Founders' Truth Liberty Blog

Personal Liberty versus “Sustainable Growth”

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:37:00 GMT

By Dr. Greg Brannon & Rocco J. Piserchia

Founders Truth

February 20, 2012

This paper was submitted to the The Wake County Sustainability Task Force

It has long been known that liberty is tied to the institution of private property. The Decalogue codified private property in four words: “Thou shall not steal.” George Washington

“Private property and freedom are inseparable.” George Washington

“Private property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.” John Adams

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.” James Madison

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to understand the contemporary view of sustainability in light of it’s origin with the United Nations. This contemporary understanding of sustainability will then be contrasted with liberty as defined by the US Founding Fathers. It will be argued that a proper understanding of traditional liberty includes private property rights – property rights are intrinsic to individual liberty. Both individual liberty and private property rights are antithetical to the modern notion of sustainability.

The Wake County Sustainability Task Force

“For the purposes of the [Wake County] Sustainability Task Force, sustainability has been defined as utilizing practices that protect the economic, environmental, and social qualities of life for current and future generations. The overall goal of the Sustainability Task Force has been to develop recommendations that balance the community’s need for continued economic prosperity with the need to preserve and protect our natural resources as the County marches toward the next population milestone of 1.5 million residents.” (Wake County Environmental Stewardship Agenda, August 2011; page 6,). “The Board of Commissioners directed the Sustainability Task Force to focus on three critical areas: 1. Water Resources Conservation and Management 2. Solid Waste Reduction and Management 3. Energy Conservation and Management” (Ibid, p. 6).

This same report from The Wake County Sustainability Task Force presupposes that “renewable energy” needs to be developed since “fossil fuels” will eventually be depleted. “…a transition to renewable energy still has traction because, eventually, the world’s supply of fossil fuels will run out unless there are dramatic reductions in energy consumption or increases in energy efficiency. The endless supply of renewables is a major benefit if the economic and technical issues can be resolved. Another advantage of renewables is that they are dramatically cleaner than fossil fuels. For those concerned about air pollution and/or greenhouse gases [bold italics added] this is a major advantage for renewables…” (Ibid, page 19). Unfortunately the Task Force accepts the presupposition of anthropogenic or man made global warming. The scientific basis for such concern needs to be questioned and will be addressed in this paper.

UN Inception and Implementation

This view of sustainability or “sustainable growth” finds it’s origin with the United Nations, specifically a UN conference from 1972.

… the 1972 U.N. Conference on the Environment, which identified “environmental protection” as the world’s greatest problem, and gave the world the U.N. Environmental Program, followed almost immediately by Nixon’s Executive Order that created the EPA [bold italics added]. Then came the 1976 U.N. Conference on Human Settlements, signed by the U.S., which proclaimed that “Public control of land use is… indispensable.” The next major step was the creation of the U.N. World Commission on Environment and Development in 1983, chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland. The commission issued its final report in 1987, called Our Common Future. This document produced the concept and defined the term “Sustainable development” to be: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." This rather ambiguous definition was spelled out in great detail in a 40-chapter, 300-page document titled Agenda 21, signed and adopted by 179 nations in 1992 at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. Actually, the document was adopted by 179 nations, including the signature of George H.W. Bush. A nation’s signature on a U.N. document obligates the nation to do nothing in opposition to the goals of the document, and to promote implementation of the document’s recommendations. Agenda 21 is not a treaty subject to Senate ratification. It was never intended to be a treaty… At the same conference, however, two treaties were adopted by the U.N.: The framework Convention on Climate Change, signed by Bush and ratified by the Senate; and the Convention on Biological Diversity, not signed by Bush, signed by Clinton, but not ratified by the Senate. Nothing in Agenda 21 is legally binding on any government until a government – at any level – adopts an Agenda 21 recommendation as a law or ordinance, or as an Executive Order such as EO 12852 issued by President Bill Clinton in 1993 in response to Agenda 21 recommendation 8.7: “Governments, in cooperation, where appropriate, with international organizations, should adopt a national strategy for sustainable development…” Bill Clinton’s EO created the “President’s Council on Sustainable Development” expressly for the purpose of implementing the recommendations in Agenda 21 throughout federal, state, and local governments. The EPA and other federal agencies offered challenge grants to state and local government to promote the implementation of the recommendations in Agenda 21. The federal government gave more than $5 million to the American Planning Association to produce “Growing Smart: Legislative Guidebook,” which provides model legislation for states that, when adopted, requires counties and cities to adopt recommendations found in Agenda 21 (Rep. Herger is Wrong about Agenda 21 by Henry Lamb) http://www.freedom21.org/Newsletters/NL-2012/nl-020412-1.pdf

The Rio Declaration

Following are three principles from the UN Rio Declaration of August 12, 1992:

Principle 3 The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs [bold italics added] of present and future generations.

Principle 4 In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection [[bold italics added] shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.

Principle 5 All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable development, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world [bold italics added]. (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm)

These three Principals illustrate the underlying agenda of UN sustainability which is nothing less than the classical Marxist notion of wealth redistribution. Environmental concerns and “development” in concert with sustainability reveal that the objective is to incrementally eliminate private property ownership. Of course such an agenda will never ameliorate the living standards of the vast majority of the population – it will however concentrate wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

The ICLEI Connection

Well meaning bureaucrats who are attempting to implement what they consider to be sustainable or smart growth may have little or no idea where this notion originated. The UN mandate for sustainability is actually being fostered in the USA and around the world, in large part, through an organization called ICLEI.

ICLEI was founded in 1990 as the 'International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives'. The Council was established when more than 200 local governments from 43 countries convened at our inaugural conference, the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, at the United Nations in New York… The organization's name is 'ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability'. In 2003, ICLEI's Members voted to revise the organization's mission, charter and name to better reflect the current challenges local governments are facing. The 'International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives' became 'ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability' with a broader mandate to address sustainability issues [bold italics added] … Our programs and projects advocate participatory, long-term, strategic planning processes that address local sustainability while protecting global common goods. This approach links local action and solutions to the global challenges we are facing, and therefore also links local action to global goals and targets such as: the Rio Conventions, The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, The UN Convention on Biological Diversity, The UN Convention to Combat Desertification, Agenda 21, the Habitat Agenda, the Millennium Development Goals, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=about).

ICLEI lists the following agencies as some of their “Partners” or those organizations that finance ICLEI: the World Economic Forum, United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), United Nations Human Settlements Program (UN-Habitat), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the World Bank, IPGN (the Intl. Green Purchasing Network), the Clinton Climate Initiative, the Climate Group, the World Conservation Union (IUCN), REEEP - Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership, Global Footprint Network and the International Centre for Sustainable Cities (http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=779). It’s evident that the impetus behind ICLEI’s sustainability agenda is the concept of man made global warming or, more specifically, the determination to reduce man made global warming.

Among the over 1200 local governments that are members of ICLEI we find the cities of Raleigh and Cary in Wake County as well as Durham, Carrboro and Chapel Hill in the Triangle. Orange County is also a member. One has to question just how much influence ICLEI is exerting to implement their globalist agenda in the Triangle alone. ICLEI is also represented in NC outside the Triangle with Charlotte and Winston-Salem as members.

The Science behind Sustainable Development

All UN initiatives re sustainability are built upon the premise that man made global warming is a reality and carbon, specifically carbon dioxide, is toxic. Both premises are patently false. The contribution of man made carbon to global warming is minimal at best. Furthermore mankind and animals are carbon based life forms. Our global environment is naturally controlled such that people and animals produce carbon which is then used as fuel by plants. Plants in turn then produce oxygen which sustains life. Abundant documentation re the myths of man made global warming and carbon dioxide as a toxin may be found at the following sites: http://www.globalclimatescam.com/, http://earthpro.info/, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47334, http://www2.hernandotoday.com/news/hernando-news/2010/jan/22/global-warming-fraud-ar-297264/, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climategate.html, and http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf

         Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Summit states that real science which contradicts their agenda 
should never be considered relevant.

 In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by 
 States according to their capabilities.  Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, 
 lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures 
 to prevent environmental degradation. (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm)

The UN architects of global warming didn’t attempt to overtly institute taxes on breathing but instead utilized junk science to create the illusion that carbon dioxide is toxic and therefore must be severely limited to sustain life for future generations. In the USA we still see the persistence of politicians attempting to legislate “carbon credits” which amounts to a tax on living. Evidently it makes sense to corrupt politicians and those corrupt corporations who want to sell “carbon credits” in order to reduce our carbon footprint. They desire to create another layer of perpetual de facto taxation paid to select private corporations with the goal of this financial burden allegedly to reduce man made carbon – how brilliant.

          The following is from a constituent letter written by NC Senator Kay Hagan dated November 23, 2009:

… On June 26, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act of 2009 (H.R.2454). Similarly, on September 30, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S.1733) was introduced in the Senate. It has since been referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for further review. Both pieces of legislation would regulate carbon emissions by establishing a cap on greenhouse gas emissions from large U.S. sources like electric utilities and oil refiners. The goal of both bills is to reduce emissions through a system of tradable permits [bold italics added] modeled after the successful Clean Air Act program to prevent acid rain. If emitters are unable to reduce their emissions, they will be able to purchase allowances from other sources that have excess permits. This market-based approach is preferred because it provides economic incentives to reduce carbon emissions at the lowest cost to the economy. The bills would also invest in renewable and clean energy… I strongly believe that the United States must serve as a leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions that deteriorate our atmosphere and threaten our environment [bold italics added].

Senator Hagan unfortunately is not alone is espousing the colossal fiction that carbon, vilified as “greenhouse gas emissions”, is harming our environment.

Selling Sustainable Growth

The agenda of sustainable growth has been implemented largely by stealth – the UN has used organizations like ICLEI to influence local policy while the same polices are advanced nationally via executive orders, treaties and Congressional legislation. During this on-going process there’s a deliberate emphasis not to mention that these measures have originated with the UN. Argumentum ad hominem or personal attacks are routinely employed in an attempt to discredit those who expose the UN agenda behind sustainable or “smart” growth, e.g., a News and Observer editorial written last week by someone who didn’t care to share his name reads,

The United Nations, born in 1945, has had more than six decades to strip the United States of its sovereignty and subsume us in "One World" government. Hasn't happened. But in the minds of certain people on the right, those who rarely meet a conspiracy theory they don't embrace, it's not for lack of trying… So pity the unsuspecting members of a Wake County Sustainability Task Force who showed up at a county commissioners' work session this week … These folks ran headlong into an anti-sustainability tsunami presided over by Paul Coble, … Coble surely knows better than to think a 20-year-old, non-binding U.N. conference report called "Agenda 21" has anything to do with Wake County, but there he was, playing to paranoia regardless. He asserted that the local task force was directly or indirectly influenced by "Agenda 21" notions - a charge conveniently impossible to refute. Naturally, the local report doesn't mention the United Nations - proving just how devious the task force is (‘One World’ wackiness, http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/02/15/1855887/one-world-wackiness.html )

Perhaps the most revealing quotation concerning the plan to implement sustainable growth comes from J. Gary Lawrence, a planner for Seattle, “Participating in a U.N. advocated planning process would very likely bring out many ... who would actively work to defeat any elected official ... undertaking Local Agenda 21. So we will call our process something else, such as “comprehensive planning,” “growth management,” or “smart growth” (Lawrence, J. Gary, The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium, The Millennium Papers, UNED-UK, Issue 2, (1998), 3.)

A prominent proponent of sustainability, Maurice Strong, Secretary General, U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, 1992 (also known as the Rio Earth Summit) revealed the radical social engineering inherent in this policy, “...current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable” (http://www.freedomadvocates.org/images/pdf/SD%20A21%20pamphlet-2010.pdf p. 8).

Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chair of ICLEI and Clerk of the Circuit and County Court in Miami-Dade County, Florida, stated that “individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective” in the process of implementing Sustainable Development. (Peros, Joan, unpublished report, UNCED Rio+10 Summit – Johannesburg, South Africa, 2002). Al Gore made the remarkable admission that Sustainable Development will bring about “a wrenching transformation” of American society (“Minor shifts in policy, marginal adjustments in ongoing programs, moderate improvements in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change – these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle, and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” Al Gore, Earth in the Balance. Plume (1993): 274).

The Highest Law of the Land

… We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed… (US Declaration of Independence).

These are not mere words but the foundation on which our constitutional republic is built. This Lockian view is clear - any government at any level that does not protect our unalienable rights is illegitimate insofar as our unalienable rights are not protected. This foundation is also expressed in the NC Constitution in Article 1 Section 1,

We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.

The US Constitution also establishes that all government must be a republican form of government, i.e., a representative republic.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. (Article 4, Section 4).

In this form of government the elected representatives are responsible and held accountable by the people. Contrast this Constitutional expression of government with power exercised by unelected bureaucrats who allege to represent the community. Such bureaucrats regularly exercise their power in the federal, state and local governments - all to the detriment of the liberty of the individual. In a true republican form of government the individual’s rights are protected whereas the collective or communitarian government diminishes personal liberty. Much of sustainable or “smart” growth operates from the false premise that unelected bureaucrats are the voice of the community or reflect “communitarian” values.

Conclusion

The preservation of individual liberty is enshrined in the US Declaration which asserts that certain rights are unalienable – these rights are from our Creator and recognized by government. These rights are innate and therefore can not be denied by government since they did not originate from government. This idea is also found in the NC Constitution (Preamble and Article 6, Section 8). When a government degenerates by denying individual liberty under the guise of the collective or for “communitarian” concerns it effectively takes the place of our Creator. Sustainability or sustainable growth rests upon the premise that the needs of mankind should be subservient to the environment. A proper understanding of humanity recognizes that the environment exists for the benefit of mankind, not vice versa.

True or legitimate ecology is based upon verifiable science and is a valid pursuit – the environment should be treated with respect as part of mankind’s stewardship. The most effective environmentalism will persist when free markets permit ownership and uninhibited use of land as private property. “Owners of private property have every incentive to conserve their resources rather than squander them for immediate gain. Further, most people wish to provide for their children; insuring the welfare of future generations requires no collective action beyond this.” (http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=259) Modern sustainability is a manifestation of social engineering. Social engineering will always undermine individual property rights and individual liberty. When an alleged concern for the collective or community is enacted individual liberty will be gradually eviscerated and poverty ensues. We should not pursue such destructive policies.

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was or never will be.” Thomas Jefferson,1816

“I believe that my theory is correct; for whatever be the question upon which I am arguing, whether it be religious, philosophical, political, or economical; whether it affects well being, morality, equality, right, justice, progress, responsibility, property, labor, exchange, capital, wages, taxes, population, credit, or government; at whatever point of the scientific horizon I start from, I invariably come to the same thing – the solution of the social problem is in liberty.” (The Law by Frederic Bastiat, p. 53)

“And now, after having vainly inflicted upon the social body so many systems, let them end where they ought to have begun – reject all systems, and try liberty – liberty, which is an act of faith in God and His work.” (The Law by Frederic Bastiat, p. 55)

More ...

Tags: sustainability,UN,United Nations,sustainable growth

Category: Rocco Piserchia

Category: Dr. Greg Brannon

President Who?

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:46:00 GMT

http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/8-96.html

Commentary by Lew Rockwell

Reprinted from The FREE MARKET

Published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute

August 1996

In a truly free society, it wouldn't matter who the president was. We wouldn't have to vote or pay attention to debates. We could ignore campaign commercials. There would be no high stakes for ourselves, our families, or the country. Liberty and property would be so secure that we could curse him, love him, or forget about him.

This was the system the framers set up, or people believed they were getting, with the U.S. Constitution. The president would never concern himself with the welfare of the American people. The federal government had no say over it. That was left to the people's political communities of choice; here we were to govern ourselves and plan our own future.

The president was mostly a figurehead, a symbol. He had no public wealth at his disposal. He administered no regulatory departments. He could not tax us, send our children into wars, pass out welfare to the rich and poor, appoint judges to take away our rights, keep dossiers on the citizenry, control a central bank, or change the laws willy nilly according to the wishes of special interests.

His job was to oversee a tiny government with virtually no powers ("few and defined," Madison said) except to arbitrate disputes among the states, which were the primary governmental units. If the president transgressed his power, he would be impeached as a criminal. But impeachment would not be likely, because the threat was so ominous, it reminded him of his place.

He was also temperamentally unlikely to abuse his power because he was to be a man of outstanding character, well respected by the other leading men in society. He could be a wealthy heir, a successful businessmen, a highly educated intellectual, or a successful farmer. Regardless, his powers were to be minimal.

All this astonished Alexis de Tocqueville in 1830. "No citizen," he wrote, "has cared to expose his honor and his life in order to become the President of the United States, because the power of that office is temporary, limited, and subordinate." The president "has but little power, little wealth, and little glory to share among his friends; and his influence in the state is too small for the success or the ruin of a faction to depend upon his elevation to power."

To make sure it stayed this way, the vice president was to be a political adversary. He was there to remind the president that he was eminently replaceable. In this way, the veep's office was powerful, not over the people, but in keeping the central government in check.

The president was not elected by majority vote, but by electors chosen by the states. Most citizens could not vote. Those who could were deemed the most prudential and far-seeing of their fellows. They owned land, headed households, and were highly educated. And they were to think only of the security, stability, and liberty of the country, and the well-being of future generations.

For nonvoters, their liberty was to be secure no matter who won. They would have no access to special rights. Yet their rights to person, property, and self government were never in doubt. For all practical purposes, they could forget about the president and, for that matter, the rest of the federal government. It might as well not exist.

People did not pay taxes to it. It did not tell people how to conduct their lives. It did not fight foreign wars, regulate their schools, pay for their retirement, surround their homes with police, bail out their business, provide for their retirement, much less employ them to spy on their neighbors.

Political controversies were centered at the level of the state and local governments. That included taxes, education, crime, welfare, and even immigration. The only exception was the general defense of the nation. The president was responsible for that. But with a small standing army, it was a minor position, absent a congressionally declared war.

There were two types of legislators in Washington: members of the House of Representatives, a huge body of statesmen that was to grow larger with the population, and members of the Senate, who were elected by powerful state legislatures. The Congress's main power consisted of keeping the executive's power in check.

Under the original design, the politics of this country was to be extremely decentralized, but the community to be united in another respect: by an economy that is perfectly free and a system of trade that allows people to voluntarily associate, innovate, save, and work based on mutual benefit. The economy was not to be controlled, hindered, or even influenced by any central commands.

People were allowed to keep what they earned. The money people used to trade with was sold, stable, and backed by specie. Capitalists could start and close businesses at will. Workers were free to take any job they wanted at any wage or any age. Business's only mission was to serve the consumer and make a profit.

There were no labor controls, mandated benefits, payroll taxes, special benefits, or other regulations. For this reason, everyone was to specialize in what he did best, and the peaceful exchanges of voluntary enterprise caused ever-widening waves of prosperity throughout the country.

What shape the economy took – whether agricultural, industrial, or high-tech – was to be of no concern to the federal government. Trade was allowed to take place naturally and freely, and everyone understood that it was better managed by property holders than by public office holders. The federal government couldn't impose internal taxes if it wanted to, much less taxes on income, and trade with foreign nations was to be rivalrous and free. The only tariffs were to be revenue tariffs, and thus necessarily low to maximize trade and therefore revenue.

If by chance this system of liberty began to break down, the states had an option: to separate themselves from the federal government and form a new government. The law of the land was widely understood to make secession possible. In fact, it was part of the guarantee required to make the Constitution possible to begin with.

This system reinforced the fact that the president is not the president of the American people, much less their commander in chief, but merely the president of the United States. He served only with their permission and only as the largely symbolic head of this voluntary unity of prior political communities.

In this society without central management, a vast network of private associations served as the dominant social authority. The churches, unrestricted by federal intrusion, wielded vast influence over public and private life, as did civic groups and community leaders of all sorts. They created a huge patchwork of associations and a true diversity in which every individual and group found a place.

This combination of political decentralization, economic liberty, free trade, and self government created, day by day, the most prosperous, peaceful, and just society the world has ever known.

In such a system, there would be little at stake in the upcoming November election. No matter which way it went, we would retain our liberty and property, and our families would never be bothered by any central government.

Today, however, the Washington, D.C.-area is the richest in the country because it's host to the biggest government on the planet. It has more employees, resources, and powers at its disposal than any on the face of the earth. It regulates in finer detail than any other government. Its military empire is the largest and most far-flung in history. Just its tax take dwarfs the total wealth of the old Soviet Union.

The only remedy is to restore the classical liberal society of the framers. We do not need, as the media claim, the "strong leadership" of a bully with a pulpit. The man for the job is someone who can disappear, and help make the rest of the federal government vanish with him.

More ...

Ron Paul Explains Economic Liberty

Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:35:00 GMT

More ...

The Renaissance of American Liberty

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:27:00 GMT

By Gerry R. Coleman

The USA was born from the seed of revelation, the logic of reason and the creation of our founding documents the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. But today the American citizens appear confused, complacent, and without the courage to lead. As Americans it is our duty to defend what was so long in finding -- liberty and the rights of self-government.

Our practice of self-government was founded by our forefathers over 200 years ago. These men studied the ancient principles of law found in scripture. Our founding fathers also searched deeply into the history and philosophy of English and European government. There our founding fathers found tested concepts, values, motives and law. They knew that war between Kings, nations and religions had been constant throughout all the history of western civilization. It was time to stop warring and to begin building a civilization based on the rule of law and the spirit of liberty. It was reasoned that righteous law must replace the power of kings and men of war. Such forms of government and tyranny must be replaced by the rule of law not of men.

Our founding fathers learned that reason reconciled with revelation can lead men to create a new union of men, with justice, peace and liberty. They learned that they must courageously practice God’s law to create a free nation.

In the original thirteen colonies men were dedicated to freedom for man and mind. Thus they created the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. They founded a new system of law to protect individual rights. Then an open process of politics and governance evolved over years of trial an error. The US Constitution enabled them to attain a higher sense of self-government as evidenced by the growth and prosperity of a new nation. The new republic created leaders and enabled citizens to improve and succeed. Since then Americans have clearly demonstrated a desire for success -- in economics, education, health, and most importantly freedom.

Today the USA suffers a loss of confidence in our success. We Americans have begun to question our national motives. We have faulted our elected leaders’ decisions. In so doing we fault ourselves. We question our ability to find constitutional leaders. We are at a crossroads. What shall we do? What road should we follow? Consider Robert Frost’s dilemma.

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

(from the The Road Not Taken)

Shall we follow the more traveled road leading to larger government? Or the less traveled path to greater freedom with responsibility? Let us then ask ourselves: Why was this nation created? What new road did the founders follow? Can we govern by constitutional principles again? Can American courage and grit restore our nation?

The European Renaissance was a reawakening. It led to a new birth of understanding, a unification of cultures and kingdoms. Can we Americans return to our foundations and build again? Where do we start? How do we start?

We Americans can again follow the road of God and His gift of natural rights. We will return to the principles of self-government and liberty. Today we are not alone in this quest. Men and women across the world battle for freedom and self-government. They “seek to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” (1) We Americans will show all mankind the path to freedom and responsibility if we restore our founding principles. We are the leaders of free men in The Renaissance of American Liberty.

(1) Noah Webster, The American Dictionary, 1828, Preface.

---------------------------------------------------

Gerry R. Coleman is active in many Raleigh NC community citizenship activities: Host for 8 years for the Institute on the Constitution’s US Constitution course; Chairman for the American Legion’s Raleigh Post 1 National High School Oratorical Competition, and Boys’ State; Precinct Chair Republican Party; member of the Executive Board Wake County Tax Payers Assoc. plus his church activities.

Gerry graduated from Syracuse University, was active for 3 years in the US Army during the Vietnam War, married and lived and worked in New York City before moving to Raleigh in 1992 to practice commercial real estate appraisal.

More ...

Ron Paul Responds To Pres. Obama’s State Of The Union Speech

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:50:00 GMT

LAKE JACKSON, Texas

“Tonight, President Obama once again showed that he does not represent the fundamental change this country needs. Instead of offering solutions to the problems our country faces, the President was intent on delivering a campaign speech, further dealing in the typical Washington political gamesmanship that has gotten us exactly nowhere close to improving the lives of the American people.

“In a speech where much of the rhetoric was devoted to job creation, it was strange that President Obama would brag about his job-destroying national health care plan, Obamacare, and the Dodd-Frank bill, which, contrary to the President’s claims, guarantees future taxpayer bailouts of large institutions. Unfortunately, President Obama’s ‘job creation’ policies amount to little more than continuing to allow government bureaucrats to pick winners and losers, which is a recipe for continued economic stagnation.

“President Obama claims to want an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. Yet he remains committed to the same old system of debt, deficits, bailouts, and cronyism that created our economic problems. The President speaks of giving us energy independence from unstable nations, yet he refuses to allow the type of development needed to achieve this goal, while at the same time his administration hands out favors to the politically connected – those given to the likes of Solyndra, who fail to produce jobs or energy but succeed in ripping off the taxpayers.

“Of course, President Obama refuses to even mention the role the Federal Reserve plays in creating an economic system where some are denied a fair shot or even to support my efforts at bringing transparency to the Federal Reserve. Also not mentioned by President Obama is the very crucial need for reining in spending and balancing the federal budget. What is called by some ‘the greatest threat to our national security’ seems not to be of great importance to this President, although I, like many Americans, believe it to be cause for immediate measures, like the $1 trillion in spending cuts that would take place in my first year as President under my Plan to Restore America.

“In the area of foreign policy and civil liberties, President Obama’s rhetoric may be different, but the substance of his polices – as shown by his administration’s defense of the TSA’s treatment of my son, Senator Rand Paul, is hardly ‘change we can believe in.’ No wonder more and more Americans, especially young people, are rejecting the phony alternatives of Obama and establishment Republicans and embracing my campaign to Restore America Now.”

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/25/ron-paul-responds-to-obama%E2%80%99s-state-of-the-union-speech/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ron-paul-responds-to-obama%25e2%2580%2599s-state-of-the-union-speech

More ...

Sen. Rand Paul responds to Pres. Obama's State of the Union Speech

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:46:00 GMT

More ...

Biblical Foundation of the US Government - Dr. Greg Brannon

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:50:00 GMT

More ...

Category: Dr. Greg Brannon

TSA Directly Violated US Constitution By Detaining Senator Rand Paul

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:36:00 GMT

TSA Directly Violated US Constitution By Detaining Senator Rand Paul
Steve Watson

http://www.infowars.com/tsa-directly-violated-us-constitution-by-detaining-senator-rand-paul/

January 23, 2012

In preventing Kentucky Senator Rand Paul from flying to Washington this morning, the TSA directly violated the law as written in the US Constitution.

The Constitution specifically protects federal lawmakers from being detained while en route to Washington DC.

Article I, Section 6 states:

“The Senators and Representatives…shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same….”

Rand Paul was traveling from his home in Louisville to attend a session in the Senate today.

This is the reason that TSA officials have since put out the talking point in the media that Rand Paul was never officially detained, despite the fact that the Senator himself confirmed that he was told to sit in a cubicle and wait without any indication of when he would be allowed to leave.

The Senate is back in session at 2 p.m., and votes are scheduled for 4:30 p.m.

Senator Paul was allowed to board a second flight after a separate screening by TSA agents, however, it remains to be seen whether he will make it to the capital in time.

More ...

Dr. Greg Brannon's first Tea Party speech

Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:13:00 GMT

The NC Tea Party hosted the April 15, 2010 Tea Party and Dr. Greg Brannon spoke about Health Care, the Constitution and more.
More ...

Category: Dr. Greg Brannon

Patrick Henry: Why Didn't Anyone Listen to our Most Passionate Proponent of Liberty?

Sat, 21 Jan 2012 04:33:00 GMT

by Diane Rufino

On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry delivered one of the most important speeches in our country's history. Attending a meeting of the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Henry intended to present a proposal to organize a militia in every Virginia county. The Convention met at St. John's Church rather than the Capitol in Williamsburg because of opposition from England's Royal Governor Lord Dunmore and his Royal Marines.

Category: Diane Rufino