Council has decided to have its environmental and land use policies determined and monitored by an undemocratic foreign agency (the UN), utilising the principles of their Agenda 21/sustainability program. FACT: Eurobodalla Council has decided to continue to deny residents a democratic choice as to whether they prefer Council land use/sustainability policies determined locally, by local authorities and ratepayers, or by an undemocratic foreign agency as is presently the case. Recently the following law was passed by the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (1): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1. (b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama. (c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” FACT: Your council is unashamedly still promoting and implementing these same undemocratic foreign based and initiated restrictions upon the rights of local landowners. Are you prepared to represent the interests of Eurobodalla residents by giving them this same protection, as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property rights of local landholders? If not, why not? If you prefer to continue to have landowners property rights determined and monitored by a foreign agency, will you make this an election issue at the upcoming elections so residents may make an informed democratic choice? When the local government of College Station in Texas recently withdrew from Agenda 21, Councilman Jess Fields commented (2, 3): “I am truly excited to announce that the proposed 2013 College Station budget will not include funding for this organization (ICLEI-an Agenda 21 organisation)…..It is an insidious, extreme institution that does not represent our citizens, and for our taxpayers to continue to fund it would be ridiculous…. This organization is a threat to our individual rights and our local government’s sovereignty in decision-making…..ICLEI’s Charter and its Strategic Plan both reinforce what could already be surmised by examining its founding and history…..This is an international organization with an extreme environmentalist bent, which desires to impose its vision of ‘sustainability’ on the citizens of member cities and connect to the United Nations in a way that furthers that goal……..We do not need international organizations leading the way for us in how we develop our planning and development tools and regulations. It is better for policies to reflect the actual needs of our community than some amorphous concept of greenness or sustainability, promoted by an overarching international body.” Do you agree or disagree? Do Eurobodalla residents “need international organizations leading the way for us in how we develop our planning and development tools and regulations?” Are Eurobodalla residents any less deserving of having their property rights protected from foreign agencies? Regards Graham Williamson Dear Mark, Once again you have overlooked the main points I have made. 1. Your environmental policy, in spite of your initial denial, is UN Agenda 21 (1) based as stated quite clearly in your settlement strategy. Agenda 21 environmental policies are planned and monitored by an undemocratic foreign agency, the UN. In fact, In Chapter 38 of Agenda 21 the United Nations describes the necessary powers to administer and implement Agenda 21 and initiates the formation of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) to oversee and monitor the implementation of Agenda 21. Have you fully informed residents about this and given them a democratic choice? I repeat the unanswered questions from my previous email. “Especially since the restrictive requirements of Agenda 21 are being banned overseas (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15), why is Council moving in the opposite direction? Does Council intend to continue following the dictates of Agenda 21 program or do you intend to ban this foreign interference and represent the interests of ratepayers instead?” You state in your response: With regards to your specific questions about Agenda 21, I wish to advise that Council is required by law to act in an environmentally sustainable manner. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, for example, has a number of objects, including “to encourage…the protection of the environment…” and “ecologically sustainable development”. In addition, one of the purposes of Local Government Act, 1993 is “to require councils, councillors and council employees to have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development in carrying out their responsibilities.” Local Agenda 21 is about establishing a dialogue between Council and the community on ways to address sustainable development issues locally. Council regularly has this dialogue with the Eurobodalla community, most recently in the development of the Eurobodalla Community Strategic Plan “Eurobodalla 2030”. One of the key messages to emerge from the community in the development of Eurobodalla 2030 was that “the natural environment is important”. Once again you overlook the main point which is not about sustainability but rather whether council should be acting as an agent of the UN by implementing UN environmental policies which will also be overseen by the UN, or whether council should reject interference from undemocratic foreign agencies and instead implement its own policies. Is council incapable of implementing its own sustainability policy, controlled and monitored locally? And did council give residents a democratic choice about this, fully informing them they had decided to seek foreign control of their environmental policies instead of acting independently in accord with the desire of ratepayers? You seem to suggest that it is impossible to act sustainably unless council conforms to the dictates of the UN. Is this your meaning? You further state: “Council’s support for local action to achieve sustainable development is based on communication with the local community and local actions to achieve the community’s vision.” Is this true? You are suggesting that if I were to conduct a survey in the local area and ask residents the following questions then I would mostly obtain correct answers. 1. Did you realise council’s sustainability policy is based upon the UN Agenda 21 program? 2. Did council explain the full details and goals of Agenda 21 to you prior to adopting this policy? 3. Did council give you an informed democratic choice and offer you a locally based policy as distinct from a foreign UN policy? Is it true council has been communicating with residents so they can answer these very basic questions? Will council continue to support intrusive, regressive UN policies which are being banned overseas? Or will council reconsider and represent ratepayers instead? Regards Graham Williamson From: Mark Hitchenson [mailto:mark.hitchenson@eurocoast.nsw..gov.au] Sent: Monday, 2 July 2012 11:56 AM To: ‘Graham’ Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher Subject: RE: Land use Dear Graham, The purpose of my previous reply to your email was to confirm that Council undertakes extensive consultations with the Eurobodalla community in the development of planning strategies and to outline how the Draft LEP makes provision for a range of development in rural areas. This was to show how Council supports Eurobodalla residents and ratepayers and that our policy is not regressive as suggested. You expressed an interest in rural properties, so my reply was focused on our planning for rural areas. With regards to your specific questions about Agenda 21, I wish to advise that Council is required by law to act in an environmentally sustainable manner. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, for example, has a number of objects, including “to encourage…the protection of the environment…” and “ecologically sustainable development”. In addition, one of the purposes of Local Government Act, 1993 is “to require councils, councillors and council employees to have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development in carrying out their responsibilities.” Local Agenda 21 is about establishing a dialogue between Council and the community on ways to address sustainable development issues locally. Council regularly has this dialogue with the Eurobodalla community, most recently in the development of the Eurobodalla Community Strategic Plan “Eurobodalla 2030”. One of the key messages to emerge from the community in the development of Eurobodalla 2030 was that “the natural environment is important”. As a further example of local dialogue on actions relating to achieving the principles of ecologically sustainable development, Council is currently exhibiting a Greenhouse Action Plan to seek community input into the ways Council can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in response to the issue of climate change. Council’s support for local action to achieve sustainable development is based on communication with the local community and local actions to achieve the community’s vision. I trust this clarifies the situation for you. Regards, Mark From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2012 6:03 PM To: Mark Hitchenson Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher Subject: RE: Land use Dear Mark, Thank you for your prompt reply. It does appear you have misunderstood or perhaps you have been misinformed. I asked if Council policy is based upon a foreign UN Agenda 21 program or whether Council is following overseas precedents in banning such programs to protect ratepayers. You responded by stating “unfortunately the information you have been given is incorrect”, however, you referred me to your Settlement Strategy (1) to back up your claim that I had been misadvised. When I checked this document I found that it directly contradicted your claim that your policies are NOT UN Agenda 21 based and actually confirmed what I had heard about Council resorting to implementation of regressive UN Agenda 21 policy. According to the Settlement Strategy (1): “Eurobodalla Shire Council is committed to the concept and principles of sustainable development and the implementation of Local Agenda 21”. I am alarmed that Council seems to be acting as an agent of the UN in forcing ratepayers to comply with the dictates of such a regressive intrusive program as Agenda 21. Has Council given ratepayers an informed choice about this? Especially since the restrictive requirements of Agenda 21 are being banned overseas, why is Council moving in the opposite direction? Does Council intend to continue following the dictates of Agenda 21 program or do you intend to ban this foreign interference and represent the interests of ratepayers instead? I am particularly interested in ascertaining your future intentions in this regard. Council has made their allegiance to the UN quite clear in their above statement, but what about your allegiance to ratepayers? Will you move to ban all Agenda 21 associated policies to protect the interests of ratepayers? Regards Graham Williamson From: Mark Hitchenson [mailto:mark.hitchenson@eurocoast.nsw…gov.au] Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2012 3:41 PM To: ‘Graham’ Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher Subject: RE: Land use Dear Mr Williamson, Unfortunately the information you have been given is incorrect. Councils Rural Local Environmental Plan (RLEP 1987) and the soon to be adopted Eurobodalla Local Environmental Plan (ELEP 2012) both provide for a full range of agricultural land uses and primary production industries on rural zoned lands across the Shire. Aside from traditional agricultural pursuits such as dairying, horticultural and husbandry activities, the ELEP 2012 permits a range of additional land uses such as tourist and visitor accommodation and nurseries through to home based child care with consent in rural areas. The ELEP 2012 also includes secondary dwellings and dual occupancy development to accommodate growing families or rural workers. It is anticipated that the ELEP 2012 will be approved by the NSW Government in the very near future and will then be available to view from Council’s website www.esc.nsw.gov.au. If you would like to learn more about the rural values of the Shire and Council’s aims for rural land management, you may like to review the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy, available on Council’s website at http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/services/planning-anddevelopment/plans-policies-and-strategies/. The ESS is a 30 year plan that makes explicit the policy positioning of Council and State Government which in turn are in response to community expectations. The Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy involved extensive public consultation, community survey work, community visioning and planning and development with State Agencies. Eurobodalla’s rural land planning and policy is consistent with the South Coast Regional Strategy (available at http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/StrategicPlanning/Regionalstrategies/tabid/161/language /en-AU/Default.aspx)that underpins the planning framework for all South Coast LGAs. Additionally, the preparation of a Rural Lands Strategy is about to commence and will inform land use planning decisions on rural developments and industries into the future. This Strategy will be conducted in consultation with the rural community. You can find more information on this process at Council’s website at http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/services/planning-and-development/plans-policies-andstrategies/eurobodalla-rural-lands-strategy/ . I hope this advice clarifies the situation for you and I encourage you to review the information referred to. If you would like further information Council staff would be happy to assist. Regards, Mark Mark Hitchenson Land Use Planning Coordinator t 02 4474 1314 | m 0400 784 515| f 02 4474 1234 From: Mark Hitchenson [mailto:mark.hitchenson@eurocoast.nsw..gov.au] Sent: Monday, 2 July 2012 11:56 AM To: ‘Graham’ Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher Subject: RE: Land use Dear Graham, The purpose of my previous reply to your email was to confirm that Council undertakes extensive consultations with the Eurobodalla community in the development of planning strategies and to outline how the Draft LEP makes provision for a range of development in rural areas. This was to show how Council supports Eurobodalla residents and ratepayers and that our policy is not regressive as suggested. You expressed an interest in rural properties, so my reply was focused on our planning for rural areas. With regards to your specific questions about Agenda 21, I wish to advise that Council is required by law to act in an environmentally sustainable manner. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, for example, has a number of objects, including “to encourage…the protection of the environment…” and “ecologically sustainable development”. In addition, one of the purposes of Local Government Act, 1993 is “to require councils, councillors and council employees to have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development in carrying out their responsibilities.” Local Agenda 21 is about establishing a dialogue between Council and the community on ways to address sustainable development issues locally. Council regularly has this dialogue with the Eurobodalla community, most recently in the development of the Eurobodalla Community Strategic Plan “Eurobodalla 2030”. One of the key messages to emerge from the community in the development of Eurobodalla 2030 was that “the natural environment is important”. As a further example of local dialogue on actions relating to achieving the principles of ecologically sustainable development, Council is currently exhibiting a Greenhouse Action Plan to seek community input into the ways Council can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in response to the issue of climate change. Council’s support for local action to achieve sustainable development is based on communication with the local community and local actions to achieve the community’s vision. I trust this clarifies the situation for you. Regards, Mark From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2012 6:03 PM To: Mark Hitchenson Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher Subject: RE: Land use Dear Mark, Thank you for your prompt reply. It does appear you have misunderstood or perhaps you have been misinformed. I asked if Council policy is based upon a foreign UN Agenda 21 program or whether Council is following overseas precedents in banning such programs to protect ratepayers. You responded by stating “unfortunately the information you have been given is incorrect”, however, you referred me to your Settlement Strategy (1) to back up your claim that I had been misadvised. When I checked this document I found that it directly contradicted your claim that your policies are NOT UN Agenda 21 based and actually confirmed what I had heard about Council resorting to implementation of regressive UN Agenda 21 policy. According to the Settlement Strategy (1): “Eurobodalla Shire Council is committed to the concept and principles of sustainable development and the implementation of Local Agenda 21”. I am alarmed that Council seems to be acting as an agent of the UN in forcing ratepayers to comply with the dictates of such a regressive intrusive program as Agenda 21. Has Council given ratepayers an informed choice about this? Especially since the restrictive requirements of Agenda 21 are being banned overseas, why is Council moving in the opposite direction? Does Council intend to continue following the dictates of Agenda 21 program or do you intend to ban this foreign interference and represent the interests of ratepayers instead? I am particularly interested in ascertaining your future intentions in this regard. Council has made their allegiance to the UN quite clear in their above statement, but what about your allegiance to ratepayers? Will you move to ban all Agenda 21 associated policies to protect the interests of ratepayers? Regards Graham Williamson From: Mark Hitchenson [mailto:mark.hitchenson@eurocoast.nsw…gov.au] Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2012 3:41 PM To: ‘Graham’ Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher Subject: RE: Land use Dear Mr Williamson, Unfortunately the information you have been given is incorrect. Councils Rural Local Environmental Plan (RLEP 1987) and the soon to be adopted Eurobodalla Local Environmental Plan (ELEP 2012) both provide for a full range of agricultural land uses and primary production industries on rural zoned lands across the Shire. Aside from traditional agricultural pursuits such as dairying, horticultural and husbandry activities, the ELEP 2012 permits a range of additional land uses such as tourist and visitor accommodation and nurseries through to home based child care with consent in rural areas. The ELEP 2012 also includes secondary dwellings and dual occupancy development to accommodate growing families or rural workers. It is anticipated that the ELEP 2012 will be approved by the NSW Government in the very near future and will then be available to view from Council’s website www.esc.nsw.gov.au. If you would like to learn more about the rural values of the Shire and Council’s aims for rural land management, you may like to review the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy, available on Council’s website at http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/services/planning-anddevelopment/plans-policies-and-strategies/. The ESS is a 30 year plan that makes explicit the policy positioning of Council and State Government which in turn are in response to community expectations. The Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy involved extensive public consultation, community survey work, community visioning and planning and development with State Agencies. Eurobodalla’s rural land planning and policy is consistent with the South Coast Regional Strategy (available at http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/StrategicPlanning/Regionalstrategies/tabid/161/language /en-AU/Default.aspx)that underpins the planning framework for all South Coast LGAs. Additionally, the preparation of a Rural Lands Strategy is about to commence and will inform land use planning decisions on rural developments and industries into the future. This Strategy will be conducted in consultation with the rural community. You can find more information on this process at Council’s website at http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/services/planning-and-development/plans-policies-andstrategies/eurobodalla-rural-lands-strategy/ . I hope this advice clarifies the situation for you and I encourage you to review the information referred to. If you would like further information Council staff would be happy to assist. Regards, Mark APPENDIX L Complaint to NSW Ombudsman SUMMARY Three important issues resulted from my correspondence with Eurobodalla Council and the NSW Ombudsman. 1. Truthfulness of Council. This includes both the supplying of complete and factual information in response to my enquiry and also the commitment shown by Council to fully and truthfully inform residents of the full details of Agenda 21. 2. The legislative authority of Council in regard to enforcing upon local residents the dictates of a foreign program such as the UN Agenda 21 program. 3. Response of the Ombudsman. This includes not only the Ombudsman’s refuting of evidence provided in my complaint, but also the “repackaging” of my complaint by the Ombudsman and internal disagreements within the Ombudsman’s office regarding the subject of my complaint. 1. Truthfulness of Council a. Accuracy of information supplied by Council in response to my enquiry My assertion to Council that the Agenda 21 program, which they admitted forms the basis of their Settlement Strategy, is a foreign program, the implementation of which is also monitored by a foreign organisation (the UN), was completely denied by Council. Council statements clearly contradicted the facts, as evidenced by extensive documentary evidence from the United Nations, the Commonwealth government, and the NSW government. In spite of this, the NSW Ombudsman stated they agreed with Council claims that Agenda 21 is NOT a foreign program and its implementation is NOT monitored by a foreign agency (the UN). The NSW Ombudsman has here apparently acted to condone or reinforce the dishonesty of Council and the supplying of misleading or deliberately false information by Council. b. Commitment shown by Council to fully and truthfully inform residents of the full details of Agenda 21. Because of the UN origin of AG21, the complexity of the program, and the threat it poses to fundamental human rights, it is vitally important that the Council has shown a clear commitment to accurately convey all these details to local residents. However, in response to my enquiry asking Council to provide evidence of media releases or Council notices to explain the details of AG21 to local residents, Council were unable to provide even one such notice. I concluded that “the high level of ignorance about AG 21 in the local community is patently obvious and is a sad reflection of Council’s community spirit and its total abandonment of community education, its duty of care, and any sense of social conscience or commitment.” While the Ombudsman made no direct reference to this allegation, he did note however that of the various “community consultations” conducted by Council he was unable to document even one which was designed by Council to educate local residents regarding the full details of AG21. Evidence from the Ombudsman therefore reinforces the claim that enforcement of AG 21 by Eurobodalla Council is fundamentally undemocratic. 2. The legislative authority of Council in regard to enforcing upon local residents the dictates of a foreign program such as the UN Agenda 21 program. As I notified the NSW Ombudsman, according to the Commonwealth government “Many local governments work in areas beyond statutory requirements, such as Local Agenda 21 and Cities for Climate Protection.” In response the Ombudsman was careful NOT to deny Council had exceeded its legislative authority. He simply made the point that he did not have the information “before” him to confirm any such abuse of Council powers. The Ombudsman however, carefully avoided responding to my quote from the Commonwealth government that Councils have no legislative authority to enforce AG21. The fact remains that Eurobodalla Council ARE enforcing AG21 and the Commonwealth government says they do not have the legislative power to enforce it. The NSW Ombudsman clearly, and no doubt wisely, refused to contradict the Commonwealth, preferring instead to suggest he did not have sufficient information. Perhaps this issue can only be resolved in the Courts. Obviously a distinction must be made between enforcing provisions of AG21 and enforcing provisions of NSW state legislation. 3. Response From the Ombudsman’s Office According to Phoebe Tan, my complaint to the Ombudsman was about “council’s environmental and land use policies being determined and monitored by the United Nations (UN) as the council have stated that it supports the UN’s Agenda 21 policy.” For some reason Ms Tan chose to confine my complaint to land use policies (my complaint was about the totality of AG21) and completely omit all my complaints about Council’s dishonesty and Council’s failure to supply truthful and complete information to local residents. Why does the Ombudsman’s office assume the role of processing and altering the substance of complaints they receive? As a result of my objections to the initial response of the Ombudsman’s office from Phoebe Tan, I received a second response from Ombudsman Bruce Barbour. According to Ombudsman Bruce Barbour’s new description of my complaint, my complaint was about the “legislative authority” of Council, not the “land use policies” as asserted by Phoebe Tan. Like Phoebe Tan however, Bruce Barbour chose not to include my complaint about honesty and accuracy of information supplied by Council. The reader can see that I have made my complaints perfectly clear but yet the Ombudsman’s office was obviously very confused with Phoebe Tan and Bruce Barbour contradicting each other regarding the fundamental nature of my complaint. In Barbour’s defence however, it should be noted that Tan’s claim that my complaint was confined to “land use policies” was apparently invented by her. However, though I asked why this fictitious complaint about land use policies had been invented by the Ombudsman’s office, Barbour refused to comment upon this, preferring instead to state that he agreed with Tan’s analysis even though he changed my complaint to a complaint about the “legislative authority” of Council. Tan’s acknowledgement of my concerns about the UN monitoring of Council Agenda 21 policies was of course correct, but for some reason Barbour, in further apparent disagreement with Tan, deleted this from his analysis of the subject of my complaint. The Ombudsmans office is clearly in complete disarray with complainants having their complaints twisted and censored and staff openly contradicting each othar about the subject of a complaint. The Ombudsman’s office accepts a complaint, then processes and sterilises the complaint and spits out a completely new complaint, then, after arguing about the subject of the complaint, adjudicates on the merits of the complaint. How can they ever arrive at a correct and just decision? Given the above it is hardly surprising that the Ombudsman’s office was unable to refute the voluminous documentary evidence I supplied to them. My evidence may have been indisputable, but my complaint was dismissed nevertheless. I repeat my concerns made to the Ombudsman regarding the specific failings of the Ombudsman’s office in regard to my complaint: “I am concerned that the NSW Ombudsman, in responding to my complaint, has failed or completely abandoned his responsibility which (20) “is to make sure that agencies we watch over fulfil their functions properly and improve their delivery of services to the public.” You have also failed or abandoned your responsibility to oversee Council activities (21), “We handle complaints about local councils and help make sure councils act fairly and reasonably. We can look at the conduct of councillors and council employees and the administrative conduct of the council itself.” You have failed in 3 specific areas. 1. Firstly, Council states quite clearly that it is implementing the provisions of the 500 page United Nations plan called “Agenda 21”. The Commonwealth government says Council has no legislative power to implement this program and I have asked you if this is correct, whether Council has the legal power to introduce this program, or any other foreign program for that matter, and from whence does Council derive the legal authority to enforce any or all of the Agenda 21 package. You responded by completely avoiding my complaint and my questions and instead you fabricated a new fictitious complaint about LEP’s and land use and proceeded to answer this new complaint which was created by you. 2. Although Agenda 21 is United Nations program, you approved as factual and accurate Council’s claim that Agenda 21 is a local program which has no relationship to any foreign agency. Clearly you are seeking to condone or cover up Council untruths here. I supplied voluminous evidence regarding improper conduct of Council but once again you completely ignored all this evidence. Introduction Eurobodalla Shire Council, like many councils, has been busy using the provisions of the United Nations Agenda 21 program to undermine human rights and freedoms, particularly property rights (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15). To make matters worse, the public have not been informed of the implications of Agenda 21 and are kept in a high state of ignorance by all three levels of government. In fact this public ignorance is one of the hallmarks of the program and seems to be a prerequisite for the successful implementation of what otherwise would be a democratically unacceptable foreign program. In view of these facts I expressed my concerns to Eurobodalla Council in a series of emails which are documented in Appendix A. However, the dismissing of my concerns by council ultimately resulted in my contacting the NSW Ombudsman. On 1st of August 2012 I submitted a complaint to the NSW Ombudsman regarding Eurobodalla Councils implementation of the United Nations Agenda 21 program. This paper documents that complaint and the response from the Ombudsman. The reader should note however, that since this complaint was initiated there have been Council elections with the consequent restructuring of Eurobodalla Council. Summary of Initial Complaint to Ombudsman Initially, in my complaint, I documented the responsibility of Council to truthfully inform the public. Council notes the unacceptability of “illegal decisions”, “decisions not in the public interest”, “decisions which would not withstand public scrutiny,” “conflicts of interest”, but also dishonest decisions or those reflecting poorly on Council integrity are also unacceptable. But in forcing upon local residents, with absolutely no legislative authority, a program which was produced by a foreign agency, and is monitored by a foreign agency, Council has gone way beyond its legal authority and has relied upon fictitious powers to force its will upon residents. Furthermore, Councils complete failure to properly inform and educate the local community regarding the foreign nature of this program, the foreign monitoring of the program, and the totality or end goals of the program, reveals that Council has completely abrogated its role as a Council and working with the community in the interests of the community. So complete has been Councils failure to truthfully inform the public that the prospect of deliberate deception must be very carefully investigated. I then proceeded to summarise my complaint and supply back up evidence. Summary of Complaint 1. Council Enforcing Foreign Program With no Legislative Support Council, as confirmed by its own Settlement Strategy document (16), is attempting to enforce upon the local community the provisions of a foreign UN initiated and monitored program called Agenda 21. As is aptly pointed out by the Commonwealth Government (17), there is no statutory basis for enforcing this program upon the community. Why is Eurobodalla Council being permitted to enforce a foreign initiative upon the local community without any legislative requirement? Is Council empowered to respond directly to foreign agencies? What limits have been imposed upon this? Is any Local Government empowered to indiscriminately enforce foreign programs upon local residents? What action will you take about this and when? 2. Council resorting to dishonesty or misleading information. Initially I asked Council : “I was advised that Council supports a regressive rural land policy based upon the requirements of the UN Agenda 21 program, a program currently being banned overseas. Is this correct? On behalf of Council, Mr Hitchenson responded: “Unfortunately the information you have been given is incorrect.” However, as noted above and below, Mr Hitchenson’s response is not true or accurate since Council admits its policy is indeed based upon Agenda 21. What disciplinary action will be taken about this and when? Subsequently Mr Hitchenson responded in regard to Agenda 21: “With regards to your specific questions about Agenda 21, I wish to advise that Council is required by law to act in an environmentally sustainable manner.” So though Council claims I had been incorrectly advised about Council implementing Agenda 21, now Council claims, re Agenda 21, they are “required to act by law.” As already noted however, AG 21 has no legislative basis. Council also goes to some length to repeatedly emphasise their policies have no foreign connection whatsoever but have been locally formulated. According to Council: “Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to have its environmental and land use policies determined by any foreign agency – Council does not report to the United Nations or any other foreign agency. No foreign agency has any involvement in Council’s processes for determining environmental or land use policy – There is no monitoring of Council’s environmental or land use policies by any foreign agency – Further, Eurobodalla Shire Council is not promoting or implementing any foreign based and initiated restrictions on Eurobodalla land owners.” As I point out to Council however, “Council admits its policies are based upon AG 21 and AG21 is a UN policy and the UN is a foreign agency; if any of this is incorrect please supply proof, if not, let us cease arguing about simple facts – council has agreed to the provisions of Agenda 21 and chapter 38.11 of AG 21 clearly sets out the UN’s monitoring provisions, which are of course carried out with the assistance of all 3 levels of government. Since Council agreed to adopt Agenda 21 Council would also have been aware of the monitoring provisions which are an integral part of the program.” Council further underlines the dependence of its environmental/sustainability policies upon Agenda 21 and foreign agencies with its admission in its Greenhouse Action Plan that such policies are derived from ICLEI (2), an Agenda 21 promotional organisation. In fact, Section 7.21 of Agenda 21, specifically recommends involvement with ICLEI. According to Maurice Strong in the Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide (4), “The task of mobilizing and technically supporting Local Agenda 21 planning in these communities has been led by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and national associations of local government.” And further, according to ICLEI, “In 1991, at the invitation of Secretariat for the UN Conference on Environment and Development, ICLEI presented a draft of Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 including the mandate for all local authorities to prepare a ‘local Agenda 21’.” Once again information supplied by Council is false, unless of course Council is either declaring its own documents to be false or claiming the UN is not a foreign agency. What disciplinary action will you take about this and when? 3. Abandonment of Democracy, Divisiveness, and Acting Against the Interests of Ratepayers, and Refusing to Truthfully Advise Ratepayers. I asked Council the following questions as evidenced below: “Has Council offered local residents the choice between a locally designed, monitored and implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative to plans designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? Council has completely ignored this question. Do you intend to clearly state your policies in regard to the above matters for the upcoming local elections?” Council has completely ignored this question. “Has Council warned residents of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans, their UN origin, and their full agenda and final goals? If so please supply documentary evidence (notices, media releases etc)? In response Council stated: “Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to deny residents a democratic choice in terms of the setting of environmental or land use policy – All of Council’s environmental and land use policies are determined by Council in consultation with the Eurobodalla community- As I have previously advised, the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy was developed in consultation with the Eurobodalla community. I have also previously advised that there was extensive community consultation in the preparation of the Eurobodalla Community Strategic Plan – Council will therefore continue to work with the community to develop local solutions to local environmental issues.” So far Council has not been able to produce even one document they have produced with the purpose of educating the public about the UN origin of Agenda 21, and the totality or end goals of Agenda 21. As a result, I responded to Council: “I have repeatedly asked Council to provide copies of media releases or council notices informing residents of the UN origin and monitoring of AG21 and the full agenda or long term goals of AG21 but so far council has been unable to produce even one document in support of their claim that they have communicated with the community and given them a democratic choice – I have asked why the Council felt unable to utilise its own locally produced and monitored sustainability plan but instead felt the need to import a UN plan but have received no answer to this. Has this been explained to residents during your consultation with them?” The high level of ignorance about AG 21 in the local community is patently obvious and is a sad reflection of Council’s community spirit and its total abandonment of community education, its duty of care, and any sense of social conscience or commitment. What disciplinary action will you take about this and when? Ombudsman’s Response to Initial Complaint In my complaint to the Ombudsman I first made the following point. “Council Enforcing Foreign Program With no Legislative Support Council, as confirmed by its own Settlement Strategy document (16), is attempting to enforce upon the local community the provisions of a foreign UN initiated and monitored program called Agenda 21. As is aptly pointed out by the Commonwealth Government (17), there is no statutory basis for enforcing this program upon the community. Why is Eurobodalla Council being permitted to enforce a foreign initiative upon the local community without any legislative requirement? Is Council empowered to respond directly to foreign agencies? What limits have been imposed upon this? Is any Local Government empowered to indiscriminately enforce foreign programs upon local residents? What action will you take about this and when?” I received the following response from Phoebe Tan of the Ombudsman’s office: “Council’s decision to consider Agenda 21 when developing their environmental and land use policies is a discretionary decision and doing so does not avoid the requirement that such policies must be deemed to comply with the Act by the Director-General of the Department of Planning and ultimately, the Minister for Planning.” In reply I pointed out to the Ombudsman that my complaint did not specifically mention land use policies and nowhere in Council documentation did Council claim its implementation of AG 21 was limited to the land use policies of the AG21 program. “Seems for some reason you have decided to limit your Agenda 21 comments to “land use policies” whereas this was not my complaint. Why do you suggest my complaint about AG21 is only about “land use policies” when I did not state this? Council states quite clearly that they endorse ALL the provisions of Agenda 21” (16). I then outlined some of the requirements of Agenda 21, requirements which were endorsed by Eurobodalla Council since Council did not seek to qualify or limit their endorsement of Agenda 21 in any way. According to the UN, Agenda 21 is (18) “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.” These provisions include control of pollution, land use, limiting consumption, conservation, health, development, agriculture, biodiversity, water, women, farming, to name but a few. Additionally, participants in Agenda 21 agree to UN supervision and monitoring. In specific connection with local government AG21 states (19): “All local authorities in each country should be encouraged to implement and monitor programmes which aim at ensuring that women and youth are represented in decision-making, planning and implementation processes. Activities 28.3. Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations and private enterprises and adopt “a local Agenda 21″. Through consultation and consensusbuilding, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies. The process of consultation would increase household awareness of sustainable development issues. Local authority programmes, policies, laws and regulations to achieve Agenda 21 objectives would be assessed and modified, based on local programmes adopted. Strategies could also be used in supporting proposals for local, national, regional and international funding. 28.4. Partnerships should be fostered among relevant organs and organizations such as UNDP, the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) and UNEP, the World Bank, regional banks, the International Union of Local Authorities, the World Association of the Major Metropolises, Summit of Great Cities of the World, the United Towns Organization and other relevant partners, with a view to mobilizing increased international support for local authority programmes. An important goal would be to support, extend and improve existing institutions working in the field of local authority capacity-building and local environment management. For this purpose: (a) Habitat and other relevant organs and organizations of the United Nations system are called upon to strengthen services in collecting information on strategies of local authorities, in particular for those that need international support; (b) Periodic consultations involving both international partners and developing countries could review strategies and consider how such international support could best be mobilized. Such a sectoral consultation would complement concurrent country-focused consultations, such as those taking place in consultative groups and round tables.” The Ombudsman was unable to refute any of this information of course since it is taken directly from the Agenda 21 document published by the United Nations. I asked the Ombudsman again: “Why is Eurobodalla Council being permitted to enforce a foreign initiative upon the local community without any legislative requirement? Is Council empowered to respond directly to foreign agencies? What limits have been imposed upon this? Is any Local Government empowered to indiscriminately enforce foreign programs upon local residents? What action will you take about this and when?” My questions regarding implementation were NOT limited to land use decisions though for some reason you have chosen to make this claim. Council has nowhere limited its implementation of AG21 to land use decisions only in spite of your apparent conclusion in this regard. Especially since the Commonwealth government has said Council has no legal power (17) to implement the provisions of “Agenda 21”, how are they permitted to implement this foreign program? The mere statement by Council that it is implementing AG21 is, according to Commonwealth, a violation of its own powers. Are you contradicting the Commonwealth and suggesting Council is legally entitled to enforce any or all of the provisions of the Agenda 21 package? FACT: Eurobodalla Council has confirmed it is implementing the extensive UN package of reforms described as “Agenda 21”. FACT: Agenda 21 is a comprehensive UN program which has no clear end point but which contains hundreds of provisions which aim to control our lives and yet you, for some reason, have chosen to ignore my complaint and confine the discussion to land use policies only. FACT: The Commonwealth government has stated Council has no legislative authority to implement AG21.” The Ombudsman, though unable to refute my evidence, failed to respond to any of my above points. I asked the Ombudsman again: “For some reason you have sought to turn my complaint into a complaint about land use only and ignore the actual facts of my complaint which relate to AG21 itself and the behaviour and authority of Council. Why?” In my complaint I also drew attention to supply of inaccurate, misleading, or untruthful information by council but the Ombudsman’s only response to Council deception was: “I acknowledge your complaint that council has answered none of your questions. I have read your complaint and the supporting documentation you have provided, including several responses from Mr Mark Hitchenson, Land Use Planning Coordinator for the council. Mr Hitchenson’s emails to you demonstrate that the council has been appropriately responsive to your contact and the issues you have raised. That the council has not answered ‘every’ question is not wrong conduct that warrants further investigation by this office.” I replied to the Ombudsman: “You have made absolutely no comment or judgement about the accuracy or truthfulness of Council’s responses but yet this was fundamental to my complaint. Why? Are you suggesting Council was truthful, accurate and open? Are you suggesting Council did not breach the Council Code of Conduct? FACT: Council readily admits it is implementing Agenda 21; FACT: Agenda 21 is a foreign UN program; FACT: The UN monitors implementation of AG21 FACT: Council has repeatedly denied their policies have any connection with a foreign agency. Council claims are blatantly false and untrue and yet you have described this as being “appropriately responsive”. Why, and on what basis, do you consider factual inaccuracies and untruths as an appropriate response? Please reveal where Council responded “appropriately” by accurately informing me about the UN basis and monitoring of AG21. If you cannot show me this then my question remains; why are you seeking to condone or cover up their dishonesty? Is this your personal decision, or an official decision of the Ombudsman’s office? Council has made repeated statements which are factually inaccurate and untruthful and yet you have concluded that this dishonesty is quite acceptable. Why? On what basis do you condone this dishonesty? Are you suggesting this dishonesty conforms to the Code of Conduct? As a result of the Ombudsman’s response I responded thus: So are you endorsing and supporting the numerous untruths told by Council, and the misinformation supplied by Council, which is in direct breach of the Council Code of conduct? Is this correct? Or are you suggesting the Council told no untruths, did not supply misinformation, and did not violate the Code of Conduct? I further expressed my concern regarding the Ombudsman’s response and detailed specific failings of the Ombudsman’s office in regard to my complaint: “I am concerned that the NSW Ombudsman, in responding to my complaint, has failed or completely abandoned his responsibility which (20) “is to make sure that agencies we watch over fulfil their functions properly and improve their delivery of services to the public.” You have also failed or abandoned your responsibility to oversee Council activities (21), “We handle complaints about local councils and help make sure councils act fairly and reasonably. We can look at the conduct of councillors and council employees and the administrative conduct of the council itself.” You have failed in 3 specific areas. 3. Firstly, Council states quite clearly that it is implementing the provisions of the 500 page United Nations plan called “Agenda 21”. The Commonwealth government says Council has no legislative power to implement this program and I have asked you if this is correct, whether Council has the legal power to introduce this program, or any other foreign program for that matter, and from whence does Council derive the legal authority to enforce any or all of the Agenda 21 package. You responded by completely avoiding my complaint and my questions and instead you fabricated a new fictitious complaint about LEP’s and land use and proceeded to answer this new complaint which was created by you. 4. Although Agenda 21 is United Nations program, you approved as factual and accurate Council’s claim that Agenda 21 is a local program which has no relationship to any foreign agency. Clearly you are seeking to condone or cover up Council untruths here. 5. I supplied voluminous evidence regarding improper conduct of Council but once again you completely ignored all this evidence. I continued to express my concerns to the Ombudsman regarding his response. “In your response you stated as in red below. Council’s environmental and land use policies When councils develops its planning policies such as the Local Environment Plan (LEP), council must follow the process set out in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act). More specifically, councils must publicly exhibit amendments to the LEP, invite public comment and consider any submissions received. The draft LEP is then sent to the DirectorGeneral of the Department of Planning for a report to the Minister for Planning who makes the final decision to amend the LEP. The Director-General must report to the Minister on whether the draft LEP has met all the requirements of the Act. This office generally does not take up complaints about the changes to the content of LEPs because the Minister for Planning makes the final decision on a proposal to rezone land, and we have no power to investigate the conduct of a Minister.” “While I thank you for the information, what has all this got to do with my complaint? I did not mention land use and LEP’s but yet here you are answering a complaint I did not make. Why? Why invent a new complaint that I did not make and then proceed to answer it? I repeat: FACT: Eurobodalla Council has confirmed it is implementing the extensive UN package of reforms described as “Agenda 21”. FACT: Agenda 21 is a comprehensive UN program which has no clear end point but which contains hundreds of provisions which aim to control our lives and yet you, for some reason, have chosen to ignore my complaint and confine the discussion to land use policies only. FACT: The Commonwealth government has stated Council has no legislative authority to implement AG21. FACT: Council readily admits it is implementing Agenda 21; FACT: Agenda 21 is a foreign UN program; FACT: The UN monitors implementation of AG21 FACT: Council has repeatedly denied their policies have any connection with a foreign agency. I have provided extensive documentation from the United Nations, the government, and Council, to substantiate ALL of the above facts. You have not been able to dispute or disprove ANY of that evidence. You describe Council’s dishonesty about the United Nations origin of Agenda 21 thus: “Mr Hitchenson’s emails to you demonstrate that the council has been appropriately responsive to your contact and the issues you have raised.” So according to the Office of the NSW Ombudsman, concealing the truth, or blatant dishonesty, is an “appropriate” Council response and does not violate the Council Code of Conduct. Is this correct? If not, in light of the above facts, please explain how their denial of foreign involvement is truthful. Are you suggesting both the government and the United Nations are wrong about the foreign origin of AG21?” The above points I made in my complaint, backed up by extensive evidence from the United Nations, the Australian government, and Eurobodalla Council, were not refuted by the Ombudsman even though my complaints were nevertheless dismissed. The Council was untruthful and supplied misleading or deliberately false information about the foreign UN origin of Agenda 21 and yet this dishonesty was apparently approved by the Ombudsman. Adding to this deception was the fact that the Council were unable to supply a copy of even one press release or council notice explaining to residents the full details of AG 21 and its UN origins. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman seemingly gave his seal of approval to Council’s deceptive and misleading behaviour and their determination NOT to explain to residents the full implications of AG 21. Second Response from Ombudsman’s Office – from Ombudsman Bruce Barbour As a result of my above objections to the initial response of the Ombudsman’s office from Phoebe Tan, the matter was then referred to Ombudsman Bruce Barbour for further consideration. But for some reason, the Ombudsman chose to completely omit all my complaints about Council’s dishonesty and Council’s responsibility to supply truthful information. According to Ombudsman Bruce Barbour’s new description of my complaint, my complaint was only about the “legislative authority” of Council. Barbour’s analysis of my complaint contrasts sharply with the earlier analysis by Phoebe Tan. “You complain that the council’s environmental and land use policies are being determined and monitored by the United Nations (UN) as the council have stated that it supports the UN’s Agenda 21 policy.” The reader can see that I have made my complaint perfectly clear but yet the Ombudsman’s office was obviously very confused with Phoebe Tan and Bruce Barbour contradicting each other regarding the fundamental nature of my complaint. In Barbour’s defence however, it should be noted that Tan’s claim that my complaint was confined to “land use policies” was apparently invented by her. However, though I asked why this fictitious complaint about land use policies had been invented by the Ombudsman’s office, Barbour refused to comment upon this, preferring instead to state that he agreed with Tan’s analysis even though he changed my complaint to a complaint about the “legislative authority” of Council. Tan’s acknowledgement of my concerns about the UN monitoring of Council Agenda 21 policies was of course correct, but for some reason Barbour, in further apparent disagreement with Tan, deleted this from his analysis of the subject of my complaint. The Ombudsmans office is clearly in complete disarray with complainants having their complaints twisted and censored and staff openly contradicting each othar about the subject of a complaint. The Ombudsman’s office accepts a complaint, then processes and sterilises the complaint and spits out a completely new complaint, then, after arguing about the subject of the complaint, adjudicates on the merits of the complaint. How can they ever arrive at a correct and just decision? Barbour went on to say he agreed with the reply I received from Mark Hitchenson of Eurobodalla Council: The comments made by Hitchenson, with which the Ombudsman fully agrees, are as follows: “Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to have its environmental and land use policies determined by any foreign agency. Council does not report to the United Nations or any other foreign agency. No foreign agency has any involvement in Council’s processes for determining environmental or land use policy. There is no monitoring of Council’s environmental or land use policies by any foreign agency. Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to deny residents a democratic choice in terms of the setting of environmental or land use policy. Further, Eurobodalla Shire Council is not promoting or implementing any foreign based and initiated restrictions on Eurobodalla land owners. All of Council’s environmental and land use policies are determined by Council in consultation with the Eurobodalla community……This should leave you in no doubt that Council has and will continue to provide all Eurobodalla residents with the opportunity to be involved in the setting of local policies and that Council is not undemocratically implementing any foreign agenda.” The fact that Agenda 21 is a foreign UN program, and it is program monitored by a foreign Agency (the UN) is simply indisputable as is clear from the above evidence. Also perfectly clear is the fact that Eurobodalla Council not only failed to publicise and inform the community about these facts, but even worse, when I questioned them they concealed the truth and supplied highly misleading and deceptive information. Additionally, the Council was unable to supply even one media release or Council notice showing they had attempted to explain to residents the full implications of AG 21. In spite of all these facts, the NSW Ombudsman has endorsed and stated his agreement with the above misinformation supplied by Eurobodalla Council. The NSW Ombudsman continued to offer the following explanation of his response in his letter. This information of course is completely irrelevant to my complaint and the reason for its inclusion in the Ombudsman’s response is unclear. Of course I have never suggested the Council is a signatory to the agreement. Quite the opposite in fact since I pointed out that Council had no legislative authority to enforce AG21 upon local residents. Signatory or not, the fact remains that implementation is monitored by the United Nations. The Ombudsman continues in his letter. The reason the Ombudsman included this information is also unclear, unless he was somehow meaning to suggest that the “community consultations” he referred to in some way indicate that Council has attempted to honestly inform the public about AG21. Quite the opposite is true in fact. The Ombudsman has seemingly confirmed that he was unable to document any community consultations conducted by Council which were intended to convey to the public the full implications of AG21 and its United Nations origin. In all of these community consultations, the Ombudsman has confirmed that not one was designed to explain the full implications of AG21 to residents. The Council it seems, specifically avoided explaining the full details of AG 21 to local residents. Even though the Ombudsman is supplying further evidence here to support my allegation that Council has not even attempted to explain the full implications of AG21 to local residents, nevertheless, somehow he dismissed my complaint! The Ombudsman continues in his letter. The Ombudsman is careful here NOT to deny Council has exceeded its legislative authority. He simply makes the point that he does not have the information “before” him to confirm any such abuse of Council powers. The Ombudsman carefully avoided responding to my quote from the Commonwealth government that Councils have no legislative authority to enforce AG21 (2) : “Many local governments work in areas beyond statutory requirements, such as Local Agenda 21 and Cities for Climate Protection.” The fact remains that Eurobodalla Council ARE enforcing AG21 and the Commonwealth government says they do not have the legislative power to enforce it. The NSW Ombudsman clearly, and no doubt wisely, refused to contradict the Commonwealth, preferring instead to suggest he did not have sufficient information. APPENDIX M Correspondence With Greg Hunt, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage Unanswered email of 22/12/2012 Hi Greg, Unfortunately, though you prefer to ” draw this engagement to a conclusion”, this matter is just emerging and will be a factor at the next election. Australians are looking for politicians with a commitment to Australia, not a commitment to importing everything, including UN sustainability programs. But Australians are also looking for a commitment to democracy, truth and political integrity, not backroom deals and covert undeclared policies in which they have no say. Ignoring these matters will fracture the conservative vote and encourage new parties. I find it interesting that you mentioned global government and global conspiracy in regard to Agenda 21. I did not mention these terms or make this connection although of course I acknowledge an awareness of discussions about this, including discussions in the Federal parliament. I also acknowledge statements from the UN to the effect that the limitations of state sovereignty are restricting their global governance aspirations. I also acknowledge the simple fact that the independence and sovereignty of Australia has been progressively reduced over the past 2 decades by various political mechanisms. Are all these changes accidental or deliberate? You would know the answer to this better than I would. Suffice to say that successive governments conspicuously avoid arresting this process by strengthening our sovereignty and independence. What is your policy? More of the same? Or would you adopt a policy of strengthening Australia’s sovereignty and independence? Your question “Can I ask if you honestly think that John Howard was involved in some global Government Green left conspiracy” is curious and irrelevant. I find it interesting that you prefer to waste time with such a question and avoid all the real issues I raised. You seem to be more concerned about what you label ‘conspiracies’ than about the nationwide implementation of AG21 to which I referred. You seem more concerned with conspiracies than the warning your government issued about councils exceeding their legislative authority. And you expressed no concern whatsoever that according to legal experts AG21 is being used to destroy the traditional anthropocentric values of our legal system(see previous encl), even though, being a lawyer, you would be well aware of this. Are these legal experts all wrong? When you describe AG21 as a “dead, irrelevant declaration”, are you suggesting our laws are not being rewritten to endorse the ecocentric principles of AG21 as legal experts claim? And are you suggesting AG21 is not currently being implemented around Australia? And are you suggesting that your government was wrong when they acknowledged in their 2006 SOE report that AG21 is being introduced by councils? If you look on the government’s web site http://www.environment.gov.au/about/international/uncsd/index.html#agenda21 you will see “Australia’s commitment to Agenda 21 is reflected in a strong national response to meet our obligations under this international agreement.” Is this what you mean by a dead irrelevant declaration? You mentioned John Howard. As you must be aware, the Howard government complied with the dictates of the UN that they must send regular implementation reports to the UN to confirm the details of implementation (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Of course this was done undemocratically with no declared policy Australians could vote on. These reports of course involved huge government resources and involved a huge number of bureaucrats and politicians as you can see here (8): How Was This Report Written? The preparation of this report was overseen by an editorial committee composed of the following members: National (Commonwealth Government) members: · the Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories (convenor); · the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; · the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; · the Department of Primary Industries and Energy; and · the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID). State and Local Government members: · a representative of the Government of the State of Victoria, nominated by the Intergovernmental Committee for Ecologically Sustainable Development to represent all States and Territories; and · the Australian Local Government Association. Non-government organisation members: · the Australian Conservation Foundation; · the Australian Council for Overseas Aid; and · the Business Council of Australia. Initial drafts of each chapter of the report were prepared by a Commonwealth Government department or agency with the relevant domestic responsibility. These drafts were provided to the editorial committee, all State, Territory and Local Government members of the Intergovernmental Committee for Ecologically Sustainable Development, and to approximately twenty non-government organisations (NGOs) with interests in the subject matter of the reports. Comments and suggestions from all groups were referred to the editorial committee and the report was finalised on the basis of the committee’s recommendations. The editorial committee took the view that, wherever possible, NGO suggestions on matters of fact or emphasis should be reflected in the body of the report. Where comments critical of government policy could not be accommodated in the official response to the CSD guidelines, text reflecting the comments provided by NGOs was agreed by the editorial committee and included in the report as an identified NGO comment. The report was drafted prior to the March 1996 Federal election which brought about a change of government. It has been approved by the new Government as a document describing policies and programs which were in effect prior to or as at the end of 1995. The final report was approved by the following Ministers: · the Minister for the Environment, Senator the Hon Robert Hill; · the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Alexander Downer MP; · the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Hon John Anderson MP; and · the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator the Hon Warwick Parer. And again here (9): UNCSD – NATIONAL LEVEL COORDINATION STRUCTURE OF AGENDA 21 ACTIONS (Fact Sheet – CSD 1999) 1. Key National Sustainable Development Coordination Mechanism(s) (e.g, Councils, Commissions, Inter-Ministerial Working Groups). Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Working Groups The principle of sustainable development is now broadly accepted and built into the working programs of the key bodies of national governance which bring together the National and State governments. An example of these key bodies are Ministerial Councils, including: Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) Australian and New Zealand Minerals and Energy Council (ANZMEC) Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture (MCFFA) Australian Transport Council 2. Membership/Composition/Chairperson 2a. List of ministries and government agencies involved: Agencies involved in COAG are: Commonwealth Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet New South Wales Cabinet Office Victorian Department of the Premier and Cabinet Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet Western Australian Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet South Australian Department of the Premier and Cabinet Tasmanian Department of the Premier and Cabinet Northern Territory Department of the Chief Minister Australian Capital Territory Chief minister’s Department Other Ministries that contribute to other coordination mechanisms such as the Ministerial Councils include: Australian Greenhouse Office Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade New South Wales Environment Protection Authority New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service New South Wales Department of Land and Water Conservation New South Wales Fisheries New South Wales State Forests Victorian Environment Protection Agency Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment Queensland Department of Natural Resources Queensland Department of Primary Industries Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Western Australian Department of Environmental Protection Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management Western Australian Fisheries South Australian Department of Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs South Australian Department of Primary Industries and Resources Tasmanian Department of the Primary Industries, Water and Environment Northern Territory Department of Lands, Planning and Environment Northern Territory Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries Australian Capital Territory Department of Urban Services 2b. Names of para-statal bodies and institutions involved, as well as participation of academic and private sectors: A range of groups may be consulted on an issues basis, including: Association of Australian Ports and Marine Authorities Inc. Australian Local Government Association National Academies Forum National Environmental Law Association Royal Australian Planning Institute Australian Business Chamber Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Australian Industry Greenhouse Network Sustainable Technologies Australia Australian Chamber of Manufacturers Australian Institute of Petroleum Ltd Minerals Council of Australia National Association of Forest Industries National Farmers’ Federation Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association Business Council of Australia The Institution of Engineers, Australia Pulp and Paper Manufacturers Federation of Australia Environment Management Industry Association of Australia Waste Management Association of Australia Australian Seafood Industry Council Recfish Australia Australian Automobile Association Australian Coal Association Australian Gas Association Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association Ltd. Electricity Supply Association of Australia Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries Metal trades industry Association Road Transport Forum Tourism Council Australia 2c. Names of non-governmental organisations: A number of non-government organisations are consulted on an issues basis, including: Australian Council for Overseas Aid Australian Conservation Foundation Greenpeace Australia World Wide Fund for Nature OzChild Australian Council of Social Services Australian Council of National Trustees Australian Marine Conservation Society Australian National Parks Council Humane Society International Clean Up Australia Ltd. Keep Australia Beautiful Association Birds Australia National Toxics Network Urban Ecology Australia Inc. Ecological Society of Australia Environs Australia Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales Queensland Conservation Council Conservation Council of South Australia Conservation Council of Western Australia Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc. The Environment Centre Northern Territory CONSERAC Victorian National Parks Association 3. Mandate/role of above mechanism/council: COAG’s objectives include increasing cooperation among governments in the national interest, and consultation on major whole-of-government issues arising from Ministerial Council deliberations and on major initiatives of one government which impact on other governments. Groups such as ANZECC, ANZMEC, ARMCANZ, MCFFA report to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). When considering intergovernmental matters which have implications beyond the areas of responsibility of Ministers on a Council, liaison between Ministerial Councils is carried out through the respective Chairs, to ensure that relevant factors are taken into account. Chairs of Ministerial Councils may then report to Heads of Government on issues which have major cross-portfolio or whole-of-government implications. Submitted by Name: Andrew Ross Signature: Title: Director, Intergovernment Unit Date: Ministry/Office: Environment Australia Telephone: + 61 2 6274 1387 Fax: + 61 2 6274 1858 e-mail: Andrew.Ross@ea.gov.au Your claims that AG21 is a non-binding dead agreement (and you are unaware of the above) clearly contradict testimony by your own political party and your own colleagues. You are, for some reason, simply denying the truth, denying the facts. But it gets worse since you claim “we have no powers over local Governments.” I notice you failed to mention former Minister for Environment Robert Hill’s endorsement of the Commonwealth’s Local Agenda 21 guide for councils. According to the Minister: In 1992, the United Nations released a ground-breaking action plan for sustainable development called Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a blueprint that sets out actions we can all take to contribute to global sustainability in the 21st century. It recognises that most environmental challenges have their roots in local activities and therefore encourages Local Governments to promote local environmental, economic and social sustainability by translating the principles of sustainable development into strategies that are meaningful to local communities. This process is called Local Agenda 21 (LA21). The importance of LA21 was recognised in June 1997 by APEC Ministers for Sustainable Development when they set an APEC-wide target of doubling the number of Councils with LA21s by 2003. At the time there were approximately 61 councils in Australia with LA21 programs in place. The importance of local ESD has been further recognised by Environment ministers from all Australian jurisdictions (meeting as the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC)) when they agreed to encourage the implementation of LA21 in their own jurisdictions in order to meet the APEC LA21 target in Australia. In July 1999 ANZECC Ministers agreed to encourage LA21 in their jurisdictions through an ANZECC LA21 Achievement Award. The award will promote LA21 by recognising best practice and raising the profile of LA21 amongst Local Government. Since the Pathways to Sustainability Conference in June 1997 and the release of the Newcastle Declaration, we have seen the growth of Local Agenda 21 initiatives and the LA21 movement in Australia. Moving ahead on sustainable development is not an easy task but it is essential to secure Australia’s future. Australia needs leadership on sustainable development and many Australian Local Governments are providing that leadership… We are now starting to see strong synergies in Australia between LA21 and other sustainable development issues like greenhouse gas emission reduction, integrated coastal management, biodiversity conservation and the objectives of the Natural Heritage Trust.” Are you suggesting that Robert Hill was also unaware AG21 is “dead”? Let us be serious Greg. We both know AG21 is being implemented nationwide and this is being done without giving Australians a democratic choice. To deny this is to deny reality and suggest you are incompetent and unintelligent which I do not believe is so. So let us move on. Instead of constantly denying reality and arguing in the negative, what positive policies will you bring to the election to restore democracy and counter AG21. In the interests of Australian citizens, will you follow the American lead and ban all imported sustainability programs such as AG21? Are you prepared to take positive action, or merely continue arguing and pretending reality is not happening? I have been very patient and given you every opportunity only to have you insult my intelligence by denying simple facts. Isn’t Australia more important to you than that? Regards Graham Williamson —–Original Message—– From: Hunt, Greg (MP) [mailto:Greg.Hunt.MP@aph.gov.au] Sent: Friday, 21 December 2012 8:30 PM To: Graham Subject: Re: Mitigation strategy For the final time i had never heard of the issue, heard it raised by Ministers, MP’s pr constituents until 19 years after the ing was apparently signed. Given that you are int he same position we a subject to the same degree of knowledge. Can I ask if you honestly think that John Howard was involved in some global Government Green left conspiracy? Given that for the first 19 years the issue appears to have escaped both of our attention can I respectfully suggest that the discovery of a dead, irrelevant declaration 19 years after the fact may cause everyone to be calm. I respect your views and encourage you to find and approach any councils directly and to attend Council meetings to announce and denounce any actions which you believe are part of a global conspiracy. I genuinely respect your rights on this front. I will respectfully draw this engagement to a conclusion and encourage you from here to approach State based Governments as we have no powers over local Governments. Sent from my iPad On 21/12/2012, at 6:54 PM, “Graham” wrote: Hi Greg, My interest has gradually increased over the past 12 months as I have learned more about it. You can see the summarised results of 12 months research enclosed. While I of course respect what you have said, it is very much at odds with reality as is evidenced by enclosed. Councils right around Australia are implementing Agenda 21 with the assistance of state governments. This is a simple fact. As you can see, state governments have even incorporated AG into the school curriculum. And your government has acknowledged councils continue to introduce it without legislative authority. The fact that there is such extensive nationwide implementation of this program without politicians prepared to accept responsibility is an enormous problem in itself and raises serious questions. The fact that it is being implemented without being a binding agreement raises even more questions as to why this is so. As you no doubt realise however, experts have pointed out(including human rights commission) that non binding international agreements commonly end up being incorporated into state laws. To summarise. Fact 1 Agenda 21 is being implemented nationwide by state governments and councils. (see encl) Do you deny this? Fact 2 Though you claim that I had never heard of it raised once during the entire period of the Howard Government in the party room or in ministerial discussions” in fact it was included in 2006 SOE report under your watch. Do you deny this? Fact 3 Since the continuing implementation of AG21 is a simple fact, this raises serious questions about who is taking political responsibility for this since the electorate has never been given a democratic choice and politicians, like yourself, deny knowledge of it even though bureaucrats under their portfolio are implementing it (as is clearly evidenced from enclosed) Do you deny this?. Part of the problem of course was the decision by successive governments that Australia needed an imported sustainability program, one that was designed by a foreign agency and was monitored by the CSD(part of UN). Of course, governments, such as the Howard government, were required to send annual implementation reports to the CSD. You seem to be denying all this is happening and the politicians, bureaucrats, and other experts cited in the enclosed are all mistaken or not telling the truth. Is this correct? Australians are very concerned about what is happening to this great country and when hundreds of politicians, bureaucrats and other experts say AG21 is being implemented and yet no current politician is prepared to accept responsibility or even give the people a choice, it reflects very poorly upon the credibility of politicians. The clear impression is created that politicians are not to be trusted and I think you deserve the opportunity to correct this. It will not be corrected by denial of the facts. You are after all, asking me to believe you had absolutely no idea about implementation of AG21 around Australia and even the warning in your government’s 2006 SOE report. Of course you are all busy with so many issues to attend to. You are however aware of it now. What will your policy be regarding AG21? Regards Graham Williamson From: Hunt, Greg (MP) [mailto:Greg.Hunt.MP@aph.gov.au] Sent: Friday, 21 December 2012 5:59 PM To: Graham Subject: Re: Mitigation strategy There is nothing to ban. It is a 20 year old non binding declaration. Councils can use any number of excuses to justify their actions. The only thing that matters is whether it is within the State alas which control them. I would also be interested to know at what point in the last 20 years yu formed the conclusion that this declaration was a gross threat. I can honestly tell you that I had never heard of it raised once during the entire period of the Howard Government in the party room or in ministerial discussions. Sent from my iPad On 21/12/2012, at 5:44 PM, “Graham” grahamhw@iprimus.com.au> wrote: Hi Greg, Thanks for that. So what will your Agenda 21 policy be should you win government? Will you be seeking to work with the Premiers to discipline Councils which are implementing Agenda 21? Or will you be more proactive and encourage Premiers to introduce legislation banning Agenda 21, as is occurring overseas? Regards Graham Williamson From: Hunt, Greg (MP) [mailto:Greg.Hunt.MP@aph.gov.au] Sent: Friday, 21 December 2012 4:32 PM To: Graham Subject: Re: Mitigation strategy Councils should not misuse a 20 year old agreement. Sent from my iPad On 21/12/2012, at 1:17 PM, “Graham” grahamhw@iprimus.com.au> wrote: Hi Greg, Thanks for that. And what about the warning issued by your government in the 2006 SOE report regarding councils exceeding their legislative authority by implementing Agenda 21? Did you or the party follow this up? What action was taken? Do you still agree with this assessment? Regards Graham Williamson From: Hunt, Greg (MP) [mailto:Greg.Hunt.MP@aph.gov.au] Sent: Friday, 21 December 2012 10:06 AM To: Graham Subject: Re: Mitigation strategy No we do not endorse a per capita budget. Sent from my iPad On 21/12/2012, at 9:00 AM, “Graham” grahamhw@iprimus.com.au> wrote: Hi Greg, As per enclosed, do you endorse the per capita approach to emissions (see encl)? One other thing, when your government warned in their 2006 SOE report that councils around Australia were exceeding their legislative authority in implementing Agenda 21, what steps did you or the Liberal party take to prevent this? Did you lobby the state parties? May I wish you and your family a safe Christmas and wonderful New Year. 
Regards Graham Williamson.

Ruling The Tribes of Israel: Democracy or Representative Republic?

Click here to view the original post.

   

     In this season of political malcontents, we are seeing a deliberate attempt to disqualify our Presidential election results.  We hear complaints that the voice of the multitudes should be the deciding factor, since Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.  “We are a Democracy, and democratic rules should apply”, they scream. Others are shouting, “No, we are a representative republic!”  Which is it?
     Here’s what everyone needs to understand:  Terminology is very important. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.
     The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy. But we are also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain, in some measure, the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy.
     Our problem in understanding our form of government is inherently a problem in education.  I’m afraid our schools do not teach the truth about the founding of our form of government, and they certainly do not teach the Biblical foundation upon which our government was structured.  That’s right! We can look to the Bible to see how God structured governing rules for the Tribes of Israel. And then we can decide if that was the model our Founding Fathers had in mind.
    The republican form of government, as we know it, is representative (not democratic) so that a selected group of leaders make national decisions. Those leaders may be selected by popular consent, but decisions about specific laws are not voted on by everyone. Thus, in a republic, it is not a single king or ruler who decides policy, nor is it a vote of every man, rather it is the vote of representatives of the people who make decisions for the nation.

     And we can see that model in God’s revealed plan for human government through the Hebrew republic founded under Moses and Joshua in the Old Testament. For instance, when Joshua presided over the division of Israel (described in Joshua 18:4-5), where seven tribes had yet to receive their tribal lands, the people were to select three men from each tribe. But Joshua was to “send them”, words which seem to indicate a consecration, a sending, as the men went forth to represent their respective tribes. The governmental work of dividing up the land was not done by Joshua alone, and it was not done by democratic vote. It was accomplished through representatives under the authority of an executive (Joshua) and the election of the people. This is an example of their republic in action.
      There are many other references to the chiefs of the people, or of the princes, and how they interacted on behalf of the people. All of these were a model for American thought during our founding period, helping to keep us from the despotism of a too strong central authority, or from the mob-rule of a democracy.
     Ancient Israel also provided the original example of ‘We the People’ through their covenantal oaths at the outset of their national experiment. Though they were twelve tribes, God treated them as a single nation traveling together in a single cause in a united land.  We the People, is a term used to describe that uniting of individual free states under a Godly, covenantal structure.
     We the People who established the nation or exercised its highest powers. Those pagan nations were never able to maintain an advantageous combination of representative government with an executive head. The citizens forever found themselves caught between the oppressions of violent, lawless monarchs or the tyranny of anarchy.

     I’m pretty sure that when our Founding Fathers were writing the Constitution, they did not have the Roman or Greek Empires in mind.  In those governments it was not
     No, it was the Hebrew republic that defined and gave an example for a righteous civil government. Just read the opening lines of our Constitution:  We the People, of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Can you see the example that the Hebrew covenant with their God and their fellow tribesmen provided?
     During the founding era of our nation the broadly accepted law commentary was Blackstone’s.  These were Commentaries on the Laws of England, an influential 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone, originally published by the Clarendon Press at Oxford, 1765–1769.  Sir Blackstone assumed everywhere in his commentary that the law of Moses was entirely valid and still the only right basis for any nation. God’s law was assumed as the foundation for common law rulings. It was the law of the people and the law of our land in the early years. As we became more atheistic and godless we traded God’s law, the law of the Hebrew republic, for man-made statute law. Now we are oppressed by an unending myriad of statutes that bind us hand and foot while they wind their way through Washington.
     So, it’s time to stop the rants and tirades, demanding that we need to abide by our “democratic” principles of government.  That is not the basis for our form of government. We must recognize that God’s precepts for government, civil authority, justice, and liberty are the foundation of this nation.  And as I view the ridiculous demands for endless recounts and demolishing the Electoral College, I would remind all that the Hebrew republic was united under a single system of unchanging law. We would do well to look to God’s model for government, trusting it, and remaining in it. Nations come and go, but God’s form of government never changes.  Let us not veer from His path.

Thank you to Don Schanzenbach for his article, “Biblical Plan for Representative Government”.

Deuteronomy 16:18-20  “You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall follow, that you may live and inherit the land that the Lord your God is giving you.”

Times of Change. Finally!

Click here to view the original post.

The Seismic Shift to Freedom Through Out the Western World.

Headlines like “Trump“,
“The latest result of a populist wave that is set to upturn the political order”,

“2016 the Year that Changed Everything”,  are not true, most of the changes, almost imperceptible changes, have occurred during the recent 25 year period. These changes are all part of the war, which is almost as old as human history, the war between ‘central control of the few’ versus ‘freedom for the people’.

We can all easily appreciate the recent great efforts of Brexit, David Leyonhjelm and the Liberal Democrats combined with the success of One Nation, the Trump Victory and just recently the Shooters Party victory in Orange NSW. The Nationals suffered a record 34 per cent primary vote swing against them in a seat they have held since 1947.

We all I hope, want freedom in our lifetime, or it would be nice to feel that our efforts would result in freedom for our children and our children’s children, but we are only going to get that freedom by making the correct decisions, and not have our efforts miss directed under the many false flag organisations that spring up and demand your support.

The Genie is Out of the Lamp,
and that Lamp is now shining brightly into every nook and cranny of the international suppressive conspiracy.
The mainstream media are horrified, they try to box it into words of containment, ‘revisionism’, or ‘populist’ desperately attempting to minimalize us all as a temporary phenomena.

With no facts to oppose us their only resort is to demean us.

The media cannot understand that their programming of human minds, their push polls and false stories are not working. Throughout the western world the internet, they call it social media but really we should call it Free Media is fuelling a revolution, but it is a new peaceful revolution, (up to date) in reaction to the impositions and controls that have inhibited the common person for too long.

Now, freedom parties in Europe such as Geert Wilders, who identifies it well and calls his party the Freedom Party of Holland, Nigel Farage led the Brexit Movement, Italy has the Five Star Movement and Marine Le Pen’s the National Front in France. The Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s with similar sentiment coming from Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic.  These movements all have the same issues in common, not just anti immigration, or anti muslims they are movements that are concerned with rectifying suppression of individual freedoms, such as Freedom of Speech, Freedom to retain their livelihoods, their jobs, their property, their freedom to defend themselves and their freedom from international interference in their countries decision making. They all oppose big international banking, the UN and oppose the free trade agreements, which for all who go to the trouble of researching them find that they are not free at all. They are designed to turn all people on earth equality to compete for the lowest wage, that is set by the central banking system. Work for nothing, or starve, country by country is the Free trade outcome, that they want. Any one who opposes the international disarmament treaty or the free trade treaties, or international control on climate change, or any of the controls over our freedom are treated by the political and media establishment as being so disreputable that we don’t have a right to exist.

We still have a long war to fight but now the Genie is completely out of the lamp, they can never close the lid and trap it again. They may try to kill Facebook, or control the internet, vet emails, but the populace of the western world has realised that the mainstream media is part of the problem, its authority is not just flawed, its been exposed as part of the chains that bind us down.

In the dark days of John Howard’s power trip in 2001 after he stole our rights, property, jobs and our avocations in 1997 and before he did it again in 2003, when he stole our pistols, closing shops, collectors, disarming even security guards accept his own people, I wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper. It was too extreme for them so like hundreds of other letters they did not print it, but here are some extracts.

Regaining our Freedoms will be a Long Term War -2003.

“To answer the many questions, as to why our freedoms cannot be regained for many years, is complex but it is ultimately due to the huge contrast of power between the few people within the academics/ politicians/banks who control the mainstream media and ourselves, hundreds of thousands of voiceless individual people.

We can understand that the same few who control the media also control the parliaments, and huge tools of coercion, the public service, the Police and the Defence forces, but fortunately in our system all that can be replaced by the re-direction of the one single, main power the ‘Media’.

The establishment demands more central control and the people demand individual freedoms. We are going to win this war but it is not going to end with one election victory, one battle, it will take many victories. Neither in theory, or in practice can the weak win against the strong, or the few win against the many. There will be an ebb and flow, it is part of the natural law of the universe every action will have an opposite and equal re-action. We think that obviously what is big and powerful now can always suppress the weak, but there is another huge factor, ‘Time’ and its ability to change the factors in the coming battles. In history very often the small progressive country conquerors the larger country with more people and more resources. Usually, the progressives have technological advantages, time takes its place and the progressive empire gets complacent and then there is a ‘revision’.

In our present case, the enemy, the Anti Gun members John Crook, Rebecca Peters, John Howard with the media building their credibility and regurgitating their every utterance makes them very strong and if we are not vigilant there is a danger that we will lose everything. It is not all bad news though, the enemy has its shortcomings as well.  They have the media but no numbers and no people on the ground in electorates, we have advantages as well. We have to use our advantages to remove their advantages and remedy our own shortcomings. So we can win final victory and avert total civilian disarmament, defeating this central power movement that seeks to choke the individuals to death.

Since our enemies have only one advantage, media power and shortcomings in numbers and we have only one disadvantage no media outlets and are only advantage is power in numbers, this has resulted in putting the Anti Gun people in a dominating position, we know that the battle ground has to be fought with the media tools, or we will always be in this inferior position of Subjugation (Slavery by another name).

The establishments power is so strong and ours so weak at present it is very difficult for our own supporters to see that the enemy have any shortcomings, but they will become more apparent as we become more proactive on the media battle grounds. We will lose more battles, but gain experience, we will be further from absolute defeat and nearer to victories as time goes by. As we have the numbers and even without the internet we can talk to one another, we have the telephone, we are getting comment on talk back radio, we are communicating and educating the up and coming generations, so they can resist this huge power grab by the anti gun elements within the major political parties. If we employ correct tactics to increase firearm ownership, to increase members of our clubs and train these people to be pro active in communicating their resistance to the government impositions, letter writing, petitions, articles, meeting, emails we can exploit our best advantages and expose their worst shortcomings. Then there will be a continual change in comparative strengths, we will get stronger and they will get weaker. As yet we have not fundamentally weakened them, they know we are here, but they marginalise us and call us conspiracy theorists to box us in.

History shows that disarmament does not work and where ever there is a vacuum other powers will seek to employ it.

Crime will continue to grow. Before John Howard’s disarmament, home invasion was unheard of, now its on everyone lips. To our north are countries that need our natural resource, yet do not need our small western population. Our defence forces are weak, the little island of Singapore could invade us and hold us. As time goes buy Australians will buy target and hunting rifles without mentioning the real reason, their fear in defending their families.  They will enjoy their sport, but keep their rifles close. This, we have to encourage as our numbers increase, and they can appreciate the impositions we live under, this will bring even more power to our cause, not only in our voting power but in creating our own media channels. We will have to sustain some losses but as international troubles increase so to will our numbers increase, we will not win quickly, but eventually we win in this long prolonged war. If we do nothing we may well lose everything.”
……………
Of course our opposition, those few who through there academic and media power state ‘they are fighting for freedom, by freeing their society from the threat of firearm owners’.   We cannot question their right to have free speech, and their right to have a free opinion, but I can question their hypocrisy of using the banner of Freedom by denying freedom to the two million licensed firearm owners in Australia who own property.

We, on the other hand deny none of their rights, yet they continually oppose our rights to free speech and the right to own property. This establishment quango, which is one small anti gun group, has used its power to systematic coerce another much larger group, the firearm owners. We are all supposed to be citizens of Australia, our police are citizens, our defence forces are citizens, the government employees are all citizens with supposedly the same rights as ourselves, but we are treated similar to slaves. These elite few dictate that government employees can have firearms to defend themselves and politicians, but not us, we the common working people are the downtrodden, the peasant peons who have no rights and no freedoms.

Check out who they vote with and if they do really support firearm owners?

Who Do we Trust, Which Party? The Answer. “Know Them By Their Fruits“.(View their past records)

We are in a long protracted war for freedom, this war will be won in three stages, we have been on the defensive during this early period, but now we are approaching the middle stage where we can have much more offensive action, (non violent of course) with a large part of our community now doubting all information from mainstream media and nothing that is spoken by the major party politicians. The main stream media and their masters have lost a lot of their power and we are gaining leaps and bound using internet sights, youtubes and facebook to communicate almost instantly, with the evidence plain for all to see. For the first time we are seeing some of there advantages weaken. We have lots of minor parties, as we have mentioned above, the Shooters, Fisher and Farmers Party, One Nation, the Liberal Democrats and the Katter Party. In this second stage of the our protracted war we have to discern and investigate to find which party, in our area, is going to be the most proactive and keen to remove the huge impositions and protect the law abiding citizens from the henchmen of the establishment. We have to remind each party that per the Crimtrac Annual Report for 2015/16 which has licensed shooters numbers at 1.98 million, that’s a squidgeon under two million and nearly 6 million licensed firearms, a national increase of 37 %.  14 million Australians voted at the last general election, 22 % voted against the major parties, so which policy is going to do the most for shooters. We all have to ask them, each and every one of us has to contact these parties. Ask them for a copy of their Firearm Policy. Then we decide. Then we can support the best of them, in every way that we can.

Never Ever Again, We Now Want Them Back With Interest.

The third and final stage of our prolonged war, and this part might be the hardest part, as when we get them elected and in power, we then have to ensure that they carry out the instructions of those whom they represent and not betray us like the Liberal and National Party did in 1996.
I have no doubt that we will win our freedom again, I just hope I live long enough to see it happen.

Ron Owen. Phone 07 54 825070.

If TSHTF, Don’t Rely On The Government To Help You!

Click here to view the original post.

Is a Violent Anti-Trump Revolution Possible in the US?

Click here to view the original post.

Most of you have read a lot of articles and reports lately concerning escalating protests and violence across the country.  Many of you are rightfully asking how far this will

Election Fraud Alert: Democrats’ Plan to Steal Election Using Electoral College Gaining Support

Click here to view the original post.

Last Minute Survival exclusively warned before the election that Democrat Party operatives planned to steal the election “legally” by pressuring Democrat appointed electors to vote for Hillary irrespective of their

UPDATE: How the Election is being Legally Rigged

Click here to view the original post.

Before the first votes were cast, I penned a unique piece on how the election could be “legally rigged” by manipulating the votes of state electors.  LMS was the only

Why We Should Never (Ever) Abolish The Electoral College

Click here to view the original post.
Why We Should Never (Ever) Abolish The Electoral College

Image source: Pixabay.com

Some things become so predictable. Every time there’s a presidential election, I hear friends and family who say that it’s time to abolish the Electoral College and go to a popular vote. They claim that the system created by the Founding Fathers is fundamentally unfair and was created merely as a means of overcoming difficulties in travel and communication in the 18th century.

But nothing could be farther from the truth.

When the Constitution was signed, America consisted of the original 13 Colonies, nothing more. That means that traveling on horseback, one could make it from Concord, N.H., to Washington, D.C. in 16 days. Or, coming from the other direction, from Atlanta, Ga., to the capital in 21 days. That’s reason to delay the declaration of a win, but nothing more. Either way, someone has to make it from the state capitals to the national capital to carry the popular vote or carry the electoral votes.

Here’s what those who decry the Electoral College may not understand: We don’t have a national presidential election. We have 51 separate but consecutive presidential elections (Washington, D.C. is the 51st). There’s an excellent reason for that and it has to do with fair and democratic elections.

Want To Know About The REAL Constitution And What The Founders Truly Intended?

In a normal democrat election, each citizen gets one vote. If we had a nationwide election, then the votes from lower population states wouldn’t be as important as those from higher population states. Politicians would quickly realize that if they won the vote in the 10 most populous states or the 50 most populous cities, they could win the election. So, they would focus their attention on those states or cities and ignore the rest.

Why We Should Never (Ever) Abolish The Electoral College

Image source: Pixabay.com

In a nationwide popular vote, the 5 million who live in Colorado don’t mean as much as the 25 million who live in Texas. Nor do the half million people in Wyoming mean as much to a politician as the 37 million who live in California.

So, it would be easy for politicians to ignore the lower population states, or even worse, use them to fund projects to help the high population states, robbing from Peter to buy votes from Paul in a sense.

The Electoral College ensures that all the states have a voice in the national election. It is impossible for a politician to gain the 270 votes needed to win the election by just concentrating on the states with the largest population. They need to create a coalition, which means that they need to pay attention to all the states — or at a minimum, most of the states.

Some ask: “But doesn’t the election come down to the swing states?”

Not really. What makes the swing states different isn’t that they are more important than other states; it’s that they are more evenly divided politically than the other states. California, which has the most electoral votes (currently at 55), is 43.9 percent registered Democrat and only 28.9 percent registered Republican. So, it’s not surprising that it’s not a swing state. The state, as a whole, votes overwhelmingly Democrat in every election, even though there was a time when California was mostly Republican.

On the other end of the spectrum we have little New Hampshire, which is a swing state. But it only has 4 electoral votes. How, then, can it be so important? Simply because prior to 1992, the state was staunchly conservative. But since 1992, there has been a shift, with citizens voting Democrat more than Republican in all but one presidential election. With New Hampshire being divided politically, it is now a swing state.

Politicians concentrate their campaigns on the swing states because those are the ones where there is a greater chance of swinging the vote one way or another. Trying to make California vote Republican or Texas vote Democrat is a major undertaking, worthy of Hercules. But Iowa, a swing state, has voted Republican twice and Democratic twice in the past four presidential elections.

The swing states are such because the vote of those states swings back and forth between the two parties. Eventually, they will likely settle one way or the other and no longer be a swing state. At the same time, other states will move away from their party affiliation to a more centrist position and become swing states.

Getting rid of the Electoral College would be the same as turning the election over to those states with the highest populations. That would mean that unless you happened to live in one of those states, your vote wouldn’t matter. Are you sure that you want to do that? After all, what’s citizenship, if you don’t have the power to vote? For that matter, what’s freedom if you don’t have the power to vote?

Do you agree or disagree? Share your thoughts in the section below: 

Media Ignoring How the Election is Legally Rigged and Violence May Erupt When Truth Exposed

Click here to view the original post.

Sometimes when searching for truth in the maze of media spin, your best technique is to focus on what is not being talked about.  In the case of election rigging,

Opinion: Taking sides…

Click here to view the original post.

From Elie Wiesel’s Nobel Peace Price acceptance speech in 1986: And then I explained to him how naive we were, that the world did know and remain silent. And that is why I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the […]

Opinion: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of a healthy future…plus, PODCAST!

Click here to view the original post.

14046128_10153637470286268_6038572892736391891_nUpdate: In case you don’t know, I’m going under the knife next week. T minus 2 workdays until *New Knee Day*… As before, the pain level escalates. Had to use the cane today at work, and had to explain to most coworkers why the cane…because my meds are not helping with pain management, since I’m […]

What You Need For A Secure Storage Room

Click here to view the original post.

Another Guest Post today. This one from the folks at Delivering Customers on a Secure Storage Room. Hope you enjoy. — What Should Your Secure Storage Room Contain? The Secure Storage Room: What you Need Read More …

The post What You Need For A Secure Storage Room appeared first on Use Your Instincts To Survive.

Thank You Russia: My Open Letter to President Putin

Click here to view the original post.

If no one else will say it, I will.  Thank you Russia for exposing the rampant corruption in our government and their crony relationships with those in the media and

Breaking News. Firearms under threat. Australia.

Click here to view the original post.
BREAKING NEWS .
—————————
Action Required Now COAG MEETING is This  October 2016.

Don’t Let Confiscations Happen again. Act NOW.

Action Required Now COAG MEETING is This  October 2016.

On the 28th September 2016 members of Queensland Firearm associations had two meetings with the Queensland Police Minister (Bill Byrne) and an Acting Inspector from Weapons Licensing.

1. The question was raised more than once as to what recommendations would be put forward from Queensland to the October COAG meeting on the National Firearm Agreement, (they call it an agreement but we never agreed to any of it) their answer was “Just to fix up wording in the regulations to make it more workable for everyone”. Which did not explain why the Commonwealth had previously refused to divulge these recommendations to a ‘Freedom of Information’ request. See Owen Guns Bulletin Number 120. http://www.owenguns.com/owen-guns-bulletin-july-2016-edition-120/

The Commonwealth Government has refused FOI requests from Dr Samara McPhedran, (Senior Research Fellow at Griffith University’s Violence Research and Prevention Program,) who submitted a FOI in March 2016 to access the documents. The FOI request was denied by Stephen Bouwhuis, Assistant Secretary at the Attorney-General’s Department.

Mr Bouwhuis confirmed the documents existed, however refused to disclose it. He said in a letter to McPhedran, “I do not consider that it would be in the public interest to disclose this document”.

“The information contained in the document was communicated to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department by or on behalf of state or territory governments on a confidential basis, for the purposes of discussions about the proposed agreement,” he said in the letter.

So if it is just to improve the wording in the legislation why object to it being released to a formal reasonable FOI request?

2. Another question, “As we  Dealers have a duty of care not to sell products like lever action firearms if we know that the government is going to confiscate them shortly. The government also has a duty of care to fully inform the shooting public, if it is the Governments intention to change the Category of lever Actions firearms to Category “C” it is failing in its duty by not informing. Extremely worse than that, if it lets people buy them and accepts their $37. Application for a Permit To Acquire Fee, then approves the application, it is plainly defrauding the shooting public and no form of compensation would address a deception such as that.” The Minister said that, “Even though in ‘his opinion’ lever actions were far more devastating than Pump Actions and he was sure that the intention of John Howard’s gun laws was to ban them as well as pumps, the rest of the government did not agree with him, even the Premier did not agree with him and so that banning, or re categorising lever actions would not be a recommendation from Queensland to COAG.”

We are the section of the lawful community that see nothing wrong with Minister Byrne firing his .22 calibre rifle at rats in the roof cavity of his Rockhampton home. That is what RATSHOT is intended to be for. Even discharging his firearm in front of his wife would not shock us at all..

3.He was then asked, “Why then was Weapons Licencing compiling a list of all lever action owners in Queensland” his answer was, “Just to find out how many licensed shooters had them in Queensland. He said that, “The Commonwealth might proclaim an amnesty but Queensland had no dollars in their budget to support it, and no one had any money for “Buy Backs”, that was just media hype.
(All feel good stomach massage, and then!!!)

4. He said, “Even if he went to the conference and gave an ‘agreement in principle’ to the meeting that Queensland would accept legislation changes, he would still return to Queensland consult with shooting associations and get cabinets approval before confirming the agreement, and if their were any bans, that their would not be a ‘Buy Back” they would just put a ‘grandfather provision” in the act which would allow people to own them until they died”. (This is still reprehensible as it removes the value to the ownership of that property, once you cannot sell that property, it has no monetary value, if you cannot leave the property of your estate to your chosen relatives, but they must hand it over for destruction, the government has stolen it from you.)

If the Police Minister goes back on those words today, he may lose a huge amount of credibility, with the shooters of Queensland. As the Queensland Parliament, like the Commonwealth parliament is on a knife’s edge majority, which could fall with the removal of the Katter Party support without even making it to an election. If an election is called disappointed firearm owners could easily ensure that Labour was not re-elected to the government of Queensland.

Shooters would still be the biggest losers, as we can never trust the National/Liberals to honour a promise and would have to wait until one of the new minor political movements has a majority. So please contact your local members and Minister Bill Byrne before they make firm decisions on this matter. Obviously, from the above spoken words, they have been having in-depth discussions on the subject of banning lever actions by re-categorising them as Cat C. It is only that their majority is so fine and they cannot afford to lose a vote, that is protecting lever action owners and other firearm owners from confiscations. It is always the balance of numbers, the major parties will never do anything for us because, we have rights, or we are good people, they want power, and they want the people without any power. They have read Mao tse-Tung maxim, “Power comes from the barrel of a Gun” so they want all of the Guns and all of the Power.
Action Required Now COAG MEETING is This  October 2016.

We have succeeded before, lets do it again even if you have written already please do it again and invite all your friends and family to send an email, a facebook message, a phone call or a tweet. Here is a link to all State and Federal Police Minister don’t forget to flick your local member a copy as well as he should be made aware of what NOT to vote for.

Dear Sir.

I am a licenced firearm owner, to keep that licence, I have to be a model citizen. I will never give my vote for any political party that imposes restrictions on the firearm ownership by good citizens. Furthermore, I will use all the resources at my disposal to campaign and influence voters to make the same choice as myself.

Ron Owen.
24 Mc Mahon Rd
Gympie, 4570 Q

The federal government is poised to announce a national gun amnesty!!!

Click here to view the original post.
Yet again, instead of targeting the black market & criminals, the Federal government is targeting the law abiding gun owner. Maybe this amnesty is just for illegally owned guns by unlicensed citizens, I hope so, but wouldn’t this money be better used targeting illegal imports & the Black Market?

Thoughts For The Week. Australia. Owen Guns Bulletin September 2016 Edition 123

Click here to view the original post.
Thoughts For The Week

The worlds media have downplayed the emerging militaristic friction in our Asia Pacific area for the last ten years, now China is building military bases in the Spratley Islands and North Korea is exploding 10 kiloton nukes delivered by ballistic missiles fired from submarines. At first you might think Defence is not relevant to Australia’s firearm owners, but please put up with my background information before we get to the punch.

Expanding Buffer Zones.

We should do some Heavy Thinking.
Why does, China want military bases in the Spratley Islands, and why does North Korea want nuclear missiles with a range of 2000 miles? The answer is an old strategy, that it is far better to have to fight a war in someone else’s country rather than your own. As the Roman Empire created buffer states to keep out the barbarians, so too do the Chinese. They give nuclear technology and a vast amount of military equipment to Pakistan, so it can hold back India, they keep Tibet enslaved and supply vast amounts of military hardware to North Korea, so it can face off to Japan and Taiwan and as they see it the main bogy man the USA. We cannot be amazed that North Korea and Vietnam also want to keep any threat away from their own countries so also have to engage in a military game of chess as to who dominates the chess board. That chessboard is of course the Pacific Ocean, this should concern all Australians who think.

Don’t let the people know? We don’t want to Arouse them.

I should not have to spell it out, we all should know this but due to the dumbing down, news service that spend hours on man bites dog stories, or save the rare toad, we are told we are more concerned about how many medals were won at the Olympics. Really, that is not the truth as we are all concerned about the safety of our homes and families.

We were very lucky last time, Japan made a big mistake and attacked the USA. If they had just moved down on Australia. the USA would not have cared.

APPEASERS.
It is due to our spineless leaders, who are from the same mould as the pre World War Two Appeasers like the Prime Ministers Ramsay Macdonald, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, and French foreign Minister Pierre Laval, who all sought to avoid war by feeding smaller countries to Japan, Germany and Italy, to sate the savage beasts. They downplay the internal threat from Islam that demands world domination and they downplay the threats from our northern military dictatorships that also want to dominate our region.

Gun Control Myths.

Click here to view the original post.
This primitive pistol can only be legally used on a pistol club range!!!

TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL

Table of Contents

MYTH 1 — Public opinion polls

MYTH 2 — The purpose of a handgun

MYTH 3 — Armed citizens don’t deter crime

MYTH 4 — Licensing and registration

MYTH 5 — Foreign gun control works

MYTH 6 — Crimes of passion and guns

MYTH 7 — Semi-autos should be banned

MYTH 8 — No `right’ to own a gun

MYTH 9 — Concealed carry laws are dangerous

MYTH 10 — Gun control reduces crime


Ten Myths About Gun Control

“We will never fully solve our nation’s horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons.” –USA Today, December 29, 1993

“Why should America adopt a policy of near-zero tolerance for private gun ownership?. .. (W)ho can still argue compellingly that Americans can be trusted to handle guns safely? We think the time has come for Americans to tell the truth about guns. They are not for us, we cannot handle them.” –Los Angeles Times, December 28, 1993

These editorial opinions expressed by two of the nations most widely read newspapers represent the absolute extreme in the firearms controversy: that no citizen can be trusted to own a firearm. It is the product of a series of myths which–through incessant repetition–have been mistaken for truth. These myths are being exploited to generate fear and mistrust of the 60-65 million decent and responsible Americans who own firearms. Yet, as this document proves, none of these myths will stand up under the cold light of fact.

MYTH 1:”The majority of Americans favor strict new additional federal gun controls.”

Polls can be slanted by carefully worded questions to achieve any desired outcome. It is a fact that most people do not know what laws currently exist; thus, it is meaningless to assert that people favor “stricter” laws when they do not know how “strict” the laws are in the first place. Asking about a waiting period for a police background check presumes, incorrectly, that police can and will actually conduct a check during the wait. Similarly, it is meaningless to infer anything from support of a 7- or 5-day waiting period when respondents live in a state with a 15-day wait or a 1-6 month permit scheme in place. Asked whether they favor making any particular law “stricter,” however, most people do not. Unbiased, scientific polls have consistently shown that most people:

Oppose costly registration of firearms.

Oppose giving police power to decide who should own guns.

Do not believe that stricter gun laws would prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns.

In 1993, Luntz Weber Research and Strategic Services found that only 9% of the American people believe “gun control” to be the most important thing that could be done to reduce crime. By a margin of almost 3-1, respondents said mandatory prison would reduce crime more than “gun control.” This poll, unlike many others, allowed respondents to answer more honestly by using open ended questions without leading introductions. The result was an honest appraisal of the attitude of the American people: “gun control” is not crime control.

One clear example of a poll done which used biased questions and flawed procedures was conducted by Louis Harris Research Inc. (LHRI) in the summer of 1993. The poll reported unprecedented levels of gun abuse by high school students. However, after examining the poll, Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University, the nation’s leading scholar on crime and firearms, called the findings “…implausible, being inconsistent with more sophisticated prior research.” Prof. Kleck found the Harris findings of students who had been shot at or who had actually shot at someone to be insupportable by crime and victimization statistics as reported by the Department of Justice: “Even if the percent of handgun crime victimization had doubled from the average for the 1979-1987 period, the LHRI results would still be overstated by a factor of 100.” In the end, he labeled the LHRI poll “advocacy polling.”1

A more direct measure of the public’s attitude on “gun control” comes when the electorate has a chance to speak on the issue. Public opinion polls do not form public policy, but individual actions by hundreds of thousands of citizens do. For example, in 1993, the voters of Madison, Wisconsin, were presented with a referendum calling for a ban on handgun ownership in that city. Pollsters predicted an overwhelming win for the gun banners. When Second Amendment rights activists rallied opposition and educated the electorate on the facts about gun ownership, the referendum was defeated. In the 1993 gubernatorial elections, the incumbent governor in New Jersey and the front-runner in Virginia made “gun control” a central theme of their campaigns. Both candidates lost to opponents who stressed real criminal justice reforms, not “gun control.” In November 1982, Californians rejected, by a 63-37% margin, a statewide handgun initiative that called for the registration of all handguns and a “freeze” on the number of handguns allowed in the state. Again, pre-elect ion pollsters reported support for the measure. That initiative was also opposed by the majority of California’s law enforcement community. Fifty-one of the state’s 58 working sheriffs opposed Proposition 15, as did 101 chiefs of police. Nine law enforcement organizations, speaking for rank-and-file police, went on record against the initiative.

Increasingly, the American people are voicing support for reform of the criminal justice system. The NRA also actively supports initiatives calling for mandatory jail time for violent criminals. In 1982, the residents of Washington, D.C., enacted an NRA-endorsed mandatory penalty bill, actively opposed by the anti-gun D.C. City Council, that severely punishes those who use firearms to commit a violent crime . In 1988, the residents of Oregon approved, by a 78-22% margin, an NRA-supported initiative mandating prison sentences for repeat offenders after the state legislature and governor failed to act on the issue. In 1993, the residents of Washington state overwhelmingly approved the “three strikes you’re out” initiative calling for life sentences without parole for anyone convicted of a third serious crime. NRA’s Crime Strike program was instrumental in collecting the needed signatures to put that question on the ballot.

In 1993, the Southern States Police Benevolent Association conducted a scientific poll of its members. Sixty-five percent of the respondents identified “gun control” as the least effective method of combating violent crime. Only 1% identified guns as a cause of violent crime, while 48% selected drug abuse, and 21% said the failure of the criminal justice system was the most pressing cause. The officers also revealed that 97% support the right of the people to own firearms, and 90% said they believed the Constitution guarantees that right.

The SSPBA findings affirmed a series of polls conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police of every chief and sheriff in the country, representing over 15,000 departments. In 1991 the poll discovered for the third year in a row that law enforcement officers overwhelmingly agree that “gun control” measures have no effect on crime. A clear majority of 93% of the respondents said that banning firearms would not reduce a criminal’s ability to get firearms, while 89% said that the banning of semi-automatic firearms would not reduce criminal access to such firearms. Ninety-two percent felt that criminals obtain their firearms from illegal sources; 90% agreed that the banning of private ownership of firearms would not result in fewer crimes. Seventy-three percent felt that a national waiting period would have no effect on criminals getting firearms. An overwhelming 90% felt that such a scheme would instead make agencies less effective against crime by reducing their manpower and only serve to open them up to liability lawsuits.

These are the only national polls of law enforcement officers in the country, with the leadership of most other major groups adamantly refusing to poll their membership on firearms issues.

1 Kleck, “Reasons for Skepticism on the Results from a New Poll on: The Incidence of Gun Violence Among Young People,” The Public Perspective, Sept./Oct. 1993.

MYTH 2: “The only purpose of a handgun is to kill people.”

This often repeated statement is patently untrue, but to those Americans whose only knowledge of firearms comes from the nightly violence on television, it might seem believable. When anti-gun researcher James Wright, then of the University of Massachusetts, studied all the available literature on firearms, he concluded: “Even the most casual and passing familiarity with this literature is therefore sufficient to believe the contention that handguns have `no legitimate sport or recreational use.’ “

There are an estimated 65-70 million privately owned handguns in the United States that are used for hunting, target shooting, protection of families and businesses, and other legitimate and lawful purposes. By comparison, handguns were used in an estimated 13,200 homicides in 1992 –less than 0.02% (two hundredths of 1%) of the handguns in America. Many of these reported homicides (1,500-2,800) were self-defense or justifiable and, therefore, not criminal. That fact alone renders the myth about the “only purpose” of handguns absurd, for more than 99% of all handguns are used for no criminal purpose.

By far the most commonly cited reason for owning a handgun is protection against criminals. At least one-half of handgun owners in America own handguns for protection and security. A handgun’s function is one of insurance as well as defense. A handgun in the home is a contingency, based on the knowledge that if there ever comes a time when it is needed, no substitute will do. Certainly no violent intent is implied, any more than a purchaser of life insurance intends to die soon.

MYTH 3:”Since a gun in a home is many times more likely to kill a family member than to stop a criminal, armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime.”

This myth, stemming from a superficial “study” of firearm accidents in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, represents a comparison of 148 accidental deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by home owners over a 16-year period. 2

Gross errors in this and similar “studies”–with even greater claimed ratios of harm to good–include: the assumption that a gun hasn’t been used for protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the deceased was part of the “family” or not; all accidents were counted whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland’s experience with crime and accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3

The “guns in the home” myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place–ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done–and a control group that was not representative of American households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: “It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide.” Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, “Indeed the point is stronger than that: ‘reverse causation’ may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann’s data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion.”5

Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

81% agreed the “smart criminal” will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.

74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.

80% of “handgun predators” had encountered armed citizens.

40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.

34% of “handgun predators” were scared off or shot at by armed victims.

57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.

Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in “excusable self-defense” or “justifiable” shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.

Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.

2 Rushforth, et al., “Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, ” 100 American Journal of Epidemiology 499 (1975).

3 Rushforth, et al., “Violent Death in a Metropolitan County,” 297 New England Journal of Medicine 531, 533 (1977).

4 Kellermann, et al., “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home,” New England Journal of Medicine 467 (1993).

5 Polsby, “The False Promise of Gun Control,” The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.

6 Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).

7 Kleck, interview, Orange County Register,Sept. 19, 1993.

MYTH 4:”Honest citizens have nothing to fear from gun registration and licensing which will curb crime by disarming criminals.”

“Gun control” proponents tout automobile registration and licensing as model schemes for firearm ownership. Yet driving an automobile on city or state roads is a privilege and, as s uch, can be regulated, while the individual right to possess firearms is constitutionally protected from infringement. Registration and licensing do not prevent criminal misuse nor accidental fatalities involving motor vehicles in America, where more than 40,000 people die on the nation’s highways each year. By contrast, about 1,400 persons are involved in fatal firearm accidents each year.

Registration and licensing have no effect on crime, as criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Indeed, a national survey of prisoners conducted by Wright and Rossi for the Department of Justice found that 82% agreed that “gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens; criminals will always be able to get guns.”

Further, felons are constitutionally exempt from a gun registration requirement. According to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Haynes v. U.S., since felons are prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, compelling them to register firearms would violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. 8 Only law-abiding citizens would be required to comply with registration–citizens who have neither committed crime nor have any intention of doing so.

Registration and licensing of America’s 60-65 million gun owners and their 200 million firearms would require the creation of a huge bureaucracy at tremendous cost to the taxpayer, with absolutely no tangible anti-crime return. Indeed, New Zealand authorities repealed registration in the 1980s after police acknowledged its worthlessness, and a similar recommendation was made by Australian law enforcement. Law enforcement would be diverted from its primary responsibility, apprehending and arresting criminals, to investigating and processing paperwork on law-abiding citizens.

In the U.S., after President Clinton, Attorney General Reno, and others announced support for registration and licensing, police response was immediate and non-supportive. Dewey Stokes, President of the Fraternal Order of Police said … I don’t want to get into a situation where we have gun registration.” Other law enforcement officers responded even more strongly. Charles Canterbury, President of the South Carolina FOP said, “On behalf of the South Carolina law enforcement, I can say we are adamantly opposed to registration of guns.” Dennis Martin, President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police reported, “I have had a lot of calls from police chiefs and sheriffs who are worried about this. They are afraid that we’re going to create a lot of criminals out of law-abiding people who don’t want to get a license for their gun.

Finally, a national registration/licensing scheme would violate an individual’s right to privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment and establish a basis upon which gun confiscation could be implemented. More than 60,000 rifles and shotguns were confiscated in April, 1989 from honest citizens who had dutifully registered their guns with the authorities in Soviet Georgia (Chicago Sun-Times, April 12, 1989, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, May 21, 1989). Could that happen in America? Gun prohibitionists in Massachusetts, Ohio, and Washington, D.C., have already proposed using registration lists for such purposes. And, since 1991, New York City authorities have used registration lists to enforce a ban on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Avowed handgun prohibitionist Charles Morgan, as director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office, in a 1975 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Crime stated: “I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with the National Rifle Association, that kind of a record-keeping procedure is the first step to eventual confiscation under one administration or another.”

Reasonable fears of such confis cation lead otherwise law-abiding citizens to ignore such laws, creating a disrespect for law and a lessened support for government. In states and cities which recently required registration of semi-automatic firearms, estimates of compliance range from 5 to 10%.

8 Haynes v. U.S., 309 U.S. 85 (1968).

“Stiff `gun control’ laws work as shown by the low crime rates in England and Japan, while U. S crime rates continue to soar.”

All criminologists studying the firearms issue reject simple comparisons of violent crime among foreign countries. It is impossible to draw valid conclusions without taking into account differences in each nation’s collection of crime data, and their political, cultural, racial, religious, and economic disparities. Such factors are not only hard to compare, they are rarely, if ever, taken into account by “gun control” proponents.9

Only one scholar, attorney David Kopel, has attempted to evaluate the impact of “gun control” on crime in several foreign countries. In his book The Samurai, The Mountie and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?, named a 1992 Book of the Year by the American Society of Criminology, Kopel examined numerous nations with varying gun laws, and concluded: “Contrary to the claims of the American gun control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations.” He noted that Israel and Switzerland, with more widespread rates of gunownership, have crime rates comparable to or lower than the usual foreign examples. And he stated: “Foreign style gun control is doomed to failure in America. Foreign gun control comes along with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil liberties too intrusive for America. Foreign gun control…postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian American ethos.”10

America’s high crime rates can be attributed to re volving-door justice. In a typical year in the U.S., there are 8.1 million serious crimes like homicide, assault, and burglary. Only 724,000 adults are arrested and fewer still (193,000) are convicted. Less than 150,000 are sentenced to prison, with 36,00 0 serving less than a year (U.S. News and World Report, July 31, 1989). A 1987 National Institute of Justice study found that the average felon released due to prison overcrowding commits upwards of 187 crimes per year, costing society approximately $430, 000.

Foreign countries are two to six times more effective in solving crimes and punishing criminals than the U.S. In London, about 20% of reported robberies end in conviction; in New York City, less than 5% result in conviction, and in those cases imprisonment is frequently not imposed. Nonetheless, England annually has twice as many homicides with firearms as it did before adopting its tough laws. Despite tight licensing procedures, the handgun-related robbery rate in Britain rose about 200% duri ng the past dozen years, five times as fast as in the U.S.

Part of Japan’s low crime rate is explained by the efficiency of its criminal justice system, fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal suspects than exist in the United States. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay “home visits” to citizens’ residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is over 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Association has said that the Japanese police routinely “…engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their confessions.” Neither the powers and secrecy of the police nor the docility of defense counsel would be acceptable to most Americans. In addition, the Japanese police understate the amount of crime, particularly covering up the problem of organized crime, in order to appear more efficient an d worthy of the respect the citizens have for the police.

Widespread respect for law and order is deeply ingrained in the Japanese citizenry. This cultural trait has been passed along to their descendants in the United States where the murder ratef or Japanese-Americans (who have access to firearms) is similar to that in Japan itself. If gun availability were a factor in crime rates, one would expect European crime rates to be related to firearms availability in those countries, but crime rat es are similar in European countries with high or relatively high gun ownership, such as Switzerland, Israel, and Norway, and in low availability countries like England and Germany. Furthermore, one would expect American violent crime rates to be more sim ilar to European rates in crime where guns are rarely used, such as rape, than in crimes where guns are often used, such as homicide. But the reverse is true: American non-gun violent crime rates exceed those of European countries.

9 Wright, et al ., Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America (N.Y.: Aldine, 1983).

10 Kopel, “The Samurai, The Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?’ (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992), 431-32.

MYTH 6: “Most murders are argument-related `crimes of passion’ against a relative, neighbor, friend or acquaintance. “

The vast majority of murders are committed by persons with long established patterns of violent criminal behavior. Acc ording to analyses by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, the FBI, and the Chicago, New York City, and other police departments, about 70% of suspected murderers have criminal careers of long standing–as do nearly half their victims. FBI data show that roughly 47% of murderers are known to their victims.

The waiting period, or “cooling-off” period, as some in the “gun control” community call it, is the most often cited solution to “crimes of passion.” However, state crime records show that in 1992, states with waiting periods and other laws delaying or denying gun purchases had an overall violent crime rate more than 47% higher and a homicide rate 19% higher than other states. In the five states that have some jurisdictions with waiting periods (Georgia, Kansas, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia), the non-waiting period portions of all five states have far lower violent crime and homicide rates.

Recent studies by the Justice Department suggest that persons who live violent lives e xhibit those violent tendencies “both within their home and among their family and friends and outside their home among strangers in society.” A National Institute of Justice study reveals that the victims of family violence often suffer repeated problems from the same person for months or even years, and if not successfully resolved, such incidents can eventually result in serious injury or death. A study conducted by the Police Foundation showed that 90% of all homicides, by whatever means committed, in volving family members, had been preceded by some other violent incident serious enough that the police were summoned, with five or more such calls in half the cases.

Circumstances which might suggest “crimes of passion” or “spontaneous” arguments, such as a lover’s triangle, arguments over money or property, and alcohol-related brawls, comprise 29% of criminal homicides, according to FBI data.

Professor James Wright of the University of Massachusetts describes the typical incident of family violence as “that mythical crime of passion” and rejects the notion that it is an isolated incident by otherwise normally placid and loving individuals. His research shows that it is in fact “the culminating event in a long history of interpersonal viole nce between the parties.”

Wright also speaks to the protective use of handguns. “Firearms equalize the means of physical terror between men and women. In denying the wife of an abusive man the right to have a firearm, we may only be guaranteeing he r husband the right to beat her at his pleasure,” says Wright. 11

11 Wright, “Second Thoughts About Gun Control,” 91 [The] Public Interest, 23 (Spring 1988).

MYTH 7:”Semi-automatic firearms have no legitimate sporting purpose, are the preferred weapon of choice of criminals, and should be banned.”

Use of this myth by gun prohibitionists is predicated purely on pragmatism: whichever “buzzword” can produce the most anti-gun emotionalism–“Saturday Night Special,” “assault weapons,” and “plastic guns”–will be utilized in efforts to generate support for a ban on entire classes of firearms.

Examples of this anti-gun legislative history abound. A Saturday Night Special” ban bill enacted in Maryland establishes a politically appointed “Handgun Roster Board” with complete authority to decide which handguns will be permitted in the so-called “Free State”– any handgun could therefore be banned. Federal legislation aimed at the nonexistent “plastic gun” would have banned mil lions of metal handguns suitable for personal protection. In the 1994 crime bill, Congress did ban semi-automatic “assault weapons,” based on their cosmetic appearance. After passage, however, not even the virulently anti-gun Washington Post pretended the ban would have a crime fighting effect, labeling it “mainly symbolic.”

Criminals and law-abiding citizens both follow the lead of police and military in choosing a gun. Criminals generally pick as handguns .38 Spl. and .357 Mag. revolvers, with ba rrels about 4″ long and retailing (an unimportant matter for criminals) at over $200. Only about one-sixth fit the classic description of the so-called “Saturday Night Special”–small caliber, short barrel and inexpensive. While criminals are unconcerned with the cost of a firearm, the law-abiding certainly are. A ban on inexpensive handguns will have a disproportionate impact on low income Americans, effectively disarming them. This is particularly unfair, since it is the poor who more often must live an d work in high crime areas.

As more and more police departments, following the lead of the military, switch from revolvers to 9 mm semi-auto pistols, criminals and honest citizens will both follow suit. Indeed, semi-auto pistols have risen from one -fourth of American handgun manufacturing in the 1970s to three-fourths today. Criminals rarely use long guns and, when they do, are more apt to use a sawed-off shot- gun than a semi-automatic rifle, whether military style or not. In America’s larg est and most crime ravaged cities, only about 1/2-3% of “crime guns” are military-style semi-autos. As military establishments adopted medium-velocity rifles with straight-stock configuration, target shooters, hunters, and collectors have acquired the sem i-automatic models of these firearms.

While not all guns incorrectly attacked as “preferred by criminals” are popular for hunting, many are, but hunting is not the only valid purpose for owning a firearm. Small handguns, which may be ill-suited for hunting or long-range target shooting, are useful for personal protection, where the accuracy range rarely needs to exceed ten feet. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are suitable for hunting a variety of game. Semi-automatic, military and military-sty le rifles, including the M1 Garand, Springfield M1A, and the Colt Sporter, are used in thousands of sanctioned Highpower Tournaments each year and the National Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio. Hundreds of thousands of individuals use these rifles for recreati onal target shooting and plinking.

The Second Amendment clearly protects ownership of firearms which are useful “for the security of a free state” and semi-automatic versions of military arms are clearly appropriate for that purpose. It was the cle ar intention of the Framers of our Constitution that the citizenry possess arms equal or superior to those held by the government. That was viewed as the best deterrent to tyranny, and it has worked for over 200 years. It was also the intention of the Fou nding Fathers that citizens be able to protect themselves from criminals, and that doesn’t necessarily require a gun suitable for hunting, target shooting, or plinking. All modern firearms may be used for such protective purposes.

MYTH 8: “The righ t guaranteed under the Second Amendment is limited specifically to the arming of a `well-regulated Militia’ that can be compared today to the National Guard.”

The Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the se curity of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In contrast to other portions of the Constitution, this Amendment contains no qualifiers, no “buts” or “excepts.” It is a straightforward statement affirming t he people’s right to possess firearms.

The perception that the Second Amendment guarantees a “collective right” or a “right of states to form militias” rather than an individual right is a wholly inaccurate 20th-century invention. Historically, the term “militia” refers to the people at large, armed and ready to defend their homeland and their freedom with arms supplied by themselves (U.S. v. Miller, 1939). Federal law (Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code) states:

“The militia of the Unit ed States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age….” Moreover, historical records, including Constitutional Convention debates and the Federalist Papers, clearly indicate that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to guard against t he tyranny that the Framers of the Constitution feared could be perpetrated by any professional armed body of government. The arms, records and ultimate control of the National Guard today lie with the Federal Government, so that it clearly is not the “mi litia” protected from the federal government.

The Supreme Court recently affirmed this virtually unlimited control of the Guard by the federal government in the case of Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990). The Court held that the power of Congr ess over the National Guard is plenary (entire, absolute, unlimited) and such power is not restricted by the Constitution’s Militia Clause. The Second Amendment was not even mentioned by the Court, undoubtedly because it does not serve as a source of powe r for a state to have a National Guard.

In The Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton argued that the army would always be a “select corps of moderate size” and that the “people at large (were) properly armed” to serve as a fundamental check against the standing army, the most dreaded of institutions. James Madison, in The Federalist No. 46, noted that unlike the governments of Europe which were “afraid to trust the people with arms,” the American people would continue under the new Constitution to possess “the advantage of being armed,” and thereby would continually be able to form the militia when needed as a “barrier against the enterprises of despotic ambition.”

A 1990 Supreme Court decision regarding searches and seizures confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, held by “the people”–a term of art employed in the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments referring to all “persons who are part of a national community” (U.S. v. Verdu go-Urquidez, 1990).

The case of U.S. v. Miller (1939) is frequently, though erroneously, cited as the definitive ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is a “collective” right, protecting the right of states to keep a militia rather than the i ndividual right to possess arms. But that was not the issue in Miller, and no such ruling was made; the word “collective” is not used any place in the court’s decision.

While such a decision was sought by the Justice Department, the Court decided o nly that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was constitutional in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The case hinged on the narrow question of whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use, and its ownership by individuals thus protected b y the Second Amendment.

The Court ruled that: “In the absence of (the presentation of) any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a `shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relati onship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice–common knowledge, that need not be proven i n court–that this weapon is any part of the military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

Because no evidence or argument was presented except by the federal government, the Court was not made aware that some 30,000 short-barreled shotguns were used as “trench guns” during World War I.

The Supreme Court has ruled on only three other cases relating to the Second Amendment–all during the last half of the nineteenth century. In each of these cases, the Court held that the Second Amendment only restricted actions of the federal government, not of private individuals (U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1876) or state governments (Presser v. Illinois, 1886, and Miller v. Texas, 1894). The Court also held, in Presser, that the Firs t Amendment guarantee of freedom of assembly did not apply to the states; and in Miller v. Texas, it held that the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure did not apply to the states, since the Court believed that all the amendm ents comprising the Bill of Rights were limitations solely on the powers of Congress, not upon the powers of the states.

It was not until two generations later that the Court began to rule, through the Fourteenth Amendment, that the First, Fourth, and other provisions of the Bill of Rights limited both Congress and state legislatures. No similar decision concerning the Second Amendment has ever been made in spite of contemporary scholarship proving that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was t o apply all of the rights in the Bill of Rights to the states.12 That research proves that the Fourteenth Amendment was made a part of the Constitution to prevent states from depriving the newly freed slaves of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights , including what the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision referred to as one of the rights of citizens, the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

The only significance of the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a challenge to the hand- gun ban imposed by Morton Grove, Illinois, is that the Court will still not rush to apply the Second Amendment to the states. The refusal to hear the case has no legal significance and, indeed, it would have been very unusual for the Court to make a decision involving the U.S. Constitution when the Illinois courts had not yet decided if Morton Grove’s ban conflicted with the state’s constitution.

12 Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1984).

MYTH 9: “A person in a public place with a gun is looking for trouble.”

Gun prohibitionists use this myth to oppose legislative proposals to allow law-abiding citizens to obtain permits to carry concealed firear ms. In spite of this opposition, numerous states have adopted favorable concealed carry laws over the past few years. In each case, anti-gun activists and politicians predicted that allowing law-abiding people to carry firearms would result in more deaths and injuries as people would resort to gunfire to settle minor disputes. Shoot-outs over fender-benders and Wild-West lawlessness were predicted in an effort to stir up public fear of reasonable laws.

This tactic–seeking to frighten people into s upporting desired positions–is employed more and more frequently by gun prohibitionists. Prof. Gary Kleck explains the reasoning thus: “Battered by a decade of research contradicting the central factual premises underlying gun control, advocates have apparently decided to fight more exclusively on an emotional battlefield, where one terrorizes one’s targets into submission rather than honestly persuading them with credible evidence.”13

When the concealed carry laws were passed and put into pract ice, the result was completely different from the hysterical claims of the gun prohibitionists. In Florida, since the concealed carry law was changed in 1987, the homicide rate has dropped 21%, while the national rate has risen 12%. Across the nation, states with favorable concealed carry laws have a 33% lower homicide rate overall and 37% lower robbery rate than states that allow little or no concealed carry.

Gun prohibitionists have also acted to penalize and discourage gun ownership by imposing mandatory prison terms on persons carrying or possessing firearms without a license or permit, a license or permit they have also made impossible or very difficult to obtain. Massachusetts’ Bartley-Fox Law and New York’s Koch-Carey Law are premier exampl es of this “gun control” strategy. Such legislation is detrimental only to peaceful citizens, not to criminals.

By the terms of such a mandatory or increased sentence proposal, the unlicensed carrying of a firearm–no matter how innocent the circum stances–is penalized by a six-to-twelve month jail sentence. It is imposed on otherwise law-abiding citizens although in many areas it is virtually impossible for persons to obtain a carry permit. It is easy to see circumstances in which an otherwise law -abiding person would run afoul of this law: fear of crime, arbitrary denial of authorization, red-tape delay in obtaining official permission to carry a firearm, or misunderstanding of the numerous and vague laws governing the transportation of firearms.

The potential for unknowingly or unwittingly committing a technical violation of a licensing law is enormous. Myriad legal definitions of “carrying” vary from state to state and city to city, including most transportation of firearms–accessible o r not, loaded or not, in a trunk or case. And out-of-state travelers are exceedingly vulnerable because of these various definitions.

One need only examine the first persons arrested under the Massachusetts and New York City “mandatory penalty” law s for proof that such laws are misdirected: an elderly woman passing out religious pamphlets in a dangerous section of Boston and an Ohio truck driver coming to the aid of a woman apparently being kidnapped in New York City.

In New York City–prior to the enactment of the Koch-Carey mandatory sentence for possession law–the bureaucratic logjam in the licensing division, combined with a soaring crime rate, forced law-abiding citizens to obtain guns illegally for self-protection. In effect, citizens admitted that they would rather risk a mandatory penalty for illegally owning a firearm than risk their lives and property at the hands of New York’s violent, uncontrolled criminals. Honest citizens feared the streets more than the courtrooms.

By contrast, the city’s criminal element faces no similar threat of punishment. A report carried in the March 1, 1984, issue of the New York Times says it all: “Conviction on felony charges is rare. Because of plea-bargaining, the vast majority of those arrested on felony charges are tried on lesser, misdemeanor charges.” In one year, according to the Times, there were 106,171 felony arrests in New York City, but only 25,987 cases received felony indictments and only 20,641 resulted in convictions, with impr isonment a rarity. This condition persists, the New York Times reported again on June 23, 1991: in 1990 felony indictments were resolved by plea bargains in over 83% of cases. Only 5.7% of cases ended with a trial verdict, with only 3.8% ending in convict ion. Not surprisingly, with just 3% of the nation’s population, in 1992 New York City accounted for 12% of the nation’s homicides.

In championing New York’s tough Koch-Carey Law, then Mayor Ed Koch said contemptuously of gun owners, “Nice guys who own guns aren’t nice guys.” No such rancor was expressed about the city’s revolving-door criminal justice system where the chances of hardened criminals being arrested on felony charges are one in one hundred. Later, the Police Foundation study of New Yor k’s Koch- Carey Law found that it failed to reduce the number of guns on the street and did not reduce gun use in rape, robbery or assault.

Such legislation invites police to routinely stop and frisk people randomly on the street on suspicion of fi rearms possession. In fact, the Police Foundation has called for the random use of metal detectors on the streets to apprehend people carrying firearms without authorization. In disregarding the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures, police would be empowered under the Police Foundation’s blueprint for disarmament to “systematically stop a certain percentage of people on the streets… in business neighborhoods and run the detectors by them, just as yo u do at the airport. If the detectors produce some noise then that might establish probable cause for a search.”

While admitting that such “police state” tactics would require “methods… that liberals instinctively dislike,” government researchers James Q. Wilson and Mark H. Moore called for more aggressive police patrolling in public places, saying: “To inhibit the carrying of handguns, the police should become more aggressive in stopping suspicious people and, where they have reasonable grounds for their suspicions, frisking (i.e. patting down) those stopped to obtain guns. Hand-held magnetometers, of the sort used by airport security guards, might make the street frisks easier and less obtrusive. All this can be done without changing the law.” (The Washington Post, April 1, 1981) Note, they said “people,” not criminals.

13 Kleck, “Reasons for Skepticism on the Results from a New Poll on: The Incidence of Gun Violence Among Young People,” The Public Perspective, Sept./Oct. 1993.

MYTH 10: “Gun control reduces crime.”

This is perhaps, the greatest myth that is perpetrated today by national gun ban groups. No empirical study of the effectiveness of gun laws has shown any positive effect on crime. To the dismay of the prohibitionists, such studies have shown a negative effect. That is, in areas having greatest restrictions on private firearms ownership, crime rates are typically higher, because criminals are aware that their intended victims are less likely to have the me ans with which to defend themselves.

If gun laws worked, the proponents of such laws would gleefully cite examples of reduced crime. Instead, they uniformly blame the absence of tougher or wider spread measures for the failures of the laws they 
advocated. Or they cite denials of applications for permission to buy a firearm as evidence the law is doing something beyond preventing honest citizens from being able legally to acquire firearms. They cite Washington, D.C., as a jurisdiction where gun laws are “working.” Yet crime in Washington has risen dramatically since 1976, the year before its handgun ban took effect. Washington, D.C., now has outrageously higher crime rates than any of the states (D.C. 1992 violent crime rate: 2832.8 per 100,000 resi dents; U.S. rate: 757.5), with a homicide rate 8 times the national rate (1992 rate 75.4 per 100,000 for D.C., 9.3 nationally.) No wonder former D.C. Police Chief Maurice Turner said, “What has the gun control law done to keep criminals from gettin g guns? Absolutely nothing… [City residents] ought to have the opportunity to have a handgun.”

Criminals in Washington have no trouble getting either prohibited drugs or prohibited handguns, resulting in a skyrocketing of the city’s murder rate. D.C.’s 1991 homicide rate of 80.6 per 100,000 population was the highest ever recorded by an American big city, and marked a 200% rise in homicide since banning handguns, while the nation’s homicide rate rose just 11%. Since 1991, the homicide rate has remained near 75 per 100,000, while the national rate hovers around 9-10.

Clearly, criminals do not bother with the niceties of obeying laws–for a criminal is, by definition, someone who disobeys laws. Those who enforce the law agree.

In addition, restrictive gun laws create a “Catch-22” for victims of violent crime. Under court decisions, the police have no legal obligation to protect any particular individual. This concept has been tested numerous times including cases as recent as 1993. In each case the courts have ruled that the police are responsible for protecting society as a whole, not any individual. This means that under restrictive gun laws, people may be unable to protect themselves or their family from violent criminals.

T he evidence that restrictive gun laws create scofflaws is evident to anyone willing to look. In New York City, there are only about 70,000 legally-owned handguns, yet survey research suggests that there are at least 750,000 handguns in the city, mostly in the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens. In Chicago, a recent mandatory registration law has resulted in compliance by only a fraction of those who had previously registered their guns. The rate of compliance with the registration requirement of Cali fornia’s and New Jersey’s semi- automatic bans have been very low. The same massive noncompliance–not by criminals, whom no one expects will comply, but by people fearful of repression–is evident wherever stringent gun laws are enacted.

FACTS WE CAN ALL LIVE WITH

Laws aimed at criminal misuse of firearms are proven crime deterrents. After adopting a mandatory penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime in 1975, Virginia’s murder rate dropped 23% and robbery 1 1% in 15 years. South Carolina recorded a 24% murder rate decline between 1975 and 1990 with a similar law. Other impressive declines were recorded in other states using mandatory penalties, such as Florida (homicide rate down 33% in 17 years), Delaware ( homicide rate down 33% in 19 years), Montana (down 42% 1976-1992) and New Hampshire (homicide rate down 50% 1977-1992).

The solution to violent crime lies in the promise, not the mere threat, of swift, certain punishment.

Our challenge: To reform and strengthen our federal and state criminal justice systems. We must bring about a sharp reversal in the trend toward undue leniency and “revolving door justice.” We must insist upon speedier trials and upon punishments which are commensurate with crimes. Rehabilitation should be tempered with a realization that not all can be rehabilitated, and that prisons cost society less than the crime of active predatory criminals. NRA is meeting that challenge with its CrimeStrike division, establish ed to advance real solutions to the crime problem while protecting the rights of all honest citizens. Working in states across the nation, Crime Strike has worked for passage of “truth in sentencing laws” which require that criminals actually serve at leas t 85% of time sentenced, “Victim’s Bill of Rights” constitutional amendments, and “Three Strikes You’re Out” laws. The job ahead will not be an easy one . The longer “gun control” advocates distract the nation from this task by embracing that single siren song, the longer it will take and the more difficult our job will be. Beginning is the hardest step, and the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action has taken it.

Join the NRA. Support ILA. Work with us. We need your help.


FINAL WORDS FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS ON THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people…. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them…. ” –George Mason

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ” –Thomas Jefferson

“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion . . . in private self-defense. ” –John Adams

“The Constitution s hall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. ” –Samuel Adams

” . . arms discourage and keep invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. … Horrid mischief would ensue were [the law-abiding] deprived of the use of them. ” –Thomas Paine

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…[where] the government s are afraid to trust the people with arms.” –James Madison

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms…To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike…how to use them.” –Richard Henry Lee

“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.” –Amendment II, Constitution of the United States


Copyright October 1994, NRA Institute for Legislative Action. This is the electronic version of the “10 Myths of Gun Control” brochure distributed by NRA. To obtain paper copies of this brochure, please call NRA Grassroots at 800/392-8683.

Yes, Hillary Clinton Wants To Ban Guns — And Here’s Proof

Click here to view the original post.
Yes, Hillary Clinton Wants To Ban Guns – And Here’s The Proof

Image source: CNN screen capture

 

WASHINGTON — The belief that Hillary Clinton wants to ban or severely restrict private ownership of guns is not a fantasy. There is, in fact, plenty of evidence from Clinton’s own statements, and those of her supporters, indicating the former first lady would like to see an end to Second Amendment rights.

Some of Clinton’s most radical antigun statements even were made on national television.

A review of interviews and articles shows there are at least three reasons we should be concerned about her position on guns:

1. Hillary Clinton does not believe the Second Amendment grants Americans a constitutional right to “keep and bear arms.”

On June 5, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos had this discussion with Clinton on ABC’s This Week, where she refused to give a “yes” or “no” answer to a simple constitutional question:

Stephanopoulos: “Do you believe that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right, that it’s not linked to service in a militia?”

Clinton: “I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulation. So I believe we can have common sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment, and, in fact, what I have proposed is supported by 90 percent of the American people and more than 75 percent of responsible gun owners.”

Stephanopoulos: “But … do you believe [the Supreme Court’s conclusion] that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?”

Be Prepared. Learn The Best Ways To Hide Your Guns.

Clinton: “If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation. And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms.

“So I think it’s important to recognize that reasonable people can say, as I do, responsible gun owners have a right — I have no objection to that. But the rest of the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regularity, responsible actions to protect everyone else.”

Clinton never answered the question by Stephanopoulos.

Story continues below video 

 

2. Clinton would like to see the US Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Heller overturned.

Heller was the 2008 decision in which the justices, along a narrow 5-4 vote, ruled that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for self-defense and bars government from completely banning firearms ownership.

“Clinton believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe, like safe storage laws to prevent toddlers from accessing guns,” Maya Harris, a policy adviser to Clinton, wrote in an e-mailed statement to Bloomberg Politics. “In overturning Washington D.C.’s safe storage law, Clinton worries that Heller may open the door to overturning thoughtful, common sense safety measures in the future.”

The Washington, D.C., law essentially banned the ownership of handguns within the city.

The Heller decision was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February. Scalia’s replacement apparently will be appointed by the next president.

The four dissenting justices signed an opinion that read: “There is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.” That dissenting opinion also said the Second Amendment protects guns only connected with militia or military service.

3. Clinton has called Australia’s ban on guns a good idea.

In 1996, following a mass shooting, Australia banned semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns. The law implemented a mandatory gun buyback program that resulted in 1 million rifles and shotguns being confiscated.

During a campaign rally in October 2015, Clinton said of the Australia gun model: “I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example is worth looking at,” she said at a campaign stop in New Hampshire.

Australian law also prevents guns from being purchased for self-defense. “Personal protection will not be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm,” reads the 1996 law, known as the National Firearms Agreement.

Do you believe Hillary Clinton wants to ban guns? Share your opinion in the section below:

Tired Of Losing Freedoms — And Looking For Another Country? Read More Here.

Woman beaten with hammer while waiting for a bus in Sydney, husband suffers broken arm.

Click here to view the original post.
So tell me, how does this reasonable force self defence work? If we are not legally permitted to carry anything for our own defence, just exactly how was this woman supposed to defend herself against a hammer attack? She is lucky to be alive!



Owen Guns Newsletter. Australia.

Click here to view the original post.
Has Minister of Police Rene Hidding, been misinformed, is he a power mad anti gunner, or does he have the intellect of an amoeba ?

Thoughts For The Week.
Action Needed.
The old ‘news’, but it was good news, was that 25% of the 15 million voters at the Federal election did not vote for the major Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dummer parties and instead voted for Independents and small (more independent) parties. Two million licensed shooters 14% of the voting population helped to make that difference.

The new ‘news’, which is bad news is that we now face the greatest threat to our shooting, collecting, hunting, competition, sport and way of life since John Howard used a media knee jerk reaction to impose his un-informed Gun laws.

Thank goodness, the good old news has placed our oligarchy (lib lab and Green) in its weakest position in forty years, for the first time we have a say. They are weak and we are strong.

The latest news this week was,
“The ban on lever-action shotguns with a magazine capacity greater than five rounds was due to expire on August 7, but Justice Minister Michael Keenan said on Friday it would be extended until a review of the National Firearms Agreement is completed and the agreed outcomes put in place. The review of the agreement is due to be considered by commonwealth, state and territory ministers later this year.” AAP.

The worst News.
A Freedom Of Information request was denied by Stephen Bouwhuis, Assistant Secretary at the Attorney-General’s Department from Dr Samara McPhedran, (Senior Research Fellow at Griffith University’s Violence Research and Prevention Program,) who submitted a FOI in March 2016 to access the documents mentioned in a News.com.au article that the government has been circulating since November 2015.
Mr Bouwhuis confirmed the document existed, however refused to disclose it. He said in a letter to McPhedran,

“I do not consider that it would be in the public interest to disclose this document”.
“The information contained in the document was communicated to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department by or on behalf of state or territory governments on a confidential basis, for the purposes of discussions about the proposed agreement,”

The Dangerous Document.
Well it seem the cat is out of the bag and the dangerous document is from the Tasmanian Police Minister, who is either a genuine certifiable nit wit, or a cold calculating power hungry potentate. The Tasmanian Minister of Police Rene Hidding, MP said,.

Corruption Rife In Australia.

Click here to view the original post.

Check out these links for more news on corruption in Australia.



http://australiafirstparty.net/category/the-anti-australian/government-incompetence-corruption/

http://corrupt.club/the-illusion-of-australian-government/

http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/conferences/other/smith_russell/2013-03-kpmg.pdf

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-world-thinks-australia-is-becoming-more-corrupt-2016-1

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-27/corruption-and-widespread-rorting-undermining-immigration/7537270

Massachusetts Creates Draconian Template to Massively Expand Gun Bans in States

Click here to view the original post.

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey announced Wednesday that she will enforce a ban on the sale of what she called “copycat” assault-style weapons, effective immediately.  This new interpretation of gun

Violence & Mayhem Australia Today. Random Thoughts.

Click here to view the original post.

Violence & Mayhem Australia Today. Random Thoughts.

Why are we seeing so much mayhem in Australia, it seems that every day now there is another report of murder, stabbings, king hits, rape, home invasions & more. Obviously this is not right, not excusable, but can it be understood?

Let’s take a look at what our own government is doing. It has prioritised mining over farming; some farmers have given up fighting & have committed suicide. Protesting has been banned, made illegal so if the people try to back the farmers & “Lock the Gate”, they can now be arrested & charged. The police are now a law unto themselves, & unless someone records their crimes on video, then they get away with it. The people did not vote for mining to be prioritised over farming, why would they? They did not vote to have protests banned, made illegal, why would we? There was no referendum, no one was asked, does this sound like democracy or dictatorship?

I am not saying that all this mayhem & violence is happening because we have a corrupt government who is in itself committing crimes, & that the people who have a tendency toward violence & crime see this as a green flag to do what ever they want, but it is something to think about.

Why are Australian citizens allowing this government to “rule” us in this way? Why are they allowing the degradation of our environment & the loss of many of our rights? Our own constitution is being ignored by this government, a government by the way that is in fact a registered company in the USA! We have two main political parties, neither are better than the other, so when it comes to voting, we are stuck between a rock & a hard place. This year, 2016 the people showed their displeasure by voting independent, & what happened? The Liberal party got in yet again!!!

So, voting for your/our preference does not work, it changes nothing. The same corrupt government is still in power & the Australian people are doing NOTHING about this. Why? In other countries the people simply do not allow this corruption to continue, they rally their numbers & sack the government. We NEED change, we need to sack this government & the whole corrupt system & put something in place that allows the people to have a voice, to have a choice. What is it going to take to make the Australian people say “NO MORE, ENOUGH”?

There are crook police officers committing crimes & there are good police officers that are not prepared to blow the whistle on these bad cops, why? Because if a good cop blows the whistle on a bad cop, he loses his job. He will not be sacked, but he/she will be shunned by all other police officers Australia wide. He/she will be forced to quit the police service. This needs to change, but how do we change this? I do not have an answer for this, but this is the big problem with the whole government system. People are for ever saying “Don’t allow this” “Do your own thing”, but it is not that easy. We are a minority who care, but a minority has no power. We have to pay the ever increasing local council rates/taxes despite the fact that many of us receive no or few services for those rates, because if we refuse to pay, the council will actually evict us from our own homes & sell our property.

I realise that services & road maintenance have to be funded, but should there not be some check & balance? If a retired couple can not afford to pay the rates on their own home, why should they be forced to sell the home that they worked so hard for? After all the years of working & scrimping & saving they are now forced to live in a city or town & pay rent? Does this make any sense?

So we ask ourselves why is there so much crime, so much violence. Why is there so much sadness & depression? I think our society is starting to break down. We are losing human rights every day. New police powers take away citizens rights. They may have been introduced in order to maintain order, but in fact there is no check & balance here, the innocent are affected as well as the criminal element. Did banning certain firearms stop crime or even reduce crime? NO! Yet again the law abiding citizen pays the price. Who has these banned firearms now? The criminals have these firearms because they did not hand them in, they are NOT licensed, they are NOT listed in the gun registry!

So where are we heading? Less farms, less farmers, less food, less rights. Slowly but surely we are being herded into a position where eventually we will not be able to resist even if the majority of Australians grew a spine & decided to do something! Some people say “well if you are not happy with the way things are, why don’t you move somewhere else?” My answer to that is, that there is no better place to move to, no place that has the potential that Australia has for being a great place to live in. We have the room, we have the space. We have less people than anywhere else in the world given the size of Australia, but we need to regain our rights, our freedoms. Yes there must be law & order, but it must be tempered with common sense & research. Knee jerk reactions by the government to certain incidents have to stop. We need to have some professionalism introduced into the making of legislation. We have The Greens who appear to be promoting drugs & at the same time recommending that law abiding Australian citizens should be disarmed! How crazy is that?! Do they think that much of the crime is not linked to drugs & illegal gun use? Right now ignorant people are making these decisions for us, & it is not sensible, it is not right or fair & above all it is bloody stupid!

The plan to suspend open carry at the RNC is a dangerous setup

Click here to view the original post.

After the assassination of three police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Fox News began broadcasting comments from various “conservative” commentators demanding that Ohio’s open carry law be suspended in Cleveland

NSW Police Force: A Law Unto Themselves. Australia.

Click here to view the original post.
New powers given to police are looking even worse than initially feared, as concerned groups delve into the breadth of their applicability.

The NSW Bar Association points out that new ‘public safety orders’ (PSOs) and ‘serious crime prevention orders’ (SCPOs) can be used to prevent individuals from visiting certain places open to the public, such as churches, mosques, sporting arenas and licensed premises, even where there is no evidence of any danger or wrongdoing.

Public Safety Orders

The new laws now allow police officers – without permission from a court – to issue “public safety orders” banning individuals who police claim are a “risk to public safety” from attending specified public places for 72 hours.


Tougher eligibility rules force thousands off the disability pension and into financial hardship.Australia.

Click here to view the original post.

Tougher eligibility rules force thousands off the disability pension and into financial hardship.

The Federal Government’s welfare-to-work reforms are pushing thousands of people off the disability pension and into financial hardship. Welfare rights organisations say their work is increasingly taken up with these cases.

China warns Australia: stay out of the South China Sea.

Click here to view the original post.
China warns Australia: stay out of the South China Sea.

TERRIFYING: THIS IS WHERE WEAK AND APPARENTLY CORRUPT LEADERSHIP HAS LEFT US – AND NOW THEY EVEN OWN OUR PORTS

If governments do not begin to listen to our people this will end in uprisings and even civil war. The Australian people are very, very angry for a number of reasons – and it is not going to blow away in the breeze.

Global Updates July 12, 2016: World Chaos is Accelerating

Click here to view the original post.

It has been some time since I posted.  I apologize as a lot has transpired over the last two weeks.  To make up for lost time, I am going to

To serve in the military today is to swear an oath to destroy America and serve the global elite

Click here to view the original post.

Today, I watched as Secretary of Defense Carter gave “a major announcement” that transgender people will now be allowed to openly serve in the military.  As absurd as this should

Separation Of Church And State: Everything You Were Taught In School Is Wrong

Click here to view the original post.

Off-Grid Life In a $4,500 Converted School Bus

With the Fourth of July only days away, Americans soon will be looking to the past – to the country’s founding – for words of wisdom and inspiration.

But as is often the case, what we hear on TV and read online about the Founding Fathers isn’t always factual. In fact, if the subject is religion and the so-called separation of church and state, then seemingly everything the mainstream tells us is skewed.

On this special holiday edition of Off The Grid Radio, we separate fact from fiction in the First Amendment as we talk to Stephen Mansfield, the author of some 20 books, including Ten Tortured Words: How the Founding Fathers Tried to Protect Religion in America . . . and What’s Happened.

Those 10 words – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” – have been used to take down memorial crosses and Ten Commandment displays, and even to prevent schoolchildren from singing Christmas carols.

Mansfield tells us:

  • How the words of the Founding Fathers have been twisted.
  • The real reason the Founders wanted a religious liberty clause.
  • What Thomas Jefferson and others truly believed about government and religion.
  • How a forgotten Supreme Court case from 1947 wrongly changed how we view church and state.

Mansfield, who also has written books about Lincoln and Churchill, concludes by telling us how we can lead American back to the original intent of the Founders. If you’re a patriot or a lover of history, then you don’t want to miss this week’s program!

 

Why you need to buy a “registered” gun in the calibers you shoot.

Click here to view the original post.

Most of us immediately recognize and value the benefits of the freedom to individually engage in a personal firearms transfer without government intervention or oversight.  In fact, the general rule

Ron Owen Report. Australian Elections 2016.

Click here to view the original post.

Elections 2016.

The eternal war between the Individual and the State ebbs and flows with the same regularity as the oceans tide. Last week, on 23rd June (Britains Independence Day) the individuals stood up and voted to break away from the tyranny of the European Parliament. The little guys won, the smaller more independent parties finally beat the media/bank/big political party machine. Lets hope its not a one off.

We are living in a vary exciting time, due to many factors, one large one being the internet, facebook and twitter the individual are competing with mass media. Mass media, due to its reduction in advertising revenue is in decline, not quite like a falling star, but faster than anyone could have envisaged five years ago. The Trump phenomena is still tied to big party Republicans politics, but the died in the wool Republicans hate him, as he is financially & morally independent of them all. They cannot control him and he has successfully used his ‘one liners’ to set up the main stream media to rail against him, knowing that his  ‘one liners’ are irrefutable to the common man and woman, ‘the individuals’. We are the people who are fed up, with Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dummer politics, we will be the people who cause the revival of individual power. No longer are we going to be the meat in the sandwich with left wing buying votes for immigrants and right wing importing cheap labour, at the cost of higher GST to pay the ‘fly in’ welfare bill. Australia still  needs a Nigel Farage UKIP, or a Trump to unify the middle ground, but as we go to the poll next Saturday we have for the first time lots of choices, Martin Turnbull (turncoat) who is very acceptable to all the major bankers like Goldman Sachs and Bill Shorten who is acceptable to left wing unions, both are smiling as they re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, just hours before it hits the iceberg. Both are glancing forwards to see the Independent  imminent iceberg slowly but surely approaching. Look hard the smiles are only a façade to cover their fear.

We Should All Know Who To Vote For. Have you Contacted your Local Candidates Yet.
Lots of readers, of this Bulletin have contacted me asking for advice on who to vote for, some have asked me to print a suggested ballot paper out, but they do not realise that this humble message goes to 10,000 shooters in ever State and electorate in Australia, even Tasmania, as there are so many variations it is impossible and would only confuse the issue.
So to simplify, just keep this loud and clear in your minds and please pass this on to all of your friends and families. All major parties, in all states are fully aware and concerned about the growing resentment against them by Australia’s middle ground, added to this is there concern that the 2 million licensed shooters in Australia which equated to 15 % of the voting public is a larger factor than the traditional middle ground swinging voters.

This Has Held Back The New National Firearm Agreement.
Twice this past year the Police Ministers from every State have met with the Commonwealth Justice Minister and they have adjourned the decision on a new altered NFA. The Commonwealth Government has refused FOI requests from Dr Samara McPhedran, (Senior Research Fellow at Griffith University’s Violence Research and Prevention Program,) submitted a FOI in March 2016 to access the documents mentioned in a News.com.au article that the government has been circulating since November 2015. The FOI request was denied by Stephen Bouwhuis, Assistant Secretary at the Attorney-General’s Department.
Mr Bouwhuis confirmed the document existed, however refused to disclose it. He said in a letter to McPhedran, “I do not consider that it would be in the public interest to disclose this document”.
“The information contained in the document was communicated to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department by or on behalf of state or territory governments on a confidential basis, for the purposes of discussions about the proposed agreement,” he said in the letter.

“Following consultations with the relevant state or territory government agencies, a majority of agencies objected to the disclosure of the document on the basis that it would disclose information provided to the Commonwealth in confidence.”

Blind Freddy can understand from Stephen Bouwhuis statement that the major parties have a bad plan for us, that they don’t want to announce before the election because they fear a huge backlash at the ballot box from the shooting community. Even the process is obviously corrupt as it is a case of ‘Caesar judging Caesar’, the Justice Department runs the COAG meetings and the FDA and it also controls all Freedom of Information requests. So its no surprise that Caesar won’t allow us to see the document.

If the major parties have a huge cut in there vote percentages they will not have the guts to rip a new FDA into the Australian shooters. On the other hand if one of them has a huge majority we can dig a big hole and get ready to bury your tears. So no one has an excuse, so do your duty vote against the big four.

Vote instead for the Shooters Party, or Liberal Democrats, (Senator David Leyonhjelm) or Katters Party, or One Nation, or Liberal Alliance, or any sympathetic Independent. We all should be on the telephone, or on the email asking all of these parties, even our traditional enemies, Liberal Labour, Nationals and the Greens what improvements are they going to make for licenced shooters, don’t be discouraged by the long silence as every time they are asked and answer in a negative, or lie, they know they are losing votes, the bad guys are not known for their silence, they will never publically support us, but they will complain to their party henchmen and blame their losses on the shooters, so please get motivated and annoy them at this crucial time. They won’t listen again, like this for four years.

History of Treason in Parliament.
Many shooters have emailed in references to Section 44 of the Commonwealth Constitution and asked why we have Muslims in parliament who give their Allegiance and Adherence to a foreign power, the political orientation of Islam when section 44 states,
Disqualification.
44. Any person who-
(i.) Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power,
How can they honestly take the Oath of Allegiance?
I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

These issues of ‘Allegiance’ are the product of the Bill of Rights and were codified there in the Oath of Allegiance followed by,
“That the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons being the two Houses of Parlyament should continue to sitt and with their Majesties Royall Concurrence make effectuall Provision for the Setlement of the Religion Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome soe that the same for the future might not be in danger againe of being subverted. That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.”

As you can see the problem that they were addressing was very similar to what we now face in all countries of Western civilisation. Infiltration and subversion from leaders whose real interest is in a religious ideology that has its own separate political agenda to Australia. In the days when the Bill or Rights was written it was ‘Popery’ and today it is Islam. That document the Bill of Rights  is also relevant to shooter in Australia due to its other provisions,

“Disarming Protestants, &c.
By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.”

Subjects’ Arms.

That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

John Locke wrote  ‘The Second Treatise of Civil Government’ which inspired the freedoms and rights listed in every Bill of Rights since 1689.

That document is also our Bill of Rights and it is the Bill of Rights that the Americans copied into their Bill of Rights which are included as amendments to their Constitution and in our case are acknowledged under the Coronation Oath which every Monarch submits to. As power of assent to all laws flows from the Crown the Governors and Governor Generals should not give assent to laws that are in breach of those Constitutional documents such as the Bill of Rights and Magna Carta that limit the Crown powers.

So why won’t our Parliament disqualify the Muslim members of parliament, why won’t our Parliamentary members uphold the provisions of the Bill of Rights? Same reasons for both problems. Just look at the next provision in our Commonwealth Constitution Section 45.

“Vacancy on happening of disqualification.
45. If a senator or member of the House of Representatives-

(i.) Becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the last preceding section: or

(iii.) Directly or indirectly takes or agrees to take any fee or honorarium for services rendered to the Commonwealth, or for services rendered in the Parliament to any person or State: his place shall thereupon become vacant.”

As all party politicians take an honorarium and are paid election expenses after pre-selection by a political party, which is paid to them on the basis that they render a service to the Party once they are elected, they should all be Disqualified. This provision was thoughtfully placed in the Constitution by our founding fathers Henry Parks and Sir William (Good Iron Mac) Mc Millen to prevent Party control of our Australian Parliament. They wanted our representatives to represent the individuals not Political Parties. So on the basis of “Those that live in Glass Houses should not throw Stones” our party politicians will never complain as they have to so  we the people have to accept treason as a daily occurrence in our halls of government. That does not mean we just walk away from it, we have to tell everyone we know about it, we have to keep striving to change things and regain our freedoms. Its not much of a choice its simple either Vote for Liberty or Tyranny.

Questions to Ask Your Anti Gun Friends??
On Facebook every time we have a published massacre, ( I say that as there are many massacres that occur every day, forty or fifty dead in a third world country, but if they are not in a Gay Brothel, or a Gun Free zone we never hear about them) we are inundated by anti gunners full of Hoplophobia zeal. I have over the last forty years had to deal with them personally or in letters to the editor and I have found that best way is to ask them nicely to answer a few questions and then your will answer theirs. I have put the questions on this site so you can easily cut and paste them into a facebook post.

Ron Owen.


Supreme Court Justice Warns: Police Now Can Stop You For ‘Whatever Reason’ They Want

Click here to view the original post.
Supreme Court Justice Warns: Police Now Can Stop You For ‘Whatever Reason’ They Want

Image source: Wikimedia

A new US Supreme Court decision will allow police to stop, detain and search citizens without a warrant anytime they want, according to at least one justice.

“This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants — even if you are doing nothing wrong,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned in a dissent this week in Utah vs. Edward Joseph Strieff Jr.

“The Court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.

Court Upholds Warrantless Search

The case involved Strieff, who was stopped and questioned by a detective after walking out of a suspected drug house in South Salt Lake City. The detective had no warrant and no evidence Strieff had done anything wrong, but he still took the man’s ID and ran it through a police database.

Discover How To Become Invisible In Today’s Surveillance State!

The database revealed that there was a warrant for Strieff for illegal drug possession, and he was arrested and charged. His attorneys appealed to the Utah Supreme Court, which ruled his Fourth Amendment tights had been violated.

The Supreme Court reversed that decision this week along a 5-3 vote. Sotomayor and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan dissented. Chief Justice John Roberts, and justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy supported the ruling.

Thomas said the detective’s “discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest.”

Sotomayor disagreed.

“This Court has allowed an officer to stop you for whatever reason he wants—so long as he can point to a pretextual justification after the fact,” Sotomayor wrote. “When we condone officers’ use of these devices without adequate cause, we give them reason to target pedestrians in an arbitrary manner. We also risk treating members of our communities as second-class citizens.”

“The officer’s control over you does not end with the stop,” Sotomayor added. “If the officer chooses, he may handcuff you and take you to jail for doing nothing more than speeding, jaywalking, or ‘driving [your] pickup truck . . . with [your] 3-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter . . . without [your] seatbelt fastened.’

“It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged,” Sotomayor wrote.

Which side do you support in this case? Share your views in the section below:

You’re Being Watched: 7 Sneaky Ways The Government Is Tracking Your Every Move. Read More Here.

Hillary Clinton’s Jarring Response To A Simple Question: Is There A Right To Own Guns?

Click here to view the original post.
Clinton Was Asked If There’s A Constitutional Right To Own Guns. Here’s Her Response.

Image source: Screen capture.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton questioned during a weekend interview whether the Constitution grants Americans the right to bear arms, and she also refused to back off her previous support for a 25 percent gun tax.

The comments were made during an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, who asked her twice about her views on an individual’s right to own a gun.

“Do you believe that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right, that it’s not linked to service in a militia?” Stephanopoulos asked.

“I think that for most of our history,” she responded,” there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia, and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulation.”

Be Prepared. Learn The Best Ways To Hide Your Guns.

Antonin Scalia, who wrote the Heller decision affirming an individual’s right to own guns, died on Feb. 13.

After Clinton detailed her support for “common sense” gun control, Stephanopoulos asked again, “Do you believe that [the Supreme Court’s] conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?”

“If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation,” Clinton responded. “And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms.”

Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court potentially would be filled by Clinton if she wins in November, although President Obama nominated Merrick Garland for the spot. Republican leaders in the Senate have said they will not hold hearings on Garland’s nomination.

Story continues below video

Stephanopoulos then played for her a clip of her from 1993, when she was asked if she supported a 25 percent sales tax on gun sales.

“I’m all for that,” Clinton said in 1993. “I just don’t know what else we’re going to do to try to figure out how to get some handle on this violence. … I’m speaking personally, but I feel very strongly about that.”

Stephanopoulos asked her, “Do you still believe that?”

“What I was saying back then,” Clinton said, “was that we have a lot of public health costs that taxpayers end up paying for through Medicaid, Medicare, through uncompensated care, because that was in the context of the push for health care reform and that we needed some way to try to defray those costs. And I’m not going to commit to any specific proposal. I was speaking personally then.”

Clinton told Stephanopoulos that there needs to be a way to compensate the “physical and the emotional trauma” for the families of shooting victims.

“You know, is it workman’s comp support, which is one of the arguments? Is it private insurance? Is it because they work for the county, something the county should pay for? There are real costs that people incur because of the terrible gun violence epidemic. And we have to deal with it,” she said.

In the current polling average by RealClearPolitics.com, Clinton leads Donald Trump, 44 percent to 42 percent.

What is your reaction to Hillary Clinton’s comments? Share your thoughts in the section below:

Pump Shotguns Have One BIG Advantage Over Other Shotguns. Read More Here.

Time To Take Back Australia.

Click here to view the original post.
Election Special

We have decisions to make and the 2 Million licenced Shooters in Australia are now 10% of the population. We together, can make the difference, but what difference do we want. Australia has ‘sleepwalked’ into a continuous Nightmare. We all accept that the traditional LIB LAB GREENS are greedy, deadbeats, we all accept that none of them even want to improve the economy. If we really think hard about it, we know that none our traditional leaders really want to fix unemployment. We all know that huge entities that put the donations into the party coffers, whether they be Unions, Banks, Oil Companies, Chemical companies all want cheap labour, so want unemployment, or want massive immigration for left wing votes, who have to vote their way to keep their flow of benefits that are paid for by the ever reducing number of tax payers.
Our traditional leaders want a One World Wage, they want us, All to be Poor Consumers. The want their New World, where people are just cogs in a gear box, as fortold by Aldous Huxley in his book ‘Brave New World’, or George Orwell’s ‘1984′.

We are trained to think that one side is better than the other, if we pick Party Lib, or Party Lab that helps to reduce the pain, but really we all know that neither of them is any good. None of them hold out any hope for the future of Australia. They have been systematically looting our country since both parties agreed to the Lima Agreement in 1974 where they agreed to remove tariff protection and send billions of our tax dollars to third world countries to build our competitors.


Why would they do that you might say, the answer is power and money, if they had refused the donor’s would not have put the money into these parties and power and money would be lost. So now Union Carbide, or Sony (Standard Oil New York) or Dow Chemicals can have its products made with the cheapest labour and freely exported to the planet. Why did the Unions not scream the house down and demand the re-introduction of the ‘White Australia Policy’ and tariff protection for industries as it had in the early 20th Century? The answer, is that in the early part of the 20th Century the unions were motivate by their members and now they are motivated by big money interests who use the unions to control the donations to the Labour Party.

Our World Turned Up Side Down.
Alice in Wonderland or Just another Nightmare?

When I was a teenager during the 1960s, several cultural revolutions occurred, notable ones were the Chinese Cultural Revolution which was responsible for the death of twenty, or sixty million people and in Britain there was a musical revolution that turned into a peace movement. On reflection that peace movement left untold millions to die, in places like Vietnam, Nigeria, Cambodia and South America all due to Western civilisations search for peace. So for some time we have had beginnings of the Alice in Wonderland topsy turvy, upside down decay of our Western civilisation, but now are we living the Alice dream or is our world turned into a nightmare?
For just a brief example.
‘When a street-corner preacher mentioned to a passing shopper that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. That comment got him thrown in jail. A homosexual policeman contended that since Dale McAlpine’s remark was loud enough to be overheard, he had broken the Public Order Act of 1986. Police carted McAlpine off, and he spent seven hours in a cell for causing “harassment, alarm or distress.’

At about the same time. After an Israeli official gave a lecture at a University and was attacked by pro-Palestinian Muslim protesters. Police responded to this provocation by escorting the official from the premises in a police car. The protesters climbed onto the hood of the vehicle and tried to break the windshield. They were not prosecuted. Apparently this is “protected free speech.”’

Our Upside-Down World Is confusing for voters as it is a world where truth is trashed and lies are lauded. Where the honourable are despised and the depraved are empowered. Where sound morals and strong character are relentlessly mocked—while immorality is praised, paraded and protected.

Memorial Day Weekend Message: How to truly help veterans according to veterans

Click here to view the original post.

I hit my saturation point with the Memorial Day weekend lip service and memorials to those who died “fighting for our freedoms.”  We can argue about previous generations, but the

Australian Firearms Legislation & Government Corruption.

Click here to view the original post.
Article by Ron Owen of Owen Guns Australia.

Bad News Sometimes has a Silver Lining.

Sixteen years ago, in the year 2000. I, like thousands of other law abiding shooters (who are aware) was horrified that all licenced shooters details were to be included in the new Crimtrac data base run by the Federal Government. To be listed with Criminals, known Paedophiles, Sex offenders, Drug addicts and dealers was degrading. Listed, so it was available to the largest criminal organisation in the country, one that is under constant investigation, in every state for corruption and criminal intent, the Police. Controlled by an organisation with the average integrity lower than sewer rats, who would sell their parents and children into slavery for a moments glory on the television, the Government. This to me, was the final plunge into the putrid mire of Communism, Fascism, all are forms of Socialism pressed on us by the most evil means of Fabianism.

As to Crimtracs purpose, if we believed the worst of our politicians they would be guilty of treason and corruption, spying on their own good citizens. If we believed that this was not the case, that their intentions were good, then that would prove that they were imbecilic and need guidance to cross the street.

From the Crimtrac Annual Report 2014–2015 https://www.crimtrac.gov.au/sites/g/files/net526/f/CrimtracAnnualReport2015_8.pdf?v=1446084987  the cost this Orwellian nightmare is enormous.

To spend 74 million per year for 16 years, plus the NATIONAL FIREARMS INTERFACE (NFI) Budget $4.289 million, and the AUSTRALIAN BALLISTIC INFORMATION NETWORK Budget $5.594 million, besides every State Police Firearm Department in Australia is spending multi -millions to duplicate their own records from law abiding citizens spreading their personal details to the criminal corrupt police forces of the world.

Ultimately, it is the licenced shooters, the innocents, who for doing No wrong have all this money extorted from them on the false pretext of public safety. With a cost that would run into many billions of dollars during the last 16 years what good has come from it, has it saved a life, caught a criminal? Last years Crimtrac Annual Report 2014-15 reports that since its inception sixteen years ago their 207 public servants have recorded 16,000 unique firearm templates ( different sorts of firearms) 42,266, cartridge cases, a total of 56,485 identifying pieces of information and have matched up this information with 76 crime scenes in Australia. The Western Australia Police achieved the sixth hit on the national ABIN system.

“In December 2012, police executed a search warrant locating a .45 calibre self-loading pistol. The gun was test fired and the ballistic information entered into the ABIN. A search of the database identified a link to a drive by shooting in the Western suburbs of Sydney in May 2012.New South Wales Police subsequently confirmed this link. Further investigations revealed the recovered handgun was subject to international tracing (serial number) and had been imported into Australia illegally from the USA.”

Do we have 6 convictions of Criminals for all of these billions of dollars, No. I am sure that if there was just one conviction the Annual Report would have mentioned it.

Nicole Rose is now the CEO of CrimTrac, she was the Director of the Office of the NSW Police Commissioner where she was instrumental in the establishment and operation of the NSW Innocence Panel. In 2013, Ms Rose was awarded the Public Service Medal for services to policing. Her 2IC is Mr Walton was appointed CIO in January 2013 and he has more than 30 years’ experience working in government in both Australia and the United Kingdom. They say in there report,
“It will enable police to share data on guns used in crimes, and provides a quick way to match firearm information against a national dataset. This will significantly affect the way Australian police agencies investigate gun-related crime, by linking ballistic evidence from crimes involving firearms both locally and nationally. This will also provide a national picture of criminal use of firearms in Australia, enhancing the capability of Australian police to investigate firearm-related crime and target violent offenders in our community. Our firearms solutions are valuable tools for police to solve firearm-related crime and to prevent gun crime in Australia. Will support police in addressing violent gun-crime.”

What nonsense, when they waste all that time and money tracking people good enough to volunteer information and cannot track the unlicensed and un registered criminals. When in 16 years and after billions of dollars they have a match with six firearms. No record of convictions or a report of their information being the cause of one conviction.

Mad As Alice in the Looking Glass. Truth Only By Accident.
Where is the accountability in this? There is transparency its easy to see through the verbal manure of self justification and gratification for no real result, bar one.
‘Blind Freddy’ can understand the futile waste of recording all the details of the most law abiding part of our community. Only those as ‘Mad as a Hatter’ would believe that those with criminal intent would record any information. So why spend all that money and impose all those costs on us? Are they ‘Mad’, or is it really “People Control” not Gun Control?
Yet, in this report there is some truth, a small grain that should make every shooter in Australia celebrate. It forecasts the winning of our war for firearm freedom. On page 29 it reports that in 2015 there was 1.9 million licenced shooters in Australia and 5 million firearms.


——————————————————————————————-

Combine the above information with I suspect the more accurate picture from Inspector Craig Rolls Manager Weapons licencing, QPS. In March this year he stated

“This figure represents a significant concern for Weapons Licensing as we are receiving approximately 350 applications a week, a 50% increase in the last 3 years and cannot continue to effectively process applications with this percentage, or a similar high percentage”

Note, he states a 50% increase in licence applications not 27 %.

Why does he say that this is a “significant concern” well that equated to 18,200 applications per year and when it increases at 50% per year in five years time that is an extra 90,000 applications per year.

This year in Australia we will have at least 2 million licensed shooters that is 10 % of the population, is there 2 million people who play football?  Unlikely, there might be one other group fishermen that could be a larger self interested party, but they do not have to put up with all the impositions and hoops to jump over that firearm owners do. To have a shooters licence we have to be voting age or close to it we should be the most motivated section of our community as we have had to suffer the most from government bureaucracy.

Inspector Craig Rolls was making the warning as shortly we shooters will not be the minority, we will NOT  be the political football that they can kick, whenever they want to serve out more in -justice on us, to make it look like they are doing some ‘feel good’ legislation.

Now, for the first time Shooters can make or break any other political force in this country, that was why our Prime Turncoat put legislation through parliament to disenfranchise smaller parties, but that now could backfire on him. Years ago shooters were in the wilderness, then we discovered the internet and facebook now we have the numbers and the means to communicate with them all.

Powerful Political Force.
The largest “Nosy Parker” in Australia has achieved one single good thing, it has officially told us that we are now a powerful force. All we have to do is to let each and all of us know that we have that force. Now with the internet we can even improve it, if each one of us encouraged and succeeded to help a family member or friend to get a shooters licence, we would not have 2 million licenced shooters in Australia we would have 4 million. Well I never thought I would be encouraging shooters licences, I don’t think they serve any useful purpose, but now there is a newfangled point to it all. It unites us in the largest club in this country, expensive and inconvenient, but a means to end the tyranny that we have suffered for the last twenty years.

We have to wake up the ‘Sleep Walkers’.

The ten thousand subscribers to this bulletin have to spread the message on all mechanisms, we must recruit more militant shooters, people who are willing to sign a petition, write to the ‘letter to the editor’ post on facebook, create websites, send out to email lists and force the politicians to openly accept that we are a political force to be reckoned with. We must point out that before they make a law, that imposes great difficulty to millions of good people that they should prove that it works, to state that ridiculous one liner “If it saves one life, its worth it” should provoke everyone’s immediate responses. So well why not ‘ban prescription medicine’, as logically medicine saves lives, even though mistakes in prescriptions kills thousands besides the over usage. Guns are tools of Human creation, like medicine, or any other product humans can manufacture , they can be used for good, or evil.

If Guns did not Save Lives, Policemen would not wear them at the hip?

Our Government has been allowed to create two separate classes of people, one being the elite Government employee’s who can carry firearms, who can use them to guard the lives and families of government politicians and other employees, and those untrusted citizens, whom the elite refer to as the ‘great unwashed’, whose only role is to work, pay tax and vote for Tweedle dee, or Tweedle Dumber. We cannot Discriminate, we can be prosecuted by the state for just thinking that you have an opinion, you don’t actually even have to express it, yet the Elite, the Police Ministers, the police, and other government employees all exempt from the Weapons Act can thrive, while we are not allowed to even defend ourselves with a spoon full of pepper.

Governance Believe They Are Gods and We Are Sheep.
As with the United States if you prove that more homicides are committed by black people, it would be more logical to address that problem on a racial basis rather than to ignore it. When they blame a tool that by itself has no cause, if there is a problem it will continue un abated. Allowing the politicians to return to it again and again, to fuel their real agenda, People control. When causes are identified like Race or  Economics that cannot be discussed, it would not be ‘Politically Correct” they know that high unemployment areas have higher armed crime rates and homicide rates, logically we should address that problem in that area instead of imposing legislation on un related items in all unaffected areas?
Soon Politicians will come to the realization that our 10% of un happy licenced shooters can keep them out of government, or put them into government, their next tactic will be to try and split licenced shooters into categories backing some against others, but before that happens we can form new parties and destroy old ones. Please never forget  Mr. Wendell Phillips said, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few. The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten. The living sap of today outgrows the dead rind of yesterday. The hand entrusted with power becomes, either form human depravity or esprit de corps, the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; only by unintermitted agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.”

Ron


Unfortunately not all Australian gun owners will back other Australian gun owners, this has been proven already. Australian gun owners do not appear to be a special group, they are just like all other Australian citizens. Some care, some don’t, so banking on gun owners EVER being a majority when it comes to voting is a big mistake. Sad isn’t it.
Keith.

Freedom Of Speech: Can You Really Say Anything You Want?

Click here to view the original post.
Freedom of Speech: Can You Really Say Anything You Want?

Image source: Pixabay.com

If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.       

— Justice William Brennan, Texas v. Johnson (1989)

What is the liberty of the press?

Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion?

—Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, #84 (1788)

The First Amendment

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This is the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.  It guarantees, among other things, freedom of speech.  The clause that contains the words “freedom of speech” also adds “or of the press.”  It recognizes that each in some measure is involved in the other.

The first clause protects the “free exercise” of religion, something that obviously includes the freedom to espouse ideas and doctrines that others in the community might find objectionable.  The last clause says the people have the right to assemble peaceably and “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  These, too, have implications for both speaking and writing.

The impetus for the First Amendment came from the Anti-Federalists, patriots who looked at the proposed Constitution with grave, even violent, suspicion.  These men, generally writing out of a true concern for civil liberty, were afraid that the Constitution would create a tyrannical central government and threaten the very liberties they had fought a war to reassert and defend.  Some of the Anti-Federalists were never reconciled to the new order, but others were willing to sign on if the Constitution was supplied with a bill of rights.  In the end, the Federalist agreed.

Hamilton’s Objections

Writing in a series of articles eventually collected as The Federalist (1788), Alexander Hamilton argued that a bill of rights was not only unnecessary, but also quite possibly dangerous.  He argued, for instance, that the “freedom of the press” was incapable of any clear definition.

Freedom of Speech: Can You Really Say Anything You Want?Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion?  I hold it to be impracticable; and from this, I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.  And here, after all, as intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights (#84).

Hamilton distrusted what he saw as meaningless platitudes. He thought, rather, that the meaning and defense of “the freedom of the press” must rest with the character and conscience of the people and their elected officials.  By extension, the same would be true for that broader category: freedom of speech.

Liberty in France

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, France’s National Assembly was pounding out its own manifesto concerning human rights:  The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789).  With regard to freedom of speech, the Declaration said this:

No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.

The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

The revolutionary government wanted to glory in freedom, but it inevitably had to recognize that the words “freedom of speech” needed context and qualification.  Public order required it.  Therefore the State would have to set limits on this hypothetical freedom.  But the National Assembly, beyond a general appeal to natural rights and a respect for the liberty of others, did not give specific standards or guidelines for the laws that might properly define and limit freedom of speech.

The Source of Liberty

Freedom of Speech: Can You Really Say Anything You Want?

Image source: Pixabay.com

Freedom needs definition … it needs boundaries.  Absolute freedom, true anarchy, is simply chaos, and necessarily ends in the triumph and tyranny of the man with the most guns — or a controlling share in the media.  True freedom requires order, but an order that respects the image of God in man, that does not coerce private opinion, and that does not require a man to sin against his own conscience.  In other words, true freedom requires the boundaries of law.

But the question is:  Which law?  Or whose law?  By what standard should we or can we measure out and limit true freedom?  Which law-order, if any, is truly compatible with liberty?

Once again we return to the issue of ontology or “being.” If reality is at bottom undifferentiated spirit or impersonal atomistic matter, then any talk of right or of rights is meaningless.  What is, is right.  There is no transcendent standard by which right and wrong may be measured, no absolute beyond existence by which we might legitimately say, “This is right, and this is wrong.”  And in the absence of any applicable moral absolutes, the concept of human rights is dead in the water.  We may speak of “rights” granted by society or the State, but this is pure chimera.  Such “rights” are nothing but bare permission for the moment and can be taken away as easily as they were granted.  No harm, no foul.  What is … is “right.”

Only on the basis of a transcendent Absolute can there be any real talk of right and wrong or of human rights.  Liberty, to be anything more than bare, momentary permission from the existing social order, must be rooted in an Absolute that stands outside of and beyond all human social order and all created reality.  Liberty is meaningful only on the presupposition of the personal Creator God, who both transcends creation and is immanent within it, and who has spoken to man in words he can understand.  A meaningful concept of liberty presupposes the Triune God of Scripture.

What Do the Scriptures Say?

But it isn’t enough to say that liberty comes from God.  We must actually search God’s Word to see how His law provides for and limits freedom – in this case, freedom of speech.  We must especially note the difference God’s law makes in this area between sins and crimes.  Not every sin is a crime.  Not every lie or bit of gossip or angry exclamation is a crime as far as Scripture is concerned.  By principle and case law, Scripture tells us what limits civil law ought to place on speech and related forms of communication.

One Is Not Like The Other

Click here to view the original post.

     I have been wanting to comment on this topic for the last few days, but honestly, did not feel that I could speak on behalf of Black Americans because I felt it would be presumptuous of me to say that I could identify with their objections.  So, I was happy to hear that the president of the Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP) say that it is “a gross insult” to suggest that “gender-confused” individuals are being discriminated against in much the same way that Black Americans have been discriminated against in the United States.  In fact,  The Reverend Bill Owens suggested that the homosexual and transgender community is attempting to co-opt the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King and all those who “faced fire hoses and hatred”  in their very real struggle for equal and civil rights.

     Now, that Rev. Owens has spoken out, I can take a position of whole-heartedly agreeing with him. To compare a difference in skin color (and the suffering and injustice that was perpetuated against Black Americans) to a difference in sexual behavior and anatomy (that has resulted in which bathroom transgenders can use) is obviously dissimilar and ill-matched.
     It is simply untrue that a person who is confused about their sexual identity has suffered the same injustices or lack of rights that Black Americans have.  As far as I know, transgender Americans have never been horribly enslaved, endured forced separation of families, or been denied the ability to drink out of a water fountain, eat at a lunch counter, or attend the school of their choice.  Sadly, it took this nation until the 1950s and 60s to begin to right these wrongs.  To give a quick summary, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned segregation in schools, at work, and in public places. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 guaranteed citizens of all races and ethnic backgrounds the right to vote.
     And now, the LGBT community wishes to equate their struggle with the Black community and suggests the idea that “Transgender is the new Black.”  The current Administration is backing that idea by supporting HR 3185, which is legislation that would amend the Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.  In fact, Attorney General Loretta Lynch argues that “gender identity is innate,” in the same way that skin color is innate.
     How is it, then, that the American Psychological Association (which generally supports transgenderism) says, “Sex is assigned at birth, [and] refers to one’s biological status as either male or female, and is associated primarily with physical attributes such as chromosomes, hormone prevalence, and external and internal anatomy. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for boys and men or girls and women. These influence the ways that people act, interact, and feel about themselves. While aspects of biological sex are similar across different cultures, aspects of gender may differ.”
     In other words, “sex” and “race” appear to be equivalent, since both are assigned at birth; while “sex” and “gender” are not the same, since aspects of gender can be different, depending on roles that are “constructed” or developed.  Therefore, for the government to tell us that the amendment to the Civil Rights Act insinuates that gender identity is equal to a person’s sex (or the color of their skin) is flawed logic.
     Now let’s carry the erroneous legal argument one step further.  The Civil Rights Act was intended to stop separation of the races on a moral and rational level.  Likewise, separate bathrooms for men and women is a moral and rational idea, but separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not. … A black man’s nature and physiology is not different from that of a white man, an Asian man, or an Hispanic man. The same is not true of sex differences.  Males and females are inherently different from one another. Their physiology is different and their body parts function differently.  For thousands of years, those differences have been respected in performing the most private of bodily tasks.
     Now, to try to equate bathroom privileges to blatant discrimination against the Black race is not only demeaning and dishonoring the struggle of Black Americans, but an obvious attempt to hijack Black history in order to give a false interpretation of the transgender issue.  As Reverend Owens stated, “Transgendered persons are not asking for equal rights—they are asking for special rights that violate the privacy of women and simple common sense.”  I agree!  Let’s not exaggerate and make their agenda something it’s not.   And you need to know that this amendment to the Civil Rights Act is not the only legislation being expropriated.  Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is also being upheld as legislation that applies to the transgender issue.  It is a comprehensive federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity.
     As the National Review reported on Friday, “This morning the Department of Justice and Department of Education released a joint statement of extraordinary breadth and scope. Under the guise of offering “guidance,” the Obama administration put every single public and private educational institution receiving federal funds on notice that it intends to interpret and enforce Title IX — a statute, written in 1972, that by its explicit terms only prohibits sex discrimination — as also prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “gender identity, including discrimination based on a student’s transgender status.” If a boy claims he is a girl, then, according to the Obama administration, he is a girl and must be treated as such by the educational institution.”  In other words, if an individual wishes to embrace a different sexual identity, then the federal government is going to try to coerce everyone else to embrace their choice, too, and our daughter”s school locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms will no longer be “for women only”.
     You can see where all this is leading. Any attempt to maintain traditional distinctions between the sexes is being declared illegitimate, bigoted, and illegal by our culture, our society, and now our government.  And this radical opinion is being sold by hijacking the injustices done to Black citizens.  Bigotry was a huge aspect of the Civil Rights movement and it was right to declare it illegal, based on race.  But to equate the transgender bathroom debate on par with the struggle for racial equality is contrived, unconvincing, and insulting to every Black American.
     I have sympathy for those who are confused about their sexual identity, I really do.  I can’t imagine what it must be like to not know how God sees you, or how He made you, and to be led by false messages meant to confuse you, confound you, and lead you astray.  But to equate the fraudulent transgender argument with the immoral practice of slavery and discrimination is both disgraceful and offensive.  It’s just another sign of how far the Enemy will go to spread his lies and deception.

Luke 16:15    And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.”

   

Imagine, A World Without Taxes (Here’s What It Would Look Like)

Click here to view the original post.

Imagine, A World Without Taxes (Here’s What It Would Look Like)

Imagine living in a world without taxes. Granted, that’s a bit unlikely to happen, considering mankind’s long history with taxes. It seems that taxes and government go hand-in-hand. It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about the old European feudal system — where Barons and Earls taxed the serfs and merchant caravans crossing their lands — or you’re talking about modern socialistic and democratic governments. All governments tax. Not only does it give them a source of revenue, but it gives them a way of controlling the people.

Nevertheless, let’s indulge our imaginations for a moment and think about the difference that would make to live in a tax-free society. While I don’t expect ever to find such a utopia, seeing what it would be like will show us what taxes are doing to our society.

The first thing we’d all see is more money in our pockets. While the figures from various government watch agencies vary, right now, the average American family pays about 43 percent of their income out in taxes of one sort or another. That’s a lot higher than we expect, mostly because our tax bill is broken into many different pieces. We see the obvious ones like income tax, property tax and sales tax, but there are many, many more.

With an average family income of about $53,657 in 2015 (according to census bureau data), that works out to the average American family paying $23,073 per year in taxes. While this number rises and falls with the political winds and the unstable economy, just knowing that some of us pay out more than $23,000 per year in taxes is shocking enough.

Get Out Of The Rat-Race And Make Money Off-Grid!

So, if we were to eliminate all of those taxes, you would suddenly have an extra $23,000 that you could use, assuming that you are the theoretical average family. So, what would you do with it?

I’m sure if we polled ourselves, we’d find all sorts of noble sentiments about how we would use that extra money. Some would talk about saving for retirement, putting their kids through college, giving to non-profit organizations and otherwise making the world a better place to live. But let’s be honest, while all those things are great ideas, the reality is that if we had an extra $23,000, we’d probably spend it.

Imagine, A World Without Taxes (Here’s What It Would Look Like)We’re all much better at spending than we are at saving, and we can always find something that we need to spend extra money on. No matter how many noble intentions we have, a raise in income generally means a raise in our standard of living, not in our standard of saving.

Now, that’s not all bad. Spending money is actually good — good for the economy, that is. One of the major reasons that our economy has been stagnant since the 2008/2009 housing bubble crash is that people and businesses have been afraid to spend money. If there’s one thing that Obama has been good at, it’s getting people to stop spending.

That lack of spending is costing people jobs. If it continues, it could lead to an even worse economy. You see, it’s not the amount of money that exists which make the economy work, but how much of it is moving around. We need that money moving around, creating millions of transactions per day where people buy and sell products and services, so that the money gets into other people’s hands and they can spend it, too.

Let me put it this way. Let’s say that someone has $1 billion dollars and they use it to stuff their mattress, instead of spending it, investing it or even putting it in the bank, so that the bank can invest it. That money does nobody any good. With no goods and services being purchased, that money doesn’t do a thing to help the economy … worse, it doesn’t do a thing to give people jobs.

Okay, so there are somewhere around 116 million families in the United States (2007 figures). If each of those families had an extra $23,000 to spend in a year, it would work out to $2,668,000,000,000. That’s $2.68 trillion dollars; enough to buy more 85 million cars, 7,473 brand new 747 jumbo jets, 2,151 new cruise ships, or to build the world’s tallest building, Dubai’s Burj Khalifa 1,778 times. We could even pay off the national debt in a little over seven years or pay off the combined student debt in less than six months if we so chose.

How many jobs would be created by all of those purchases? There’s no real way of telling. But it’s clear that the number of new jobs created by that much additional cash flowing through the economy would be significant. Granted, the government is putting that money through the economy right now, paying for a myriad of different products, services and entitlements. But no government spends money efficiently. They don’t have to; after all, it’s taxpayer money, not real money.

The point is, every dollar the government takes out of our pockets in increased taxes has to come out of something else. It doesn’t come out of some untapped pool of money that people are sitting on. That doesn’t even happen with the wealthy. Taxing them more, a favorite Democrat tactic, just means that they don’t invest that money in other money-making ventures. In other words, they don’t give people jobs.

Imagine, A World Without Taxes (Here’s What It Would Look Like)Ultimately, it is the government that controls the economy and thereby controls jobs. Not by the Fed’s discount rate, as everyone assumes, but by the policies that they make, taking money out of our pockets in the form of taxes. They also control inflation, taking more money out of our pockets by creating money out of thin air in schemes like quantitative easing. So, when people complain about the lack of jobs; what they’re really saying is that the government is hurting the economy too much.

Taxes — all taxes — have a negative influence on the economy. But we really can’t get rid of them. We need the government, although we probably don’t need as much government as we have. Yet governments don’t shrink on their own; they only grow. New departments are created, requiring funding and causing more tax increases. Eventually, the people revolt or the economy reaches a point where it can’t support the government — and it collapses.

Plant A Full Acre Of Food With This Emergency Seed Bank!

Since we need our government, that means we need taxes, too. In fact, the Constitution gives the federal government the right to collect taxes. It says, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

So fine, let them collect their taxes and let them use them for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States. But that’s it. Let’s put an end to pork barrel spending, research grants for useless things and other wasteful government spending. Let’s stop giving millions away to our enemies, so that they can chant “Death to America.” Let’s stop with all the departments of the government that only exist to take away our freedoms and so that the bureaucrats can tell each other how important they are. Let’s have a reasonable government and reasonable taxes.

Maybe then, our economy could return to the robust, growing economy of our parents’ generation. We would see our children have a better life than we have and we could expect their children to have an even better life than that. Maybe then, the people of the United States of America would become prosperous once again.

Do you agree or disagree? Share your thoughts on taxes in the section below:

More Than 90 Percent Of Customers Won’t Get Their Money When There’s A “Run On The Banks.” Read More Here.

It is time to use antitrust acts to break up the most powerful monopoly in the United States…the two-party political system

Click here to view the original post.

Today’s post is perhaps one of the most important pieces I have ever written.  In it I write to how we as a nation can peacefully use the elements of

Why Is The Constitution Becoming Irrelevant?

Click here to view the original post.

     We have heard this refrain for several decades now … The Constitution has outlived its usefulness; it is a “living document” and therefore, its original intent is no longer significant.  It probably goes without saying that the political forces that are behind the “government machine” would like nothing better than to remove the one document that restricts their power.  They are not particularly fond of the opening words, “We the People”, which clearly establishes that the government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.
     One cannot argue with the historical context of the Constitution — that it was written to protect the rights of citizens from a government that was either too weak or too powerful.  We must remember that even the idea of a Constitution “for the People” was a radical and new concept on the world stage.  Prior to the rebels who dared to stand up to King George III, no other nation of peoples had ever attempted self-rule.  The American Revolution was not simply a rebellion against the king of England, it was a rebellion against being ruled by kings in general. And once that war was won, it became very important to determine exactly what system would ensure that individual rights would be secured by the rule of law.

     Our schools used to teach the U.S. Constitution as a matter of public education.  I can remember studying the seven different Articles, and how they affected the separation of powers and the checks and balances of Government.  We were tested on the Bill of Rights and the significance of the various Amendments; and how they were written to strengthen our individual rights and restrict any unlawful intrusion upon those rights by a tyrannical government.  That was then.
     Today, we teach our kids that the Constitution is just a historical document; no longer relevant to a modern society.  I must admit that our leaders certainly act as if this is so.  Presidential Executive Orders specifically violate the Constitution; the Supreme Court redefines what constitutes a “tax” (clearly a violation of their Constitutional duties); and the Legislative Body regularly changes the method of voting on Bills, depending on which Party is in power.  It is conspicuously clear that their oath “to defend the Constitution” is insincere at best; and worthless as evidenced by their conduct.
     While we can chalk up the diminishing relevancy of our Founding Document to the ravages of time and new concepts of society and government, there is one theory that we haven’t considered, and I think it is perhaps the most insightful.
     We have forgotten the passion that ideas like “Liberty” and “Personal Rights” and “Sacred Honor” could burn in the hearts of people who clung to a “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence”, which by the way, in the lexicon of the times, meant “Jehovah God”.  Those brave colonists who dared to stand up to the mightiest monarch and army in all the world — who believed so strongly in their right to personal freedoms that came from their Creator — knew that it was going to take a strong concept of government to guarantee those rights.  And they chose Leaders who understood the gravity and the foundation of those rights.
     President John Adams warned: “Because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion … our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
     “Made only for a moral and religious people”.  Can we still say we fit that description?  Can our leaders be described as “moral and religious”?  If there is even a moment of hesitancy in our answers, then we can see why the Constitution is no longer held in high regard by either the citizenry or elected officials.
     Have we lost the truth that morality and faith in the Judeo-Christian God formed the bedrock of conventional thinking, society, and education at the founding of this country?  Modern secularists will deny that last statement, and proponents such as Susan Jacoby of the Center for Inquiry, have argued that America was established on reason and meant to be a secular republic, as seen with the First Amendment outlining a separation of church and state.
     To be honest, I get tired of this distorted argument.  The First Amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”.  They were simply making it clear, within the context of the time they lived, that there would be no State Religion by which everyone was expected to worship.  They were responding to the history of the early colonists, many of whom had fled persecution and imprisonment and loss of property as a result of pursuing their desire to worship as they pleased.  This Amendment was designed to allow citizens to choose their own faith, and there is absolutely no evidence that the Constitution promotes a secular republic!
     The importance of Biblical morality in colonial America is no more apparent than in the fact that Thomas Paine, who was certainly not a Christian, used the Bible extensively in arguing for the Revolution in his persuasive pamphlet, Common Sense.  The Bible, its moral principles and values; and most certainly, its underlying theme of freedom played an important role in determining the justification for the founding of America and its governing documents … even by non-religious men.  Sadly, I do not see the same adherence today.
     Whether we have totally lost that foundation remains to be seen.  The Constitution, which embodies the spirit of those moral cornerstones, is increasingly ignored and flouted.  Do we still have it in us to “rely on the protection of Divine Providence?”  And whether or not we agree that God played a direct part in the hearts and minds of those who established this country and our form of government, there can be no denial that He has brought about much good from the freedom that was won as a result.  The question before us is this:  Can we continue to succeed and prosper as a nation if that astounding Document of Individual Freedom and Liberty is shredded beyond recognition?   Do we realize that without it, the very structure of our government becomes null and void, and tyranny and dictatorship will fill that vacuum?   It may be an old, antique document, but it is neither archaic nor obsolete.  It stands between me and you, and a potentially cruel and oppressive government.  We better hang on to every scrap of it!

James 2:12    “So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.”

   

An Open Letter to the US 10th District Congresswoman Barbara Comstock

Click here to view the original post.

Today’s post directly addresses an email sent out by Congresswoman Barbara Comstock of the US Tenth District to her constituents (pasted at the bottom of this post).  Specifically, it poses

Corporate Communism. Copied From Facebook.

Click here to view the original post.
Copied from Facebook
http://corporationcommunism.com/index.html
http://www.oziz4oziz.com/how-australia-was-globalised.html
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Jewish_communism
http://holywar.org/jewishtr/moguls.htm
http://thisiszionism.blogspot.com.au/…/how-jews-are… (and the West, and the world)

http://livebyquotes.com/…/who-you-are-not-allowed-to…/

http://thisiszionism.blogspot.com.au/…/how-jews-are…

https://thezog.wordpress.com
http://holywar.org/jewishtr/index.html

“TELLING THE TRUTH IS NOT ANTISEMITIC. AM I RIGHT?”
— Joe Wood, (African-American author),
in Berman, Paul. Blacks and Jews: Alliance and Arguments,
Delacorte Press, NY, 1994, p. 112

“TO SEE WHAT IS IN FRONT OF ONE’S NOSE
REQUIRES A CONSTANT STRUGGLE.”
— George Orwell, 1946

“THERE IS NOTHING MORE FRIGHTENING THAN ACTIVE IGNORANCE.”
— Goethe

Welcome to Corporation Communism We are now in control of your life, the water you drink, the food you eat, the air you breathe, your health, your wealth, your job, you no longer control your life. …

CORPORATIONCOMMUNISM.COM

A Nation’s Quandary: The Future of the Supreme Court & the Constitution

Click here to view the original post.

     This past weekend the nation’s political attention was on the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and how his replacement could re-focus the direction of this country and the authority of the Constitution.  If you step back for a moment, it is almost bizarre to think that the future of this nation rests on the shoulders of one man.
     Yet, that is what Justice Scalia’s son, the Reverend Paul Scalia spoke at his father’s funeral mass:  “We are gathered here because of one man, a man known personally to many of us, known only by reputation to many more; a man loved by many, scorned by others; a man known for great controversy and for great compassion.”   The one man that the Rev. Scalia was speaking about?  Not his father … “That man, of course, is Jesus of Nazareth.”
     Bravo, Reverend Scalia!  I’m sure that your father would have been proud!  Because the understanding of true Justice, after all, comes from knowing that God authorizes those who will become ministers of His justice over us.  And in writing the Constitution, and establishing the Supreme Court, I believe that the Founding Fathers understood that as well.  Consider this statement: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (John Adams).

     Now follow that statement with this thought:  An important aspect of our system of government is that it is based on the Rule of Law. This concept is a direct descendant of Hebrew law and the Ten Commandments. Together with the concept of unalienable rights from God, these concepts helped ensure a way of life that respected the dignity of every individual. The combination of these biblical concepts is a foundation of our government that helps subjugate political power of potential tyrants. One only has to notice how every tyrant has a practice of changing the country’s constitution to suit himself (or to butter the bread of those who put him in power (Courtesy of FaithFacts.org).
     So how far off track has the highest Court in the land come from these founding ideals?  Let’s see … they have removed the Bible from the public square and our schools, thereby removing the moral absolutes that the Word of God established, and allowing anyone to set his own standards.  They have consented to the murder of 57 million innocent lives since 1973 (Roe v. Wade).  They have endorsed same-sex marriage while legislating against American businesses who oppose it on a Biblical basis.  And our liberties in regards to free speech, the right to bear arms, States’ rights, and our rights to be secure in our persons and privacy are coming under increasing attack.
     If we, as Americans, truly understood the enumerated powers given to the Supreme Court under the direction of the Constitution, we would be screaming Judicial Tyranny!  It would be blatantly apparent that the Court has overstepped its bounds and is acting above the Law of the land.  Case in point …. Did you know that “Judicial Power” refers to a court’s power to hear and decide cases. Art. III §2, U.S. Constitution, lists the cases which federal courts are permitted to hear. They may hear only cases:  
a) Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States [“federal question” jurisdiction];
b) Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of the parties” jurisdiction];
c) Between two or more States; between a State & Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States; or between a State (or Citizens thereof) & foreign States, Citizens or Subjects; [“diversity” jurisdiction].
    Anything else, is outside the powers given to them by the Constitution!  As Alexander Hamilton, one of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, who helped draft the document wrote: …the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction…
     What I’m trying to tell you is that the Supreme Court has no legal jurisdiction to hear the cases on abortion, same-sex marriage, Obamacare, gun rights … let alone declare them law!  Let me say that again … Constitutionally, their rulings are not law.  Judges are appointed to discover and apply the Law, not to re-write or to re-interpret it.  Yet, we the people of this nation, have been lax in holding the branches of government accountable to the Constitution.  We have been conditioned to relax our vigilance and to accept their overreach of power.
     President Andrew Jackson said it best:  “If the Supreme Court is to be the final arbiter (to decide differences) of what the Constitution says, then (the American people) we have ceased to be our own rulers (under God), and the Supreme Court is our ruler.”   It may seem trite to refer to them as “activist judges”, yet that is what they are — legislating from the Supreme Court bench to suit their own prejudices and those who put them in power.
     So, you can see how important the next appointment to the Supreme Court really is, and why the other two branches of government are going to fight for the authority to name him or her.  Have we gone too far in allowing the Court to overstep their authority?  Have we gone so far that the Constitution has lost its power to restrict the limits by which they influence the law?  And finally, I wonder if it will be impossible to find a Judge who not only understands that it is his responsibility to respect and abide by the Constitution, but that the Law of God is at the foundation of the establishment of this nation’s laws.
     As was stated by the Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892: “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian…This is a Christian nation.”  We have strayed from this principle and the condition of our nation and the gutting of the Constitution is ample proof of our failure to uphold this doctrine.   The selection for the next Supreme Court Justice may very well determine the future of our country and the Constitution.  Pray for mercy and wisdom!

Thank you to Barbwire.com and FaithFacts.org for valuable information for this post.

2 Chronicles 19:6    He told them, “Consider carefully what you do, because you are not judging for mere mortals but for the LORD, who is with you whenever you give a verdict.”

Steps to Health Freedom!

Click here to view the original post.

Steps to Health Freedom!
Cat Ellis “Herbal Prepper Live

Steps to Health FreedomHealth Freedom almost made it into the US Consititution. Over two centuries ago, we were warned, “Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of Men and deny equal privileges to others; the Constitution of the Republic should make a Special privilege for medical freedoms as well as religious freedom.” This warning came from Founding Father Dr. Benjamin Rush, MD

2-7-16 Dr.WhiteIt seems that Dr. Rush’s prediction has come true. We currently live in the Age of Regulation, and the regulation is not to protect the consumer. Between the FDA, the USDA, and the EPA, government has partnered with both Industry and professional associations to protect certain interests. These interests are they kinds that can pad the pockets of the agencies. Consumers and small businesses, especially cottage industries, are not invited to the party. And this doesn’t even touch on how these same agencies control the quality of our food, water, and air- all factors in our health.

We are left hoping to get a doctor we like, and maybe even hoping to see our doctor for more than 3 minutes when we’re sick. Then again, unless we are independently wealthy, and can afford Massage Therapy, Acupuncture, Midwifery, a custom herbal protocol, and other alternative or complementary care, we only have one choice for health care. Many of these beneficial therapies are not covered by insurance, and yet, their practitioners still deserve to be compensated for their expertise.

But, what if these practitioners were no longer available because regulations ran them into the ground? What can you do to learn some of these skills without breaking the budget? What steps do you need to take to break out of this Sick Care System? This episode will give you the steps to Health Freedom.
Herbal Prepper Website: http://www.herbalprepper.com/
Join us for Herbal Prepper Live “LIVE SHOW” every Sunday 7:00/Et 6:00Ct 4:00/Pt Go To Listen and Chat

Listen to this broadcast or download “Steps to Health Freedom” in player below!

Get the 24/7 app for your smart phone HERE! 
Put the 24/7 player on your web site HERE! 
Archived shows of Herbal Prepper Live at bottom of THIS PAGE!

The post Steps to Health Freedom! appeared first on The Prepper Broadcasting Network.

Law-abiding people with proper training should be given the option to defend themselves with a firearm.

Click here to view the original post.
Maidstone stabbing: Grandfather fighting for life after coming to aid of wife outside home.


Self-defence in Australia is frowned on by the government & authorities. Self-defence is not a legal reason for owning a firearm. If your house in invaded, the government advises that you should leave your home by the nearest exit. This is NOT always possible, & once you are outside, your family is an easy target. The Australian government does NOT care about a citizen’s safety, & would rather see women raped & the whole family killed rather than allow a law abiding citizen to use a firearm to protect his/her family.

Where Is Common Sense When It Comes To Expressing Our Faith?

Click here to view the original post.

     Just a random glance at headlines across the country will reveal the battle we are in to protect our faith.  Presidential candidate Ben Carson was approached by a proclaimed atheist voter prior to the Iowa caucuses.  Carson was asked if he agreed with other candidates whose positions state that Biblical law trumps Constitutional law.
     First of all, that is a loaded question; especially because it is easy for misinterpretation.  To me, the term “Biblical law”, rather than “God’s law”, leaves one open for charges of intolerance and injustice, if not properly explained… God’s laws are the commandments that He makes perfectly clear are His alone.  Biblical law could refer to all the addendum’s that the nation of Israel has declared since its inception; a disproportionate number of which were instituted because they were under an awesome obligation to maintain their covenant relationship, and they wrongly attempted to merit His favor and blessing by adding their own restrictions to His laws.  But I’m getting off-track…
      I would assume that the questioner had in mind such laws like the one the Supreme Court recently mandated in which same-sex marriage is now constitutionally protected, in opposition to God’s law that marriage is between a man and a woman.  I believe that Ben Carson’s answer was right on the money: “Our Constitution, which is the supreme law of our land, was designed by men of faith, and it has a Judeo-Christian foundation… If we create laws that are contrary to the Judeo-Christian values that we have, then I think we should fight against those kinds of laws.”  Carson went on to make his position perfectly clear: “I personally believe that we still have an obligation to obey the laws whether we agree with them or not. Otherwise, we would be a lawless nation.  But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight against anything we see as unjust.”  (I would have added, “or unrighteous”).
     In a slightly abbreviated version, I think he’s saying that our elected officials must abide by the laws of the land.  But when confronted with a man-made law that goes against God’s commandments, then we all have a duty to fight to change those laws to align with God.  Clearly, those who do not believe in God or His sovereignty over human affairs will seek to change laws to appease the flesh.  At least we still have men in the public arena who seek to obey and please God.

     And there is still some God-given common sense in the Texas State Supreme Court as well.  The Court ruled in favor of a group of middle and high school cheerleaders who displayed banners with religious messages on them at football games, citing the following as their reasons for deciding in favor of the cheerleaders:  “messages created solely by student cheerleaders do not become government speech simply because aspects of cheerleaders’ activities are regulated by the school,” the brief stated. “Because the messages on the banners are the cheerleaders’ messages, the content of which is not dictated by the school, the speech is not the school’s, and it does not qualify as ‘government speech.’ The speech belongs to the cheerleaders, and it is entitled to First Amendment Protection.”
     What astounded me was that the School District, itself, — which means at least one person — objected to the use of Biblical Scripture or inferences on signs and banners held up by the cheerleaders to encourage team spirit.  In Texas, School Districts are run by School Boards, which if I’m not mistaken, should have the best interests of the students at heart.  But here’s what is most upsetting to me … a district court judge initially ruled that the cheerleaders had the right to display the banners at sporting events as they were “constitutionally permissible.” However, the school district appealed the ruling with the backing of the ACLU!  Additionally, the school district had decided to allow the banners but had the ability to censor them at will.
     So, I ask you again, where is the common sense that says it’s OK for a School Board to censor a student who wishes to encourage another student with a message from God?  Since when is a cheerleader, with a banner, a form of government-and-state-sponsored religion?  Has all common sense just gone out the window?
     Well, I would suggest that it has in Phoenix, Arizona.  I say that because the City Council of Phoenix has given members of the local Satanic Temple permission to offer the opening prayer at an upcoming Council meeting.  While the satanists have voiced their intention to “do nothing offensive”, stating that, “We’re citizens of this government, and we would like our voices to be heard.  If they don’t want to accept, constitutionally what must happen is that all voices must be taken down from the public forum. It’s basically all voices must be heard or none at all.”
     Now, those of us with common sense will immediately surmise that this is simply an argument that the Enemy of God is using to try to put satan on equal footing with the Most High God.  It not only makes a mockery of prayer in general, but is a blatant taunt in the face of those who have faith.  But here’s the real paradox… the satanists explained their position as follows:  “Consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s direction, the city cannot dictate religious viewpoints or the content of a prayer.  In addition, government may not exclude a denomination or a religion from praying under these circumstances.”
     While they may say that they “don’t believe in a literal Satan”, but instead view the biblical Satan as “a metaphor for rebellion against tyranny”, they have made it perfectly clear that they wish to participate by offering a prayer, which by definition, is “a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship.”  They can deny they worship Satan all they want, but their actions and their words belie not only their mockery of us, but their deceit in order to achieve the devil’s goal.
     So, my post title asks where has the common sense gone as it applies to the expression of our faith.  Obviously, it is disappearing from within the unbelieving public; from within our court systems and educational boards; and from those who are appointed to govern our cities and communities.  Human values and selfish concerns have replaced sound judgment and the ability to consider matters from a discerning spirit.  It is quite apparent that forthcoming elections will have profound ramifications on our society, our culture, and our nation.  Whether it is for the office of President of the United States,  a District Judge, or School Board Members, you better know (before you vote) where they stand in regards to faith in the Sovereign God of the Universe… or we are going to see a vast change in how we are allowed to worship and obey Him.

Psalm 1:1-2   “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on His law he meditates day and night.”
   

Forget the issues with where Cruz was born; Hillary Clinton will be legally ineligible to hold office or a security clearance

Click here to view the original post.

I have had enough of waiting for the “In”Justice Department to do its job. If we fail to maintain the rule of law equitably in this country from the top

Does It Feel Good Or Does It Do Good? Intentions Vs. Results

Click here to view the original post.

January 18th, 2016

Video courtesy of PragerU

When setting public policy, what’s more important: intentions or results? Feeling good or doing good? When it comes to being guided by the heart or by the mind, the Left and Right are very different.

New Book Reveals the Little Known Secrets of How To Maintain An Extremely Low Profile In An Age Of Hackers, Snoops, Data Miners, Corrupt Bureaucrats and Surveillance Grid Profilers.

 

 

Previous Video

Don’t Get Distracted From The Real Problems By BULLSHIT !!!

Click here to view the original post.

THIS WHAT PROPAGANDA MEDIA SOUND LIKE WHEN THEY TRYING TO DISTRACT YOU FROM REAL NEWS

Posted by Yacub Majeed on Thursday, 14 August 2014

Something To Think About. What If By Ron Owen Of Owen Guns Australia.

Click here to view the original post.
Do we work for Parliament, or does Parliament work for us?
Who is the slave and who is the Master?
Questions to Provoke Thought and Action.
Personal liberty is the birthright of all persons and our Constitutional documents recognize that liberty is personal and cannot be sacrificed by a majority vote of representatives, but only by individual consent? What would change if powers  given in our Constitutional documents no longer limited parliament but were actually used as a justification to extend parliamentary authority over every realm of human life? What if our Monarchs, first Minister in Australia, Prime Minister Turnbull made himself a Monarch? What if the Prime Minster assumed that everything he did was legal just because he has the numbers in the House of Parliament? What if he could interrupt your regularly scheduled radio and TV programming for a special message from him? What if he could declare war on his own? What if he could read your emails and your texts without a search warrant? What if the violation of the right to privacy is a gateway to all other government violations of personal liberty? What if the High Courts, Justices no longer looked to the Constitutional documents to determine the authority of a law, but rather simply to what other Justice’s who preceded them thought about it? What if the rights and principles guaranteed in the Constitutional documents were so ignored that our grandparents would think they were living in the old Soviet Union? What if the States were mere provinces of a totally nationalized and fully centralized government. What if the Constitution was amended stealthfully; not by Constitutional amendments dully ratified by the people in a referenda but by the constant and persistent expansion of the Government’s role in our lives? What if our parliaments decided that its own powers were above the Constitution? What if the Constitutional document were no longer the Supreme Law of the Land? What if you believed that our Constitutional documents represented the moral principles of our forefathers who valued our rights and freedoms at a higher in price than the parliament powers to interfere with them? What if those who wrote the Constitution believed that personal liberty is the default position and parliament power the exception? What if the Constitution means that our rights should be maximum and governments control minimum? What if the greatest right protected by the Constitution is the right to be left alone, the right to be oneself, the right to answer only to one’s own free will? What if our parliament is essentially the contradiction of that liberty?

What if you needed a license from the government to speak, to assemble or to protest against the government? What if the government didn’t like what you planned to say and so it didn’t give you the license? What if the right of law abiding firearm owners to defend their families and homes, their property only applied to government employees! What if parliament considered the police an adequate dispenser of justice and removed your recourse to a Trial by Jury and the Rule of Law? What if the Police looked and acted like troops and you couldn’t distinguish the military from the police?

Texas Governor: Amend Constitution To Limit Federal Government

Click here to view the original post.
Texas Governor: Amend Constitution To Limit Federal Government

Image source: Texas governor’s office

A major presidential candidate and the governor of one of America’s largest states want to rewrite the US Constitution to limit the federal government.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott and US Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida), a presidential candidate, each want a “Convention of the States,” or what some would call another Constitutional Convention.

“The irony for our generation is that the threat to our Republic doesn’t come just from foreign enemies, it comes, in part, from our very own leaders,” Abbott, a Republican, said in a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation on January 8. Abbott believes that rewriting the Constitution is the only way to limit a federal government that is out of control.

Rubio has made similar statements.

“One of the things I’m going to do on my first day in office is I will put the prestige and power of the presidency behind a constitutional convention of the states,” Rubio said at campaign stop in Waterloo, Iowa, on December 28. “You know why? Because that is the only way that we are ever going to get term limits on members of Congress or the judiciary and that is the only way we are ever going to get a balanced-budget amendment.”

Convention Could Rewrite Constitution

There are two ways to propose amendments to the US Constitution: by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a Constitutional Convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures, according to the National Archives. The amendments would then have to be approved by three-fourths of the state legislatures — 38 states.

(Listen to both sides of the debate in a special Off The Grid Radio episode here.)

Rubio and Abbott support a state-led Constitutional Convention in part because they believe it would be impossible to get two-thirds of Congress to send an amendment to the states. No such Convention has been held since 1787.

Want To Know About The REAL Constitution And What The Founders Truly Intended?

USA Today’s editorial board criticized the proposal, which, according to Rubio and Abbott, would be limited in its topics. Critics say that is not allowed under the US Constitution.

“A convention would be impossible to control,” an editorial in the newspaper read. “Nothing in the Constitution gives Congress or the Supreme Court the power to tell the conventioneers what to do, or not do. A convention might be tasked to draft a balanced budget amendment and then decide that it wants to radically change the nature of the federal government or its relationship with the states. It might take up a passion of the moment by, say, limiting immigration by nationality or religious affiliation. It would have nearly unfettered powers to tinker with the DNA of America’s 240-year-old democracy.”

Abbott offered a list of nine proposed Constitutional Amendments he thinks would check the federal government’s power. They are:

  • Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
  • Require Congress to balance its budget.
  • Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
  • Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.
  • Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
  • Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
  • Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
  • Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
  • Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.

The idea of holding a second Constitutional Convention has been gaining traction on both sides of the political aisle. A number of state legislatures, including that in Alabama, have endorsed a plan put forward by a group called Citizens for Self Governance, which Abbott also supports.

“The increasingly frequent departures from Constitutional principles are destroying the Rule of Law foundation on which this country was built,” Abbott said. “We are succumbing to the caprice of man that our Founders fought to escape. The cure to these problems will not come from Washington D.C. Instead, the states must lead the way.”

Do you support or oppose a constitutional convention? Share your thoughts in the section below:

Tired Of Losing Freedoms — And Looking For Another Country? Read More Here.

What we can learn from the Oregon militia standoff and how to implement those lessons

Click here to view the original post.

Ammon Bundy’s stand against the Bureau of Land Management and the Federal Government in Oregon, whether you agree with it or not, should serve as a learning point for grassroots

Gun Laws Are Common Sense According to Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Obama

Click here to view the original post.

Per my previous volumes on the subject of gun control, Obama and his Leftist ideologues are following the script. They continue to push an agenda for a total gun ban

It’s A New Year … Expect New Changes

Click here to view the original post.

   

      I’m wondering if 2016 is going to fly by as fast as 2015 did; and if we are going to continue to see the rapid changes in our lives that we experienced last year.  If the docket of the Supreme Court is any indication, we could see further transformation and upheaval in our social fabric.  Here are the issues that will come before the Court:
     Abortion.  The state of Texas will find out if it can enforce two new regulations that could effect the availability of abortion among its population.  Texas would like to require that clinics use only doctors with admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, as well as require abortion facilities to match the standards of an outpatient surgical center.
     The Supreme Court must decide if these measures will protect the health of women — as state lawmakers assert — or hinder reproductive care “by drastically reducing access to safe and legal abortion” in large parts of Texas, as abortion-rights advocates contend.   It seems to me that these measures are simply trying to call into question the accountability (and the quality of services) of those doctors and clinics that wish to perform abortions.
     But, of course, we can expect to hear arguments that the measures violate the Constitutional “right” of a woman to end the life of her baby, and that “right” supersedes safety measures — never mind the “rights” of the unborn child.
     Affirmative Action.  Once again, the State of Texas is in the spotlight regarding a controversial decision.  In December, the Court heard Fisher vs. University of Texas for a second time to decide whether the school’s admission policy is constitutional.  At the center of this court case is the question, Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions decisions?  Abigail N. Fisher, a Caucasian female, applied for undergraduate admission to the University of Texas in 2008. Fisher was not in the top ten percent of her class (which guarantees admission by the University’s application process), so she competed for admission with other non-top ten percent in-state applicants. The University of Texas denied Fisher’s application.  Fisher then filed suit against the university, citing the aforementioned Equal Protection Clause.
     Fisher has appealed the District Court decision, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; both of which found in favor of the university.  The Supreme Court found in favor of Ms. Fisher, holding that the lower courts did not conduct a sufficient strict scrutiny examination in this case.  So, now it appears as if the Supreme Court could finally decide if the Constitution and civil rights laws forbid schools and colleges from admitting students based on their race.
     Union Fees.  The High Court will hear a free-speech challenge to pro-union laws in more than 20 states that require all public employees pay a “fair share fee” to their union, even if they are opposed to the union and refuse to join.  This case will clearly show us if the Constitution still has any teeth in it.
     Voting Districts.  This case has clear and strong implications for the future reliability of our election process.  Currently, voters elect representatives to Congress, state legislatures and city councils in districts that are drawn to represent equal numbers of people.  Texas is challenging the fact that these “equal numbers” are not comprised of eligible voters.  At the present time, the system counts all people, including children, immigrants and prisoners.  Texas’s appeal relies on the “one person, one vote” rule established in the 1960s. If the justices agree in the case of Evenwel vs. Abbott, the ruling could have a major effect in states such as California, Florida, New York and Illinois because they have large populations of immigrants.  I think it is evident how easily this system could be abused and corrupted.
     Contraceptives.  This year, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear its fourth case on The Affordable Care Act, and the second involving a religious-freedom challenge to a regulation that requires employers to include no-cost coverage for contraceptives in their health insurance policies.  At this time, churches are exempt from this requirement. Under a separate accommodation, religious nonprofits, such as Catholic charities or the University of Notre Dame, need not provide nor pay for the coverage, but they must notify the government of their religious objection.  But in a series of lawsuits, Catholic bishops and Protestant colleges contend that opening themselves up to government scrutiny of their religious objections could open the door to challenges that would force them to provide the contraceptives and make them complicit in what they consider sin.  In essence, they feel they should be afforded the same exemption as churches, or the accommodation needs to be strengthened in their favor.
     Immigration.  In The United States vs Texas, the Supreme Court has perhaps its most contentious case in this Presidential election year.  The outgoing Administration is pulling out all the stops in its effort to shield immigrants from deportation.  Under the President’s latest immigration action,  as many as 5 million immigrants who have lived in the country illegally for at least five years, and have a child who is a citizen or legal resident, could come forward, qualify, and be offered work permits.  But a judge in Texas and the 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans, blocked that action as un-Constitutional because it was done without seeking approval from Congress.
     UPDATE:  Under the President’s unilateral directive, the Department of Homeland Security published (on New Year’s Eve) a 181-page rule which focused primarily on giving work-permits to foreign college-grads.  This not only puts foreigners in direct competition with American college graduates, who are already struggling to find jobs and pay off college tuition debt, but it calls into question new security concerns as it covers categories of immigration utilized by migrants from the Middle East and nearby regions.
     Undoubtedly, it will be extremely important that the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case of The United States vs Texas.  Until then, it looks as if the President is more than willing to test his power to change immigration policy without seeking approval from Congress.  If the justices turn down the appeal, Obama’s action(s) will likely remain on hold until he leaves office.  I’m sure that is exactly what he has planned.
     So as you can see, the very foundation of who and what this country will become is at stake in this coming year.  There is a lot on the line … the freedoms for our unborn children, our rights to equal education and job opportunities, the entitlement to fair and honest elections, the right to be allowed to practice our faith as we see fit, and whether the checks and balances of our government will be upheld — not to mention the very security of our homeland.
     And I do not know how we survive any of it without faith in the protection from our Lord.  Man, himself, is on a collision course with his own pride and self-centeredness.  It is up to those of us who know we have been called to a higher purpose to seek ways to impart the Kingdom of God into each of these circumstances, as well as the unexpected situations we will encounter.  The world is not greater than the power and authority we have in Jesus Christ.  The forecast for the future may look dismal… but we know we can change that, don’t we?  Nothing is impossible with our God.  Let’s live our lives as if we truly believe that!

Psalm 37:37    “Mark the blameless and behold the upright, for there is a future for the man of peace.”

     

Treason in our day: H.R.4269 – Assault Weapons Ban of 2015

Click here to view the original post.

When does an act reach the bar for high treason? If not when powerful men conspire to abolish the Constitution and your basic God given rights, then when?  I ask

Does Bible Allow Concealed Carry? John Piper Says ‘No,’ Gets Pushback

Click here to view the original post.
Does Bible Allow Concealed Carry? John Piper Says 'No,' Gets Pushback

Image source: wikipedia

Popular author and pastor John Piper has sparked an online and social media firestorm by arguing the Bible does not permit the concealed carry of guns by Christians – and he’s receiving plenty of pushback from friends and those who normally agree with him on other issues.

The chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary and former pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Piper said he was led to address the issue after Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr., during a convocation, encouraged students to arm themselves in light of terrorist threats against the United States.

“Falwell and I exchanged several emails, and he was gracious enough to talk to me on the phone so I could get as much clarity as possible,” Piper wrote on his website, DesiringGod.org. “I want it to be clear that our disagreement is between Christian brothers who are able to express appreciation for each other’s ministries person to person.”

Piper then added, “Does it accord with the New Testament to encourage the attitude that says, ‘I have the power to kill you in my pocket, so don’t mess with me’? My answer is, No.”

Piper’s essay has nine major points and is more than 3,700 words long, and begins by asserting that it is the government’s responsibility alone to avenge evil.

Christian Heroes For Christian Kids: This Project Is Putting God Back Into History!

“The apostle Paul called Christians not to avenge ourselves, but to leave it to the wrath of God, and instead to return good for evil,” Piper wrote. “And then he said that God gave the sword (the gun) into the hand of governmental rulers to express that wrath in the pursuit of justice in this world.”

He added:

For example, any claim that in a democracy the citizens are the government, and therefore may assume the role of the sword-bearing ruler in Romans 13, is elevating political extrapolation over biblical revelation. When Paul says, “[The ruler] does not bear the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4), he does not mean that Christians citizens should all carry swords so the enemy doesn’t get any bright ideas.

Piper also argued that the Bible promises suffering for Christians, and that concealed carry conflicts with this notion.

“The apostle Peter teaches us that Christians will often find themselves in societies where we should expect and accept unjust mistreatment without retaliation,” he wrote. “…Few messages are more needed among American Christians today than 1 Peter 4:12: ‘Do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you.’”

Further, Piper wrote, Jesus “promised that violent hostility will come; and the whole tenor of his counsel was how to handle it with suffering and testimony, not with armed defense.”

Does Bible Allow Concealed Carry? John Piper Says 'No,' Gets PushbackDuring a convocation in early December, Falwell said he believed Jesus would allow concealed carry. He added that the mass shooting in California had spurred his comments.

“I just can’t help but think if … some of those 14 killed and 17 injured, if just one or two or three or four of those victims had carried permits and guns, maybe there only would have been three or four deaths,” Falwell said, according to Liberty University News Service. “I don’t know who in this country could say that it was not a good thing if 10 lives were spared. It just boggles my mind that anybody would be against what Jesus told His disciples in Luke 22:36: He told them if they had to sell their coat to buy a sword to do it because He knew danger was coming, and He wanted them to defend themselves.

“So with those comments made, I just want to say as a Christian university community, we must trust God and pray for His protection on this campus, but we must also look out for each other and report suspicious activity and be alert. We just need to be supportive of those who choose to carry concealed permits and be supportive of those who don’t.”

One popular Christian blogger, Wade Burleson, wrote in a reply on his blog that he carries a concealed weapon. Burleson is pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Oklahoma.

Want To Know About The REAL Constitution And What The Founders Truly Intended?

Burleson also quoted Romans 13:4, which references government bearing “the sword.” The Bible may not require the carrying of guns but it does allow it, Burleson wrote.

He then quoted the U.S. Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

“The United States is not an aristocracy, nor a monarchy — We the People form the government,” Burleson wrote. “Our Founding Fathers made it very clear that the People of the United States were the highest authority in the newly established country. God makes nations, but the people of this nation (the United States) are the authority behind the government.”

The language of the U.S. Constitution, coupled with the biblical text, Burleson wrote, makes the concealed carry debate in America unique.

“Contrary to almost every other nation in the world, the People of the United States of America are the highest authority and have the right and duty to abolish their government and form a new government to provide ‘new Guards for the nation’s future security and to provide for the common defense.’ I arm myself as a citizen of the United States of America. I am the government,” Burleson added. “I have often worked through my mind whether or not I would give my life for the good news and gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a question that I take seriously.”

Burleson wrote: “I’m ready to die, and will never be ashamed to die for Christ. I will not deny Him in order to live.”

“However, I live in America. And as long as our founding documents remain, and the citizens of the United States are called the highest authority in the land, then I will hold a concealed weapons permit and carry a concealed weapon,” he wrote. “I will not hesitate to use it if I’m in a mall and someone opens fire on innocent bystanders, or I’m in a movie theater and someone opens up on American moms and dads and children, or I’m in any other public forum and evil doers seek to do harm on citizens of the United States.”

Related:

What The Bible Says About Gun Rights

Is Killing In Self-Defense Biblically Justified?

What do you think? Share your views in the section below: 

Tired Of Losing Freedoms — And Looking For Another Country? Read More Here.

Nation In Shock As Yale Students Enthusiastically Sign Petition To Completely Eliminate The First Amendment

Click here to view the original post.

Yale students

By Mike Adams – NaturalNews

(NaturalNews) When activist filmmaker Ami Horowitz visited the Yale campus to see how many students would sign a demand to eliminate the entire First Amendment, he was shocked to find that they gladly supported the idea!

In this YouTube video, you’ll see Horowitz asking Yale students to sign his petition because “hurtful” speech shouldn’t be “protected” by the Constitution. And they not only sign the petition, they verbally endorse the idea with great enthusiasm!

Continue reading at Natural News: Nation In Shock As Yale Students Enthusiastically Sign Petition To Completely Eliminate The First Amendment

Filed under: News/ Current Events, Whatever Your Opinion

Counterterrorism 101: How to quickly mitigate 85% of the Islamic terrorist threat in the US

Click here to view the original post.

In spite of the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on defense and intelligence, our nation has once again failed to prevent an Islamic inspired terrorist attack on our

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest believes Hillary Clinton should be disqualified from serving as president

Click here to view the original post.

It is said that if it wasn’t for double standards, Democrats wouldn’t have standards.  Case and point was demonstrated this week when White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest stated Donald

The problem isn’t Islamic Terrorism it is guns according to Emperor Obama

Click here to view the original post.

I wrote the following paragraph on October 19th this year as the first of a three part series explaining exactly how gun control and then confiscation would be enacted across

Could A $15 Minimum Wage Ever Work In America?

Click here to view the original post.

November 9th, 2015

Video courtesy of The Employment Policies Institute

The EPI went to the streets of New York to ask people if they thought a $15 an hour minimum wage was a viable option for America.

What do you think would be the results of almost doubling the current minimum wage?

 

Read This Book To Learn The Skills You’ll Need To Survive When There’s No Electricity

 

Previous Video

Part III: Gun Confiscation Goes Mainstream: Tyranny in the Land of the “Free”

Click here to view the original post.

Post Confiscation and the Resistance When the government decrees you must turn in your weapons, the question is whether you will comply or resist. Consider this question carefully because the

Illegal Detention Center Hidden In The Heart Of The US

Click here to view the original post.

October 26th, 2015

Video courtesy of The Guardian

A lawsuit filed by the Guardian has revealed that Chicago police brought more than 7,000 detainees to their off-the-books facility since August 2004. Only 68 had documented attorney visits – and now some lawyers recall being told clients weren’t even there.

Read This Book To Learn The Skills You’ll Need To Survive When There’s No Electricity

 

Previous Video

Part II of The Gun Confiscation Goes Mainstream: Tyranny in the Land of the “Free”

Click here to view the original post.

Part II: The Gun Ban is Announced Last night I spoke of how to resist encroaching gun control laws and regulation. However, I admitted that we are fighting a rigged