Replies

The internationalists pioneered the re-engineering of our government system with Agenda 21. President GHW Bush signed the Rio accord, a UN document that got the ball rolling. Then Clinton created the Presidents council on sustainable development. They developed the 'framework' for the United States to participate in the global plan. A 'framework' is simply another name for government. The government structure they formed was a series of councils. The councils consisted of people of power in a community, the businessmen, elected politicians, bureaucrats and citizen advocates. Working with a facilitator, these groups created Agenda 21 plans for each county of each state. They intentionally regionalized the membership of the councils, that is included members from more than one county, as a means to break down the constitutional system. Finding a willing partner with the media the councils became the active governing group, with the constitutional governmental officials and agencies sidelined in the decision making process.

This method, creating a council system that eventually usurps the authority of the legal government structure, is a method used by the Soviets to take over the Ukrainian government in the 1930s. In fact, soviet is the Russian word for council, so it isn't coincidental that the method to undermine our constitutional government has its origins in the soviet council system. Furthermore 'working groups' were created to develop policy, which is effectively law. 'Working groups' are appointed by international institutions, therefore they are hand picked to further the agenda. Councils have some seats that community activists can take, that is the difference, I think.

How does language supporting NGOs and global agendas get into our laws? It seems our lawmakers have forgotten that they are supposed to defend individual rights and that our laws are to be derived from the people. Instead, activist NGOs write sample versions of the legislation,for example illegal alien drivers licenses, and our politicians simply cut and paste it into the bill making process. I am sure, these sample bills are accompanied with perks or contributions. A recent example would be the Cornyn bill that was to create the internationalists institution, the North American Development bank, a concept that Robert Pastor, architect of the Panama Canal giveaway, was promoting. Only when this plan was revealed by Dr. Jerome Corsi, and it subsequent airing on some talk radio stations and on the Internet, was this legislation pulled by its sponsor.

Does this help?