Life, Liberty, and Property – Sovereignty’s Last Stand

If the government can take your private property by regulation, taxation, or outright confiscation through eminent domain abuse, is it really yours or are they just letting you use it as long as you are an obedient servant?

To our nation’s founders, the totality of your private property consisted of your land, your home, your possessions, the work of your hands, the ideas of your mind, and your life itself.

This concept dates back thousands of years. Four of the Ten Commandments deal specifically with private property:

1. Thou shalt not covet
2. Thou shalt not steal
3. Thou shalt not bear false witness
4. Thou shalt not kill

“The right to own private property that cannot be arbitrarily regulated or confiscated by the government is the moral and constitutional basis for individual freedom” is the credo of Dr. Dan’s Freedom Forum.

A legal definition of Private Property was written by Washington State Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders in 1997:

Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment, and disposal. Anything which destroys any of the elements of property, to that extent, destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the right of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren right.

This definition recognizes the fact that property rights include both the physical property as well as its unrestricted use. The concepts of “Theft by Regulation” and “Theft by Taxation” are no less onerous than the physical taking of property through “Theft by Government.”  For clarity, one should add the single restriction that the use of one’s own property may not infringe upon the property rights of others, the libertarian principle that “your property rights stop at my nose.”

Karl Marx, the founder of socialism, was asked what it would take for socialism to be successful on a worldwide basis. His answer – the abolition of all private property . . . the first plank in the Communist Manifesto.  As only nine people attended Karl Marx’s funeral, socialist theory should have died with him.

Unfortunately, the arrogant elitists of that era realized they could use Marxist theory to rule planet Earth. George Bernard Shaw founded the Fabian Socialist Society in England shortly after Marx’s death. Inspired by Shaw, the members considered themselves to be the most intelligent persons on Earth and, therefore, believed they should make all the rules by which we mere mortals should live. For example, the Fabians wanted to decide who should be allowed to reproduce in order to prevent the rise of generalized stupidity of the masses.

Many of the financial and social elite in this country had no problem signing on to this doctrine. In fact, last year we celebrated the 100th anniversary of the birth of the American Progressive movement.

The Rockefellers, the Roosevelts, John Dewey, Woodrow Wilson, J.P. Morgan, and others used money and political power to promote their elitist agenda. Early victories included the federal income tax (the 16th Amendment), direct election of senators by popular vote (the 17th Amendment), and the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank, all of which occurred in 1913.

After World War I, these progressive elitists’ first attempt at one world government was the League of Nations. After the League failed to win approval in the US Senate, they decided that a more secretive and underhanded approach would be necessary. The result was The Council on Foreign Relations, founded in 1921 by the same financial elites who created the Federal Reserve Bank and whose goal is and has always been to facilitate the establishment of world governance.

After World War II in 1949, the American delegation to the San Francisco meeting that drafted the charter of the United Nations included Council on Foreign Relations members Nelson Rockefeller, John Foster Dulles, and John McCloy. The US delegation also included other CFR members who were later proven to be communist agents – Harry Dexter White, Owen Lattimore, and Alger Hiss, who served as the Secretary-General of the conference. In all, the Council sent forty-seven of its members in the United States delegation, effectively controlling the outcome.

Their goal has always been to create and impose on all of us a worldwide socialist tyranny. The United Nations is the Fabian Socialist Society of our time, and the UN’s Agenda 21 is its strategy to rule the world.

In 1992, the UN convened the United Nations Earth Summit, the official beginning of Agenda 21, the UN’s blueprint for the 21st Century. Maurice Strong, the Secretary-General of the 1992 Earth Summit said, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.“

Initiating the concept of “sustainable development,” the Earth Summit proposed that national boundaries be abolished and that all decisions about land use, education, population control, use of force, and justice be made globally under the control of the UN. It also created the “right” for every individual to have “social justice,” meaning the opportunity “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” Social injustice was deemed the result of private property, individual wealth, and national sovereignty, all of which are to be eliminated.

Twenty years later, on June 22, 2012, the United Nations concluded its World Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20). The assembled group of diplomats, dictators, socialists, tyrants, and Hillary Clinton, on behalf of the United States, pledged $513 billion to promote international redistribution of wealth, imposition of international law on our national judicial system, international sharing of private proprietary (patented) technical information, and the elimination of the private ownership of guns.

A direct attack on private property rights was the first UN initiative after the Conference of Rio in 1992. In September, 1994, proponents of Agenda 21 attempted to get the UN Biodiversity Treaty and Wildlands Project ratified by the US Senate. This treaty proclaimed that “human life is of no greater value than animal or plant life” and set aside over 50% of the US mainland for human-free zones and buffer zones with limited human activity, leaving only tiny isolated islands of land called “human occupation zones.”

Most of Western North Carolina and North Georgia is considered a Human-Free Zone.

Fortunately, Kay Bailey Hutchinson prevented the ratification of this treaty by showing the Wildlands Project map on the Senate floor.

The power elite know that the goals of Agenda 21 are unconstitutional, destructive to the Judeo-Christian principles on which our country was founded, and contrary to basic instincts of most Americans.

To captivate the uninformed, therefore, they concealed their plans behind words and concepts that sound beneficial for all and worthy of immediate acceptance.

Here are some of the words they use:

Sustainability, stakeholders, consensus building, common future, biodiversity, smart growth, new urbanism, social equity, walkable, food justice, social justice, mixed use development, re-wilding, transit corridors, bike lanes, urban sprawl, carbon sequestration, riparian buffer zones, farmland preservation, pedestrian oriented development.

The current Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, now speaks of the new concept of “common-ism” as if that were distinctly different than “communism.”

Using the concept of “Regionalism,” the UN plan created regional boards and commissions, called non-governmental organizations or NGOs, to begin implementation of Agenda 21 at the local level. Facilitators, claiming to have been “invited” by local government, are brought in from outside the local area to develop comprehensive regional development plans that involve the resources of multiple counties in a larger geographic area. Citizens at local planning meetings believe they are choosing their county’s future, but are actually being manipulated to favor a proposal that has been predetermined by the facilitators.

Here’s how Regional Councils (NGOs) steal our freedom. Multiple local governments in a larger geographic area, multiple contiguous counties for example, get together and appoint voting members to a Regional Council. The Regional Council proposes land use and transportation plans to promote development on a regional basis. Invariably, the plan involves the use of tax dollars to build infrastructure and to pay for the bureaucracy needed to oversee the projects. Money is usually promised in the form of “grants” that require some matching funds and contain environmental regulations, land use restrictions, conservation easements, and zoning. Land needed for the projects is taken from private persons by eminent domain abuse or by the use of rules, regulations, and tax increases that restrict the use and enjoyment of private property. Local governments, having already invested in funding, staffing, and promoting the concept, generally adopt the comprehensive plan.

As citizens, we can vote only for our local government officials. At the Regional Council level, however, where each county has one vote, decisions are made based on the vote of multiple counties. In essence, a citizen from one county is being obligated to pay taxes and abide by rules and regulations approved by officials from multiple other counties over whom he has no electoral control.

This is taxation without representation, no different than King George’s tyrannical policy that sparked the American Revolution. We must pay for these land use and transportation plans created by bureaucrats that we cannot vote out of office.

And it’s all part of the overall plan.  According to the United Nations Commission on Global Governance:

Regionalism must precede Globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.

Wait. Did I say that the peace-loving, benevolent, international forum of intellectual ideas, The United Nations, is in truth seeking to steal our property and our freedom, destroy our national sovereignty, and impose its dominion over all Earth?

Before you bring out the Tin Foil Hats, let me introduce my guest on Freedom Forum Radio as we begin a discussion of the United Nation’s Agenda 21, the single most serious and vicious threat to our individual freedom and our national sovereignty.

Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.

A native of Ohio, he’s been a candidate for the Ohio Legislature, served as editor of two newspapers, and has owned several businesses since the age of 23.

In 2006 Tom was invited to Cambridge University to debate the issue of the United Nations before the Cambridge Union, a 200 year old debating society.

Today he serves as Founder and President of the American Policy Center and editor of The DeWeese Report.

Some of his recent articles include:

1. How Global Policy Becomes Local
2. New Tactics to Fight Agenda 21
3. The Principles of Freedom vs. Agenda 21
4. The Direct Link Between Agenda 21 and Local Planners
5. Conservation Easements and the Urge to Rule
6. Why the Founding Fathers Matter

For 40 years Tom DeWeese has been a businessman, grassroots activist, writer and publisher. As such, he has always advocated a firm belief in man’s need to keep moving forward while protecting our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

Most importantly, he has a well-designed plan to defeat Agenda 21 which is available on his website the American Policy Center. In addition to many informative articles, the website includes links to a series of webinars about Agenda 21. His next webinar is appropriately named “Attack of the NGOs” on Sunday July 13 at 6:00 PM EDT.  Click HERE to sign up. Tom has also written a Resolution to Protect Citizens’ Property Rights that you should ask your county commissioners to adopt.

Listen to PODCAST.