For years, those who have researched Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 have tried to warn everyone about the dangers it poses. At least now it is being fully exposed as the truth. America has been financially drained for decades to implement these agendas, and will continue to be raped for attaining the goals listed in this White House Fact Sheet. It hasn't just been implemented across the world, it has also been implemented in America, "The United States is committed to the full implementation of 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, at home and abroad." And Americans have, and will continue to be paying for both. As the statement says, "full implementation", the complete fruition of these agendas is almost complete with the entire corporate backing of the World Economic Forum. Most likely the loss of America will be by 2030, if not earlier. The Constitution will no longer exist, instead being ruled by Global Governance.
0 Comments
As the news focuses on the tantalizing story of former President Trump's hush money trial, the inflated minority antisemitic chaos across campuses which does not reflect the sentiments of 340 million people, and the latest gossip in entertainment, the evil doers continue their march in destroying one inner core of America that is hideously dismantling future representation of America.
The Boy Scouts of America was founded in 1910 by W. D. Boyce, having evolved from the organization in England. For decades this organization was a treasured representation of America, often attached to different religious organizations, building character and integrity in boys. However, over time it has evolved into a neutered group of kids just being taught a Godless altered ideology. Not surprisingly, many of these changes occurred following the adoption of Agenda 21 by George H.W. Bush in 1992. Joining in 1922, the Boy Scouts of America became a member of he World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM). The Boy Scouts of the United Nations was created in 1945 for UN diplomats and staff. By 1947, the United Nations (UN) got its hands on the Boy Scouts through WOSM, being granted UN non-government organization (NGO) status, and continues to work with the UN today. There are a bunch of other world groups, the International Department, World Scout Bureau, and World Scout Committee. The Boy Scout badge reflects Duty to God and Country, Duty to Others, and Duty to Self with symbols of American freedom. There is also A World Crest Emblem that all Boy Scouts of America wear "as a symbol of unity and world brotherhood." Changes in the Boy Scouts began in 1973 with the first attempt to have female scout leaders, resulting in a drop in membership. In was also in the 1970's that other changes were made to the program with removal of several outdoor badges and a de-emphasis of the term boy. In 1992, the organization was sued for discrimination, with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2000 that as a private organization it held the "First Amendment right to freedom of "expressive association", meaning an association's right to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria. By 2013 the decision was made to open the doors to all males. This discrimination dispute was ended by the BSA National Executive Board in 2015. Then in in 2017 the decision was made to open the doors to any individual regardless of biological sex, and also expanding to girls. By acknowledging this was no longer an organization for boys, the term boy was removed and the name was changed to Scouts BSA in 2019. It should be no surprise that claims of sexual abuse were rampant by 2020, resulting in bankruptcy of the organization. All of this destruction of what was once a remarkable organization has led to a complete stripping of its founding principles by now changing the name to "Scouting America", a "rebranding" that will go into effect in February, 2025, so there is still time to escape. This change was due to "low membership numbers" which the reason seems to escape understanding by those who caused the problem. It has not been the Boy Scouts for a very long time, it is a kids club, overtaken by UN ideology. Even the World Economic Forum recognizes this. For now, there is still a Boy Scouts of America website, and does reference the future name change as a "foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training". All of this has actually been symbolic neutering just as being done physically with children. Not that it hasn't been occurring already, the National Scout Organizations have big plans to educate scouts on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Scout activities used to be practiced through attachments to religious organizations but now that role has been removed and replaced with UN institutions. Scouting badges also reflect this indoctrination. No longer is there an American culture, instead being divided into different classes and groups, or really the heritage of the Constitution and the men who not only created it but also fought for it. There is also the Citizenship badges in Society, the Community, the Nation (which barely covers the Constitution), and in the World with devotion to the UN, along with Sustainability, all required to reach Eagle Scout rank. Clearly, this action is an advancement of Agenda 21 Chapter 24 and Sustainable Development Goal 5, which strip the distinction between male and female, making them nothing more than equal forms of an individual. That is the goal, to create a society of robotic forms that can continue to be manipulated into a world of conformity. Perhaps one could note that the only result of these changes, along with many other similar changes in society, has been the rise of children who are increasingly depressed, full of anxiety, suicidal with no sense of identity that extends into adulthood, and who struggle to find purpose. This travesty of abuse towards children is extended to the Girl Scouts. The solution is forming groups that bring back the original scouting values and principles, and forever eliminate what once was a cherished American organization. U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)
Conceived in 2019, the Department of Defense (DOD), under its Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s (DTRA) Chemical and Biological Technologies Department (DTRA), developed a program called Discovery of MCMs (medical countermeasures) Against Novel Entities (DOMANE) "to rapidly identify a combination of drugs to impact the novel biological threat from multiple targets, which may prove effective in promoting a disease-modifying effect to counter the biological threat." One program aspect is the DOD experiments around with different treatments. If a treatment it creates does well it can become a new "standard of care" (SOC). It is the DOD belief that "Machine learning expedites the process of discovering medical countermeasures for emerging biological threats like COVID-19" for a biological rapid response. DTRA also works with the United Nations organizations WHO, FAO, and WOAH. This has evolved into a Chemical and Biological Defense Program that invests in producing new vaccines and medications utilizing Artificial Intelligence in a biological technologies department, while DOMANE can "reduce or eliminate the time-intensive...human safety studies". Not surprisingly, this all occurred around the emergence of Covid-19, and DOMANE was involved. It's drug cocktail for Covid was Remdesivir, Famotidine, Celecoxib, and Ivermectin. The medical field began using Remdesivir which ended up causing some problems with kidney function. Why was the lower cost and effective Ivermectin banned for use? Executive Order 13887 in 2019 brought in the US Department of Defense for influenza vaccine development with the National Influenza Vaccine Task Force, and the goal of "achieving the vision outlined in the NIVMS" (National Influenza Vaccine Modernization Strategy). Pandemic Hysteria In 2005, President Bush dumped $7.1 billion towards stopping the Avian flu pandemic (which never came) that he claimed would kill two million, with a full report of draconian actions to take. Maybe it was just the framework for what has been forced down our throats since Covid. Is there a real threat? Currently, mass hysteria continues about future pandemics, currently labeling unknown illnesses as Disease X. "Pandemic preparedness" is the buzz word of the day and the World Health Organization (WHO) is actively working to take control with a pandemic treaty, which Idaho should resist. One disease being hyped up for the next pandemic is Avian flu, also known as Bird flu, or H5N1. Avian flu, is a viral infection that spreads between birds and is a more serious variant known as HPAI that can kill poultry. Also known as a zoonotic disease, it can spread from animals to humans. Recent focus has been on H5N1 spreading to cows, including in Idaho, with one case this year. One Texas man working with cattle contracted H5N1 with eye inflammations as the only symptom. Or is H5N1 just another way to disrupt food supplies and destroy the livelihoods of Americans? While an H5N1 infection can be fatal, overall, H5N1 "rarely infect humans", and is rarely contagious between people. Interestingly, this article points out that if a version of bird flu mutated for easier spread between people, it could cause a pandemic. Just last year former CDC Director, Robert Redfield, stated in the audio that the next great pandemic will be "bird flu". Gain of function research to make H5N1 more transmissible between humans has been going on for years, and after a short pause, resumed in 2019. With speculation that Covid-19 was a gain of function virus, involving questionable DOD funding, some speculate that H5N1 is being utilized for the same purpose. Even the Center for Disease Control (CDC) is surveilling for its "ability for increased transmissibility to people". The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is even questioned about its participation. As early as 2007 a vaccine for H5N1 was developed because of a "threat to human health", with changes made in 2013 for a national stockpile, and contain mercury. Development of an Avian flu vaccine continues to be underway. Government Funding It is astonishing the amount of government funding that has escalated since the Covid event. In Biden's $1.2 Trillion spending package, $708,272,000 is allocated for emerging and zoonotic infectious diseases and $315,000,000 for flu pandemic preparation, including vaccine production. The White House is also pouring money into a Gates funded "50-country partnership" to "combat future pandemics" and create a Pandemic Fund, while at the same time launching the U.S. Global Health Security Strategy. Included in this strategy is to "Further strengthen a One Health approach to GHS, including integrating infectious disease data from human, animal, plant and environment sectors". One Health is a World Health Organization "approach" that links disease between the environment, animals, and humans. What a great way to keep everyone oppressed, control economic activity, and keep people jabbed. Maybe someone should tell them to quit manipulating viruses with experiments. It is also why Idaho should prohibit all WHO activity. This information is just a small slice of how government is really implementing a full onslaught of control. There is the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy (OPPR); DoD Biodefense Posture Review; National Health Security Strategy; (Pg 16) mitigation and minimizing risks of zoonotic diseases including implementation of sanitary animal production practices across all major animal value chains in accordance with international standards (which may explain the recent targeting of small farms, again no legislation to do it); engaging more with WHO, FAO, United Nations Environment Programme, WOAH; strengthening the WHO and International Health Regulations implementation; financing global funds such as Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness (CEPI), and the Pandemic Fund; partnering with the Global Health Security Agenda; and the Biomanufacturing, among many other tyrannical actions. Page 31 of the Global Health Security Strategy lists all involved federal agencies, actually all are involved as a "one government" approach. There is also the National Biodefense Strategy and Implementation Plan, Strategic Preparedness and Response, National COVID-19 Preparedness plan to prepare for Covid variants, and the Generative Unconstrained Intelligent Drug Engineering (GUIDE) program with addiction treatment. If this doesn't make the head spin resulting in nausea, it should be a testament to how out of control this government is, and the intention is full control. All this for a virus, and all other unknown bugs out there, that even the CDC knows is low risk, but it is actively working to do something, with handy tips on how to avoid contracting it. In reality, this all looks more like a new surveillance system for control. WHO lists nine potential pandemic virus threats, including Disease X. Good idea to list subjects that will continue to fund one's own existence. This continued government bloating is breathtaking. Even worse is how much the military industrial complex has expanded. It only adds to the burdensome weight of a government that every American must feel around their neck. Creating fear with climate change hasn't worked fast enough, but putting human lives at risk with pandemics will. For now, stay calm, don't get caught up in the fear frenzy. Scrutinize every piece of information disseminated by the government for accuracy and truth. Above all, conduct research on whatever the government is reporting. Quit pointing to the problem and start working with local officials and your state legislator, tell them you want policies put into place that will exercise state sovereignty when it comes to this issue. Where is the Birdman of Alcatraz when you need him? Internet of Things (IoT) is basically a world of devices connected through the internet with most people using some form of this technology. But IoT is not the end goal here, it is the Internet of Everything (IoE). Basically, that means an individual's whole world will be centered around the internet. In this Cisco commercial, it becomes clear that every human will be reduced to a helpless blob if ever the decision were made to cut off the internet. How many decisions will technology make for a person's daily life? Will a person even know how to function without being told by a machine? Is this really how anyone would want to live? No one seems to identify just who has ultimate control over the internet, or who has the power and authority to shut it down. Is it the corporate world that owns the servers, the United Nations (UN), the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Federal Communications Commission regulators? And who owns and controls the data that is generated on the internet? Think about how much data is collected, stored, and shared each time that smart phone is tapped, and what would happen if IoE were taken down. Tyler Back briefly describes how IoE works. When he talks about "decentralizing" and creating a unified system, he is talking about tying together all data into one platform such as the Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), giving full access, and control, to your information. One of the ways information can be controlled is through central bank digital currency (CBDC). Here is the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) General Manger, Agustín Carstens, describing how CBDC is for the purpose of control; the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Deputy Managing Director Bo LI, explaining how CBDC can be programmed and utilized; and Minneapolis Federal Reserve President, Neel Kashkari, confirming every transaction can be monitored. The World Economic Forum (WEF) itself states "Over 98% of the global economy’s central banks are researching, experimenting, piloting or deploying central bank digital currency (CBDC)...".
IoE is already being used in China with the social credit score God, demeaning human integrity by demonstrating good behavior for scoring points. These Chinese seem to like it and see it as good that the nonconformists are punished. Given the abundance of bad behavior today, maybe it isn't such a bad idea. And what about that vaccine or digital health certificate that will support the Internet of Bodies (IoB)? It helps explain why the government is after our health care information. All that information the doctor stores in your electronic health record will be part of IoE. IoE is a WEF dream to realize its Great Reset ambitions. At some point, if everyone continues to comply, we will be engulfed by this system with little chance of escaping. It is time that everyone quits pointing to the problem and start acting on solutions. For IoT and IoE, go back to just a plain phone, and don't buy a smart appliance or use QR codes. Use cash, don't pay bills online, and leave that central bank for a local bank or credit union. All of this means giving up convenience, but is less painful than giving up all freedom. IoE does mean everything...what you eat, what you buy, what you watch, what you read, where you go...and the ability to do any of it will be under control of the IoE. This is an interesting animated video of how people will live under the Great Reset. It depicts what equity actually means. Doom and gloom messages of a financial apocalypse across the world continue, with many questions as what can be done about it. Most certainly, this federal administration has no intention of taking any corrective action, and the current Idaho governor doesn't seem to grasp how he has entangled our state into the fray. Creative solutions that go beyond just electing someone need to be considered, especially those that can protect Idaho from the current tyrannical federal government. Nullification is just one idea. Given the current horrific federally created economic situation, perhaps Idaho should give some consideration to creating a sovereign state bank. Following is an overview of how it would work, just something to consider. There is one state bank in the United States, the Bank of North Dakota (BND), established in 1919, and efforts are underway to establish a state bank in Tennessee. Similar efforts have been underway in Massachusetts and Washington. Catherine Austin Fitts explains there are many advantages to having a state bank starting at the 13:15" to 29" mark in this video. Some of the points she raises are that state transactions can be conducted through a state bank rather than through large central banks, and can prevent central banks from forcing digital currency onto local banks and citizens. Small Idaho banks and credit unions would not have to borrow money from large central banks but rather from the state bank. Governor Little is always bragging about the state surplus, wouldn't a state bank be a better place to hold a surplus rather than JP Morgan? At the 36:09" mark Fitts goes on to explain a state bank could protect small banks and credit unions by lending to small businesses, perform underwriting, and provide municipal bonds. Tennessee Senator Frank Niceley has been advocating for a state bank and bouillon depository. For a more in-depth look at how a state bank would operate, Richard A. Werner wrote a report with the details and discusses it briefly with Fitts in this video. A state bank is located only at one facility, but could be used as a bouillon depository for both the state and individuals. Included in the video is a discussion on how small banks can be protected from the central bank digital currency (CBDC) with Fitts showing a short clip of a globalist describing how CBDCs can be used for control. Concern over CBDC cannot be overemphasized as explained by Fitts starting at the 6:55" mark. Another Idaho bill, H585, would have excluded CBDC from the definition of money, but it failed to pass. Those who voted no on this bill need an education on the dangers of CBDC and that an interoperable infrastructure, called Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), is being built for such reason and supported by the World Economic Forum (WEF). It means everyone must have internet access and the United States is making sure it happens. It is also the key to the Internet of Things (IoT) that will eventually lead to the Internet of Everything (IoE). Back to the bouillon depository, SB1314 was sent to the Governor for signature that would have allowed the Treasurer to hold some "portion of state funds in physical gold and silver to help secure state assets against the risk of inflation and financial turmoil...". Unfortunately, Governor Little vetoed it which essentially leaves Idaho vulnerable to the federal financial fiascos. A state depository would alleviate his fears of storage costs. Tennessee is smarter, having recently authorized the state to protect state funds with gold and silver reserves which will help protect that state's financial independence.
Another state bank advantage would be preventing centralized banks from restricting gold and silver as tender. Idaho attempted to authorize gold and silver as legal tender this year but it did not move forward. Following a New Zealand cyclone, it became clear why cash is needed. The New Zealand Governor of the Reserve Bank echoed Fitt's words, "When people lose the ability to transact...social cohesion is very quickly challenged." In this video Fitts briefly discusses the structure and governance of the North Dakota state bank from the 16:45" to 26" mark. This video is longer but provides some information about the food system and a state bank, how the dependency on federal dollars is a problem (which Governor Little doesn't seem to understand), how involvement with corrupt corporate banks can be controlled, and various other suggestions. Citizens have already witnessed attempts to manipulate financial sources, whether it be prohibiting access if cash is used, closing accounts to those who hold certain beliefs, or federal and bank collusion to snoop into private financial information. The danger of CBDCs, how they would be used for control, is enough to pursue the idea of a state bank for protection of Idaho citizens. Everyone needs to start thinking solutions to protect Idaho, and become more involved. Much has been written about the difficulties that are in abundance throughout America, but often there are few concrete solutions offered that can be instituted for correction. Taking a look at what our Founders saw as solutions may be a place to start. What options were made available to states for reigning in a government that has exceeded its Constitutional boundaries? Perhaps one such approach not explored enough is nullification. In Federalist No. 78 Alexander Hamilton stated, "...every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid." Presidents can use veto power to reject what they perceive as unconstitutional laws. George Washington was the first to do so. James Madison was another with the Establishment clause. What has happened to the integrity of the Executive Branch over the years leading that branch to signing laws that are unconstitutional? Through the years various presidents have chosen to just ignore laws based on their belief the law violates the Constitution, by not enforcing them rather than a veto. But in the end, who has the authority to determine if a law is unconstitutional or not? Do states carry that authority? Thomas E. Woods, Jr. is a Libertarian and author who spoke about nullification in a 2010 interview. During the interview he raised some interesting points. As early as 1798, James Madison was well aware of the federal government already exceeding its enumerated powers through "the abuse of the “necessary and proper” clause" and encouraged Thomas Jefferson to elicit public opinion on those abuses. Both Madison and Jefferson argued against the Alien and Sedition Acts which uncannily mirror issues of today. It was also during this time Jefferson declared "that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy", and Madison declared "the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil," Neither mentioned any other means of determining whether a law is constitutional or not. Ironically at that time, a Congressman was re-elected to Congress from jail, having been imprisoned for his criticism of the president. Does that not sound familiar? Perhaps it does justify the recent Supreme Court decision that an individual cannot not be banned from a ballot. Not present at the time was the federal monetary bribery that is so prevalent now. But what about laws without an attached monetary bribe? What would happen if all of the non-constitutional Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and attached laws and rules were nullified by Idaho, sending the federal government a thank you very much note but Idaho will have its own environmental protection laws? The National Guard is referenced in the video. S1252 was presented this session to prevent National Guard deployment without an official declaration of war by Congress. This was an effort for Idaho to take back its sovereignty but unfortunately failed. Some U.S. Supreme Court justices have previously affirmed nullification. But, there are also those who support the opinion that it is only the federal judiciary holding that responsibility. In 1788 Samuel Adams stated, "...if any law made by the Federal government shall be extended beyond the power granted by the proposed Constitution, and inconsistent with the Constitution of this State, it will be an error, and adjudged by the courts of law to be void." There are multiple examples of the judiciary system being the only system that can determine if a law is constitutional, Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) being an example, declaring "The constitutional rights of children not to be discriminated against in school admission on grounds of race or color declared by this Court in the Brown case can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executives or judicial officers, nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation." However, attempts at nullification can go either way. In the case of Printz v United States the right to nullify a federal law was upheld. Mr. Woods also points out waiting around for a court decision or an election doesn't work very well in that federal courts are part of the system already, too many things can happen waiting around for an election (like how many more calamities can occur until this November?), and a doofus could end up being elected anyway. He also has some interesting points about nullification just prior to the civil war, current precarious federal economics, unfunded federal mandates, and the idea of a state having laws to exercise nullification. Tennessee has the "Restoring State Sovereignty Through Nullification Act" as an example, with other states taking similar actions. Mr. Woods has written articles about nullification and wrote a book with more information. How much further has this government expanded itself and destroyed liberties just since this interview was done? Does Idaho want to start investigating nullification as a possibility for protection against further government intrusion? Solutions are needed, this is just one possibility to explore. 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. 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. |
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
May 2024
|