Property Rights In The Constitution

 Our founders felt very strongly about the role of private property

 Our founders felt very strongly about the role of private property in preserving our liberty so they enshrined the principles of private ownership and private control of property into our Constitution. Many believe that the Constitution is silent on such issues and is unclear at best as to government’s proper role with regard to private property. We learn otherwise as we explore various clauses of the Constitution which establish private property as one of the key pillars of freedom in our country.



                                                  Full Set                                                                         Individual Presentations

                                   DVDs $76.00                                                            DVD $12.72

                                    Digital Videos $37.80                                                            Digital Video $4.99

                                      Audio mp3s $27.80                                                                 Audio mp3 $3.99





[Audio Begins]


All right. Welcome to Property Rights in the Constitution. This is number eight in the lecture series in the constitution. And we’re going to talk today obviously about property rights. I want to start with some thoughts about that. When you think about how America was started when the … via Viva from Plain Rock first came over, right? The pilgrims, when they first came over what did they say? They said we’re good Christian people we can trust each other, let’s set up a communal system. Let’s work together and, you know, everyone work hard and everyone will get the rewards of those labors.
What happen? First couple of winters, the first couple of years they almost starved because they lived in communistic society. They trust each other, oh well, we’ll be fine, okay. Eventually William Bradford said look this isn’t an easy decision, we have to do this. We’re going to give [01:00] every person their parcel land and say you either produce or you die. Your survival is based on whether you take care of your own food and feed your own family. What happened? Almost immediately, not immediately, almost immediately things changed. And they started to be very productive even to the point where within just a few seasons they’re having the Thanksgiving feast, right?
All kinds of plenty because, before the in communism or a communal society where everyone’s property belongs to everyone people said, man, my ankle kind of hurts today. I’m not going to about to work. I’m through, it’s alright. Oh I’ve got to do some washing today so I’m not going to go out. But when it was put on them, and they said, it’s now my responsibility to feed myself. They said, I don’t care if my ankle hurts I need to go out and work. I don’t care if I wash early out later but I’ve got to work while the sun’s shining. Okay. And so there are some basic ideas to teach the communal living property, communism doesn’t work.
Okay. They only got two commandments of the 10 commandments, “Thou shall not steal.” That’s based on what, the idea of private property because you can’t steal something [02:00] if it doesn’t belong to someone else. “Thou shall not covet,” the same idea okay so these basic ideas that are entwined and just some commonsense foundational truths and we’re going to look in their property rights to see what the constitution has the say about property rights. Okay, so let’s start up with John Locke. John Locke in a lot of ways is the founder’s founder. Okay. The founder is look to many people, John Locke was one of them and especially in this types of natural laws, natural rights.
He says this, “The great and chief and therefore of men’s uniting and putting themselves under government is … and how would you fill in that blank? Why do people unite in government? He says it is to preserve their property. That’s why they unite. It’s to preserve their property. Okay. So theft, fraud, breach of contract, trespassing, confiscation, destruction of property, that’s all deterred with the legitimate function of the government. Okay and that’s why people join in the government. He was on … George Washington, says this, “Private property and freedom are inseparable.”
Are you really free if you don’t [03:00] have private property? No. Okay. He who controls the property controls the means of production. And the means of production are the means by which you survive and live. If you don’t have private property you’re dependent upon somebody else. Okay. Along that same vain, John Adams says “Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.” Okay. If your property can be taken from you at any point, you’re not free because you’re dependent upon the control of other people and they control that property. Okay. So the kind of some basic foundational quotes from the founders and even predating the founders.
Now let’s look at, we’re talking about the declaration and the principles of declaration over and over in this presentations but I want to get this idea firm in our mind. It’s very, very important to talk later about right. This idea of where our rights come from, et cetera, et cetera. Okay, in the decoration it says, “We hold this truths with self evident that manner created equal, that they are endowed by their creator was certain in the inevitable rights that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness [04:00]. Okay. We’ve already talk about this. Who gives us our rights. God does.
Okay. And we have the right, the inevitable right to do what we want to with our life and our liberty and property as long as we don’t infringe on the life, liberty and property of someone else. Okay. now, that’s what freedom is all about. Freedom to do and become achieve whatever you want to do with your private property. Now, the next sentence says this, that the securities rights of government were instituted among men. So very clearly, what is the role of government? The role of government is to secure our rights or if you use the two P words we talked about in the first presentation is that to protect or to provide. Okay.
The job is not to provide or to plan, their job is to protect. Okay. Their job is to protect our rights. Now, if we are protected in our rights, then guess what? We’re the ones who get to plan and provide for our future by the use of our life, liberty or property because they’re protecting us that’s their job. And when government says we going to plan for you [05:00] and we going to provide for you that’s not the proper role. Okay. We’re in charge of planning and providing with the help from God. Okay. Now George Washington makes a pretty simple statement here. He says government is not reason it’s not eloquence government is forced like fires a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
When you apply that we just learned about the declaration, the only legitimate use of force or government because they’re synonymous, they are the same thing. The only legitimate use of force is to protect our rights. That’s it. That’s the only time force should be use. Okay. That goes along with this last part of the decoration that says driving their just powers to the consent of the government. Government only has just powers in these two cases. Okay. Something people say this is one problem. As long as we consent the government can do whatever we wanted them to do. But it’s two problem, you first have to have the power and then you the consent to give it to the government.
If I … the powers an individual to use force in this situation, then I can’t give the government the power [06:00] to use force in that situation because it’s bottom up government. We talked about these pencils before right. It’s bottom up. I’m in doubt of the right and I delegate to government the power and authority which associated that right to employ force in that endeavor. And that should be a protective function to protect my life my liberty and property. Otherwise it’s outside of scope of what government should do because it’s doing something unnatural, something I can’t do and therefore I can’t give to them something a power that I myself don’t have. Okay.
Now that that’s just a review, you may say well that’s great and what does this have to do with private property, it has everything to do with private property and we’re going to get in to it here in a little while. I like how Frederick Bastia he’s one of my heroes, he’s a great writer, a great thinker. He says this, “It seems to me that the right of the state can mean nothing but the regularized in the preexistent personal rights.” For my part I can not conceive the collective right that does not have it’s foundation in an individual right. Okay. Hence, to know whether the state is legitimately investor of the right we must ask whether the individual has that right [07:00] in virtue of his nature and in the absence of government.
In other words, drive the right … this what we said earlier, right, this is the declaration of independency saying, drive the right individually if I do, then there can be a collective right that’s based around that the government can do. Now, to nations, states, communities do they have rights? They don’t. only individuals have rights. Here to understand the civic orient, it says that every person has the right if every person has the right to defend even by force his person his liberty and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly.
Thus, the principle of collective rights its reason for existing, its lawfulness is based on individual rights. Okay. I have a right I delegate the power in authority. I don’t really get the right, I delegate the power and authority and there’s a collective power there to do what I on my own could do. Okay. So I’m repeating myself over and over but I think it’s important to [08:00] say the declaration says that Frederic Bastia says this, “Logic itself says this is important and to understand as a basic foundational of principle when we start to talk about little more sticky issues when it comes to property. Okay.
Okay, so the 5th Amendment this where we start out. We talked about some of the some of the founders ideas. Let’s focus on what the constitution now has to say about property. “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law.” Okay. We’re going to get to definition let’s talk about property. What’s property? Jason Adamson says this, “Property in its particular application means that dominion to which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world and exclusion of every other individual.” So property has this implication of private property in exclusion of every other individual.
It’s mine. I act on it. It’s mine. No one else does because it’s private, it’s, I’m the owner of it. Okay. In its larger and juster meaning, property embraces everything to which a man may attach [09:00] a value and have a right in which leaves to everyone else to like advantage. See, and everyone else has the same like advantage. I’m not the only one who gets that private property. Everyone can have private property but in its bigger meaning, property embraces everything in to which a man may attach value. So, your religious belief, your opinions, your land, your merchandise, your money is that property? Those are all property.
A lot of time I think a property and we’ll focus a lot in this presentation on land. But land is not the only form of property. Even your ideas and thoughts and your beliefs are property and you have a right in your property don’t you? Okay. Now speaking of attaching a value to something Madison just talked about. As discussed in the economics presentation, people need to know that their property, their discoveries, their ideas, their, whatever it maybe will be secure. And that people won’t steal that from them and they won’t take from their liberty. And so that’s why of Article 1, Section 8 Clause 8, it says the copyrights and patents clause to promote the progress of science and [10:00] useful arts by securing for the limited times the authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
People have the right to their property and not just real property and not just land but also their just like medicine talked about anything that they attach value to which maybe inventions or ideas that’s why you have patents and copyrights. That’s a proper of the government to protect that property. So, let’s get back in, that was just kind of a definition of about property. Let’s get back in the 5th Amendment. We’re going to dissect this little bit. “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” Okay. So let’s focus on this idea of deprivation of property.
In this, let’s use land as an example. Okay we’ll start the focus in say property as land even though it’s not necessary that’s narrow it’s more broad. But let’s say property is land for right now. So your deed, your ownership of the land okay, is that the only value do you have in the land? Is it just the ownership? A lot of time we think, well as long as I have the land or the deed and I own it, well then I own it, don’t I? But there’s another part that I think is even more important. The other part is the use of your land. Because you could own your land all [11:00] you want, you could have the title and the deed and all that stuff in it’s set but if the government says that you can’t use it for the things you want to use it for then you really own it? No. Okay.
So you can be deprived of your property while maintaining the deed. Government can take that from you. Okay. And that’s the challenge because it could, somebody would say what’s your problem you have the deed don’t worry about it that’s yours. That’s not really mine because I can’t do whatever I want to with it. The use is the more important of the two elements of ownership. Okay. Nowadays how does a government deprive you of your private property rights? Through zoning laws, okay, now don’t get me wrong. I need to take us back. I understand, if you have land today and you bought a property, et cetera, you bought it under the understanding that there’s zoning laws that come with it.
So if you buy a property and you say hey I know the zoning laws, I have one, I buy it. I’m going to go and to exercise my right to use it as I want to. That’s a violation of principle. You’re violating the contract you entered in to. The contract came with it, the zoning laws. Okay. And so I’m not saying that all zoning laws are [12:00] bad you have to you have to negate them you have to fight them. I’m zoning laws in principle are wrong in the first place because zoning laws restrict the use of your property. It’s your property, you should be able to do what you to with it. Now in the world we live in, most land comes to zoning. I understand that. I’m simply just saying on principle where the challenge lies.
Okay. And it violates natural law. Now, according to 5th Amendment, it says deprived of property without due process of law. Okay. So, in the 5th Amendment, the only time the government should deprive anyone of their of their right to property is they’ve been afforded the due process of law which finds them guilty of infringing on someone else’s rights. That’s law is about in the first place, isn’t it, to protect people’s life, liberty and property. So if because of due process of the law you are found guilty then yeah, they can act on you in the protection of other people’s rights.
But they can’t act on you if you haven’t infringed on someone on someone else’s rights. That’s what the 5th Amendment says deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law [13:00]. Okay. Now, is a private property owner who uses his property as he pleases infringing on his neighbors God given rights to the ownership in use of his neighbors property. No. The neighbor still owns and uses the property as they want to, their own property as they want to, correct? So non-infringing, so according to the definition we just talked about, government can’t act on the individual.
Okay. And just because your neighbor has a house color that you don’t like or keeps his lawn in a way that it’s buggy to you and it’s offensive to you or whatever you can’t use the force of law to infringe on what they can do with their own property. If there’s no violation and infringement of someone’s rights, the government can’t act. There’s no need for them to act. Okay. Now here’s the big question, what if someone is using their property in such a way that it affects the value of my property? Your next to a neighbor just as an just a horribly horrendous ugly color doesn’t [14:00] ever keep his grass watered, it’s brown, it’s all kinds of trash all over the place and that does that affect the value of your property. You bet it affects the value of your property.
Okay. So what happens is that we have to ask because here’s the question, what options do I have as individual. I have a couple of options my options, my first option is to go and knock on his door and explain the situation and ask for his help and say hey look, the way you’re keeping your house you know you can what you want to do but it would it would really help me and the property that I own and the other people around you if you’re to keep it more. Is there anything I can do to help you? And if they say, bug off, I’m going to do whatever I want to do. What’s another option you have? Say hey sir, I though about this, I’ll be willing to put $300 or $400 into fixing your sprinkler system or repainting your house whatever it is that bugs you.
You can offer your time and your money to fix it. Okay. So you have those two options, don’t you? But it’s one of your options to say this guy is not listening, I’m going to go over there and start throwing away all his stuff, I’m going to paint his house whatever color I wanted to be paint it and I will do that because [15:00] I want to have a neighbor who keeps his house how I want. Can I do that? Is that an option? That’s not an option. Why, because it’s his private property. He has the right to use his property as he wants to. If I have the God given right to do that then I could compel his behavior. But do I have a God given right to have a neighbor who keeps his house and paints his house and keeps his lawn how I want him to?
Is that a God given right? No. I would like it to be and that’s some really strong preferences, so do most average commonsense thinking people. But, I don’t have God given right. Therefore I can’t use force upon him to start saying that’s trash I’ll throw it away. That’s a bad color I’m going to repaint it. I can’t do that. Is that inconvenient? Yeah. It is inconvenient. It kind of bugs it does it lower the property value of my property? Yeah it does but, if I at the individual level can’t do something, then what? Then I can’t delegate to government to do that for me, if I can’t use force, right, I would be punished if me go into a property and take his property or fix his property for him.
If I can’t use force, and [16:00] I’m not willing to use my money and my time to fix it, why would I think that I can have the government use force and their time and their money to fix it. It’s violation of principle. Why, because the declaration of dependency, remember, driving their just powers and the consent of the governed, government only as the power that I as individual have. Now some may argue in that declaration of independence the consent of the governed that’s embodied in the in the majority of the people. It’s the people in that community, the majority feel certain way about certain colors on houses? Well then that’s where the consent of the government is embodied.
And that would be true if we are democracy. We’re not a democracy we’re republic. And republic means rule of law. And our law’s based on individualism not on collectivism. Collectivist, states, communities don’t, counties, they don’t have rights. Only individuals have rights. If government force is going to be employed remember it’s because someone’s right have been violated. There’s an ugly florescent pink house at my neighbor violating my rights? No. It definitely violates my preferences [17:00] and I can’t stand it but it doesn’t violate my rights. So government can’t be use. Okay.
Let’s take the example a little bit one step further. Okay, because this where it really start to get into this. What if your next door neighbor wants to run a pig farm? Now that’s not only going to affect my property value that’s going to affect my lifestyle, isn’t it? Okay. Now first of all if the pig farm infringes on my health, do I have a legitimate claim on government to use force to stop that from happening? Sure. Yeah. And you can seek readjustment in the court of law. But the court of law should think through this and understand if I came in to the situation after knowing the pig farm is there and I moved in and say hey this hurting my health. That’s my problem. I made the choice to get in there.
And so I know what it means to leave. It’s not that’s not the pig farm’s problem. Okay. So let’s go back though, if they say we’re just neighbors and the next thing you know they want to have a pig farm around like I don’t want that, it doesn’t affect my health but gees, one wants that for a next door neighbor, right. How do we resolve this? Well, the issue comes down [18:00] to do they have the right to do that? If there aren’t any codes or regulation or zoning on that or if it’s within the zoning in the property, then you do have to just kind of a back up and deal with it because it’s part of what that land came with was the ability to use it for a pig farm.
You may not like that, you may say that’s not right I want to get a petition, I want everyone in our neighbor to say they can’t do that. But guess what, they can do that. You can’t write a rule after the fact. Okay. What should have happen if you wanted to make sure you don’t have a pig farm next to you, then what you should have done is you should have made sure before you bought land and built a house or bought a house in that area that there wasn’t, no restrictions on that pig farm. Those are called CCNR. Those are code covenants and regulations. And people get together and make those decisions together. Okay.
It is negotiated to private level. Are CCNRs fine? Yeah they’re truly fine because private individuals make those choices. If I want to go in a subdivision make sure something doesn’t happen. If I don’t want any animals, fence down like any animals in this community, I can’t just go in there [19:00] and to buy the land and then demand it because it’s my preference. I have to know before hand and when I negotiate there, that’s fine. But if you’re in there and you’re already living there someone puts up a fence and puts a horse in the yard and that’s already permitted with the rules in the land then it’s then you missed your chance. You should have thought about it before hand.
You can’t wait to, oh, this is in community farm and now I want to change it. That make sense? So to me, there’s a there big difference in private individuals negotiating the contract. They can do all day long. And that will affect the price and value of the land, won’t it? But there’s a huge difference between the government imposing and using forces, saying you will do this to your property and especially when it’s after the fact. That’s the problem. Okay. That’s a violation of principle. I think, with something that kind of sums this whole thing because someone has tough medicine it’s hard to swallow. I don’t want to think, oh man, my next door neighbor could run a pig farm and I just have to swallow it. Oh gees, well that doesn’t seem right.
Well yeah it’s because you hadn’t thought about the property rights in the first place and he walked in to it. Thomas Jefferson said this I think this wraps this up [20:00]. “I’d rather be exposed to the inconveniences as attending too much liberty than to those attending too smaller degree of it.” Are there inconveniences when it comes to private property rights, when someone doesn’t have the same preference as you? Yes. Is it more than just an inconvenience can I actually hurt you financially? Yes. But I guess what I’ll take that because freedom is what I want. I want freedom. And then maybe saying, he means is with too much freedom. But I would way rather have that than the abuses and the tearing that comes as too little freedom, right?
That’s what Jefferson is saying. I think that’s a great idea. Okay. I know this is converse and I know people will say well that’s not right. And I have right. I have value in my property. You do. And you need to think through that before you choose to enter in to these different contracts and negotiations. Okay. Now the rest of Article 5 are so the Amendment 5, “Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” And most people read the 5th Amendment here and they say, as long as private property can be taken as long as it’s justly compensated.
But there’s little more [21:00] to it, okay, we’re really looking to, there’s a little bit more than just well, as long as it’s justly compensated the government can take the land from me, Eminent Domain. Okay. Let’s look at it. What it says here is public use. The property can be taken for public use. Now does that say public good or public use? And there’s a huge difference. Public good is not public use. If public good, we agree as the community more than 51% of us agree that downtown is blinded in this ugly apartment building needs to be taken out so we’re going to change clause and make it.
So they either fix it or we demolish it and that someone else going to who’s going to take care of that property. And that’s for the public good. But the qualification the condition in the 5th Amendment is not public good but it’s public use. There’s a huge difference. Okay. Now let’s look at that apartment building for a second. Will the free market solve that problem? Is, are there places in downtown that are blinded and ugly? Yeah and there’s rundown like man, I wish we could make it nice. It’d sure be nice to have a community where we’re proud of. Will the natural market fix it? Yes, [22:00] because in a rundown apartment what type of people live in there? The people that are a hard time making payments that may not make payments and the owner of the apartment will say, gosh I can’t do this anymore, fine, she is not working out for me.
There is no way to make this work out. And so the apartment will implode on itself, right, it won’t work, it won’t stand. And the owner would have every incentive in the free market to say you know I’m going to wipe that out and I’m going to build an apartment where actually make money and not just keep losing it. Okay. Why do these apartments lot of times continue to stand? So why does it the free market solve that issue, because of government subsidies. What does it do? What does the government do? They pay the apartment owner and make up for the lost that they would have had.
Had the free market been active and been free to act how it would where they could make a property, can turn the profit with the parliament but the government says, oh no you can’t, we’re going to pay it do this. So what happens if people looking for apartments will have to make a pretty decent salary and need an apartment? You go to the apartment owner [23:00] and they say you can’t come here, you make too much. I’m dependent upon the government for my subsidies, not upon the free market where I have freedom and have risk and reward and I might, well, not in this apartment complex, we’re tied to the government.
They’re in charge in this. Okay. That’s an economic discussion but it’s interesting. Okay. Now, what about street front property owners who are forced to give access to the street front property for a bike path or for a new beautification project with the city? Wait a second, is that public use? Lot of people will say, well it’s for the benefit of all so it’s public good, it’s, yeah it’s public use. I say no it’s not public use, it’s public good. Use is something you need, you need to have. Sometimes they need to put in streets or need to put in a bridge. Okay. That make sense but just public good, it’s a bike path or a beautification project and you’re going to take my private property for that?
Not if it’s for not, for public use. Okay. The next part of the 5th Amendment talks about just compensation. Most people that’s what they leap immediately is just compensation idea. And just compensation is good, it’s a true principle. If we’re taking from someone [24:00], the community is taking from someone private property, and then they need to reimburse them with private property in form of money to make them whole again. Okay. But it’s not just free way and we’ll take whatever we want to and we’ll just pay for it. Now there’s a public use issue first of all. Okay. So we’re going to review real quick.
5th Amendment is pretty robust in my opinion talking about property. There are three things, the first thing is due process, due process of law. Okay. No one should be punished by government unless they have infringed on someone else’s rights and that is been proven in a court of law and then government can act on them. Due process of law is the first reason that any property should be taken from someone. Okay. To take from someone their life, liberty and property, their restriction in room jail or a fine or whatever that means, that’s legitimate if the due process of law.
Secondly, we just talked about public use. Okay. There are two reason which the government can take property, public use and the second one is just compensation. Okay. So in short, the 5th Amendment clearly states [25:00] that private property use and ownership can be taken from an individual by government if such property confiscation is the lawful punishment for that person infringing on someone else’s rights and if such property confiscation is necessary for public use and the confiscated property is paid for the public who use it. Okay. I just, I know I just reviewed there but I think it’s important to understand those principles, three principles in the 5th Amendment that talks about private property.
Okay. I also go on to contracts. Okay. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 says, “No state shall pass any exposed factual law or law impairing the obligation of contract.” When it comes to contracts, it’s not the government’s role to set the terms of the contract, right? Just like we talked about before, it’s the government’s role to enforce the terms of the contract. Now, they are not to step in, the wording here says, they are not to make any laws that impair the obligation of contracts. Why would it be that it gets the government’s role to make [26:00] the terms of the contract, because the only powers government has are the powers that we have and give to them.
Can I force someone to enter into a contract unwillingly, against the will? No. So would government be able to force them into the contract? They can’t, that violates the principle. Okay. Now, on the other hand can I force someone to abide by the terms of the contract we’ve already entered into? Yes. So therefore I can delegate to government to enforce the terms of the contract. They’re not supposed to impair the contract, they’re supposed to enforce that terms of the contract that I as a private individual entered into somebody else. That’s completely legitimate. That’s the scope though of where they enter into contracts.
If and I are happy with the contract we made, the government can’t come in and ay you can’t do that not third party have nothing to do with it. We’re both happy with the terms, we don’t care if you approve or don’t approve. Okay. They can’t impair the obligation of the contracts. Now, to me is the only laws going back instead of it are quite simply laws that impair the obligation of contracts among [27:00] individuals who owned, buy and sell land. Now, whether intentionally or not, what does zoning laws do? They affect the value of property and the government ends up choosing winners and losers. They end up evaluating different pieces of land by the rules they make and impose upon those pieces of land.
Okay. Now, could you do without zoning laws? Ask Houston, Texas, the whole entire city does not have zoning laws. I think they are surviving pretty well. They’re doing all right. They’re free, right? And if something goes wrong, they have themselves to blame and they get to make adjustments to it and make those changes because they’re free people and they’re not dominated by government’s opinion. They’re dominated by their own opinion. They got to do what they want to do. Okay. So government mandate and zoning laws create and destroy a property value and pick winners and losers in the market. Okay. Rather than relying on a free market privately owned system that operates based on supply and demand and risk and reward.
We turn all that freedom over. We say, oh we don’t want supply and demand, risks, whatever, we just want the government to tell us what to do [28:00]. Don’t do that. That’s not the way to live free and have private property. Hitting the first part of this Article 1, Sections 10, Clause 1, “No state shall pass any exposed fact or law …” Now it’s true when you buy land these days, you buy the zoning that comes with it. But some people don’t advocate and one step further and say, you not only buy the land and the zoning that comes with it but you also buy the understanding that that zoning could change any point in time.
I reject that. That is not something I agree with because that’s an exposed fact to a law. You buy it knowing you can put a horse on it, you go in there to put it on, the next thing you know the neighbors have got together and say no we can’t put the horses anymore, we restricted that now. Whoa, hold on, that’s a violation. That’s an expose fact laws and after the fact law. Okay. Okay, moving on the Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, talking about property. So, the 5th Amendment is talking about Eminent Domain and due process, et cetera, we just talked about the [29:00] contracts and the role of government in contracts when it comes to private property that meets the essence of that contract.
Now we’re going to talk about property, land that belongs to the United States. And Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 says this, “The congress shall have power to dispose off and make all need regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States and nothing in this constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims the United States or of any particular state.” Okay. Let’s break that down and look at it. First of all congress shall have power to make all need for regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.
Very, very clear, congress, the Federal Government is in charge of the Federal territories. Okay. And prior to 1890 and Wyoming’s specific case, we were a Federal territory and they made the rules that governed the territory of Wyoming. Okay. But on July 10th, 1890, congress enabled, passed a bill for the enabling act to make Wyoming a state, 44th State in the Union. Okay [30:00]. And we took our place in an equal footing as the 43 states in the Union and we became a state. We are no longer a territory and therefore congress no longer had authority to make regulations and being charged as the State of Wyoming because we’re not a territory anymore. We’re not a state.
Now, the enabling act itself says this, “It provides that the land shall be held appropriated and disposed off exclusively for the purposes herein mentioned as the state legislature may provide.” Okay. So it’s clear that the land within the State of Wyoming is duly managed by who, the state legislature. Okay. Pretty easy. So the Federal agency still exists within the state still claim jurisdiction they are here out of only out of ignorance. We’ve chosen to let them. Okay. Ignorance and apathy and if we were willing to submit to Federal tyranny, the Federal government has no jurisdiction within the state as down state, it’s not a territory. Okay.
So BLM for example, BLM was originally authorized, the Bureau of Land Management is originally authorized to use the [31:00] Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, power to dispose off lands. That’s the Bureau of Land Management was to do, is to dispose of it, get it into the hands of private citizens into the state. But what have they done? They’ve set up shop here. They’ve been here for over 100 years acting as our land managers. They’re not our land managers. We need to get them out and say you have no jurisdiction here because once you got these Federal agencies they say they have jurisdiction, then all of a sudden we have to obey whatever the Federal government says.
But that’s unnatural for the Federal government to be telling us in our local communities what you’ll do with your land. How you manage this, what you can and can’t do. It’s unnatural for some, a bureaucrat in DC to be doing that or even have a field office and so yeah, we work for the Federal government. Federal government doesn’t have any jurisdiction here. Okay. Very, very clearly, they’re an uninvited guest and they shouldn’t be telling the state legislature what they should and should be doing because we already have the rules that say the state legislature in charge what we should and shouldn’t be doing.
The last part of the thing is interesting here. It says, “And nothing in this constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims the United States [32:00] or of any particular states.” Well, what are the claims of the United States over the territories and the property belonging to them but I like the last part, it says, “Or of any particular state” what’s the claim of the state, to the State of Wyoming, okay, some people say oh, it says right there, United States has a supremacy. No, it doesn’t. It says, it says that United States has their claim, which is the territories and property belonging to them and the states have their claim which is to their state.
There’s a separation. There’s a distinction between what is governed by who. Okay. That’s an interesting one, not a lot of people talk about it but it’s very, very powerful. And there are some movements right now within the Western States to take back a lot of those Federal lands because they’re ours. They’re Federal lands. Okay. Now, Article 1 Section 8, Clause 17 is another issue that talks about Federal land. Okay. We’re going to start out with the beginning. “Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation over such district not exceeding 10 square miles as may become the seat of the government [33:00] of the United States.”
Okay. Ten square miles seat of the government of the United States, what’s it sound like? Washington DC, okay. Congress has legitimate or what they call it as the exclusive legislation over DC. Who is in charge of the rules in DC? Congress is. Okay, 10 square miles, that’s the seat of the Federal government, the United States government. Now, it goes on to say, “Congress shall have power to exercise authority over all places purchased by the consent of the seat of the legislature of the state for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other need for buildings.”
Okay. So remember in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, it talks about other property of the United States. Well here is other property of the United States, what does it say? Let’s look at it. There are three conditions here. I love this, how they entered. It seems like the constitution always has this lined out conditions. Here is the first one. Property must purchase. Can the Federal government just come in and take and set up shop and claim land because they are the Federal government after all? Now they created in Article 1 Section 8, Clause 17, [34:00] they have to purchase that land.
Second condition, it has to be at the consent of the state legislature. They can’t just purchase whatever they want to, they can only purchase it if the state legislature says can. And here is the kicker, here is the most important, it’s the third condition, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other need for buildings. There are only five reasons for which they can purchase and the state will authorize them to own land and property within the state, it’s the forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other need for buildings. Okay. What about national fort or service lands where scenic by ways or wetlands, national grasslands, those are illegitimate and unconstitutional Federal land grabs.
Okay. They’re not legitimate with the constitution. That being said take a look at this slide. You see this map here in the 11 Western States, 12 if you include Alaska but they got a huge difference. It’s depicting in red at the Federal lands that are owned within the states. Now [35:00], people around this term called equal footing a lot. Equal footing, that term doesn’t come from the constitution but it does come from Article 5 of the Northwest Ordinance of 1789, “As long as those laws are innate in pursuance to the constitution like it’s talked about in Article 6 and therefore became the supreme no land. It was within the proper role of the government to pass this law.
And the equal footing clause specifically states “Such state shall admitted its delegates into the constitution of the United States on an equal footing with the original states in all respects, whatever.” Does it look like these Western 11 states were admitted on the same equal footing? To me it looks like there might have been some bribery, coercion, you will let us form your state with claim to 84% of your land in Nevada or 43% of your land in Wyoming? So when you compare the 11 Western states with those in the Midwest and the East Coast, it doesn’t seem that we have an equal footing with them with respect to land ownership.
Think about the implication that comes to let’s say mineral royalties, right? If 43% of Wyoming land is tied up in Federal lands, [36:00] and Wyoming ends up paying the Federal government royalties on the resources of the land that they supposedly the Federal government owns. Wait, that doesn’t make sense, same as ranchers, right? Their role, they government’s role was to disposed off the land, a commitment they honored in all states east of us but they have taken over 100 years to do so with the western states. What they did and they created all those lands east to us, they said look, we’re going to have — we’re going to dispose off this territory, we’re going to have very minimal land to ownership just like the constitution calls for.
And yet when it came to the 11 Western states, it’s all these minerals and all these viable things, they’ve kind of lagged on their commitment of hundred years in taking and we’re not going to give the land over the state, we’re going to control put, you control it which is contrary to what the constitution calls for with ancestral land is that persists with the purposes and it’s contrary, they don’t have obligation they made to us that they’re actually going to start using the Article 4 power to dispose that land back to the states and to the people. Why would these founders set it up this way?
It’s really simple. Why have some distant bureaucracy trying to control land [37:00]? The way to make land good and free and productive is to give it to the people who live on it and live around it and own it. Okay. That’s how you do it. And if government is the one picking and choosing how it will be used and disposed, et cetera, then with that, intentionally or not, their picking winners and losers at the marketplace and that’s not right. It’s not right for government to do something that we as individuals can’t do it. Can I as an individual say, you’re a winner, you’re a loser, you can’t do this to your land, you can’t do that to your land.
No, I can’t do that and I can’t use that force so I can’t delegate the government to use that force on my behalf. The same old scenario, we keep talking about it right, these basic principles. So when I talk at the beginning about these principles from the declaration and this basic concept of property, hopefully you can see how they apply now. And you need to, I know that private property can get really sticky and you’ll hear it. I know that. I know it can very, well gosh, well that really hurts me and I don’t like that and but that’s why they have to look at with clarity with the principles.
The principles that are help in the constitution and when you have a principle you have a foundation from which to move forward on. Okay. So we looked at some principles, we’ve looked at what the constitution [38:00] has to say and now we’re going to get to kind of a live current issue that’s been around for a while called the Agenda 21. Okay. The Agenda 21, what is it, how does it affect me and what can I do about it? If you answer those three questions, then something becomes relevant to your life, right? Okay. So, in simple terms what is Agenda 21? Agenda 21 is environmentalism hijacked. Okay. All of us are environmentalist, right?
We all want to be good stewards over the land, we don’t want to destroy it, okay, environmentalist in itself is not bad but when you hear environmentalism now what you do you think? I’m bad. Environmentalists are bad because they’re over the top and they don’t understand true principles of freedom. They’re trying to worship the earth instead of worship the creator of the earth, right? Okay. Now it’s important to understand too, Agenda 21, that’s a shortened name, it’s the United Nations Agenda 21. We tie in, yeah, Agenda 21 to United Nations, it becomes very clear and op, something wrong with this because if UN is involved with it, and we’re talking about this world government idea. This One World Order where they’re controlling from the top from their [39:00] international areas. Okay.
Agenda 21 though is the ultimate conspiracy theory. You say Agenda 21 and people raise eye about it like well that sounds weird. So what I want to do is I want to provide to you some facts and I’m not going to try to tell you that Agenda 21 is bad even though I just did. I’m going to let you make the decision by yourself and then let the proponents of Agenda 21 tell what they think about it and then you can make your own decision whether you like it or not. Okay. So, Agenda 21 was the byproduct in Reo De Janeiro, they had an Earth Summit. Thousands and thousands of local government officials, international government official, media, thousands upon thousands showed up to this Earth Summit. Okay.
And they produced what was called the Agenda 21. Now, they say they produce their own summit but that’s part of like the people will say we produced Obama Care in a two-week-period. Now, it was written before hand, it was worked on before hand but that’s what it came out of this Earth Summit. Now this slide is going to show you, what I’m going to try to do [40:00] like I said before is get some original sources because I need to set up where these original sources are coming from. The first one is ICLEI, ICLEI was developed in 1990. ICLEI stood for International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. Okay. International Council for Local Environment, international groups turn a local environmental issues, what needs to happen.
Okay. Now, in 2005, the directors of ICLEI said, you know what, people are on to this. They don’t like the international control of local member wishes. So we’re going to change it, we’re going to leave the name ICLEI but it’s no longer an acronym. It’s just ICLEI, I-C-L-E-I, that’s all it is. And the new subtitle is local governments for sustainability. It’s the same to that organization, what do they do? Oh it’s a local government for sustainability. Really, that’s still the same organization with the international controls. Okay. 1992, the Earth Summit, remember, it produced Agenda 21, this big thick documents of legalities and who was our president in 1992?
George Bush Sr., and he signed [41:00] ceremonially, there is no, he couldn’t sign a disagreement in to law. He signed it ceremonial, it is a yeah, US is onboard with Agenda 21. So it’s not a Democrat-Republican issue. Next, the 1993, this Agenda 21 was kind of made into a smaller readable version by a man named Daniel Sitars. Okay. He is an extreme environmentalist lawyer. He wrote the book Agenda 21 and it was approved by the Agenda 21’s supporters as a book that we can look into and understand what the Agenda 21 is all about. Next one is the president’s council on sustainable development and that was developed in 1993 by President Clinton.
Global Biodiversity Assessment, a tiny old book that UN put out in 1996. And then in 1998, five years after the first book that Daniel Sitars wrote, he wrote a book called Sustainable America. So these are our six sources. These are the sources that I’m going to be using in quoting to you to say here is the data and these are proponents of Agenda 21 [42:00], right? I’m going to be going to them to say look what they say, what do you think about that? Okay. Here is the first one. Here is the Agenda 21 book that was written in 1993. The Agenda 21 proposed this, “An array of actions that should be intended to be implemented by every person on earth.”
So what’s the scope of the Agenda 21? Okay. Every single person on earth do what they want them to do. That’s the epitome of international control, right? Okay. Secondly United Nations Biodiversity Treaty, this is really sci-fi-ish. Okay. Nature has an integral set of different values, cultural, spiritual and material where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. So UN just help to understand that you’re on the same equal plain field as a mosquito or a zebra or an elephant or an amoeba. Okay. We’re just one living strand in that where creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural ways is the right way and human activity should be molded along nature’s rhythms. Okay.
Sound like something you do if you like. I hope not or you’re in the wrong room [43:00]. Okay. Now, Agenda 21, this book also says there are specific actions which are intended to be undertaken by multinational corporations and entrepreneurs, by financial institutions and individual investors by high tech companies and indigenous people, by workers and labor unions, by farmers and consumers, by students and schools, by governments and legislators, by scientists, by women, by children, in short by every person on earth. Are they dead serious? They are dead serious. They mean this to be a global governing agenda brought to us the United Nations. Okay.
ICLEI, the number one ICLEI was and is, depending on what name you want to use Harvey Reuben is the Vice Chairman of ICLEI and he says this, “Individual rights will have to take a backseat to the collective.” Now, as America forum, we just talked about this earlier, right. As America forum, our foundations on individualism or collectivism, individualism, right, the right of the individual. Okay. He says those individual rights have to take a backseat to the collective. Why, [44:00] because they know better than us how to save the planet. Now, Maurice Strong, Maurice Strong is himself about communist, you remember is this idea of “To each according to the need, from each according to their … from each according to their … oh here is it.
“From each according to their ability to each according to their need,” right, so this kind of this equality idea, well Maurice Strong is a multimillionaire communist. So communism worked out pretty well for him. Okay. You remember this equality, oh I guess some are more equal than others, right? I think that’s how I understand. And that’s one of the basis behind these ideas, these people are leaches. They say they know better, they are more in-tuned with altruistic values and we just need to trust them and they’ll fix them. They have a plan and we just need to get out of the way and follow their plan.
Look what he says, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent and middle class involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, the appliances, home and room air-conditioning in suburban housing are not sustainable.” [45:00] You can’t do that. And I say Maurice Strong, lead the way, show us how to do this. Okay. It’s not sustainable to live in the suburban areas or to eat meat or to have air-conditioning, really? Now, that wasn’t my idea. Now remember, Maurice Strong just to make sure you know, he is the Secretary General of the 1992 UN Earth Summit.
If there’s one man who epitomizes and represents Agenda 21, it is Maurice Strong, the Secretary General of the UN Earth Summit. Now, he also is the founder of the UN environment program and here is what he said, this is the one that should knock you socks off. “Is it the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t that our responsibility to bring that about?” It’s laughable. They set the people, thousands of people rallied around and said that’s true, that’s true. Humans are bad and industrialized civilizations have got to collapse otherwise the world is going to fall apart.
Really? Is that an absurd way to look at things? Yeah, you bet it is. It’s a perverse way of looking at things. Now [46:00] that the claim that these assertions rest on and hinge upon a scientific evidence and facts. But recently we found out that that scientific evidence and facts don’t exist. They are made up. There is a thing in the United Nations and the United States, groups and organizations that are fabricated or that if misinterpreted simple cycles of the earth that might happen for thousands of years. Okay. So that kind of just blows away the dust. Back to this book Agenda 21. Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society unlike anything the world has ever experienced.
Okay. So we have whole new reorientation. A major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human in financial resources, the deployment of human and financial resources have always been governed by free markets. Well, should always be in most country does not but human and financial resources in America, once again should be [47:00], maybe not or as much as they should be by supply and demand, by risk and reward, by the natural free market. They’re saying no Agenda 21 needs to control those things.
This shift to demand that they concern from the environmental consequences of every human action, be integrated in the individual and collective decision making at every level. Okay. Remember, these are their words not mine. They are the ones who in my mind are digging their own hole. Okay. They’re filling up their own grave here pretty quick. Property rights are not absolute and unchanging but rather a complex dynamic and shifting relationship between two or more parties over space and time. That’s from the UN again. Last time I checked on my own private property, it’s mine, it doesn’t shift, it doesn’t disappear, it doesn’t reappear, it’s simply mine, right?
Madison said, it’s my private property, I do what I want to with it. Yeah, that’s pretty simple. This sounds like Star Treck sci-fi, right? Well, you never know it could be shifting and changing the dynamic and complex. So the UN offers, I hold you back in 1976, the UN under report of habitat [48:00] offers this solution. Here is what they say, “Land because of its unique nature and the and crucial role it plays in human settlements cannot be treated as an ordinary asset control by individuals and set it to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Put it in inefficiency of the market, inefficiencies in the market don’t exist that’s why the market exists is to eliminate these inefficiencies, supple and demand, right, price, risk, reward.
It can’t be subject to the inefficiencies and pressures of the market. Individuals can own land. What they say is, private land ownership is also a painful instrument of the accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. So you probably heard of social justice, right. So social justice is defined as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. Therefore private land, that’s not fair because some people have and some people don’t. That’s not just. Okay. Social justice what it really is, is the redistribution of wealth, taking from those who have and giving it to those who don’t have, okay, this equality, this false idea of [49:00] equality. Okay.
Everyone should own land collectively so that no one own it individually. That’s what they’re saying. Last, to finish out this scope, if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle, it meaning private property, may become major obstacle and the planning and implementation of development schemes and I say you bet it will. My private property better getting in the way of redeveloping schemes because you’re not planning about my property, it’s my property. Okay. And yes, it will get in the way of this international idea, this agenda of where we want to, what we want to do at land and where we want to push people and how I want to use it.
Yeah. Private property does get in the way of that. You bet it does. I agree 100%. Now, here is your picture communist manifesto. Okay. The point I want to make is these are bad ideas but they’re not new ideas. Plank number one of the communist manifesto says, “Abolition of property and land and application of all rents of land to public uses,“ to not let any land be private, make it all public. Okay. Here’s what Karl Marx said in the communist manifesto, “In one word you reproach us with intending [50:00] to do way with your property precisely that is just what we intend. The middle class owner of property must indeed be swept out of the way and made impossible.”
UN Agenda 21 is just a canned version of communism that’s been around for a long time. Remember, communal ownership of land, what did it do to the pilgrims, it nearly killed the. Okay. Communal ownership never gets freedom. Remember private property and freedom are inseparable, according to Washington. These are true principles and Marx new them and he was teaching the opposite of them. Okay. In Sustainable America, this book written in 1998 says there must be a major effort to stabilize a number vehicle miles travelled per person. Why, because vehicles pull it here, right? Santa Cruz, California, in their own local Agenda 21 plan, it says cars are not a sustainable mode of transportation.
Now think about that, is that about the cars? That’s nothing to do with the cars. It has to do with control because you can’t move unless the government says you can. You are a slave. Okay [51:00]. We can’t have cars, you need to use the public transit system oh and we can shut that down and control the schedules and, yeah, so we started to see the pattern here, right? And if you look at human beings as the enemy of the earth, then yeah we need to control them. We can’t let them just do whatever they want to do, this could mean they have destroy the earth. Well, that’s kind of an interesting way of looking here it mean. Okay.
Also in this book, we must move towards stabilization of the US population and reduce rate of population growth in the United States and the world. Okay. Population control, Agenda 21, you bet because people, men are destroying the earth. We need to reduce the population growth, we need to have population control. Some and get some other quotes and say, it will knock socks out too that we need to reduce and down to just a million, just 500,000, it’s the only thing that earth can handle. Who is going to do that? The proponents of Agenda 21, how about they volunteered to do it?
Oh I’ll be the first one to go in the name of the earth, yeah, I’ll do that to help the earth, go for it, step right up. Oh no, it’s not them, they are the leader ones, they [52:00] are the ones who know better. We can’t kill them or take care of their population issues because they are the ones who know. Okay. Well this expand the number of curricula, materials and training opportunities that teach the principles of sustainable development, they in our education system, you bet. It’s global warming, in our education yeah, is evolution in educate … yeah, all these different things are in our education system to try to teach us that this isn’t right, that we are traditionally and fundamental principles that we found, our country are founded on, that’s just old traditional stuff, it’s not true. It’s folklore. What we need is the new improved version of an entire shift in the way we look at things and prioritize things in life. Okay.
JK Lawrence, he was the advisor on President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development. He said this, “Participating in a UN advocate of planning process had very likely brings out many of the conspiracy fixated groups and individuals in our society. Okay. There’s a problem there because if people realize he’s attached to UN, there’s going to be a conspiracy theory [53:00] saying, oh well, that’s a conspiracy. Okay. He says this segment in our society who fear one ruled government and the UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom will stripped away, would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined the conspiracy by undertaking local Agenda 21.
So we got a problem on our hands. Agenda 21 being tied with UN is going to bring up people who were conspiracy theories, okay, people who fear one ruled government. Anyone here fear one ruled government? I do. I don’t want one ruled government. Okay. So here is our solution and here is what we need to do. So we call our process something else such as comprehensive planning, growth managing or smart growth. You heard the smart growth? You probably heard of that. Okay. And everyone is this, because nobody wants dump growth and irresponsible growth, they want smart growth, right?
Let’s talk and let’s just call it smart growth. Don’t call it UN agenda 21, JK Lawrence says why, he says don’t call it UN Agenda 21, call it smart growth, call it comprehensive planning. Call it growth management, yeah, because that makes sense. We want to do that. Don’t let people tie it [54:00] to the UN because they will realize it’s an international program. They were, that’s getting shut down their throats. Okay. So here is the side I want to that I could have started with but probably would have scared you away. Okay and now what I’m saying is they have developed what this is and they’re the ones who support this.
What is Agenda 21? That’s a worldwide United Nations, who does intend to affect, every person or group of people on earth. Why, it’s to save the planet through sustainability. Where, all across the planet and every locality and that’s the kicker, in every little locality. When, in the 21st Century, that’s why it’s called the Agenda 21 and how, okay, here is the list, a major shift in priorities, collective rights dominating the individual rights, private property, and there’s populations control, equality among all living creatures, individual liberty restrictions, limits on miles driven, air-conditioning use, et cetera.
Now, this have been the first site I post at UN and said I was going to give you a long day. It’s going to be a lot of weird ideas. But those aren’t my ideas. Those are their quotes, those are their, the proponents supportive [55:00] ideas of Agenda 21. Okay. So there’s whack old ideas, they’re crazy, yeah it is. It’s bad, it’s evil. Yeah, how does it apply to a private property? It’s trying to control private property, taking it out the hands of private individuals and put it in the hands of government planners. Okay. This one, my favorite slides. I spend a lot of time studying the United Nations. Okay.
And when it comes down to over and over I come up with this conclusion, it’s the United Nations versus God, period. United Nations has published thousands and thousands of books and material and pamphlets and they spent millions and billions of dollars trying to convince us of untruths, trying to convince us that what God said to Adam, isn’t you, okay. So in Genesis 1:28 God says to Adam and Eve, “Be fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Okay. Do you believe in God and He is the one who put the earth on … or gave [56:00] us this earth for our benefit to be used and He makes us stewards of it, we will be held accountable to Him for how we treat the earth or do you believe in the UN who says, we’re the gods of the earth, we’re in charge, you’ll do what we say because the earth can only be sustained if we do all these things we just talked about, population control, et cetera, et cetera. No cars, no moving, no eating, no breathing, okay, all these things. You either put your trust and confidence in God or your trust and confidence in the UN.
All right. So now we progress to this idea of good intentions, right? Here is a slide, says, we should try to save the planet, shouldn’t we? Yeah. Shouldn’t we be wise stewards over the earth’s limited resources? You bet. What about the plants, animals, lakes and streams? How is going to take care of them? Who is going to stand up for them? And so the proponents of Agenda 21 say, we’re going to do that. We’re the ones who have the plan to fix this and to capitalize on these good intentions. There’s a quote that I like, it’s becoming quickly one of my very favorites by Daniel Webster who says this, “It’s hardly too strong to say that the constitution is made regarding the people against the dangers of good [57:00] intentions …
Okay. So good intentions can really throw people off, well what’s the good intention? Therefore government should do it. Well, Daniel Webster says and it’s true that the constitution is made regardless against the dangers of good intentions. When they out our heart strings and try to tease, oh this is a good thing to do. The issue isn’t whether it’s good or not. Okay. He goes on with this quote, there are men in all ages and mean to govern well but they mean to govern. They promise to become masters but they mean to be master. Okay. So the bar that the constitution sets, isn’t whether something is good or not. The bad it sets is whether it’s right or not for government to do it.
That’s a huge and important point to make. They are the big difference there. Okay. Here is an interesting quote and I think has Agenda 21 written all over it. It says most of the major ills of the world living cause by well meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom except this applied to themselves. And who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve a lot of mankind in the mass through some pet formula, formula of their own. The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters [58:00] and teasers negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional do getters who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who rules to see force abuse and all others with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means.
Okay. We’re talking about these professional do getters, these people who have fanatical zeal to fix things, the Hitler’s, the Stalin’s, the Mao Zedong’s. When we’re talking about a negligible comparison, in the 20th Century alone, there are 170 million people killed by their own government, not in wars, by their own government, by these professional do getters who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth. Okay. People who have, who knows, good or bad intentions but who intend to rule, I mean masters and then there the ones as we have good intentions to save the planet but our intensions are to rule. Okay.
And so it’s not a matter of, was it good to save the planet? Yes it is and the best way to do that is for people. Governments don’t have hearts, they have feelings and emotions, government that only people have those feelings and emotions because those has, [59:00] people can effectuate that change, government uses that power and abuses it. Okay. Here is an interesting quote, it maybe a little bit of stretch. I like the application here. We have to decide yourself if you agree. Hansen Hamilton says, “Has it been found that bodies of men act as more rectitude or greater selflessness than in individuals.
He is saying do we tend to act better in groups or as individuals? Okay. He goes on, regard your reputation has less active influence when the infamy of a bad action is to be divided among number, then when it is to fall singly upon one. Okay. So in high school, your friends hey, we mailed you pumpkins in mailboxes. You’re like well, for all you do in it, no big deal. Would you ever do that as an individual, no, because if you got, you got some problems, right? If you get caught with 20 other of your friends while you just kind of spread the infamy of that bad decision.
Okay. That’s what Hamilton is talking about. And the way I apply this, to Agenda 21 is sometimes we think, boy, do we act better, are we better stewards of the land collectively or do we act with more responsibility and duty individually? Okay. The question isn’t whether we want to protect the [60:00] environment, the question is how to best protect it. You put it into my private hands and I will protect my property. I have every natural incentive in the world to make sure that it’s not damaged to make it’s not abused, now on in the future, that it maintains its value.
And I have a built in incentive to take care of it. Whereas you say oh no, we can’t trust people to take care of it. We need to give it to the central government. Only they can be trusted, only they have statistics and the reports and the studies. Well guess what, that violates the true principle of freedom. That someone at a distant level collectively they’re going to fix this. Collectively, the person who is taking care of the land is a paid employee of the Federal government who just says, well, you know, it’s my job. But if it’s my private property you better believe I’m going to treat the land right.
Okay. Private property, ownership of private property is a natural right, it doesn’t need other explanation. The way to fix the environment, the way to take care of he environment is get the hands in the … or get the private property in the hands of the people who naturally care for it and will be good stewards over their own land. That private property is a direct [61:00] reflection of me and I don’t need a government mandate or a threat by an international body or an agenda by the UN to tell me how to treat it. I’ll treat it how I want to treat it which is in the best interest of me and the earth itself.
Okay, natural law but the obvious, the question a lot of people ask is well yeah but Jeff what if you have an industry who is polluting the earth, polluting the water, polluting the air, that’s entirely within the proper world government, two, if any individual is harmed, their health, their life, their liberty is honed by that, and they seek redress in the court of law. And that law will inflict punishments upon the offender. Okay. But to preamp and say, we’re going to try this, we’re going to try that, you can’t do this, you can’t do that, to preamp that and to restrict freedom is to overstep the proper balance of government.
Government is supposed to protect. Now, are there certain standards they need to upheld, yes but when they go over into suppressing the freedom [62:00] of the individual, that’s when it gets overbearing. Chase Madison, “There are more instances of the abridgement to the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, then by violent and sudden usurpations gradual and silent, little by little, okay, because the UN came marching in like with their blue berets and they said hey, we’re going to take over. What do we do? We’ll reject them immediately. We’d see it for what it is.
And yet when yeah these gradual and science programs through Agenda 21, we accept them little by little. Well all that that makes sense. That should be good. That’s a good idea. Okay, yeah we can do that. Yeah, we love to have that grant or we love to comply with this program. All the while I realize, not realize, and to gradually and silently our freedoms are being taken away from us. Okay. So, that’s the big long answer to what is Agenda 21. The second question was how does Agenda 21affect me? I guess I would say if you don’t mind the government telling you at either the national or international level or any level how many kids you can have, how many miles you can drive or whether you can use air-conditioning, what you can eat, where you can live [63:00], then Agenda 21 doesn’t affect you. Don’t worry about it, go back to sleep.
Given that does bug you then there is no way that Agenda 21 doesn’t affect you. So, those advocates of Agenda 21, say look, relax, if you don’t want to be part of this movement, don’t worry about it, we’re not making you. Okay. Let’s see some of the quotes we looked at earlier. This word here is intended, it’s highlighted just say we just have good intentions. Remember I talked about intentions before, these are good intentions. If you don’t want to join us in our intentions, don’t worry about it. Once again intended and the other quote we had major effort. This is just a major effort and we’re all working together if you don’t want to be onboard, no sweat.
We’re moving toward these goals. Okay. So, it’s just to kind of a soft, feel good, we’re all working together on this thing. But George Washington, we already looked to this quote earlier, he calls one the carpet. He says look, “Government is not reason, it’s not eloquence, government is force like fires a dangerous servant, a fearful master.” So those who say oh don’t worry this is just, you know, we’re all working together and participating in good [64:00] intentions. No. If the government is more over it, government is forced. And so there is force involved in this agenda, this radical environmentalism.
So we look at these quotes again and let’s say, oh wait, look at that work requires, that sounds like soft lower, that sounds like hard enforceable law. Later on demand, required, demand, are those soft words? No. Those are you will do, right? And at the very bottom, the essence of the problem here is that the UN is the one in charge because the UN and we talked about this in the very first presentation, they say, rights and freedom may no case the exercise contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. They say rights come from them, our declaration says right come from God. Okay.
And they say we control your freedom, we control what you do and God says I’ve given you freedom to choose. Diametrically opposed, diabolically opposed, right? To understand that is to understand the root of the problem, is they want to force with their version of what government is and who [65:00] gives rights instead of respecting individuals who can make the choice for freedom and our natural choice that will protect the environment. Supremacy clause, this constitution allows the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. Okay.
So not only does the UN not give us our rights, and they are not the ones who control our freedoms, the governing document of our land is according to supremacy clause of the constitution, no international authority, international agenda is the supreme law. There is no supremacy beyond the constitution. It’s the supreme law of our land. UN Agenda 21 violates that. Now a lot of people say, you know, that’s unconstitutional, this is constitutional and one might have these when just say that and be what as is, well, if it unconstitutional or if it constitutional, show me where. Okay.
My claim is that UN Agenda 21 is unconstitutional and the reason I claim that is because Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, here is what it says, “No states shall without the consent of congress [66:00] enter in any agreement or compact with a foreign power.” Okay. Is the United Nations a foreign power? Yes. Is the UN Agenda 21 a compact? It is. So therefore it is contrary to the constitutions, unconstitutional. Article 6 finishes by saying all treaties made or it shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. Okay. So something, we won’t argue on, UN Agenda 21 was like a treaty. It’s an international agreement and we’re, well, this clearly states in supremacy clause has to be made under the authority of the United States.
So when Agenda 21 comes in and says, we are the supreme authority, we’re going to mandate, we’re in charge of the same how the environment we fixed and that violates the constitution as well. Now, some people will say, well, what if we agreed to it? What if we are willing to agree to it, it doesn’t matter if you willingly agree to it, still contrary to the principles of the constitution that some international body would control or that we had adapt international rules that have effect and control over the freedoms because they’re not electivzed, they’re not accountable to us. So many people who are electivized [67:00] and cannibal to us are our congressmen, right, the people that we’ve through our system of the government given the power to make decision on our behalf, not the UN to make decisions on our behalf.
And questions of power then, let no more be heard of competence and manhood bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution. Okay. The constitution meant to bind the government and it’s written very specifically and clearly for our United States and our, the government within our states themselves. It’s explicitly written and it’s there to bind those good intentions, those people who are the professional do getters. And if we look above and beyond the constitution, we’re in trouble, aren’t we? Okay. So that’s, how does it affect me, lastly what can I do about Agenda 21?
Here are some of the nitty-gritty, the knots and bolts to understand how this UN international thing ends up affecting me and my local community. Okay. Here are the things that I think are important to know. Know the organizations, okay, you need to know that, you need to know their game plan [68:00], you need to know their terminology, you need to know their tactics and lastly you need to get to know your public servants and educate them. Okay. That’s what you can do about Agenda 21. Let’s go through each and one of these things and give some specific examples and probably more than you want to know but at least something you can work with and kind of pursue on your own if you like.
As far as knowing the organizations, the internal levels of government, right, that are involved in or could be involved in Agenda 21. At the Federal level, you have EPA, HUD, DOT, okay, so Environmental Protection Agency, Housing Urban Development and Department of Transportation. Those three recently have hooked up and of aligned to create the sustainable community’s initiative. Okay. So that’s something to be aware of. President’s Council on Sustainable Development, the Whitehouse Rural Council, American Planning Association, USDA, Rural Development and Non-governmental Organizations. At the Federal, those are some of the culprits. Not all of them but some of the culprits that are getting involved in pushing and promoting UN Agenda 21 ideas.
Okay. So that’s the Federal level. At the state level and I don’t get too excited, I’m not saying these people or anyone who works [69:00] for them are bad or for Agenda 21. I’m saying these are the types of organizations that exists through which Agenda 21 can manifest itself. Okay. State level, Wyoming Business Council, the Wyoming Rural Development Council, Wyopass, okay, here are some typical maybe state agencies and functions. Locally you have Metropolitan Planning Organizations, those are for any city of 50,000 or more, Economic Development Boards, Joint Powers Boards, Wyoming Community Network, Rural Resources Guide, Public Private Partnerships, City and Town Planners, County Commissions, City Council, City County Administrators, Planning and Zoning. Okay.
Why are those at the local level, is someone who works for planning and zoning bad person? No. I’m saying those are the targets through which. That’s the means through which Agenda 21 gets introduced because those are the ones who have the power at the local level to impose these zoning laws, et cetera. We’ve already talked about it earlier. Okay. So City Council’s Planning and Zoning, County Commissioners, they are the target of Agenda 21, right? [70:00] They are in many cases they are the victim, not the enemy. Okay. They’re simply doing about it, I think it’s best to, we have Federal grant or international grant or whoa, yeah, let’s do it.
All right, so to bring money to my community, my city, shouldn’t we have plans for this and we have a vision, okay, these other things, what happens is they have bought in to the fussy, feel good dialogue of those who want and need government authority to implement their plans and infringe some property rights. They are not enemy, those who are deceiving them and your community are the enemy. It says right here, those who want any government authority, grants that come from the government, they always are tied to our governmental entity. Okay. So watch out for the non-governmental organizations for the oh helpful agencies, et cetera that are trying to help get you grants.
Well, why are they doing that, because there is money attached and they get some of the piece of the pie. Okay. So have to look at that. Okay. Know the game plan, here is in general how the game plan works. The private market controls property evaluation, ownership and use. Okay. That’s just natural, natural [71:00] law. Government offers a better solution to the private market with nice sounding objectives. Hey we can fix the problems with the free market. Oh yeah, anyone who is trying to fix the problems of the free market, beware, okay, they’re looking for control and power over freedom.
Now, all stakeholders “Meet to determine the new comprehensive government plan.” Unfortunately sometimes the only stakeholders that show up are those who are going to benefit from this new comprehensive plan. Okay. Plans are mandated with the force of law, because while this is government means I’m not going to use the force of law to mandate these. And next thing you know, wella, private property rights are subject to the new plan. Okay. In general that’s how it works. There’s a problem with that, isn’t it, they’re in simple terms, the game plan is money, that’s the game plan is. Okay.
So beware when City Council meetings or kind of means are revolving around money, that’s, we need to watch out. What are they wanting? That money always comes a strings attached, period. The thing that I think is interesting about the money, the daily need of money is in case anyone hasn’t recognized, we’re 17 trillion dollars in the whole [72:00]. There is no money. And when people say, we got to take it. If we don’t take it, someone else are going to take it. The problem is it isn’t there. It’s illusionary, there is no money. There are strings attached. The only way to get more money is to tax us more. If there’s any, I’ll take it and taxes or borrowing from other countries, it ruins our economy to do that.
And so there’s fault sense that, well I can take this. It’s there anyways. It’s been granted. Someone’s got to take it. That’s the challenge, isn’t it? Here is the general idea. Okay. Now these, this is an idea and this is the general concept. I’m not saying the people that this exact progression has happened. Okay. So don’t get wound up if I’m talking about your favorite local or state organization. I’m not attacking. But remember there are no local plans, okay, and Agenda 21, they’re all coming from the top. Okay. Here we go. The President’s Council on Sustainable Development hypothetically recommends the process and regulatory framework for a federally funded initiative like comprehensive plans.
The President’s Council on Sustainable Development says, hey we need to have [73:00] comprehensive plans in the local communities. We’re going to put forth a process and a regulation, some regulations to make that does get down to the local communities. The USDA offers rural community development initiative grants in order to develop those comprehensive plans. So now there is money tied, it’s open, there are some grants available. Okay. So, the Wyoming Rural Development Council says, hey there are some money, USDA have some money out there and there’s a rural community development grant and they organized resources to acquire the Federal and they go out and start talking to the different county commissions, et cetera.
Hey guys, there’s money there. Did you know? Here is what you need to do to get it. Okay. And NGOs, non-governmental organizations like Wyopass work with the WRDC, the Wyoming Rural Development Council to organize the vision in meetings. It’s okay, here is the first step, we’re going to pull together vision in meetings so we can get our comprehensive plan together. Okay. Now once again remember I’m not talking about Wyopass or bad about Wyoming Rural Development Council, these are the types of organizations, the types of things that would happen. Okay [74:00].
Now, in this vision means stakeholders often times pre-select the stakeholders, right? Show up at division meeting are led to then a pre-determined consensus and a comprehensive plan is developed and the grant money is secured. And in that process, what happens, private property rights are destroyed because the visioning is the visioning is the visioning in the Bureau of Private Property. The comprehensive plan is the plan for the Apartment Complex CO in downtown that not doesn’t need code because they changed it. Okay. You see how that works? It’s destructive.
It comes top down and like I said, a lot of these vision, I’m aware of visioning meetings that happen where the contractor who stands to gain by changing the code for their apartment complex downtown that’s going to get demolished now, it doesn’t meet spec, the contractor ends up coming in later and buying that for good price and putting his own apartment building in, he happens to be at the visioning meeting, at the comprehensive planning meeting, really. Yes. What do ever that have and said, is in well they claimed they advertise it, they claimed the people knew about it but no one did.
People who show up are people who have some skin in the game are going to make stand the gain in these processes. Okay. So that’s the game plan [75:00]. That’s an idea. Now, know the terminology, there are bunch of words, smart growth, sustainable development, wild man’s projects, scenic bio waste, comprehensive planning, growth management, visioning, regionalizing, walkable, bikable, consensus, sprawl, communitarianism, open space, Federal grants, rewilding, these are buzz words that are associated with Agenda 21. Does that meaning one who uses these words or things, any of these words are good are Agenda 21 insiders?
No. But these are words you need to be aware of. They show up in your documents. These are the words that show up all kinds of places within the documents of comprehensive plans and new zoning codes, et cetera. When you see these, they should ring a bell and it should alert you to something you might want to look into. That’s something maybe tied with Agenda 21. Okay. Just like Mr. JK Lawrence suggested in one of these earlier slides, you got to change the name. If, you know, walkable, that’s oh good yeah, people, and let’s, we want to do that. We want to have more local communities ad more feel good communities but if it’s tied to Agenda 21 purposes which [76:00] you may find it is then we need to look at more seriously not just accept it for this word that’s acceptable.
We need to look at Agenda 21, what’s behind that. Okay and not because you’re a conspiracy theorist, because you’re a conspiracy factualist. There are people who are supporting the Agenda 21 who want to just write a private property rights. We already established that. And we need to make sure to be aware. You’re going with the eyes wide open not half close and say, oh it’s all right, we don’t need to worry about that. I trust whoever, whomever in government. And, you know, speaking of terminology, let’s look at the words agenda and conspiracy, they’re both for a certain purpose of this. The defined purpose of reason they’re doing something.
The conspiracy is something that’s done in secret and an agenda is something that’s wide open. Okay. So Agenda 21 is wide open. They’re saying their trying to save the planet. But what is it that’s hidden about it, through, they’re trying to say the planet through destruction of private property rights. Okay. It’s about control, it’s not about the environment. So, know the organizations, know their game plan, know the terminology now [77:00], know their tactics. And this gets kind of interesting, know the specifics of what they actually do. This first tactic is called the deified technique. The deified technique essentially is arriving at a predetermined outcome that you believe you came up with on your own.
Okay. I’m going to give a perfect example. As in Casper, we got a survey from Casper City and saying, hey we want to hear your opinion about Casper. And the survey said, on a scale of one to 10, how would rate the walkability in Casper? And I thought whoa, and they might have asked the wrong person. Okay. Here is what I saw, when I first saw walka what, how, what does that mean? What we’re finding now, in Casper in the last couple of years, they’ve, what they’ve been doing is they’ve been doing just that, even taking away store front property and imposing on private property owners in order to put their beautification projects in, they’re walking pass in, et cetera.
But the question was, on a scale of one to 10, how would you rate walkability? And let’s say I and every other citizen in Casper said we rated as a one, then the city manager can go back and say, look, the citizens have spoken, they want more [78:00] walkability, they’re all saying it’s a one. Okay. What if I say 10, it’s great then what can they say? Good, we’ve keep in moving forward, they’re liking it, and they’re liking what we’re doing, we’re moving forward on this walkability. Okay. So it’s a predetermined outcome. It’s deified technique that can control and makes, it looks like you’re participating and you’re contributing the information but it’s already predetermined outcome and they can mold it and massage it in order to answer the way they wanted me to answer, so justify their position.
Secondly, visioning, making decisions collectively about how private property will or not be used in the future. Is there any problem with the visions for my property? I have visions for my property, I have plans. Is there anything wrong with that? No. But what’s wrong is when collectively, our group of people are citizens of our government are making visionary plans for my property. Wait a second, you’re planning for my property? You’re visioning my property? That’s a violation of principles. It’s private property, it’s not your property. It doesn’t go into your plans. Okay.
Thirdly, regionalizing, this is losing local sovereignty to elected officials with special interest groups. Okay [79:00]. So instead of having local, accountable, elected public servants making decisions, in the name of being more efficient or more, you know, global or more community oriented or county oriented, start to have their regionalizing of boards, the regionalizing of decision makers, it’s a centralization. And it gets further and further away from the people themselves and people are the ones who have the power in the first place and the government servants should be accountable to the people. Okay.
So regionalizing is a bad tactic. Grant money, we don’t really need to go into this. I don’t think but in short this for that, right? I give you this money if you do this. It’s dangerous. All there’s come with strings attached, there is no money, it’s a false solution that we must sprint more and go up to 18 joint with that, right? We got to think through what’s going on just because the money is there, we shouldn’t be taking it. What’s the proper role of government? Is government system manage via fund investment manager and take care of the, you know, invest our money in certain ways and get a better profit on it. No, they’re supposed [80:00] to exist to use the money and as little as possible to protect our rights.
That’s it. Not just oh, let’s just do this and do that, no, no, no, hold on I’ll do that, I can plan, I can use, I can invest my money, don’t invest it for me. Don’t say with this will be good for the tax base et cetera, et cetera. Precautionary principle, okay, this is legalies, if there’s a suspected risk to environment in the absence of consensus as it’s likely and or impact, the burden of proof falls on the party implementing action. You must be proven negative. I brought this up in learn me, interestingly there is and they say, hey it’s happening right here about 50 homes outside the town that the precautionary principle have been applied on. Okay.
An environmentalist came in and said hey, you’re polluting the aqua fur below this portion of land. And then he said, no we’re not and he said yeah, with your septic tanks you are. So the people have to get and hired an engineer, geological engineer to prove, look it’s not. But guess what, there wasn’t consensus because that environmentalist had other people who were saying, no it is. So you have this, yes it’s happening, no it’s not happening, the precautionary principle [81:00] says, well the burn of proof is on the people who own the septic tanks to prove and bring to a consensus that it’s not happening.
And in the meantime we’re going to be cautious and we’re going to disallow them to use their septic tanks. So did the government take away from them their land? No. This does, they did, they can still live there, right, or can’t they? They can’t use their septic tanks. Did they take away the land for you, yes you bet they did because they took away the use of the land. And now they value of that land, when you go to sell it, who is going to buy it? People can’t live there anymore. They can’t use it for what they want to use it for. And so the government stripped from them their property in many different forms, right?
The value, the use, okay, the precautionary principle is very dangerous so watch out. It may sound logical, we need to be conscious just in case, yeah, but it’s not about … remember it’s not about the environment, it’s not about the land, it’s about control. What happens to these people who lived out outside in suburban areas, this unsustainable area to live, they’re force eventually to move and move closer into the urban areas to consolidate. Okay. Consensus, who here is a supporter of protecting our clean water [82:00]? Everyone is, right, honestly, yeah we’re all going to raise our hands and yeah I’m in support of clean water.
So, I go … I’m the city administrator, I go back to the City Council the next day and say hey look, I have a list of 55 names that all in support of clean water and the regulations to go with it. Wait a second, that’s not right, that’s not I consensus, you didn’t ask that, right? That’s happened, that may sound like, oh come on that doesn’t happen. I’ve seen it happen three or four times personally in my own life. That’s what happens, consensus, oh they all agree with this. That we’ve all … we’ve surveyed or we’ve taking it, oh yeah, but how was the question asked, what were the implications, it wasn’t quite clearly explained. Of course everyone wants clean water but the government says, and of course the only way to do that is through government intervention.
The private citizens, they’re, there might be better ways. It may not be just taxing and spending and building that maybe we’re going to do this more efficiently. Okay. The private market usually has it, better figure it out than the government. Know their tactics, public private partnerships and in non-governmental organizations, this is a huge deal. Okay. It’s basically using [83:00] taxpayer money to financial joint venture between the government and private industry. Maybe, I’m trying to just make a synopsis of this. Basically, the government exists like I said earlier to protect our rights and do so with as little money as possible and as little resources as possible. Okay.
That’s our goal. It’s not a profit incentive, it is to protect your rights and an efficiency incentive whereas on the other hand, the private market, their goal is to make as much money as possible. It’s a profit incentive. Okay. That’s their whole job. Now government is hired by people to protect the rights. The private industry is hired by people to do whatever they wanted me to do, meet their needs, their wants, they desires. Okay. When you mixed the two in private and public partnerships, there’s a challenge because you mix to force some power of government with the monopoly on the money of taxes with the profit incentive of those who were wanting to help to government and engage in this partnership and [84:00] the formula creates perfect corruption formula. Okay.
Power of government, the profit motive, the private enterprise and you move forward and 0in the name of oh we want to be more efficient include. No. Government has its role and the private has its role. When you mix those together, you get corruption. Lastly, control sprawl. Okay. This is a big buzz word. Keeping the citizens from living outside of urban areas under the guides of protecting the environment, okay, we can’t let them live out there. Why, because there’s control. If you get them in an urban environment, what do urban environments, what do they rely on? They’re relying on everything they have. Their substance comes from government, their power, their communication, their transportation, their heat, their whatever and there’s control.
It’s way easier to control 20,000 people in their apartment complex than it is 20,000 people spread across the land, living on the land, who were independent, they have their own food, and they have their own water supply, they have their own sources of energy. Wait [85:00], government can’t quite handle that. It’s not a good idea according Agenda 21, right? And it’s under the guides protecting the environment. We don’t want those guys out in the country polluting the environment. Remember, God gave the earth to people to use to their benefit. Government is trying to say, no, no, no, we can’t use that earth, we have to restrict it but this is definitely their agenda. Okay.
Jefferson says this, “When get piled upon one another in large cities as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.” That’s true. That’s what happens. Okay. I’m not saying anything against people living in cities. That’s not what I want to say. What I’m saying is, we should be free to choose to live where we want to live. And when the government tries to push us into metropolitan urban areas through their tactics, through their laws, through the rules, through the zoning, it’s something that’s intentional and has legitimate consequences and it’s not something, just oh, oh well, whatever, it is a big deal. Okay.
The last step here is to get to know your public servants and educate them. First and foremost build a relationship of trust. No one cares how much you know until they know how much you care, right? Don’t attack them, don’t go and then say, and you’re for Agenda 21, this is bad [86:00] and you’re doing this. We need to talk to them, try to understand and communicate with them, listen to them. Okay. Build that relationship. If you get that relation and they trust, you ask for permission and maybe speak at the board or at the council meeting. Okay. Hand out DVD’s or pamphlets or books. Try to share information with them, try to educate them and share it.
Don’t shake, don’t force, just share it with them. I think they’ll see, the people who are on this position or power, on this, once they decide to see the principle, they start, so you know, that’s right. There are strings that are attached to it. They were kind of stuck now and looking back I wish we’d never done that. Yeah. Okay, so we work on it and talk to them about the Agenda 21 to help them to see that. Share with them some of the quotes that’s there in the presentation. Share with them some of your ideas … talk about common beliefs, start where you believe. Hey, do you like the government taking from you this, et cetera, et cetera, okay and go from there.
So there are thousand hack, you know, the branch of evil to one, he was striking at the root. It’s really, really important that we get together work on this. Agenda 21 is very organized internationally, nationally, locally, it’s very organized and it’s very [87:00] effective. What we need to do is organize so we can strike at the root. And lastly duties or hours also their guide, it’s quite easy to say, this is overwhelming. It is, yeah, just like any other area though whether it’s property rights or power money or economics or Supreme Court or executive orders, all of those things are overwhelming.
They can seem like, oh man it’s too much. What is too much for us? We’re not going to win this battle. God is going to win it. And what need to do is to do our part. When we do our part, we can rest assured that we’re on the winning side because God is going to win. The only question is am I going to be on His side.

[Audio Ends]