Skip to comments.Agenda 21 and Obama’s Rural Council?
Posted on 06/15/2011 2:47:16 PM PDT by Nachum
On June 9, 2011, an Executive Order established the White House Rural Council with 25 executive branch departments including Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, National Drug Control, Environmental Quality, Labor, Commerce, Interior, EPA, Housing, Health, Education to name just a few.
The order covers 16% of the American population who lives in rural counties because they supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation.
Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential in winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. What kind of future are we supposed to win? Are we losers right now? This is very vague, what years ahead?
To enhance the Federal Governments efforts to address the needs of rural America, this order establishes a council to better coordinate Federal programs and maximize the impact of Federal investment to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in our rural communities. As a world traveler, I can attest that Americans already have the highest standard of living in rural areas, prosperity, and excellent quality of life when compared to anybody else.
A recent article in Washington Post appeared with the innocuous title, What we need: Smarter growth plans. The author is Roger K. Lewis, a practicing architect and professor emeritus at the University of Maryland. Who can possibly object to smarter growth plans? Except that smart growth plans is the euphemism used by the United Nations for its Agenda 21, a direct assault on private property rights and American sovereignty.
Roger K. Lewis suggests that smart growth was designed by market forces driven by green building. He makes no mention of Agenda 21 and ICLEI objectives and intrusion into our society since the early 1970s or the agreement signed in 1992 that went under the
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Many municipalities have adopted the LEEDS certification standards for new buildings and incorporated these into the building permit process. The LEEDS organization is NOT a governmental agency, but a group of architects and engineers and environmentalists that developed these sets of standards based on a UNITED NATIONS program . . . Agenda 21. They want to tell you what type of light bulbs you can use, how often you can flush your toilet, what appliances you can use in your house, etc. All for the good of the new world order. The American Institute of Architects has bought into this scheme is unfortunately is being used to promote this agenda.
Defund the US and the UN...
LEARN YOUR RIGHTS!!!!!
Income taxes are voluntary according to this Reid interview:
Dario Busch: Harrell
Whitey Harrell case:
The state of Illinois vs Whitey Harrell
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS vs. GAYLON L. HARRELL,
In deliberation, the jury asked the judge for a copy of the law Harrell was being tried for breaking, but the judge would not supply it. When they found that certain evidence admitted into the record during the trial by the defense was missing, they requested it of the judge and were again denied. They acquitted Harrell on all counts. Even though the parties were in state court and the official charge was failure to file state income tax returns, the case was really about the legal requirement to file a federal income tax return because, like most states, Illinois law mandates the filing of a state income tax return if the Illinois resident is required to file a federal income tax return. Harrells case is cited as PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS vs. GAYLON L. HARRELL, Case Number 97CF89 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.
several chapters at this site
This is from a blog, but it does give simplified explanation of our law...
Here i will stick up for Johnny:
Johnny says American Citizenship in a republican form of government has been effectively altered over many generations to US Citizenship in a democratic form of government centralized in Washington DC instead of a guaranteed republican form of government in the states where it was originally intended.. ok now sing along with me folks.. I pledge allegiance to the flag... of the united states of America and to the (?)the word is republic.. for which it stands. NOT DEMOCRATIC.
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 09:29 AM
if you were born in the federal USA (Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, or Swains Island) then you are a US citizen. if you were born anywhere else you would be a Sovereign Citizen.
look the definitions up in a dictionary if you have to.
you learned this stuff in middle school here folks.. how have you all forgotten this.
Congress may pass any law it wants to, in its federal jurisdiction.(Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, or Swains Island). but congress may pass no law onto any state if it conflicts with the constitution. (remember this stuff in school). So if the constitution says you can do anything you want, so long as it does not hurt another. (long and short of it) how is buckle your seat belt a law? i wouldnt hurt anybody if i didnt wear my seatbelt? so how in the world could this possibly be a law? (ps its not really a law, its a statue) obviously it is in conflict with the constitution, so how can they uphold this statue as law in court?
it all has to do with the money you use today. (this post is going to get ugly here)
ok the constitution demands we use a currency that is backed by gold and silver as currency. if your not familiar with this, we do not use gold and silver. our government gave the right to print and monitor our money to a private bank. yes the federal reserve isnt ours, our money isnt backed by gold or silver anymore. if your not familiar with this history look it up its not a secret.
so if the constitution demands gold and silver but you are using federal reserve notes that are not real, then the constitution does not recognize it.
i looked up these definitions for you:
(1)allowed or permitted by law; (2)not contrary to law:
(1)permitted by law; (2)of or pertaining to law; connected with the law or its administration.
so you see the constitution demands lawful currency, but the federal reserve note is legal tender, gold and silver are allowed by law, fed notes are connected with the law by its administration.
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:09 AM
Here I have listed the direct definition of the Federal Reserve from the dictionary:
The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. Created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, it is a quasi-public, private banking system.
Also note the word quasi here is that definition:
Quasi: Seeming or seemingly but not necessarily genuine or genuinely.
The Constitution of the US, states that all currency will be backed by real money. (gold/silver)
However it is not. It is backed by a fiat currency owned by a foreign entity. (The FED) Why is it foreign? Because the Constitution says so. (The Supreme Law of the Land).
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:14 AM
it is foreign... hmmmm so back to the seat belt thing again, so maybe when i go to court before i even let the prosecutor even speak to me, i should request his or her Foreign Agent registration statement which is required by law to be on file with the secretary of state.
Now why in the world would a prosecutor of a court system have a foreign agent registration on file? Because they are operating out of a foreign court system, that why, its foreign. now why anyone would want to be tried in a foreign court system, better yet is how did this happen?
You accepted the benefit of using there fed notes, its gotta get paid back somehow. you see gold and silver can not be taxed its a substance. but fake money can be taxed, why.. the constitution does not see fed notes as real. so they can tax it all they want. please people do some research and forget about paris hilton for a few days.
let me just hit the Social security issue for a second. think about this.. i started working 25 years ago, the fake dollar (i didnt know it then)was worth about 48cents that i paid into SS. Today if i retired, that same dollar today is worth only 4 cents. did i gain money or loose money at that point? you do the math
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:34 AM
The Federal Reserve, the IRS and a very dangerous court of law.
The Constitution of the United States mentions three (3) areas of jurisdiction in which the courts may operate:
(1) Equity Law
The first court we will talk about is the court of equity. A court of equity is a place to settle disputes, such as:
I hire a construction company to build my new home (there will be a contract between yourself and the construction company). After the home was completed, the roof leaked water into the living room every time it rained. If the construction company didnt fix the problem, you would then take them to equity court for this dispute.
Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to perform to the exact letter of any contract that you are under. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform under the obligation of the contract. Now this can only be a civil actionnot criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction, you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled to perform to the letter of a contract. If you then refuse to perform as directed by the court, you can then be charged with contempt of court, which is a criminal action.
(2) Common Law (Constitution Law)
If you have not read the Constitution, shame on you.
Common Law is based on Gods Law. Did you know the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land? Well it is! The Constitution says no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. Basically the concept of, if there is no victim there is no crime. Anytime someone is charged under the Common Law, there must be a damaged party. This only makes sense. If I throw a rock at neighbors window, and it caused damaged, that would be an example of there was a victim (the neighbors property) so there was a crime. This could be accidental or intentional; there is still a victim, thus a crime.
Common sense question: When you cross over the state line in most states, you will see a sign which says, BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELTSITS THE LAW. Which law is this? This cannot be Common Law(2), because who would you injure if you did not buckle up? Common law does not compel performance, so thats not it. Equity (1) court compels performance, but you can not be tried criminally, so thats not it either. The only court left is:
(3) Admiralty/Maritime Law
This is a civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the contract. Now we can see what jurisdiction the seatbelt laws (and all traffic laws, building codes, ordinances, tax codes, etc.) are under. Whenever there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as willful failure to file), that is Admiralty/ Maritime Law and there must be a valid international contract in force. However, the courts dont want to admit that they are operating under Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, so they took the international law or Law Merchant and adopted it into our codes.
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:37 AM
COURTS OF CONTRACT:
You may ask how we got into this situation where we can be charged with failure to wear seatbelts and be fined for it. Isnt the judge sworn to uphold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But you must understand that the Constitution, in Article I, Section 10, gives us the unlimited right to contract, as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else. Contracts are enforceable, your drivers license is a contract and the Constitution gives two jurisdictions where contracts can be enforcedEquity or Admiralty. But we find them being enforced in Statutory Jurisdiction (there is no such thing, listed anywhere in the Constitution that says we can be tried in statutory law). This is the embarrassing part for the courts. We will cover this in more detail later.
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:39 AM
CONTRACTS MUST BE VOLUNTARY
Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or it is void and unenforceable. These are characteristics of a Common Law contract. There is another characteristicit must be based on substance. For example, contracts used to read, For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I will paint your house, etc. That was a valid contractthe dollar was a genuine, silver dollar. Now, suppose you wrote a contract that said, -For one Federal Reserve Note and other considerations, I will paint your house.... And suppose, for example, I painted your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court and get justice? No, you could not. You see, a Federal Reserve Note is a colorable dollar, as it has no substance, and in a Common Law jurisdiction, that contract would be unenforceable.
The frustration many Americans feel about our judicial system can be overwhelming and often frightening; and, like most fear, it is based on lack of understanding or knowledge. Those of us who have chosen a path out of bondage and into liberty are faced, eventually, with the seemingly tyrannical power of some governmental agency and the mystifying and awesome power of the courts. We have been taught that we must get a good lawyer, but that is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible. If we are defending ourselves from the government, we find that the lawyers quickly take our money and then tell us as the ship is sinking, I cant help you with thatIm an officer of the court. Ultimately, the only way for us to have even a snowballs chance is to understand the RULES OF THE GAME, and to come to an understanding of the true nature of the Law.
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:39 AM
The lawyers have established and secured a virtual monopoly over this area of human knowledge by implying that the subject is just too difficult for the average person to understand, and by creating a separate vocabulary out of English words of otherwise common usage. While it may, at times, seem hopelessly complicated, it is not that difficult to graspare lawyers really as smart as they would have us believe? Besides, anyone who has been through a legal battle against the government with the aid of a lawyer has come to realize that lawyers learn about procedure, not about law.
Consider also that the framers of the Constitution wrote in language simple enough that the people could understand, specifically so that it would not have to be interpreted. So again we find, as in many other areas of life, that -THE BUCK STOPS HERE! It is we who must take the responsibility for finding and putting to good use the TRUTH. It is we who must claim and defend our God-given rights and our freedom from those who would take them from us. It is we who must protect ourselves, our families and our posterity from the inevitable intrusion into our lives by-those who live parasitically off the labor, skill and talents of others.
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:41 AM
The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that your defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no court which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute. If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you can demand that the international maritime contract, to which you are supposedly a party, and which you supposedly have breached, be placed into evidence. No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid international maritime contract that has been breached. So you say, just innocently like a lamb, Well, I never knew that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so I deny that such a contract exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then place the contract in evidence, so that I may challenge the validity of the contract. What they would have to do is place the national debt into evidence. They would have to admit that the international bankers own the whole nation, and that we are their slaves. This they can not admit this openly in court! Remember the monies used today are colorable, the word colorable means something that appears to be genuine, but is not.
Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe it spends like a dollar, but if it is not redeemable for lawful money (silver or gold) it is colorable. If a Federal Reserve Note is used in a contract, then the contract becomes a colorable contract. And colorable contracts must be enforced under a colorable jurisdiction. So by creating Federal Reserve Notes, the government had to create a jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts which use them. We now have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine Admiralty jurisdiction. It is colorable Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using colorable money. Colorable Admiralty is now known as Statutory Jurisdiction. Lets understand how we get sucked into this Statutory Jurisdiction.
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:41 AM
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
The government set up a colorable law system to fit the colorable currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant or the Law of Redeemable Instruments, because it dealt with paper which was redeemable in something of substance. But, once Federal Reserve Notes had become unredeemable, there had to be a system of law which was completely colorable from start to finish. This system of law was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code, and has been adopted in every state. This is colorable law, and it is used in all the courts. I explained in one of the keys earlier, which is that the country is bankrupt and we have no rights. If the master says Jump! then the slave had better jump, because the master has the right to cut his head off. As slaves we have no rights. But the creditors/masters had to cover that up, so they created a system of law called the Uniform Commercial Code. This -colorable jurisdiction under the Uniform Commercial Code is the next key to understanding what has happened.
CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT
One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code is that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into: (1) knowingly, (2) voluntarily, and (3) intentionally. Under the U.C.C., this is not so. First of all, con-tracts are un-necessary. Under this new law, -agreements can be binding, and if you only exercise the benefits of a -agreement, it is presumed or implied that you intend to meet the obligations associated with those benefits. If you accept a benefit offered by government, then you are obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every statute involved with that benefit. The method has been to get everybody exercising a benefit, and they dont even have to tell the people what the benefit is. Some people think it is the drivers license, the marriage license or the birth certificate, etc. I really believe it is none of these.
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:41 AM
I believe the benefit being used is that we have been given the privilege of discharging debt with limited liability, instead of paying debt. When we pay a debt, we give substance for substance. If I buy a piece of candy with a silver dollar, that dollar bought the candy, and the candy bought the dollarsubstance for substance. But if I use a Federal Reserve Note to buy the candy, I have not paid for it. There is no substance in the Federal Reserve Note. It is worthless paper given in exchange for something of substantive value. Congress offers us this benefit: Debt money, created by the federal United States, can be spent all over the continental united States, it will be legal tender for all debts, public and private, and the limited liability is that you cannot be sued for not paying your debts. So now they have said, Were going to help you out, and you can just discharge your debts instead of paying your debts. When we use this -colorable money to discharge our debts, we cannot use a Common Law court. We can only use a colorable court. We are completely under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Codewe are using non-redeemable negotiable instruments and we are discharging debt rather than paying debt.
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:43 AM
maybe some more maybe not.. do some homework
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:52 AM
oh just some more definitions:
Corpus Juris Secundom: the moment you hire an attorney you admit and give yourself as a ward of the court.
Ward of the court: an infant, or a person of unsound mind who is in-capable of handling his own legal affairs.
driving: is a regulated occupation for hire.
Posted by: argon | 02/15/2008 at 11:16 AM
And then there is this article. It has every link to every statue necessary.
Do they get any pushback in your local community? They sound just awful!
I push back but more important, I warn others.
Huuumm! I agree that this is unconstitutional. The Dems are notorious for ignoring whatever they please to ignore in the Constitution. But they had best think long and hard about the consequences of meddling in rural America.
This reminds me of what the Carpetbaggers and Scallywags did during Reconstruction. They tried that in Texas once, and it did not last long and did not end well. A replay will receive a similar result. Trust me, we are not receptive of this crap.
Agenda 21 and obummas Rural Council?
This writer has the bottom line:
There is no law or act of Congress to authorize the aiding and abetting of foreign policy globalism by state and local governments. We have to protect our sovereignty by banning cities and counties to be members of ICLEI, an organization that promotes United Nations Agenda 21/smart growth which is detrimental to American economic interests, liberty, and sovereignty.
Looks like we might all want to look into what our city councils have been up to of late and make some noise.
These long range and far reaching plans of the marxists/ communists are coming together so fast now... if we dont wake up fast... it will be too late.
Last Year my county joined ICLEI. They created an office of sustainability and filed their 500 page charter. It is sick and it literally steals property rights. Funny thing every member of our council is a Republican. Obviously in name only. Our county has one of the top 5 foreclosure rates in the nation.
Tyranny for sure.
Hmmmmm...so they start off by getting so called ‘easements’ and then eventually use the government and marxist legislators to have control over the land use..thus destroying private property rights. Do I have that about right?
I think people would be surprised to learn that many of our states ‘economic developemnt councils’ have been infiltrated by these same sorts. Just go visit your states ‘economic development councils’ and we could probably find this Agenda 21 crap everywhere.
Provided for others, not because I need it.
This and gun control have always been major issues for me.
Yikes! People would have to be utter fools to enter into one of these agreements. Why do they do it? Do they get big tax breaks?
From the site:
4. PROHIBITED ACTIONS. Any activity on, or use of, the Property which is inconsistent with the Purposes of this Conservation Easement or which is detrimental to the Conservation Values is expressly prohibited. By way of example, but not by way of limitation, the following activities and uses are explicitly prohibited:
A. Division. Any division or subdivision of the Property, without the express written approval of the Conservancy, is prohibited.
B. Commercial Activities. Any commercial activity on the Property is prohibited, except as associated with permitted activities as specified in Section 5 below.
C. Industrial Activities. Any industrial activity on the Property is prohibited.
D. Construction. The placement or construction of any human-made modification such as, but not limited to, structures, buildings, fences, roads, and parking lots is prohibited.
E. Cutting Vegetation. Any cutting of trees or vegetation, including pruning or trimming, is prohibited, except for the cutting or removal of trees or vegetation that pose a threat to human life or property.
F. Land Surface Alteration. Any mining or alteration of the surface of the land is prohibited, including any substance that must be quarried or removed by methods that will consume or deplete the surface estate, including, but not limited to, the removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, and peat. In addition, exploring for, developing, and extracting oil, gas, hydrocarbons, or petroleum products are all prohibited activities.
G. Dumping. Waste and unsightly or offensive material is not allowed and may not be accumulated on the Property.
H. Water Courses. Natural water courses, lakes, wetlands, or other bodies of water may not be altered.
I. Off-Road Recreational Vehicles. Motorized off-road vehicles such as, but not limited to, snowmobiles, dune buggies, all-terrain vehicles, and motorcycles may not be operated off of designated roads on the Property.
J. Signs and Billboards. Billboards are prohibited. Signs are prohibited, except the following signs may be displayed to state:
1) The name and address of the property or the Owners name.
2) The area is protected by a conservation easement.
3) Prohibition of any unauthorized entry or use.
4) An advertisement for the sale or rent of the Property.
5. PERMITTED USES. The Owner retains all ownership rights that are not expressly restricted by this Conservation Easement. In particular, the following rights are reserved:
A. Right to Convey. The Owner retains the right to sell, mortgage, bequeath, or donate the Property. Any conveyance will remain subject to the terms of the Conservation Easement and the subsequent Owner will be bound by all obligations in this agreement.
B. (Optional) Right to Maintain and Replace Existing Structures. The Owner retains the right to maintain, renovate, and replace the existing structure(s) as noted in the Baseline Documentation Report in substantially the same location and size. Any expansion or replacement may not substantially alter the character or function of the structure. Prior to beginning renovation or replacement of the existing structures, the Owner will provide a written plan to the Conservancy for the Conservancys review and approval. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
C. (Optional) Right to Add Designated Structures or Uses. The Owner retains the right to add the following structures, modifications, or uses on the following legally described portion of the Property (Insert legal description of building envelope). Prior to beginning construction, the Owner will provide a written plan to the Conservancy for the Conservancys review and approval. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
6. RIGHTS OF THE CONSERVANCY. The Owner confers the following rights upon the Conservancy to perpetually maintain the Conservation Values of the Property:
A. Right to Enter. The Conservancy has the right to enter the Property at reasonable times to monitor the Conservation Easement Property. Furthermore, the Conservancy has the right to enter the Property at reasonable times to enforce compliance with, or otherwise exercise its rights under, this Conservation Easement. The Conservancy may not, however, unreasonably interfere with the Owners use and quiet enjoyment of the Property. The Conservancy has no right to permit others to enter the Property. The general public is not granted access to the Property under this Conservation Easement.
B. Right to Preserve. The Conservancy has the right to prevent any activity on or use of the Property that is inconsistent with the Purposes of this Conservation Easement or detrimental to the Conservation Values of the Property.
C. Right to Require Restoration. The Conservancy has the right to require the Owner to restore the areas or features of the Property that are damaged by any activity inconsistent with this Conservation Easement.
D. Signs. The Conservancy has the right to place signs on the Property that identify the land as protected by this Conservation Easement. The number and location of any signs are subject to the Owners approval.
7. CONSERVANCYS REMEDIES. This section addresses cumulative remedies of the Conservancy and limitations on these remedies.
A. Delay in Enforcement. A delay in enforcement shall not be construed as a waiver of the Conservancys right to eventually enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement.
B. Acts Beyond Owners Control. The Conservancy may not bring an action against the Owner for modifications to the Property resulting from causes beyond the Owners control, including, but not limited to, unauthorized actions by third parties, natural disasters such as unintentional fires, floods, storms, natural earth movement, or even an Owners well-intentioned action in response to an emergency resulting in changes to the Property. The Owner has no responsibility under this Conservation Easement for such unintended modifications.
C. Notice and Demand. If the Conservancy determines that the Owner is in violation of this Conservation Easement, or that a violation is threatened, the Conservancy shall provide written notice to the Owner. The written notice will identify the violation and request corrective action to cure the violation and, where the Property has been injured, to restore the Property.
However, if at any time the Conservancy determines, at its sole discretion, that the violation constitutes immediate and irreparable harm, no written notice is required. The Conservancy may then immediately pursue its remedies to prevent or limit harm to the Conservation Value
LOL...sounds like you have your version of ‘whale wars’ going on but instead of whales..it’s ‘a big fat commie’...lol
Keep up the great work. There are several conservative organizations fighting back against these private property thieves. If you ever need the names of a few, let me know.
Good one, thanks
They were trying to get part of my neighbor’s yard. Basically they tried to con him into signing by telling him it meant no more mowing and a tax break. Fortunately he was putting the place up for sale and the realtor told him not to because he would effectively be signing away his right to sell it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.