Examiner.com: No Guns for Anyone – Sheriff Whetsel and Gun Control

Kaye Beach

Oct. 26, 2012, updated Oct. 29, 2012

I hate to be an absolutist but after years of studying the International Association of Chiefs of Police, it is my firm opinion that any Sheriff candidate associated with the organization is pretty much a no go.  There are a number of police associations to choose from and a choice to band together with this one is out of them all has to be the product of a pronounced ideology that for many Americans, especially pro Second Amendment Americans, is repulsive.

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, was also critical of the IACP, which he told Cybercast News Service “represents a lot of appointed police chiefs from a lot of totalitarian and dictatorship countries where human rights are constantly violated and freedom of the press doesn’t even exist.”

“There isn’t a gun-control proposal that this organization hasn’t supported. . .” 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/international-police-chiefs-advocate-more-gun-control

I think that any officer of the law that does not trust law abiding citizens with a gun, doesn’t deserve our trust.

This excellent article posted today at the Examiner.com takes a look at the latest IACP anti-gun Resolutions and points out the fact that Sheriff John Whetsel was a past President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.  Whetsel, as IACP President, in 1995,  actively worked to suppress right to carry legislation in the states including Oklahoma.

No Guns for Anyone – Sheriff Whetsel and Gun Control

Here is  1995 internal IACP strategic plan document to undermine or eliminate right to carry legislation.

The plan was to kill the bills if possible and if not to encumber the legislation with a number of burdensome requirements to deter lawful citizens from obtaining a permit.

For example, Item 5 on page 6 of the document suggests making it a criminal offense, a felony rather than a misdemeanor,  to carry with an expired permit.

Another example is item #14 on pg 7. Require a separate CCW permit for each individual weapon and limit permit holders to one gun purchase per month.

President Clinton thanked John Whetsel personally in 1994 for his help in passing the Brady and Crime Bills.  The “Crime Bill” that Clinton makes reference to is actually ‘The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act’  This was the Act that established a ban on “Assault Weapons” which lasted from 1994 to 2004.  Clinton Whetsel 1994

The Examiner.com looks into this a little deeper here

I have been barking about the International Association of Chiefs of Police for years.

The IACP is an international, non governmental organization accredited by the United Nations and is a ‘Member of the UN POLICE COMMUNITY’ http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/sites/police/community.shtml

This organization has been instrumental in bringing about profound changes to our nation politically, technologically and culturally and not necessarily for the better.  They are the thought leaders, the change agents in American law enforcement.

You would be hard pressed to find even one of the Ten Amendments to the  US Constitution that the policies pushed by the IACP has not insulted but one of the most telling positions taken by the organization is their stance on the Second Amendment.

Steven Spingola, a well respected former homicide detective sums the IACP up very well as;

“a global organization that views the American Constitution as an obstructionist document.”

The IACP has a long history of anti-Second Amendment stances.

They have actively supported every piece of gun control legislation since the 1960’s. The organization is long time, bitter enemies with the NRA and other pro-Second Amendment groups.

IACP President, Quinn Tamm,  in 1971 actually said that a brick was a safer weapon for self defense that a handgun.

Nothing has changed since then. (See the 2012 Resolutions issued by the IACP)

For a litany of anti-gun antics from the IACP in recent times, read this.

The IACP opposes;

•Concealed Campus Carry

•expansion of concealed carry

•50-caliber rifles

•private sales of gun

•gun shows

•so-called “assault” weapons

The IACP Supports;

•Limiting the number of handguns law abiding citizens can purchase

•five-day “cooling off” or waiting periods

•Legislation to allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry.

•State, local, and tribal governments mandating specific storage methods of guns

•Repealing  the Tiahrt Amendment, a federal law that protects sensitive federal gun trace data from general access.

•Gun surrender programs

This international organization is highly political.  Some of the activities of the IACP include lobbying and testifying before Congress, doing research and policy development, setting professional standards and providing accreditation for US police departments.  The IACP promotes and writes guidelines for police technology, trains and educates law enforcement as well as managing and administering numerous programs for the federal government.

But Whetsel asserts that law enforcement is not about politics.

If that is so, why choose to forge ties with an incredibly political organization like the IACP?

John Whetsel at the 2011 IACP Conference

Sheriff Whetsel has a deep and longstanding and continuing relationship with the IACP. He attends IACP yearly conferences and is a member of the IACP Executive Committee and an active member of at least one IACP subcommittee.

And it is all very convenient to say it is not about politics when he is under pressure to defend his ideology that as the Sheriff absolutely does matter!  I have spent many hours at the state capitol and have witnessed the Sheriff’s armed lobbyists working diligently on highly political matters and the Sheriff.  As you can imagine the Sheriff has quite a lot of pull up there, you know, where they make laws that impact the free exercise of your rights.  And Whetsel, like the IACP,  does not have a reputation of  being very concerned with protecting any of those Ten Amendments.

How close is Oklahoma to Real ID? Much, Much Closer Than It Ought To Be

Kaye Beach

September 14, 2012

Have you noticed the flurry of activity related to Oklahoma’s driver’s licenses?  Did your Real ID radar begin to ping?

A Google photo search for “new driver’s license design” shows that many states, like Oklahoma, are getting new driver’s license designs.  And like Oklahoma, the photos are all moved to the left.  This isn’t a DMV fad.   These standards come from somewhere.  —  2012 AAMVA North American Standard – DL/ID Card Design

“AAMVA (the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) is called the “backbone” and hub” of the Real ID Act in the final rules issued by DHS” Mark Lerner, testimony before the Michigan House of Representatives, 2008

Several news items were released last week about some changes coming to Oklahoma’s driver’s licenses.

Oklahoma Rolls Out New Driver License and Upgraded Issuance System by MorphoTrust Sep 06, 2012 by Business Wire

“The new license meets rigorous security requirements and will not only upgrade our system but enhance customer service as well,” said Michael C. Thompson, Commissioner for the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety.

Oklahoma driver’s license will get makeover

Repositioned photograph is among changes to be rolled out over next several months for Oklahoma driver’s license

“They totally redesigned the system to where it’s going to be faster for the operator, which will speed up the line of people waiting at the tag agencies and exam offices.”

These news items were primed by many articles released over the last couple of months regarding the horrendous waits driver’s license applicants are forced to undergo in our state since ‘The number of examiners at licensing offices statewide decreased from 152 in 2009 to 105 this year. The number of testing sites has been reduced from 89 to 36 in a decade’

Long lines drive push to help Oklahoma driver’s license exam sites

At this point, Oklahomans are frustrated and the news of any changes that could help speed up the process are sure to be greeted with a huge sigh of relief and little scrutiny.

A little scrutiny is in order.

The deadline for meeting the standards of the REAL ID Act is January 15, 2013.

The Real ID Act passed in 2005 imposed federal guidelines that use  INTERNATIONAL standards for state driver’s licenses and ID documents

REAL ID licenses are to be

•machine readable

•contain biometric data

(including facial biometrics)

This and other information is to be shared

•nationally

•internationally

There are 18 initial benchmarks (39 benchmarks total) to the Real ID Act of 2005 that, once they are achieved, a state can consider to be in “material compliance” with the Act.  A state is in “full compliance” with the Real ID Act upon meeting all 39 of the benchmarks.

Once material compliance is achieved a state may request to be able to place a gold star on their state license to indicate that the card is acceptable for “federal identification purposes” from the DHS.

Spring of this year seven states were named as being the naughty foot draggers regarding meeting the 18 Real ID benchmarks. Oklahoma is listed as one of those laggard seven states and for good reason-our state passed a law prohibiting implementation of the federal Real ID Act in 2008. 

Oklahoma – OKLA. STAT. ANN, tit. 47, § 6-110.3 (2007) (The State of Oklahoma shall not participate in the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005. The Department of Public Safety is hereby directed not to implement the provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005 and to report to the Governor and the Legislature any attempt by agencies or agents of the United States Department of Homeland Security to secure the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005 through the operations of that or any other state department. . .

The President of the Coalition for a Secure Driver’s License took it upon himself to help the Department of Homeland Security pressure and threaten these last remaining rebel states:

“It’s their last opportunity to get on board with the REAL ID rules or face consequences. . . . REAL ID is no longer a policy matter, the REAL ID debate is over.  REAL ID is now part of DHS’ ongoing operations.”
PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1bIrU)

What are the “consequences” of not having a Real ID?  Here is what we are told;

“In the future, only those state issued Driver Licenses and Identification cards which are fully compliant with the REAL ID act of 2005 will be authorized for use as identification for official federal government purposes, such as boarding commercial aircraft and entering certain regulated federal facilities.” Alabama DMV-STAR ID

Does this mean we won’t be able to fly?  In a word-no.  We will still be able to fly.   A passport will work as well as a military ID.  Of course any government issued photo ID means biometrics and carries with it the some of the same concerns as Real ID.  Any lesser ID may require secondary screening procedures, but you can fly without a Real ID.  As far as the federal buildings.  That will be interesting.  Barring US citizens from certain federal building will probably set off a constitutional showdown.

Oklahoma was not alone in their opposition to the Real ID Act.  At least 25 states passed a law or resolution prohibiting the implementation of Real ID in their states.  This was a historic level of rebellion and one that both red and blue states participated.

At least 13 (the National Conference of State Legislatures recognizes 16) states passed an actual law against Real ID but we know from Congressional documents that some of these states are quietly issuing Real ID compliant driver’s licenses anyways.

Thirteen states have laws prohibiting compliance with the REAL ID Act. Even so, DHS believes that some of these states already issue secure identification documents consistent with the standards of the regulation.  Link

These states may not sign up for the gold star just yet, but with a wink and a nod, they are just as surely undermining the will of the people by meeting the first 18 benchmarks of Real ID.  To state it simply, these states are positioned to do the bidding of the Department of Homeland Security by meeting the requirements of the Real ID Act while retaining plausible deniability about violating their states’ law that prohibits implementation of the Real ID Act.

At least nineteen states are now in compliance with the Act.   Twenty-six more are reported to have committed to meet the standards before the (new) deadline. (Dec. 1, 2014) link

So where does Oklahoma stand on the 18 (Real ID) benchmarks?

I will show you that Oklahoma is merely one benchmark away from compliance with this international ID scheme that caused an unprecedented uproar by the states following its introduction in 2005.

Oklahoma has progressed from meeting 9 of these benchmarks in 2008 to currently meeting 14 of the 18 Real ID benchmarks. (3 of the benchmarks pertain to formalizing commitment by the state to REAL ID.  State’s that have passed a law prohibiting Real ID implementation are forgiven these benchmarks by the Dept. of Homeland Security.  That is the “wink and a nod” Do in reality, Oklahoma is really only one benchmark away from being considered Real ID compliant.)

Real ID benchmarks 1-6

Real ID Benchmarks 7-15

Real ID Benchmarks 16-18

 

Doesn’t appear that the law prohibiting implementation of the provisions of Real ID slowed us down much, does it?

Some of these 18 benchmarks are sensible measures that many states were already working on prior to Real ID anyways.

However, benchmark Number 1 is a REAL problem!

Benchmark #1. “Mandatory facial image capture and retention of such image.”

Let me explain briefly why:  the digital facial photo is a biometric suitable for use with facial recognition software.  In fact, facial biometrics is the governments biometric of choice.  Why?  It is not the most accurate biometric for identification purposes but it does allow us to be identified in public without our knowledge or consent.  Never mind that we have the right to go about our business, as long as we are not a criminal or suspect, without be investigated.  The Supreme Court has upheld our right to anonymity on several occasions in recent history.

Here is just one example;

Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority … It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation–and their ideas from suppression–at the hand of an intolerant society.”

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334

The inaccuracy of facial recognition could cause anyone to be misidentified which would introduce the unfortunate person host of unpleasant possibilities.  But, I suppose, it is ‘good enough for government work,’ as they say.  But it gets even worse.

After the initial 18 benchmarks are met, the states will proceed to implement the next 21 benchmarks, step by step enrolling us into a global biometric identity system.

“The main ideology for defining the design of the DL/ID is the minimum acceptable set of requirements to guarantee global interoperability. “

Source: Personal Identification – AAMVA North American Standard – DL/ID Card Design, 2012

Myself as well as many other policy watchers that care to know, have been warning for years that our government intends to use those DL photos, conveniently combined with our personal, biographical information to not just identify us in public absent of any specific, articulable suspicion; they intend to use our facial biometrics to investigate and even predict based on the associated data- whether we are more or less likely to present a threat to government.  As of late, these intentions have been loosed from obscure, seldom read government documents and have been printed in black and white for the world to see.

In addition to scanning mugshots for a match, FBI officials have indicated that they are keen to track a suspect by picking out their face in a crowd.

Another application would be the reverse: images of a person of interest from security cameras or public photos uploaded onto the internet could be compared against a national repository of images held by the FBI. An algorithm would perform an automatic search and return a list of potential hits for an officer to sort through and use as possible leads for an investigation.

New Scientist, September 7, 2012 FBI launches $1 billion face recognition project

And then this-a first-law enforcement admits to using facial recognition on protestors in public.

Computer World: Undercover cops secretly use smartphones, face recognition to spy on crowds

And this one from June 16, 2013,  the Washington Post:

State photo-ID databases become troves for police

Oklahoma residents who prefer to not be enrolled into this biometric identification system ought to be asking their representatives why the state is continuing in the fulfillment of the Real ID Act in spite of the law which clearly expresses the will of the people to not participate in the international biometric identity scheme.

 

Could UN arms treaty infringe on US Constitution?

Kaye Beach

This is something to watch.

 

See Fox News’ video with Larry Prat

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1719546416001/

From Gun Owners of America  

UN Gun Grabbers Hard at Work Against Your Gun Rights

Even as Americans prepare to celebrate Independence Day, UN bureaucrats are hard at work plotting to take away your gun rights.

The UN Arms Trade Treaty, which is in the final stages of being drafted, is a backdoor attempt by the Obama administration to impose radical gun control on America citizens.

What can U.S. gun owners expect from the treaty? For starters, the treaty could:

* Require the registration and licensure of American firearms;

* Ban large categories of firearms;

* Require the mandatory destruction of surplus ammo and confiscated firearms;

* Define manufacturing so broadly that any gun owner who adds an accessory such as a scope or changes a stock on a firearm would be required to obtain a manufacturing license, and;

* Require “microstamping” of ammunition.

What’s more, the treaty could also be self-executing, meaning it would achieve its anti-gun objectives whether or not implementing legislation was passed by Congress.

The battle is heating up, and the media are starting to take notice. Just today, GOA ’s Larry Pratt appeared on Fox News with Megyn Kelly to discuss the UN treaty. You can view the video here.

Gun Owners of America has rallied the Senate opposition to this global gun grab. GOA worked with Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) to get other Senators on record opposing the treaty. We are also pushing legislation to defund the Obama administration’s role in pushing the UN gun control agenda.

Negotiations on the treaty will continue through the summer, a time when many Americans are not necessarily focused on politics. But we can’t let up the pressure fighting this backdoor gun ban attempt by Obama, Hillary Clinton, and international gun grabbers.

Thanks to your support, GOA will continue to lead the fight against the Arms Trade Treaty. Click here to help GOA defeat the UN gun control agenda.

And as we celebrate liberty and the birth of our nation, please have a safe and happy Independence Day.

Norman’s First High Density Development Meeting and Info About Form Based Codes

Kaye Beach

June 12, 2012

Last evening the City of Norman Oklahoma held its first community dialog on high density development. The issue is whether or not the City should codify high density development.  Presently, this issue is not addressed in any of the City’s planning documents.  A sudden spate of requests from developers for extremely high density (100 + dwelling units per acre) development is apparently what has brought this issue to the fore.

Attendees to last nights meeting were first given a presentation to inform us on the subject of high density development.  City planners were kind enough to put the presentation online.  You can access it here

The schedule for future meetings can be accessed here.

We were informed that future meetings would be facilitated and met the gentlemen who would be in charge of that task, Bob Thomas from the Xenia Institute, who gave us a few words of wisdom on the art of listening.

The presentation explains why the issue before the community, describes current use and density zoning, explains how density is figured, the pros and cons of high density development and defines terms like ‘infill development’ and ‘redevelopment’.  The presentation also touched on concepts like open space, sprawl, Smart Growth

and New Urbanism

accompanied by pictures depicting the various concepts covered.  Then the meeting moved to questions and answers.

Here is the ‘Pros and Cons’ of density slide.  It is obvious that really cool people are for it and only those whose imaginations run away from them are against it.

Seriously?   There are many pros and cons to this type of development.  When you are doing a power point, you have to just hit the bottom line.  The City of Norman thinks this is the bottom line in this issue.  Awesome people on one side,  jerks on the other.  If you oppose high density development you oppose “quality of life” for your city.  Jerk.

If I were to assign a theme to the questions asked I would say that generally people were curious about what the purpose high density development served.  For example, the first question asked was from a lady who wanted to know where she could find out what high density development was really about.  Another lady wanted to know were we discussing just one high density development or many.

One of the Norman City Council members, Carol Dillingham,  explained that the City currently has no zoning ordinances to accommodate high density development at all and that the purpose of these discussions is to determine whether or not we want this kind of development and if so what we want our ordinance to look like.  Councilwoman Dillingham assured the audience that the City Council has no preconceived notions on the issue.

Here is a write up on last night’s city meeting from the Norman Transcript;

June 12, 2012

High Density development community forum

Another article of interest, also from the Norman Transcript is one published on June 9, several days prior to the first meeting to discuss high density development.

And another article also published in the Norman Transcript on June 9, 2012;

Creating a vision for Norman’s future

When I first read this I was unsure as to what to make of it because it dives right into the notion of a “new vision” for our city before we have even begun the discussion.   This particular vision, emanating from Mr. Blair Humphreys, an urban designer and  the executive director for the Institute for Quality Communities,  is one of form based codes.

The presentation given to Norman residents last evening included information on Smart Growth and New Urbanism and one thing these two concepts of city planning has in common is the use of form based codes.

Norman City Planners would deny that they were setting us up to inplement Form Based Codes but things like this make me wonder . . .The Urban Land Institute explains that, “Good intentions must be backed up by good regulations such as Form-Based Coding,”  and they held a training event to teach people like Norman City Planner, Susan Connors, how to back up their good intentions with Form Based Codes.

(Click on the picture to see just how many Oklahoma officials have been educated on implementation of Form Based Codes.)

So,  what is a ‘form based code’ anyways?

According to Mr. Humphreys, “form-based codes are more effective in guiding a vision than traditional zoning and land use regulations.”

According to others, form based codes are a nightmare;

‘I thought that Forms Based Code was supposed to be an easy, simple alternative but this is a freaking nightmare.’ link

What is this small business owners beef? Well, the new form based code prohibits many of the building features of his business.  His business is grandfathered in under the city’s new form based codes but he knows that no future owner will buy his property should he wish to sell because it does not conform to the form based code requirements and would cost the new owner a fortune to bring into compliance.

With only a little research, the problems with form based code becomes evident.

This article covers some of the  problems with form based codes.  Here is another one – Form-based code is problem, not answer  And one more take on the issue.

Remember that zoning allows the municipality to use its police powers to exercise authority over privately owned property so we want to very careful about instituting any new zoning.

Form based code is prescriptive meaning that rather than telling property owners what they cannot do on or with their property (which is difficult enough to accept) they are told what they must do with their property.  The purpose of this sort of zoning is to speed up the transition into “sustainable” cities.  That means 3 story buildings built right up on the sidewalks,  retail on the bottom floor and residential on top, high density, low cars (and carbon),  walk-your-big-butt-around-in cities.  If you want more zoning hassles, less control over your property, less choices about your lifestyle and tighter buns-then form based codes are for you!

Achieving sustainability using form based codes (click on picture to see the powerpoint)

Oklahoma Property Owners Bogged Down by FEMA’s Flood Plain Maps

Kaye Beach

June 8, 2012

Last summer I did some looking into the new FEMA flood maps that were causing a lot of trouble and expense for  property owners across the state and nation.

Okla. Water Resources Board/FEMA Flood Map Follies Aug. 24, 2011

Oklahomans Getting Soaked! Tag Teamed by FEMA and OWRB Aug. 30, 2011

Of course this is still going on.  The following article is an editorial about the nonsense going on with FEMA and its new flood maps in Shawnee, OK.  Below that is a very good article about the origins and purpose of FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Planning that is the basis for the floodplain expansion.

This what “sustainability” looks like.

Bureaucrats behaving badly: FEMA flood plain mess in Shawnee

The Oklahoman Editorial | Published: June 4, 2012

IN government, small changes can have big consequences. Take the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s redrawing of flood plain maps. That simple change now threatens to derail economic development efforts and punish many homeowners with increased compliance costs.

Nowhere is that more apparent than in Shawnee. Thanks to the new maps, portions of the hospital and airport are now considered part of a flood plain, and a long-running effort to attract a national chain restaurant may be thwarted. The Shawnee Mission Plaza has been in constant development for 20 years with no problem. But now FEMA demands that officials conduct a new hydrology study for the 152-acre development before an eatery can be added.

That understandably frustrates local officials, who already paid for a hydrology study in 2006. The new study, they note, will provide no new detail, but will cost an extra $50,000 and delay the restaurant project for months, if not derail it.

Read more: http://newsok.com/bureaucrats-behaving-badly-fema-flood-plain-mess-in-shawnee/article/3681217#ixzz1xDfeYnGj

The Global Safety Cult and the Abolition of Private Property

by William Roberts

Summary:

Chapter Seven of Agenda 21 calls for the establishment of a “culture of safety.” All of Agenda 21, Chapter 7 is the expansion of UN Resolution 44/236 and the foundational material for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA’s) “Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Planning” programme that fails to provide safety and destroys liberty.

Read the entire article here

Patrick Wood to Speak in Norman, OK April 28th on Technocracy, Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development

Editor of The August Review and The August Forecast, Wood is an expert on international economics, globalization and finance. He is co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington with the late Antony C. Sutton.

Kaye Beach

April 26, 2012

A message from Patrick Wood;

Dear Friend,

On Saturday, I will be addressing the Norman, OK Tea Party on the timely subject of Technocracy, Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development. If you are in Oklahoma, north Texas or even Kansas, I encourage you to attend and get some great information. It will be from 10:00am-3:00pm and the details are below. Please RSVP if you want to attend so they can estimate the food requirements for lunch.

UN Agenda 21 Conference
APRIL 28, 2012, 10:00 AM – 3:00
First Assembly of God Church of Norman
2500 E. Lindsey
Norman, OK 73071
Cost $20.00 per person or $35.00 per couples
Email to teaparty@weblawman.com
Or call 405-360-1716

As always, please repost this invitation into Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, etc. to let others know as well.

Yours for Liberty,

Patrick Wood, Editor
The August Forecast & Review

Click for more info!

 

Oklahoma Action Alert! HJR 1072 Support for the American Sovereignty Restoration Act to be heard in Rule Committee

Kaye Beach
Feb 28, 2012

HJR 1072, Support for the American Sovereignty Restoration Act by Rep. Charles Key will be heard in the Rules committee tomorrow morning at 10:30 am.
This measure reiterates the intent of the American Sovereignty Restoration Act  which would end membership of the US to the United Nations.
HJR 1072 urges Congress and the President of the United States pass legislation and take steps to end membership of the United States in the United Nations. Read HJR 1072
A committee amendment has been included in HJR 1072 that addresses UN Agenda 21 as well. (Read the amendment)
Please contact the members of the House Rules Committee right away and ask that they vote YES on HJR 1072!

405 area code for all or call the switchboard at Phone: (405) 521-2711 or  (800) 522-8502 and ask to be connected to the office of the representative you wish to speak with.

House Rules Committee members
Chairman
•    Rep. Banz (R) District 101 garybanz@okhouse.gov   557-7395
V. Chairman
•     Rep. Weldon (R)District 79 weldon.watson@okhouse.gov  557-7330
•    Rep. Armes (R) District 63         donarmes@okhouse.gov       557-7307
•    Rep. Glenn (D) District 7            larryglenn@okhouse.gov       557-7399
•    Rep. Liebmann (R)  District 82   guyliebmann@okhouse.gov    557-7357
•    Rep. Quinn (R) District 9            marty.quinn@okhouse.gov    557-7380
•    Rep. Williams (D) District 34     cory.williams@okhouse.gov      557-7411
•    Rep. Dank (R)  District 85      david.dank@okhouse.gov          557-7392
•    Rep. Hamilton (D) District 89  rebeccahamilton@okhouse.gov   557-7397
•    Rep. McDaniel (R) District 83   randy.mcdaniel@okhouse.gov    557-7409
•    Rep. Scott (D) District                seneca.scott@okhouse.gov          557-7391
•    Rep, Dorman ((D) District 55     joedorman@okhouse.gov        557-7305
•    Rep. Johnson (R) District 50      dennis.johnson@okhouse.gov   557-7327
•    Rep. Mulready (R) District 68      glen.mulready@okhouse.gov     557-7340
•    Rep. Trebilcock (R)District 98   johntrebilcock@okhouse.gov     557-7362

Oklahoma Action Alert! Pushing Back against the UN and Sustainable Subversion

Kaye Beach

Feb. 14. 2012

The problem with UN Agenda 21 is not that it came from the United Nations but that our government leaders have embraced the plan and have worked diligently to naturalize the policy into US law and national, state and local policies. The principles of government promoted by the UN and it’s Agenda 21 are antithetical to our form of government that has traditionally put great emphasis on private property rights.   This emphasis on individual liberty and property rights is largely responsible for the historic success of United States as a nation.

The implementation of the tenets of Agenda 21 is nothing short of subversion.  This has nothing to do with environmental stewardship.  It is about control!

There are battles being waged all over the United States as citizens and legislators struggle to protect fundamental property rights against multitudes of non-government organizations and agencies carry out the goals of Agenda 21.

Below is information on two efforts taking place in Oklahoma to defend against the implementation of contrary UN goals, a little history on how the UN policy came to America, one example of how damaging it is to industry and innovation in America and a new agreement (signed Feb 11, 2012) between the EPA and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

____________________________________________________

Two efforts to push back  taking place in Oklahoma right now. Your support is crucial.

On the county level;

Cleveland County Commissioner Offers Resolution Opposing Agenda 21

On a state level; HJR 1072, Support for the American Sovereignty Restoration Act by Rep. Charles Key.  This measure reiterates the intent of the American Sovereignty Restoration Act  which would end membership of the US to the United Nations. 

HJR 1072 urges Congress and the President of the United States pass legislation and take steps to end membership of the United States in the United Nations. Read HJR 1072

This measure was  referred to the House Rules Committee on Feb. 7, 2012 but it needs to be scheduled for a hearing in the Rules Committee.

Let the Rules Committee leaders know that it is very important that HJR 1072 gets scheduled and heard! 

Call or email;

• Chair-Rep. Banz (R) District 101 garybanz@okhouse.gov  (405) 557-7395
• Vice Chair Rep. Weldon (R) District 79 weldon.watson@okhouse.gov (405) 557-7330

____________________________________________________
Some background;

Land Use Control

Since the mid 1970s, both the United Nations and the United States have been moving toward ever-tightening “public” control of land use.

By: Henry Lamb – Sovereignty.net

Ownership of land is the foundation of freedom in America.  The hope of owning even a small plot of ground compelled our forefathers to brave incalculable risks crossing the ocean and challenging the wilderness.  Land ownership was so cherished by our nation’s founders that they guaranteed that government could not take private property without just compensation paid to the land owner.  This founding principle has eroded dramatically over time, especially since 1976.
The United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT I) met in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1976.  Agenda Item 10 of the conference report was entitled simply “Land.”

Here is an excerpt from the Preamble to that item:
“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.  Private land ownership  is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.  Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”
This policy document was agreed to by the United States.  Among the U.S. delegates were William K. Reilly, former EPA Administrator, and Carla Hill, former Trade Negotiator in the Bush Administration.

Read more

Here is one example of how the principles of UN Agenda 21 looks on the ground as it is being carried out in the USA.

Signed on Feb 11, 2012-New Agreement between EPA and United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 

http://www.epa.gov/international/io/unep.html

Administrator Jackson signed the first Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA and United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) during the 26th Session of the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum, held in Nairobi, Kenya in February 2011. The MOU identifies areas for strategic cooperation, including strengthening environmental governance and regulatory capacity in developing countries; creating healthy urban communities; facilitating the transition to a green economy; responding to global challenges such as climate change; and providing scientific leadership.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
AND
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

WHEREAS the United Nations Environment Programme (hereinafter referred to as UNEP) is the leading organization within the United Nations system in the field of environment;
WHEREAS the mission of the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as EPA) is to protect human health and the environment within the United States and EPA may, consistent with applicable law, cooperate with other nations and organizations to protect the environment globally;

Full text of the MOU

Woodward County Oklahoma Passes Resolution Exposing UN Agenda 21

Kaye Beach

Feb 13, 2012

“I believe that Agenda 21 threatens our property rights and freedoms. It’s a direct assault on our U.S. Constitution and I took an oath to defend our U.S. Constitution,”  said Tommy Roedell, county commissioner over District No. 1, during the commissioners weekly meeting.  Read more

Congratulations to Woodward County for stepping up to the plate and taking a stand for preservation of property rights which promotes true environmental stewardship and against the deceptive Agenda 21 principles which are antithetical to our American system of government.

Woodward Oklahoma County Commissioner Tommy Roedell authored an anti-UN Agenda 21 Resolution that was passed Feb.6, 2012.

Email the Woodward County Commissioners and thank them!

commissioner@woodwardcounty.org

Cleveland County Commissioner Offers Resolution Opposing Agenda 21

Kaye Beach

**Update Feb 13, 2012 8:19 am.  This meeting has been postponed due to a lack of a quoram.**

Please call or email the Commissioners and tell them to please, support this resolution!  We are perfectly capable of protecting our environment and governing our towns, counties and states without importing incompatible international policy.

Call Cleveland County Commissioners at 366-0200

Email;

George Skinner georgeskinner@sbcglobal.net

Commissioners Sullivan rustycommish@yahoo.com

Commissioners Cleveland rod21@gmail.com

Feb. 10, 2012

Cleveland County (Oklahoma) Commissioner Rod Cleveland is offering a resolution against Agenda 21 February 13th, at 9:00 AM on the 2nd floor of the Cleveland County Court House.

There has been a planning revolution in the US.  That is an understatement really.  This planning revolution leaves no aspect of our lives untouched.  From education to the economy to the environment to land use and transportation planning, the tenants of UN Agenda 21 is threaded throughout.  Agenda 21 is a whole life plan meant to manage and control every facet of our lives.  This plan is being implemented across the globe including the US.   The principles of Agenda 21 are antithetical to any free and open society but especially our constitutional Republic.

Agenda21

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment. http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

Please come out and support Commissioner Cleveland Monday morning.  This resolution, with your support, can be an important step in reversing the negative effects of this global planning revolution in our community!

I invite you to find out more about Agenda 21.  Do your own research and draw your own conclusions about whether or not you support its principles.

I have done my research and believe that understanding and opposing this plan that has largely (and sadly) been naturalized in US policy all the way down to the local level is critical to restoring our Republic.

Relevant Posts;

City of Norman Oklahoma and ICLEI’s US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement signed in 2005

Private Property Ownership in Oklahoma Barrier to Sustainable Development

Sustainable Subversion

Some links;

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/

http://freedom21.org/

http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

http://americanstewards.us/