There is perhaps one aspect of Agenda 21 that escaped the attention of many who have read it, and that is genetics. Not easily recognized for its potential as a threat, it has taken almost 30 years for understanding what it really meant.
Patrick Wood, editor of Technocracy News & Trends, and by far the most expert in the field of technocracy, recently posted an article that had a video of a presentation he gave on genetic material. Until the Covid-19 event, the issue of genetics had not been fully clear, but looking back, it is now. In Agenda 21, Chapter 16, Management of Biotechnology, 16.1 clearly states, "a set of enabling techniques for bringing about specific man-made changes in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), or genetic material, in plants, animals, and microbial systems, leading to useful products and technologies." As can be seen, at least two areas have already been impacted, agriculture with genetically modified foods, and health with gene therapy vaccines. Here is the video in the article.
0 Comments
In the last and current legislative sessions, the issue of access to certain books by minors continues to be at the forefront, with many in support of or in opposition to several bills.
Current Idaho Statutes address the prohibition of obscene or indecent material, some including towards minors. Idaho Statute 23-614, Idaho Statute 18-4105, Idaho Statute 18-1513 and 18-1515 both added in 1972, and Idaho Statute 18-1507 all cover and describe what is considered indecent and obscene. So here we have existing laws banning obscenity and indecency with descriptions on what it is, and with protections of minors in some cases Today, efforts are being made to include protections for children from obscenity and indecency in library materials, the internet, cell phones, and AI. HB498 allows a civil remedy for parents and protection on the internet; SB1253 would require enabling filters and ability to remove detrimental content on devices; HB382 includes banning sexual exploitation of children via AI; HB384 restricts children's access to obscene material in a library and allow civil action; SB1221 creates a procedural requirements for review, selection, and management of school library materials; and HB710 requires schools and libraries to restrict children access to obscene and harmful material and allows civil action. This bill is being held in the Senate State Affairs committee for further discussion. What the heck happened in 52 years that now all of a sudden what was determined as indecent, obscene, and harmful for children has now become educational, beneficial, or even a free speech or constitutional issue? Surely, every legislator who has been opposing these proposed bills would by contrast be a ardent supporter of each existing statute on obscenity and indecency. They would most likely never support the idea of such ribaldry in a public square, or facility. Would they support the exercise of this type of information in the streets, considering it a "free speech" right, or relabeling it art and of benefit to the masses? One outspoken individual opposing these bills is Lance McGrath, President of the Idaho Library Association (ILA), and who uses this association as representative of his views. In 2023 (McGrath) stated, “The government has a duty to protect its citizens – especially minors. But it cannot do so by infringing on the fundamental rights of free speech and access to constitutionally protected information.” That is an oxymoron. At that time he also stated, "Idaho libraries, whether school or public, do not provide materials that are harmful to minors.” If this were true there would currently not be such a brouhaha about protecting children on this issue. Going further, Mr. McGrath has stated “Librarians believe parents have rights and responsibilities to guide their children’s use of school and public libraries.” By that measure of logic, a parent then does have the responsibility and right to insist that their child is protected from harmful materials at a library. Perhaps libraries should be responsible and take that into account when stocking the shelves and recognizing who holds the authority to decide what a child will read. He reiterated the same this year and expressed concern that "The private right of action creates a bounty system that will place an incredible financial burden on libraries and open them up to serious actions and potential litigation.” The protection of the library is more important than a child? According to Mr. McGrath, "“Freedom of intellectual pursuits is a fundamental American ideal and a human right.” A minor reading sexually explicit material is an intellectual pursuit and a right? As an example of what he would consider an intellectual pursuit, here is an example of a banned book with a strong warning about the explicit graphics contained within it. The Idaho Chapter of the American Library Association (ALA), supports McGrath's stance on the idea that banning this type of material is a "threat to democracy" and likely violates its Library Bill of Rights. Many engaged in this issue might be aware that libraries accepting federal funding may already be utilizing internet filtering systems. The 2000 Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) provides funding for internet filtering mechanisms that can be disabled for adults on request. One focus of the law is safety policies addressing access, safety, and security of minors to inappropriate matter on the internet. Idaho Statute 33-2741 addresses this in Idaho libraries. Heck, if sexually explicit material is allowed on bookshelves, then the internet should be open access to minors as well! It seems illogical that protection from harm can be divided between different forms of information, maybe unless there is money involved. Few studies could be found on what harm is caused to children who are exposed to explicit sexual material, however there are many studies on the effect it has on adolescents, especially related to the internet, and it is all negative. If an adolescent experiences adverse reactions, how can it be expected that a child won't experience the same if not worse? Just as a side note, the ILA is a chapter of the American Library Association (ALA) which is a member of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), a UN listed nongovernmental organization (NGO) that also supports a Public Library Manifesto with UNESCO. It should be of no surprise that ALA and IFLA both support the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Therefore, it should be no surprise that this type of material is very much integrated into the SDGs that filters down to libraries. Okay, going with Mr. McGrath's and reasoning by others who oppose these bills, free speech and access to Constitutionally protected material are both Constitutional rights. If these books were displayed, freely handed out, or even sold to children or adults by someone on the street or at a public venue, would those books violate current state law, especially 18-1507(j) and 18-1515? If yes, then that material should not be made available in a library. If not, then it should be considered perfectly acceptable for these books to be handed out or sold at the next public event and current laws should be changed to remove all penalties for doing so. Perhaps reparations should be given to those who have been penalized under these laws for violation of their rights. Internet access should also be made available and the funding for filtering it should also be refused. As the Senate State Affairs committee continues to discuss this issue, contact them at [email protected] and let them know your thoughts because the opposition is strong right now. What comes to mind when thinking about a civil society? Perhaps where people interact in a civil manner, or the community at large participates with civility, airing differences without harshness towards one another. How did the Founders view a civil society?
Just prior to the Declaration of Independence, Alexander Hamilton declared, "When the first principles of civil society are violated, and the rights of a whole people are invaded, the common forms of municipal law are not to be regarded." James Madison wrote in Federalist #37, "Stability in government, is essential to national character, and to the advantages annexed to it, as well as to that repose and confidence in the minds of the people, which are among the chief blessings of civil society." John Locke, who had influence with the Founders, described civil society, "Those who are united into one body, and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them, and punish offenders, are in civil society one with another." Locke also had a few words on tyranny, "Wherever law ends, tyranny begins...". In Federalist #51, Alexander Hamilton or James Madison spoke to the need for separate branches of government, each assigned with different powers between them, and necessary for a check and balance system that would keep the government itself in line. "Since it shews that in exact proportion as the territory of the union may be formed into more circumscribed confederacies or states, oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated, the best security under the republican form, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished; and consequently, the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionally increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society." Federalist #51 also spoke to the dangers of factions, "In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign, as in a state of nature where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger." Federalist # 10 by James Madison also spoke to the dangers of factions. "Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction." "By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." "There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: The one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects." Removing its causes was not an option as it entailed limiting liberty. In Madison's view, the cure was "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking." The rationale for this, "...you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other." So, having a civil society was based on a Republic, with laws, and protecting rights. Ok, what is the point here? Who cares? Why is this even important? No, no, no, no, no! All of this foundation for a civil society has been scrubbed. Civil society, a term even used by presidents, has a whole new meaning, one that obliterates our Republic as intended. Madison tried to warn us. Back in 1992, the United Nations (UN) devoted a whole chapter in Agenda 21 to Strengthening The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO). Strengthening The Role of Trade Unions and Business were a couple of other chapters. These are factions James Madison warned us about, and his fears have come to fruition. The UN has its own Civil Society Unit, describing its factions as "any non-profit, voluntary citizens’ group which is organized on a local, national or international level." These UN factions include academia, professional, foundation, and environmental organizations across the world. The Organization of American States (OAS) has relations with Civil Society Organizations, interfere with citizen representation, and the U.S. Headquarters lie smack in the middle of Washington D.C.. The World Economic Forum (WEF) also has its own interesting slant on Civil Society, "a diverse community of civil society leaders come together to find solutions...advance multi-stakeholder cooperation with government and business leaders; ...includes the engagement of the most influential organizations representing the interests of citizens...NGOs, non-profits and charities; trade unions and labour organizations; come together to collaborate with government and business leaders on finding and advocating solutions to global challenges." As it is stated in the video, these factions that make up Civil Society are Shaping a Future. According to the World Bank, “Civil society ... refers to a wide array of organizations: community groups, non-governmental organizations [NGOs], labour unions, indigenous groups, charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, and foundations.” Civil Society "has the power to influence the actions of elected policy-makers and businesses" as a “third sector” (after government and commerce)". Klaus Schwab even wrote a paper on Civil Society, just another fascist advancement. A James Madison or John Locke he is not. As seen by history, people never change, especially when it comes to the gluttony of power. James Madison was aware of this and familiar with the development of factions that would be more than happy to usurp control and power over others. It is the Civil Society of factions that now control the government once so feared by Madison, but we have let it happen. On March 1, 2024, the Senate Judiciary & Rules Committee (SJRC) voted to send SCR 114 and SCR 115 to the floor for a vote. SCR 114 addresses Term Limits, and SCR 115 addresses a Balanced Budget amendment (BBA). Both resolutions include the language "call a convention" or "calling of a convention of the states". The bottom line is, many Americans do want something done to get a naughty federal government under control. To watch the meeting it can be found here under Mar. 1, 2024 1:30 P.M. Download Audio/Video.
Much is written about the interpretation of Article V and the language that either Congress proposes amendments, or on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states shall call a convention for proposing amendments. This document states if two-thirds of state legislatures transmit applications favoring a convention Congress must call a convention, which then decides whether to propose amendments, and if so drafts them. The Federalist Society discusses the differences between "plenary" and "aggregated" applications for a convention. Plenary means the application is unlimited or consideration is given for any amendments. Aggregated refers to combining applications with the same subject matter into one common language, or aggregating them together to make them consistent between states which leads to a plenary convention. As the Federalist Society explains it, "all valid applications must be aggregated with all other valid applications to yield a plenary result (pg 53)." In the case of a BBA, aggregating the numerous states resolutions for a balanced budget amendment would result in a plenary or open convention. In another opinion, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) reflects that "states may call on Congress to form a constitutional convention to propose amendments. Congress must act on this call if at least two-thirds of the states (34 states) make the request. The convention would then propose constitutional amendments." There are many other opinions and interpretations, too long to list here. But it is clear that the Convention of States Action (COSA) is calling for a plenary convention, open to many amendment possibilities and not just limited to imposing fiscal restraints, term limits, and scope and jurisdiction restraints on the federal government. Looking specifically at opinions on the proposed BBA, there is consistent agreement that government budgetary issues are far too complex to limit it down to just a simple "balance the budget" theme. SCR 115 states, "the total of all federal outlays made by the Congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenues for that fiscal year, together with any related and appropriate fiscal restraints." The Congressional Research Service (CRS) wrote a report in 2019 about the BBA history, and discusses the extensive impact it would have on fiscal matters in the government. As correctly pointed out during the SJRC meeting, the economic system is based on debt rather than assets, and this can be addressed without a convention. That is just one economic aspect of the problem. Not only is there debt, but as the report outlines there are tax, waiver, non-budgetary, off-budget, and expenditure limitation issues that could possibly be open to revision. Previous attempts to balance the federal budget also exposed fiscal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as possible issues for revision. Just defining the budget as needing to be balanced does not come close to all of the economic details that would be exposed for changes during a convention with this proposed amendment. So far, 26 states have passed resolutions specific to calling for a BBA convention. Heck, even Congress, as reviewed by the CRS report, has historically and has currently proposed legislation for a BBA. Some of the language in both Idaho resolutions came from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Rather than read hundreds of opinions on this subject, perhaps it would be better to determine what the Convention of States Action (COSA) has to say. Surprisingly, Mark Meckler, who leads COSA, opposes a BBA because it would "give the federal government power over the states", whereas a convention of states could impose "fiscal restraints". He includes "restricting taxing and spending" and forcing the government to use "generally accepted accounting principles (2:59 mark)". This appears to lead to the same end, an open door to changing many fiscal matters. Michael Farris, JD, LLM, Co-Founder of Convention of States, states a BBA is "one that COS supports" but a "BBA alone will not cure this problem". He goes on to cite the many fiscal and other issues that would have to be addressed in which the BBA is limited and also speaks to the aggregate issue of different state BBA resolutions. He concludes that both resolutions, calling for a convention and BBA, should proceed post haste. As previously noted, the numerous state BBA resolutions would need to be aggregated for an plenary convention. Further clarification is given by Mr. Meckler to the Pennsylvania House and Senate State Government Committees on October 22, 2019. Along with explaining that term limits could be set on "federal officials", he continues, "... the convention could propose a balanced budget amendment accompanied by limitations on Congress' spending and taxation powers. It could propose limits on executive power, federal agencies, and impose real checks and balances on the Supreme Court (pg 3)." As seen, it isn't just about balancing revenue with spending. While Mr. Meckler denies "Convention of States has a board member that has proposed a new constitution" in response to criticism regarding Robert P. George, it was announced in 2014 that the COS Project formed a "Prestigious Legal Board of Reference" which included Mr. George as a board member. "The conclusions of these prestigious experts are memorialized in The Jefferson Statement". This board crafted The Conservative Constitution. On page 11 it summarizes information related to finance, taxing, and spending. The actual Article I, Sections 9 and 10 can be found on pages 20-21 where more specific details are provided on fiscal policy and outlines how much "fiscal restraint" could, or would be applied. Given this is a COS project it might be considered as a source for consideration of possible proposed amendments that might occur during a convention, which would dramatically alter fiscal policy as various opinions have warned. Mr. George is listed as serving "as a legal advisor to the Project". All of the proposed Articles in this Conservative Constitution dramatically reconstruct our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Mr. George is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and served as the U.S. member of UNESCO’s World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology. In the COSA plenary resolution template, it does include fiscal restraints as one of the "limited" subjects, or rather "to a small range of subjects while still allowing for multiple amendments to be proposed." As for SCR 114, opinions are far more varied with multiple reasons as to why term limits are a bad idea, and why they are a good idea. However, the most frightening aspect is just how far these term limits would go according to COSA. As Mr. Meckler stated, these term limits aren't limited to just Congress, it also includes federal officials, Supreme Court justices, and federal judges. Once again, the People have failed to do their job in ousting officials who don't adhere to the Constitution. With all of the information made available by COSA, it should be clear that a broad restructuring of the Constitution is in play. Presenting such a narrow scope of objectives doesn't come close to how deep the intent is to vastly alter the foundation of the Republic. The original convention that created our Constitution emerged with delegates from each state coming together, it was initiated by them to the Continental Congress and an Act was declared for them to meet. Today, this isn't coming from states, it is coming from a highly organized political campaign that is primarily funded by one individual. The question has to be why, what is the motivation of one person to personally fund so much activity, not only to interfere in state elections, but to also pursue avenues that would potentially cause such profound changes in the Constitution. Should it not be done as was the 1787 convention, brought forward by state leaders, whether by Governors or legislators? |
Concerned Idahoans:This website is non-partisan and is solely dedicated to removing the harmful controls placed on our state and nation through associated programs of Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the Great Reset. We invite all Idahoans to join us in this fight for freedom! Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
|