Each topic in Agenda 21 has each been made
a specific piece of suggested legislation. All of these thousands of specific pieces of suggested legislation
are being introduced at every level of government: State, county, and
municipal. Like the pieces of a jig-saw puzzle, no one can visualize
the "big picture" until all of the pieces of the puzzle are in place. If you
want to see the "big picture" read the whole of agenda 21. This is total control
of every aspect of human existence: controlled by an all powerful world
government. To put it quite simply, agenda 21 is the United Nations plan for
sustainable dictatorship.
"Fascism" is a term that is frequently
misused. It is often used simply as a insult for those of any opposing political
camp. Yet there is a correct usage for this term. Fascism is a governmental
system which permits a certain degree of "private" property or business
ownership, but the management of the property is under governmental oversight.
Fascism is a form of socialism. The term
"Nazi" means NATIONAL SOCIALIST. Fascism is not a "right wing" opposite of
Communism. Fascism is a transition step in the direction of
Communism.
Senate Doc# 43; SENATE
RESOLUTION NO.62 (Pg 9,Par 2)April 17th 1933: "The ultimate ownership of
all property is in the State; individual so-called
"ownership" is only by virtue of government, i.e.law, amounting to mere user;
and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the
State"
"The America once extolled as the voice
of liberty heard around the world no longer is cast in the image which Jefferson
and Madison designed, but more in the Russian
image" -Chief Justice Burger, Laird v.Tatum, 408 U.S.at 28,29
(1972)
In Fascism "owners" are generally
allowed to retain title to property, but are prohibited from using property in
any way which does not follow some governmental law or regulation. Governmental
law or regulation might be ambiguous or self-contradictory.
After being denied any control as to
what can be done with property these victimized owners are granted the privilege
of paying taxes on the property. This type of symbolic ownership makes property
ownership into a burden rather than a benefit. Property "owners" are also given
the duty of maintaining the property, and the standards for this maintenance are
dictated by government. The government might set unreasonable requirements as to
the maintenance of the property, which is always at the expense of the
"owner".
"The merger of Government power &
Corporate power is FASCISM"
Benito
Mussolini
Fascism is actually the government ownership of
all property except in name or "title". Fascism allows citizens to believe that
they own property, but they must use it in accordance with the mandates of
government. Since the only benefit of ownership is the ability to control and
use the property, the real ownership is actually in the hands of the government.
Fascism is De
Facto government ownership of private property.
Communism is the abolition of private property
through actual, and admitted, government ownership.
The most disgusting part of the scenario is the
attempt to justify the taking of property rights of the individual on the
grounds that it will benefit the community as a whole. In reality the whole of
the community is equally devastated by the destruction of property rights.
Totalitarians, who have been unable to achieve
their desired degree of control over our society, through other arguments, have
shifted their plan of attack to an appeal that is based on the false objective
of protection of a "community" value.
The International Property Maintenance Code is
a massive accumulation of "standards" to be imposed upon property owners.
Searching for the origin of this "International Code" will only lead to the
ambiguous "International Code Council". Great diligence will locate a web page
at:
http://www.iccsafe.org/
The International Property Maintenance Code is
found at:
The International Code Council describes itself
as:
"a membership association dedicated to building
safety and fire prevention, develops the codes used to construct residential and
commercial buildings, including homes and schools."
The International Code Council further states
that:
"Most U.S. cities, counties and states that adopt
codes choose the International Codes developed by the International Code
Council."
The term "adopt codes" is a euphemism for the
creation of laws. According to our constitution, laws are supposed to be voted
upon, and passed, by elected legislators, and then only enforced if these laws
are constitutional.
The International
Code Council describes its origin as follows:
"The International Code Council (ICC) was established
in 1994 as a nonprofit organization dedicated to developing a single set of
comprehensive and coordinated national model construction codes. The founders of
the ICC are Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc.
(BOCA), International Conference of Building Officials…"
Even though the International Code Council describes
itself as an American private organization, it uses the term "International" in
its name.
If you think that some American businessman wrote all
of this read up on Agenda 21 treaty at the United Nations website:
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21toc.htm
and then do your own research.
AGENDA 21 explained- 12 min. video
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=174&load=4972
Inside the United Nations
(Paperback) by Steve Bonta
The International Code Council describes
itself as a private organization, yet it provides detailed instructions as to
how municipalities can "adopt" these "codes", and give them the FORCE OF LAW.
With this FORCE OF
LAW municipalities will cite The International
Property Maintenance Code as the authority to order property owners do follow a
myriad of mandates that will boggle the minds of average citizens. No
part of the property is ignored. This even includes yard work, parking of
vehicles, and painting.
This coat of paint on the face of
tyranny does nothing to alter the essence of fascism. The struggle
against totalitarianism is now including the new playing field of MUNICIPAL
governments. And as do most totalitarians, the fascists always say they want to
take power "for our own good."
Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941) – American
judge wrote:
"Experience should teach us to be most on our
guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born
to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of
zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001E57SA0?ie=UTF8&seller=A1AVPSERX4QF0E&sn=jperna12
John T. Flynn, wrote (In As We Go
Marching):
"The most terrifying aspect of the whole
fascist episode is the dark fact that most of its poisons are generated not by
evil men or evil peoples, but by quite ordinary men in search of an answer to
the baffling problems that beset every society. Nothing could have been further
from the minds of most of them than the final brutish and obscene result. The
gangster comes upon the stage only when the scene has been made ready for him by
his blundering precursors."
Mussolini defined fascism: in The
Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism:
"Anti-individualistic, the fascist
conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the
individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State,
which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic
entity…. The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no
human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value…. Fascism is therefore
opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority,
lowering it to the level of the largest number…. We are free to believe that
this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist
century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism
implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective'
century, and therefore the century of the
State."
Columbia University Professor Robert O.
Paxton has written that:
"Fascism may be defined as a form of
political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline (emphasis added), humiliation, or victim-hood
and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based
party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective
collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of
internal cleansing and external expansion."
Of course this is an open door for
corruption. The coercion placed upon one person is often the creation of income
for some other insider cohort of the bureaucrats, or even for the bureaucrats
themselves. The government that "robs Peter to pay Paul" will always have the
support of Paul.
The most important thing to understand about
Fascism is that it progresses through stages. It begins with government
"regulating" business. Then it progresses into government actually managing the business. When government manages an entire industry there are no longer any
competing enterprises, but there is just one government monopoly. No longer is
there any regulation of that monopoly, because the "regulator" is actually the
senior partner in the enterprise. Great care is taken to create the
appearance that everything is for the benefit of the people. In reality the
people are exploited by insiders both in and out of government. In the final
analysis it all comes down to money and power for the few.
Of course, the ultimate stage of fascism is
national centralization of power at the highest level. At this stage the central
government controls every industry, and every municipality. Like a pack of
wolves, each part of this monster contributes to the strength of the whole. The
control over goods and services will be used to control, and monitor, the
people. Control of health care is the power of life and death. Control of
communications is the ability to stifle dissent. Control of food, water,
shelter, and electricity is control of the ability to survive. The ramifications
go on and on.
Private property rights are essential
to liberty. The more secure private property rights are, the more individuals
can protect themselves against the attacks of politicians and bureaucrats.
Limitations on private property rights results in coercion, plunder and
tyranny.
William L. Shirer wrote, in The Rise and Fall
of the Third Reich:
"Amidst this labyrinthine organization and
all the multitude of offices and agencies of the Ministry of Economics and the
Four-Year Plan and the niagara of thousands of special decrees and laws even the
most astute businessman was often lost, and special lawyers had to be employed
to enable a firm to function. The graft involved in finding one’s way to key
officials who could make decisions on which orders depended or in circumventing
the endless rules and regulations of the government and the trade associations
became in the late Thirties astronomical."
(The Rise and Fall of the Third
Reich: A History of Nazi Germany
By William L. Shirer (Simon and Schuster)
1990 :262)
As in all forms of tyranny the "endless rules
and regulations of the government" creates a mechanism for a subtle form
of terrorism that can be used against those who might try to defend their
rights. Government now has the ability to impose the selective enforcement of law against any subject
who might resist oppression. Any protest of the destruction of liberty will be
met with a myriad of new citations for other contrived "violations". The tactic
will usually terrorize the victim, or simply wear him down, until he just
decides to go along.
Usually the victim will be told that
these citations do not need to be put before a real judge and a jury of peers,
as our constitution requires. Instead, the victim will be required to "exhaust
his administrative remedies" before seeing anything that appears similar to the
justice system that is defined in our constitution. This process is more
accurately called being exhausted BY administrative remedies. This
is the time consuming frustration of being tried by a so called "administrative
judge" who is an employee of the accuser. The accuser's agent
generally rules that the accuser was right.
A murderer would be tried before a real judge
and a jury of peers. A property owner, who is accused of not cutting his lawn
often enough has no such rights.
If the property owner fails to do as he is
told quickly enough, then the government will appear on his property with
bulldozers and a wrecking crew and simply demolish and level his property. The
property owner will receive a bill for the cost of destroying his property. If
he fails to pay that bill, then the land that is left after destroying his property will be sold at public auction to satisfy this
lien.
The Declaration of Independence includes the
following:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit
of Happiness."
Private property rights are an essential part
of the pursuit of happiness.
A progression occurs in the
deterioration from liberty into totalitarianism. There are a number of
measurable parameters that can be readily used as a measure, and to define, the
loss of freedom. The central measurement is the tabulation of what the people
actually control. Of course that which the people control is diminished
every time that any function is given over to government. Whatever
the government is allowed to control becomes an increase in the power of
government and a loss of liberty to the people.
Every time that the government increases its
power we are told that there is some benefit for the people in that increase in
the power of government. The increase in the power of government is camouflaged
by the assertion that the people are receiving more "services" from
government. When government provides a service we should never forget the fact
that the government has the ability to use force against its customers, and
against its competitors,
Often the first step in this progression is
that we move from services being provided by several competing private entities,
to services being provided by a government regulated monopoly. Often the next
step is that we move to services being provided by a monopoly that is operated
by the government itself.
When services are provided by several
competing private entities the customer has the ability to choose between
those competing private entities. The customer might be influenced by price, or
by the quality of the service, or by any other factor that is important to that
customer.
When services are provided by a government
regulated monopoly the customer has no ability to choose
between competing entities, but the assertion will be made that the customer
will be protected from the abuse of the monopoly by virtue of the regulation
from the government. Of course this assertion is based on the theory that the
government has no goals of its own in the regulation of the monopoly, and that
the government has no bias of any sort.
When services are provided by a government
monopoly the customer has no ability to choose between competing entities. More
importantly, there is no longer any way to make the assertion that the customer
will be protected from the abuse of the monopoly by the regulation from the
government. Of course there will be a claim that the government will regulate
itself. At best, this scenario is the fox protecting the hen house.
Of course the jump from services that are
provided by several competing private entities, to services that are provided by
a government monopoly can be made without going through the stage of services
that are provided by a government regulated monopoly.
We re-iterate that when government provides a
service we should never forget the fact that the government has the ability to
use force against it customers, and against its competitors. Let us consider a
few typical examples:
The Town of Benito Junction decides to go
into the business of collecting the trash. Soon there is a law that
requires everyone to use the service that is being provided by the Town
of Benito Junction. Next the charge for that service is added to the property
owner's tax bill. Now if the property owner fails to pay this charge it becomes
a lien on the property. If the property owner does not satisfy this lien then
the property will be sold at public auction. The consumer should compare this
scenario to the worst problem that he could have ever had with Joe's Garbage
Service. When the law was passed, requiring everyone to pay taxes for trash
collection, the claim was that the trash, including old furniture, would be
picked up if it was brought to the curb. Then is you put out any old furniture
you get a "notice of violation" ordering you to do the work that you paid the
city to do.
Adolph Village is providing
water and sewer. Soon there will be a law that requires everyone to
use the water and sewer service that is being provided by Adolph Village. Next
there will be a law that requires everyone to get a "permit" from
Adolph Village before they are allowed to install a well or a septic tank. Then
it becomes difficult or impossible to obtain a "permit" from Adolph Village to
install a well or a septic tank.
Meanwhile Adolph Village employees will
be going outside of Adolph Village, and offering to let property owner's connect
to their sewer lines, and to build new sewer lines outside of Adolph Village. In
order to connect to the sewer lines provided by Adolph Village, property owners
must sign a contract with Adolph Village. In addition to giving over the
easements to construct the sewer line across their property, there are a few
other provisions in this contract. The property owners also agree that, if their
property ever becomes contiguous to the boundaries of Adolph Village, then the
property will be annexed into Adolph Village with no need for a vote on
annexation. The property owners might think that the possibility of their
property becoming contiguous to the boundaries of Adolph Village is remote. What
they do not understand is that one part of the sewer line is already inside of
Adolph Village. Combine this fact with the reality that ever property owner on
the sewer line has signed the same contract. Now annexation proceeds, like
dominos falling, all the way to the end of the sewer line.
The charge for water and sewer, at any given
time in the future, will be whatever Adolph Village says it is. How much did
your well and septic tank cost?
Now that your property has been annexed into
Adolph Village you have had a visit from the "code enforcement inspectors". The
"code enforcement inspectors" notify you of several violations, which must be
corrected within a specified period of time. You will need to cut down several
trees, trim your hedges, rake up all parts of the yard, and re-paint your house.
You will also be required to dispose of the Mercedes Benz that you have parked
in the back yard. But you are in luck. Co-incidentally, the "code enforcement
inspector's" father is in the auto salvage business. The code enforcement
inspector's father will give you $50.00 for that Mercedes Benz, and he will tow
it away before the deadline. Will you thank him for his help?
The blatant assertion that there is no such
thing as private property rights has become so audacious that some
municipalities have even made a "law" that strips from the property owner the
right to park his own car in his own front yard!
You also have a rental house that gets water
and sewer from Adolph Village. The first time that this rental house becomes
vacant you are told that there is a $45.00 "processing fee" to change the name
on the water account from the renter's name to your own name. There will be
another $45.00 "processing fee" to change the name on the water account from
your own name to the next renter's name. This $45.00 "processing fee" will occur
every time that the name on the water account changes. To get water or sewer
service you must sign a contract. Remember that you are required by law to get
water or sewer service, and you are prohibited from installing a well or a
septic tank. Then, in effect, you are required by law to sign this contract. No
one seems to remember that a contract that is signed under duress is invalid. In
order to sign this contract you must furnish your social security number. You
must agree to pay the default bills of your renters, and you must agree that if
the property ever becomes contiguous to the boundaries of Adolph Village,
then their property will be annexed into Adolph Village with no need for a vote
on annexation.
Some municipalities are even asserting that a
property owner must obtain a "business license" to rent property. Black's Law
Dictionary defines "license" as: "The permission by competent authority to do an
act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or otherwise
not allowable." In short, a license is permission to do something that would be
illegal without that license. In a free country, is it illegal to own property,
or to rent, buy, or sell property? Of course these municipalities will even
assert the right to charge a fee to the property owner for violating
his property rights.
A free citizen does not require permission
from the government to enjoy the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. Property rights are a part of the pursuit of happiness.
Here is one of the essential differences between freedom and tyranny. In fact,
the licensing of "rights" is a hallmark of the onset of tyranny.
When
they tell you that you are required to replace the siding on your house, they
will also tell you that you are not allowed to do it yourself. You must hire a
licensed contractor to do it. The "licensed contractor" paid the city for his
license. The "licensed contractor" will also pay the city for a "building
permit". The "licensed contractor" will include these costs in his bill to you.
"Government is not reason; it is not
eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful
master." -
– George Washington
If you want to know who is the servant, and
who is the master, just determine this: Who is asking for permission, and who is
granting (or denying) permission? Does government accept the fact that they
operate with the consent of the governed, or does government tell the governed
that they need a permit to peacefully interact with their
fellow citizens?
The free citizen does not need permission
from government to enjoy the peaceable use of his property. The government needs
permission, from the people, for every use of force that they seek. Permission,
from the people is only possible where people would have the right to use force
on their on behalf.
The proper function of government is the
protection of life, liberty, and property. Government is an agency of force. The
use of force is only morally justifiable if it is in self defense, or in the
defense of someone else, who has authorized us to act in their behalf.
Government is the agency which we have collectively authorized to act on behalf
of the entire population. A law is a statement of a responsibility which is
required by government through the use or the threat of the use of force.
Everything that government does involves the use of force. Government uses force
to compel the compliance with each of it laws, by providing penalties for
violation of laws. Laws may require a specific action from the citizen or they
may prohibit a specific action of a citizen. At the very least, in all cases,
the actions of government are funded by tax revenues that are taken from
citizens through the use, or threat of the use of force. This means that a moral
government may only do those things, for which the use of force, would be
morally justifiable.
When government uses force beyond the
specific consent of the governed, or beyond the only moral justification for the
use of force, then government is in violation of ITS
PERMIT.
Beyond the lack of a moral justification
for the agency of force to become a vender of goods and services there is a more
fundamental problem. The hard reality is that the fascist mixture of government
and business can never exist for very long without the habitual use of
governmental force becoming the central factor in the government's
standard operating procedures.
In the private sector the customer is king.
When we negotiate with government we understand that government has the power
to coerce what no private company would ever even
request.
It is a common error to assume that
government should promote or provide everything that the people see as good, and
prevent everything that the people see as bad. To remain free people must find
other ways to solve all but a few of their problems.
The individual rights for every human
being, and government coercion, are opposites.
Yet, at the same time, we recognize the
fact that the weaker need to be protected from the stronger. Protection is the
only reason that we allow government to exist, and is the only legitimate
function of government. When government is not limited to its only legitimate
functions, then the people need to be protected from their
protectors.
All that needs to be done, to protect
individual rights, is to limit government to protecting life, liberty, and
property. The limitation of government, historically, has been a difficult task;
in that criminals will seek to control government, and to use it as an
instrument of plunder.
Our founding fathers wrote,
in the Declaration of Independence, that governments are instituted among men to
protect our rights, and that they derive their just powers from the consent of
the governed. The governed citizens have no authority to give consent to the
government for any action, that they; as individuals have no right to perform.
We have no authority to authorize government to use force, when it is not
justified by the need for defense. Each time that government acts, we should be
able to ask for the moral justification for this use of force.
In any discussion of expanding the function
of government beyond its legitimate function of protecting life liberty and
property there is a common sense question that should be asked: Is government
doing such a good job of protecting life liberty and property that it seems wise
to divide their efforts into other areas? Is there no more crime in your area?
If the government cannot perform its primary function, why would we think it
wise to give them other duties?
Government must be limited to protecting us
from aggressors. There is no human agency; which can morally use force to
require or prohibit anything, unless one citizen would have a moral right to use
force in the same situation. If there is not a citizen whose life, liberty or
property is being put at risk, then there is no government
function.
The ends do not justify the means. As soon as
you begin to plead the benefits of allowing government to cross this line, there
is no where else to close the gate. If we take the first step onto the slippery
slope, then we slide all the way to the chasm.
One of the grievances against the king that
was stated in The Declaration of Independence was the
following:
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices,
and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their
substance.
The
Constitution of the United States of America and the the Declaration of
Independence ~ Our Founding Fathers
http://americanistbookstore.com/books/constitution-of-the-united-states/
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00377C6MI?ie=UTF8&seller=A1AVPSERX4QF0E&sn=jperna12
It does not seem prudent to let this happen
again.
ASK YOUR GOVERNOR,
YOUR STATE LEGISLATURE,
AND YOUR STATE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
TO PUT A STOP TO
THIS.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1572460733?ie=UTF8&seller=A1AVPSERX4QF0E&sn=jperna12