UNTIL RECENTLY such a question would have had an immediate response: "AMERICANS!" But now the answer doesn't seem so clear.

There are many factions in our nation that seem to want the United Nations to make the laws that will govern us, and some of these factions are in very high places within our own government, from the White House to the Congress and to the movers and shakers who work behind the scenes to push a globalist agenda.

And the teeming masses moving to and fro across the width and breadth of the nation are largely unaware of what is being done to tear down the national sovereignty for which so many Americans fought and died in so many conflicts.

There are a few voices crying out, trying to wake the people.  Congressman Ron Paul from Texas has even proposed legislation that would take us out of the UN and remove the UN from our shores, HR 1146, The American Sovereignty Restoration Act.  Congresswoman Helen Chenowith from Idaho is another who is fighting the good fight, and Senator John Ashcroft from Missouri.  Our own Representative Robert Aderholt from district 4 has signed on as a cosponsor of Representative Paul's bill. 

But as of this writing the number willing to do battle for our survival as a sovereign nation is far, far too small. And that number will not grow until those in Congress start hearing from the voters that we want them to start living up to their oath of office and start defending our Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic!

And that, dear friends, will not happen until you and I can convince our friends, relatives and neighbors that the threat to their way of life is very real and very imminent.

The key to doing that is to illustrate how the many pieces fit together like some huge jigsaw puzzle; how one thing happening in Rio ends up determining what happens in Washington; how a decision in Washington determines the kind of fuel you are allowed to burn in Birmingham (or Dallas, etc.).

The 1992 UN Second Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro resulted in an instruction manual for the world called Agenda 21. The big thing in this manual is "sustainable development."

The premise is that we humans have been using up the earth's resources at a rate that is not sustainable, and if humanity is to survive we are going to have to ration our use of those resources. Part of the premise is that resources do not belong to the nations wherein they might be found, but that since they are limited they must be considered as belonging to all of humanity in equal shares.

Agenda 21 makes no bones about saying individuals in industrialized nations like the United States use far more than their share of the world's resources, and that if earth is to survive we are going to have to modify our life style.

In Washington, Bill Clinton (and many others) have accepted the premise put forth and have taken steps to correct the situation and to return earth to a more equitable balance, not just among the nations, but among the various species as well.  You see, in the thinking of the new elitists like Al Gore, humans have no greater right to natural and limited resources than do other species that share the planet.

President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development was one of his early presidential creations. The eight or so reports issued by the council parrot Agenda 21, the report from the Rio Summit, and Clinton has instructed the bureaucracies to write regulations that will help implement the recommendations made. 

Around the country we are seeing numerous "local" initiatives on the order of "Region 2020," the title given to the one in Birmingham.  But these initiatives are not only taking place in America, they are in England, in Australia, in Canada and various other places around the globe. The major difference: everywhere but in the good old U. S. of A., they are openly called "Local Agenda 21" initiatives.

The President's American Heritage Rivers Initiative is another page from the UN  agenda.  There is also a Canadian Heritage Rivers Initiative. The ultimate goal of these river initiatives is to remove control of the waterways and watersheds from the states and put it into the hands of the federal government ... and ultimately into the hands of the United Nations.

Very early in the game the UN, at the Vancouver Conference in 1976, made it perfectly clear that, and we quote: "Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings-and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole."

We do not have the space in this one "Bulletin Board" article to fully develop all that has happened and is happening, nor to fully document the comments we have made with quotations from the United Nations' own documents, but other pages on this web site will go a long way toward doing both. 

May God grant the reader the wisdom to discern the truth from the lies being told, and the courage to stand up and speak out against this Godless movement.

Return to home page | Return to main index | Return to newsletter index | Return to one-pager index