Tag Archive for: United Nations

Why The UN Arms Trade Treaty Violates The Constitution

The UN Arms Trade Treaty should alarm any liberty-loving citizen. Every UN treaty requires the participating country to turn over its sovereignty regarding that particular issue. An agreement with the UN removes the autonomy of the nation and the independence of the people to make their own laws free of UN control and dictate. The UN Arms Trade Treaty is no exception. It is meant to regulate the sale and possession of small arms, both within and without the nation. Patrick Henry gave this clear warning in his day,

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation…inflicted by those who had no power at all.”

We should guard with jealous attention and be very suspicious of this present attempt to remove our public liberty.

The first problem with the treaty is that it uses some incredibly awkward wording, and the meaning of sentences can be very difficult to understand because the structure is so bad. It is as if someone who holds English as a third or fourth language wrote the English version, but I digress. I want to highlight just SOME of the problems with this treaty, and there are many.

The very first provision in the preamble should be enough to make Americans abandon the entire treaty.

The States Parties to this Treaty,

1. Guided by the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

This might not cause alarm to the average person who has never read the UN Charter. But those who have will understand that we are already on shaky ground. It is simply not possible for the UN charter and the US Constitution to co-exist without one being abrogated to the other. Consider just the preamble to the UN Charter:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law,

Therefore, each party to the treaty must write laws regulating the sale and possession of firearms consistent with those standards. So, each law must guarantee that the sale and possession of guns are only allowed where the GOVERNMENT can ensure that such activity will not be a “threat to peace” or cause “breaches of peace” and these laws MUST conform to international law. How does international law define “threat to peace”? What activity will cause “breaches of peace”? Compliance with this treaty now obligates our Congress, when drafting laws, to comply with international law? Seriously? This makes our Congress bound by a global democracy and not a Constitutional Republic based upon the consent of the governed. This move toward global governance is antithetical to the Constitution.

Another principle of the UN Charter requires Congress, when drafting these laws, to focus on international cooperation. What is the purpose to be considered when doing so? According to the Charter, these laws must solve international problems of economic, social, cultural, humanitarian character and promote human rights.

So wrapped up in just the first sentence of the treaty; every law Congress makes to comply with this treaty must regulate the sale and possession of firearms to:

1. Act collectively with and in compliance with international law;

2. Ensure that firearms will not be used as a “threat to peace”;

3. Ensure that firearms will not be used to invoke a “breach of peace”;

4. Solve international problems.

These requirements create a “government knows best” frame of mind regarding who can possess firearms and how they will be used. This is completely antithetical to the foundation of America and the understanding of our right to keep and bear arms. If you doubt this statement, please read my previous writing discussing the true understanding of our second amendment. There is no way that Congress will be able to meet these criteria and maintain the protection of our second amendment rights.

Section 4 of the preamble of the UN Arms Trade Treaty makes the following requirement of those under the treaty:

The States Parties to this Treaty,

Underlining the need to prevent, combat and ERADICATE the illicit trade of conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use, such as terrorism and organized crime.

Congress must write laws to regulate “small arms and light weapons” based upon international standards and must also PREVENT illicit trade and unauthorized use. That word “illicit” is not necessarily synonymous with “illegal.” If they had wanted to say “illegal”, meaning based upon established laws, surely they would have said so. They did not, however, and by stating “illicit” instead of “illegal” they are applying a subjective standard, not codified by law but established by a “common custom, rule, or standard.”

The UN will dictate to Congress and to the citizens of this nation, who will keep arms, what arms they will keep, and for what purpose they will keep them, all based upon subjective standards and international law. Again, there is NO WAY Congress can meet this standard and still uphold their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Ratifying this treaty will be turning over our government to foreign rule and would be an act of treason.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. ~George Washington, Farewell Address 1796.

Proponents may attempt to argue this treaty is only to create laws and regulations governing foreign trade and commerce. That would be a lie and the articles of this treaty directly contradict that assertion. Article 9 requires each government to take appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control the buying and selling of firearms within that nation. We have just stepped out of the realm of the international and are now imposing laws controlling the people within their own country.

How is each government supposed to control this buying and selling?

The Treaty requires the establishment of a “national control system.” Great…another federal bureaucracy!

Each State Party shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective, transparent, and predictable national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms.

What will this new federal agency do to comply with this Treaty?

They will be required by the UN to collect “all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-users in the country or final destination.” They will make sure “all appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request…to verif[y] the end users.” And this bureaucracy will create “adequate measures that will allow them…to monitor and control” these firearms.

How will this bureaucracy “monitor and control the firearms?

The Treaty requires, in Article 11, each government to maintain records regarding the “quantity,model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, and details of end-users.” They must keep these records for a minimum of 10 years. These reports must be submitted to the UN’s Implementation Support Unit to be added to the UN Register of Conventional Arms. In order to purchase and possess a firearm citizens will now be required to give to the United Nations their names, addresses, phone numbers, birth date, and any other information the UN feels is necessary.

In summary, the national control agencies will collect all information necessary to identify and track not only the firearms but those who will be the “end-users,” the possessors of those firearms and that information will be submitted to the UN to be kept on their records for 10 years. Make no mistake, this is not referring to foreign trade, this is a direct control and monitoring of the individuals of that country possessing arms.

But wait; there is an amendment process to this Treaty. Pursuant to Article 20, any government can submit an amendment to the Treaty at any time and ratification only requires an “adoption by consensus” or two-thirds of the governments present and voting at the Conference of State Parties. Any such amendment ratified will enter into full force against all governments in the Treaty. So if the government doesn’t like an amendment, too bad.

What happens if a government no longer wants to be part of this Treaty?

Section 18 allows governments to withdraw from the treaty, but includes the provision that a government is “not discharged from the obligations” of the treaty even if they withdraw. So you can withdraw, but the UN will still require you to fulfill the obligations of the treaty. Are you kidding me?

The purpose of this Treaty is to regulate “small arms and light weapons” out of the hands of the individuals. It will remove the need for the government to confiscate weapons. All future sales will be so heavily regulated that purchasing a new firearm will be next to impossible. If you still wish to wade through the heavy regulations, you will consent to having all of your personal identifying information submitted to the United Nations knowing they will keep that information on file for 10 years. You will also consent to submit to foreign law that will dictate how you possess and use that firearm. They won’t need to show up at your door to take your weapons, most citizens will simply find it too much trouble and not even bother.

Our second amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This Treaty is a violation of this amendment and is unconstitutional. If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it will be null and void and the people will not be bound by it. Don’t believe me? Read what our founders say about unconstitutional treaties.

The real question is, if the Senate ratifies this Treaty, or the President attempts to implement it without the authority of the Senate, what will THE PEOPLE do about it? Will we stand for the Constitution and demand that our states nullify this treaty as our founders require? Or will we blindly submit to the tyranny of foreign law imposed upon us? Sam Adams said,

‘if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom. It is a very serious consideration … that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.”

Will we preserve the blessings of liberty for our posterity or will we involve them in our doom?

Second Amendment and UN Arms Treaty

The Second Amendment was not established on a whim. Our founders incorporated the second amendment based upon generations of experience fighting tyranny. The drafters’ intent is easily discovered by simply going to their writings and their history. What we discover from the founders’ writings is that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or skeet shooting. (The fact that the founders wrote down what they intended the Constitution to mean is somehow lost on masses of uninformed Americans.) Sadly, our understanding of the right to bear arms has already moved so far from where our founders intended. If we cannot convince Americans of its true purpose, we will be looking at a future in which we are completely powerless against the forces of oppression and enslavement. Furthermore, we cannot allow our elected employees to have any perspective other than the one which is indicated by the Constitution and explained by its framers.

The framers’ history is a history of the rise and fall of tyrants. Their history is a history of the pursuit of Liberty and the progressive securing of greater and greater protections for that Liberty. Our founders came to this country with their own Bill of Rights. This document was the very basis for their protest against King George III. Not surprisingly this document looks strikingly like the Declaration of Independence. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 lists among its grievances against James II that he was disarming the people while the government remained armed and that he employed standing armies illegally. So when George III started tyrannizing them with the very oppressions that their fathers had suffered, they understood that he was violating a fundamentally protected right.

Sam Adams explained that every colonist had the inherent right to certain things under the laws of nature.

“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.”

Fundamental to the rights of life, liberty and property are the right to defend them. Yet as we speak our current government is attempting to legislate this right to defend our rights and they are collaborating with the likes of China and Russia. From whom did our founders feel the greatest threat? From what “attacker” is the Second Amendment intended to protect us? They had in mind the very threat we see today with the UN Gun treaty. They were placing in the hands of the people the means to deny a government trading our sovereignty for ‘global negotiations.’ They wanted to ‘arm’ us with the truth of our liberty and the duty we have to defend it, not just for ourselves, but for our posterity!

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Nearly every argument against the right to bear arms centers on a misrepresentation of the first four words; “a well regulated militia.” What did our founders think when they penned those four words?

George Mason, while addressing the Virginia Constitutional Convention in 1778 asked the question: “who are the militia?”

“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia?”

In asking this question, Mason gives a grave warning. He warns it is the enemy within (governor of Pennsylvania in his case) that desires to enslave the people. He also warns that this enemy will not suddenly show up at our door demanding our firearms. The enemy will wait until the people have been worn down, perhaps regulated, to the point that they no longer WANT to be bother owning firearms. I cannot imagine a better example of the government attempting to make us “sink gradually” that the enormous effort required of a LAW ABIDING citizen to purchase a firearm. When it takes hour and forty-five minutes of paperwork and background checks to purchase a one shot .22 caliber rifle, how can this be justified? Our founders demanded in the second amendment that our right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. These regulations are an infringement and they are designed to eliminate gun owners NOT keep the people safe. It is an effort to destroy Liberty!

Mason did not end his argument with a question, but answered it with a simplicity that is astounding. He explains:

“They (the militia) consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…”

Mason knew the militia was every person, “all classes, high and low, and rich and poor.” He feared without the incorporation of the second amendment the people would forget that fact and allow the government to disarm them. Noah Webster shared Mason’s concerns. Webster not only explains to us WHO a militia is, but who it is NOT and the PURPOSE for having this militia.

 “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence (sic), raised in the United States…”


Noah Webster explains that unless we want to be like every other kingdom in Europe, with a disarmed people and a standing army at their door, the WHOLE BODY of the people must remained armed! The purpose of an armed people, Webster explains, is to keep the federal government from enforcing unjust laws. Can you imagine someone printing that statement in an op-ed today? Oops, I guess I just did. Webster continues by explaining that the “well regulated militia” is the whole body of the people and NOT “a military force, at the command of Congress.”

“A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”

There you have it, a clear line of demarcation.

Richard Henry Lee (the man who proposed the initial amendment to declare independence from Great Britain, and could be rightly regarded as the Father of America) also wrote a letter to the Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, to elaborate on what our founders knew to be true about the need to bear arms.

 “[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them;”

Wow, imagine that, the purpose of the WHOLE BODY OF THE PEOPLE being armed is to preserve liberty, not for the purposes of hunting and skeet shooting. In fact, Lee said it is ESSENTIAL that the WHOLE BODY of the people ALWAYS possess arms. That little word “always” really throws a wrench in the works in believing the government has the right to impose conceal and carry permits on the people. That is NOT something our founders would have accepted.

Lee continues with his explanation to help us understand who the well regulated militia is NOT:

 “nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”

We must now be the “true republicans” dedicated to carefully guarding against the government forcing us to believe they are the only ones to own guns. We must do as Lee said and help everyone to always possess arms and we must train our children to do so as well. This will not increase gun related deaths it will decrease them. The facts support this assertion and the emotion of the gun haters cannot handle that.

Finally, let us look to Patrick Henry. Henry was arguing against Edmond Pendleton who opposed the Bill of Rights and the incorporation of the second amendment. Pendleton declared there was no need to codify such a right, because if the Senators started to impose unjust laws, the people could simply recall them. This was a reasonable assertion at the time, because prior to the ratification of the seventeenth amendment in 1913 the people had that power. However, Henry was not satisfied with this argument and felt it an inadequate protection of the liberties inherent to men.

 “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”

Patrick Henry was very passionate about this right and the record reflects that Henry then “sneered at Pendleton” and said,

 “O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation…inflicted by those who had no power at all.”

So you see, it’s undeniable what our founders intended. “A well regulated militia being necessary to secure a free state” is the whole body of the people always possessing arms to secure liberty, to prevent a standing army in times of peace, and to prevent the federal government from enforcing unjust laws—free from government regulations that would cause them to be disarmed over time.

That is why I say, we do not have a RIGHT to bear arms, we have a DUTY to bear arms. We have a duty to prevent the gradual sinking of the people by an effort to disarm them. We have a duty to ensure that the federal government does not try to rule us with a standing army. We have a duty to prevent the federal government from imposing unjust laws by the sword. It is this duty we owe to ourselves and our posterity, to secure the blessings of liberty. According to George Mason, Noah Webster, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, the remaining founders and an entire nation of people 225 years ago, keeping that promise, fulfilling that duty, requires that we bear arms.

Do not fail our children. Do not fail liberty. Educate everyone that you know that any law that infringes upon our right to bear arms is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Inform Congress that the UN Gun Treaty is unconstitutional and WE WILL NOT COMPLY. Let Congress know if they sign the UN Gun Treaty, if they fail the second amendment, they will fail their oath of office, and they are enemies of liberty and we WILL “carefully guard against” them. We the people are going to keep our commitment to our children; WE are going to put Liberty First, either with them or without them! We will not be disarmed and we will NOT allow a tyranny to be passed down to our children. We will NOT stand idly by while those we elect destroy our Liberty and sell our children into slavery!

Show Christmas

UN Treaty, Sea Treaty, Gun Treaty…What Are We to Do?

Power to create treaties is established in Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution. The power to create a treaty is delegated by the people to the President with approval of a two thirds vote of the Senate. The Supremacy Clause then states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

There is so much misunderstanding regarding treaties, the doctrines of the necessary and proper clause, and the general welfare clause, that when you aggregate this misunderstanding our government is able to reach magnificent proportions of corruption and unconstitutional activity. Our founders were very clear and its time we listen to them instead of Congressmen and Judges who have had no training on the true meaning of the Constitution.

The power to create treaties was vested in the President AND the Senate after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation created a federal government so small that it could not successfully complete the tasks it was delegated to accomplish. James Madison explains in Federalist #45 that the power delegated to the federal government was one of very limited proportions:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined… (and) will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.”

Our federal government was designed to be our national representative to the foreign world; a representative of the country in foreign relations. Because we lived in a world where nations where led by Kings, Czars, and Emperors, we needed to have a way that all the states could have a unified voice for negotiations and commerce. During the Articles of Confederation, our federal government could not collect taxes or even compel the delegates to show up to work and do their job. The federal government was attempting to make agreements with foreign nations and was defaulting on these agreements because they had no authority to enforce them equally throughout the states and the states themselves were suffering the greatest consequences. As reported in The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents, written December 12, 1787, this very point was addressed.

“It was found that our national character was sinking in the opinion of foreign nations. The Congress could make treaties of commerce, but could not enforce the observance of them. We were suffering from the restrictions of foreign nations, who had shackled our commerce, while we were unable to retaliate: and all now agreed that it would be advantageous to the union to enlarge the powers of Congress; that they should be enabled in the amplest manner to regulate commerce, and to lay and collect duties on the imports throughout the United States.”

So, why were treaties given “supremacy”? The collective decision was made to not only delegate the power of treaties to the President and Senate but to also classify its relevance in enforcement to the states. There was great debate over this issue, as many were concerned that by designating this power, it would elevate the treaties above the very Constitution itself. Fortunate for us, this argument was made, because the rebuttal to this argument is vital in understanding the limitations and scope of treaties. Without these explanations, treaties created by the federal government might justifiably supersede the Constitution. Good thing for us that these treaties, although they may attempt to supplant the Constitution, they are plainly not justified in doing so.

Our founders repeatedly stated that treaties were, for every purpose and application, CONTRACTS, agreements with foreign nations to accomplish the duties obligated in those four delegated powers Madison identified.

“The power of making treaties is, plainly, neither the one nor the other. It relates neither to the execution of the subsisting laws, nor to the enaction of new ones; and still less to an exertion of the common strength. Its objects are CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law, but derive it from the obligations of good faith. They are not rules prescribed by the sovereign to the subject, but agreements between sovereign and sovereign.” Federalist #75

Although these Contracts were not considered to be a subdivision of laws or even new laws altogether, it was necessary that they were binding upon the states to prevent the failures seen by our founders in the Articles of Confederation.

“These gentlemen would do well to reflect that a treaty is only another name for a bargain, and that it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us, which should be binding on them ABSOLUTELY, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it.” Federalist #64

These treaties were not designed to be untouchable. They were subject to the very same checks and balances of every act of the federal government. They could fail if they didn’t meet the proper standards. One way they could fail is if they attempted to infringe upon or utilize a power that had not been granted to them through the Constitution. They were to be bound and fettered by all the limitations of power inherent in the Constitution through the specific delegated powers and the necessary and proper and general welfare clauses. To us, that statement must sound like an oxymoron; to think that the necessary and proper and general welfare clauses were meant to bind Congress. Because we have become so detached from the founders intent, we have allowed these clauses to become an expansion of power, a consequence that our founders thought an abomination. [The explanation of these clauses are a whole other analysis, but for a complete explanation of the intent of the General Welfare Clause, please read my previously written analysis. I promise you will be shocked at the clarity of our founders’ intent.] So, if a treaty attempted to assume a power that was not previously delegated, for instance to bind upon the states agreement for an object outside of the realm of war, peace, or foreign commerce, it would be deemed unconstitutional.

“–I insisted that in givg to the Prest. & Senate a power to make treaties, the constn meant only to authorize them to carry into effect by way of treaty any powers they might constitutionally exercise.” (sic) –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.

“By the general power to make treaties, the constitution must have intended to comprehend only those subjects which are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot be otherwise regulated… It must have meant to except out of these the rights reserved to the states; for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.” –Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800.

Another limitation imposed by our founders on treaties is that they MUST NOT be in conflict with the Constitution. If a treaty is in direct conflict with, let’s say the Second Amendment, that treaty would be considered unconstitutional. Treaties were established as a supreme law to maintain the credibility and honor of an agreement with a foreign nation, but it was NEVER supposed to be superior to the Constitution. There is no law superior to the Constitution.

“No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. “ Federalist #78

But what are we to do when these treaties fail the tests of Constitutional limitations? I have heard it mentioned that we are stuck with these treaties short of another treaty supplanting them or a Constitutional Amendment. This perspective is not consistent with our founders’ explanations. As a matter of fact, our founders wanted us to know that if a treaty was in opposition to the Constitution, there were significant consequences.

“if they [the President & Senate] act corruptly, they can be punished; and if they make disadvantageous treaties, how are we to get rid of those treaties?…As to corruption, the case is not supposable. He must either have been very unfortunate in his intercourse with the world, or possess a heart very susceptible of such impressions, who can think it probable that the President and two thirds of the Senate will ever be capable of such unworthy conduct. The idea is too gross and too invidious to be entertained. But in such a case, if it should ever happen, the treaty so obtained from us would, like all other fraudulent contracts, be null and void by the law of nations.” Federalist #64

There is no qualification in that statement that this treaty be replaced or a Constitutional Amendment be written. The simple fact of the matter is this treaty would be a “fraudulent contract” and would be of no effect. At this point, the states would be justified Constitutionally to tell the federal government that they will not honor or enforce the treaty. We do not live in a Kingdom and the power of our government is not derived from a King. We do live in a republic and the power of our government is derived from the people. It is always the responsibility of the PEOPLE to be the ultimate check and balance. I think that Alexander Hamilton made this point abundantly clear in Federalist #33:

“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. The propriety of a law, in a constitutional light, must always be determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded. .. would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution.” Federalist #33

Every day our federal government seems to operate more and more under the assumption that their power is derived in the manner of a Kingdom, it is essential that the people, from which its true power is derived, stand against this tyranny and restore the balance of power. We cannot do this unless we first understand the exceptional principles under which this nation was established. We cannot do this unless we REQUIRE our representatives to operate under these principles.

U.N. Aquires More of the Everglades

On August 22, 2011 I wrote about the current collaboration of our state governments with the USDA, DOI, and UN to take private land ownership from the citizens of these states and turn it over to UN management. I specifically referenced a current effort in Florida where farmers and ranchers are “asked” to participate in a USDA program to increase the conservation easements that surround the Florida Everglades. Let me be abundantly clear, I am not opposed to the preservation of our natural resources. I am not opposed to the protection of Florida’s Everglades. What I am opposed to is handing over this land management to the UN. Let Florida protect the Everglades. Let Florida protect its natural resources. Then if there are trespasses on Liberty, Floridians then have recourse with their own representatives. Today, we have such little voice in DC, how less a voice will we have with the UN? Why is Adam Putnam, in his own email response, so eager to turn over the management of Florida to the UN through the USDA?

Informed Floridians, in an effort to protect private land ownership and prevent UN management of Florida property, contacted Adam Putnam’s office. (Bravo to these Floridians on becoming the engaged citizens our founders demanded.) Adam Putnam’s office has issued a statement to justify their non-involvement in this land grab. Since I am convinced that Mr. Putnam didn’t write this statement himself, I want to go through this statement so everyone can learn from this.

We should be so thankful to our anti-federalist founders for their insistence on greater state sovereignty. It is this very sovereignty, unique to the United States, which prevents a global takeover of the US by the UN, as it has done in every nation in Europe. These incremental land grabs are a global effort to remove state sovereignty, and join us with the rest of the world to be owned, managed, and operated by the UN. Unfortunately, Florida’s Commissioner of Agriculture, Adam Putnam, is completely ignorant of the intentions of our founders, the value of state sovereignty, and his role in protecting this vital principle.

Looking at the list of UN managed properties in the United States, I fear this is not an isolated occurrence, but an epidemic of ignorance of the people tasked with the very obligation to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and their respective States.

I say ignorance, because I still maintain a bit of hope that these efforts are not willfully collaborative. I do not want to believe that the very people that we trust to protect our property interests are knowingly giving it to the UN. You can call me naive if you like, I just understand how long we have failed to teach the truth and how miseducated our society truly is. As the engaged citizen government we are tasked to be educated on history and the truth. We must educate ourselves and educate our elected persons to maintain Liberty. James Madison warned us, “Only a well-instructed people can be a permanently free people.” My friends, we are far from free because we are far from being well-instructed.

Let’s get instructed. Mr. Putnam states in his response to the peoples’ attempt to instruct him that:

“This effort is part of the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), a federal program administered by USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) that requires no state approval or acceptance. (emphasis added)”

This admission of the complete surrender of state sovereignty puzzles me. Mr. Putnam appears to believe this is a justification for his office to be uninvolved in these matters. How can any action between the federal government and farmers or ranchers of the state of Florida be conducted outside the oversight of the state? Where is the shield that our founder’s established to protect the people from federal abuse? James Madison, in a speech to Congress on June 8, 1789, pointed out that “the greatest opponents to Federal Government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s Liberty.” If our “sure guardian” can just “check out” of the process, who will stand between the people’s Liberty and the Federal Government?

Mr. Putnam then continues and states:

“The NRCS negotiates directly with willing landowners that express an interest in participating in the program.”

This statement ignores the fact these lands will become conservation easements regardless of the “willingness of the participant”. The willingness revolves around the landowner’s desire to keep and maintain the easement or sell the easement to the Federal Government. It also ignores the fact that these easements will not be maintained by the State of Florida or the Federal Government, but by UNESCO based upon the UN committee’s assessment of the proper management of those lands.

Continuing with his justification of UN management of our land, Mr. Putnam all but admits that he and those tasked with the protection of Florida land are incapable of doing so. Therefore, in the words of Mr. Putnam, we must hand over these easements to the UN for management.

“Conservation easements yield significant economic benefits. Unlike past programs that took land off the tax rolls, out of production and were poorly managed by government, conservation easements help keep agriculture on the landscape and contributing to the economy by providing an incentive for families to keep land in production.”

It escapes me this idea that these farmers and ranchers will maintain some semblance of autonomy in the management of their lands. It is absolutely clear on the UNESCO World Heritiage Center website that when Florida allowed the Federal Government to declare the everglades a World Heritage site we established that Florida, and the land owners, must submit to the monitoring of these sites by the UNESCO. It also established that UNESCO then has the power and authority to seize control these sites if the World Heritage Committee determines intervention is necessary to properly maintain the sites. That mutable definition of “properly maintain” is now left solely to those who have proven to have no respect for state sovereignty, no respect for private land ownership, and an overwhelming goal to eliminate productivity in the name of global preservation. Why else would we need an organization whose entire objective is to protect geographical areas that have a global environmental or cultural significance? Let there be one endangered lizard or owl, one perceived danger in the use of fertilizers, one farmer growing a crop that is not environmentally symbiotic, or one rancher with too many cows per acre and we will see how much autonomy these ranchers and farmers really have. Mr. Putnam admits this very argument in his explanation of benefits for this program.

“These benefits include the protection of our valuable ground and surface water resources, critical habitat for endangered and threatened species and wildlife corridors that connect migration and foraging pathways; all while supporting jobs, communities and feeding our nation without depending on other nations.”

Never, in the history of UNESCO environmental management have these two clauses been compatible not only with each other, much less with the autonomy of private land owners. History and experience have PROVEN these ideas to be incompatible in the eyes of the UN and the environmentalist that serve on the World Heritage Committee. Alexander Hamilton is quoted to have said, “Experience is the oracle of truth, where its responses are unequivocal, they ought to be held to be sacred.” How is it that our founders knew and understood these principles and yet we are doomed to not only repeat their history but even our own?

I am not trying to single out Mr. Putnam. I believe that he could very well want what is best for Florida’s farmers and ranchers. But because he has allowed Florida to relinquish its obligated oversight, he has removed the ability to properly intervene on behalf of Floridians, without a significant legal battle and significant cost to the people of Florida. I believe he is misinformed, miseducated, and falsely persuaded. It is the absolute duty of those who have the truth to educate our members of the Legislature. Samuel Adams so aptly stated, “If we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our Liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.”

My sincere desire is that Mr. Putnam and others tasked with the protection of Liberty will learn from the warnings of our founders and heed to experience as the “oracle of truth”. Please, dear Legislatures, listen to the warning of John Adams, given in his inaugural address, and hear the voice of your people.

If our Government is negligent of its limitations, inattentive to its people’s recommendation, disobedient to its authority…if corruption is to overcome our Government and can be influenced by foreign nations..the Government may not be the choice of the American People, but of foreign nations. It may be foreign nations that govern us, and not we, the people, who govern ourselves.

Since I received a few unjustified or misplaced “criticisms” for my original post and this position, I will leave the critics with a quote from James Otis, Jr. Mr. Otis made this statement during his passionate argument before the State House against Writs of Assistance.

 “But I think I can sincerely declare that I cheerfully submit myself to every odious name for conscience’ sake; and from my soul I despise all those whose guilt, malice, or folly has made them my foes. Let the consequences be what they will, I am determined to proceed. The only principles of public conduct that are worthy of a gentlemen or a man are to sacrifice estate, ease, health, and applause, and even life, to the sacred calls of his country.”

Florida's Sovereignty Eroded

The United States has a sovereignty problem.  Shocking enough, this is a problem that is being perpetrated by the very people who are tasked to protect our sovereignty.  Floridians have recently become aware of further efforts to take land from US citizens and turn it over to the United Nations.  All US citizens must learn from this because, if it hasn’t already, it is coming to a city near you.

Senator Bill Nelson has joined with the US Department of Agriculture and the US Department of Interior to take farm land and ranch land from Florida farmers and ranchers and sell it to the Federal Government so that they can hand it over to the United Nations for management and control.  Florida should have a saving grace.  Florida has a Commissioner of Agriculture, Adam Putnam, who is tasked by Floridians and the 9th and 10th Amendments to protect the very land and industry under attack by this “deal of the century”.  The real problem is that Adam Putnam is “on board” too.  Mr. Putnam issued his own statement, heralding this deal as “a model for smart environmental protection.”  Before you accuse me of donning my tinfoil hat, let’s look at the facts.

On August 11, 2011 Senator Bill Nelson sent out an email to his constituents in which he attached a letter that he apparently sent to Secretary of the US Department of Agriculture and Ken Salazar, Secretary of the US Department of Interior.   In this email, Nelson states

 As we discussed some months ago, conserving land to the north of the Everglades is vitally important to the restoration effort that is finally underway at this World Heritage site. Today’s announcement is another signal that the administration is fully behind restoration of the River of Grass. (emphasis added)

In this first paragraph of Nelson’s email, those three highlighted words seemed very peculiar to me.  Mr. Nelson is referring to the Florida Everglades as a “World Heritage site”. Being somewhat new to this idea, I had never heard those terms before and began to do some research.  What I found, I believe, will be very new to many in Florida and the rest of the country as well.

A World Heritage site is a geographical area that is of global environmental or cultural significance.   Declaring an area a World Heritage site establishes that governments must submit to the monitoring of these sites by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).  UNESCO then has the power and authority to seize control these sites if the World Heritage Committee determines intervention is necessary to properly maintain the sites or some “crisis” has occurred that requires intervention.  Apparently, Florida’s everglades are listed as a World Heritage site.  The Everglades are number 76 on a list of sites worldwide.

Something that I found very interesting was the history of the Everglades as a World Heritage site.  The World Heritage Center gives this history:

 “Declared a national park on 6 December 1947 under the May 1934 Act of Congress. The park was accepted as a biosphere reserve in 1976, inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1979, and was designated a Ramsar site (Wetland of International Significance) in 1987. The total area of the national park was increased in 1989 from its original size of 566,788ha to its current size.”

Now that we have the understanding that the Everglades are already monitored, protected, and arguably maintained by the UN, what does this federal grant mean to Floridians?  Bill Nelson’s email explains:

 “Specifically, I am referring to the announcement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that 24,000 acres of working ranchlands within the Northern Everglades will be protected in conservation easements.”

If you recall, the Everglades’ boundaries are already established on the World Heritage Center’s description.  It was noted in this historical description that its boundaries were expanded in 1989.  Now, according to Nelson, these boundaries will be expanded once again by 24,000 acres and turned into “conservation easements” that will be permanently maintained by the UN.

When I called Adam Putnam’s office about this, his aid offered the explanation that the farmers and ranchers do not have to sell their land in this grant; they could keep their land.  However, at fear of pointing out the obvious, if they do not sell, the land will still become a “conservation easement” maintained by the UN.  The farmers will be required to pay property taxes and carry insurance on land that they do not really own and can never use to create revenue.  Even more disturbing is the fact that if the World Heritage Committee does not like the way the farmer or rancher is maintaining his land, Putnam has given the UN his blessing to come dictate land management to a US citizen, and citizen of the state of Florida.

Putnam’s aid told me that this is a federal program and that Putnam has no control over it, claiming not to know very much about the grant (in spite of the fact that I spoke to the aid on August 12 and Putnam had issued his press release on August 11).  He suggested that if I wanted to know more or have concerns that I should contact the USDA.  I thought it was Putnam’s job to protect Florida from Federal (and international) encroachment.  That’s what James Madison intended to be his job under the 9th and 10th Amendments.

My problem with Putnam’s aid’s explanation is that it is no explanation at all.  Are we to understand that Mr. Putnam is handing over the very land Floridians have tasked him to protect with very little knowledge or concern?  I do appreciate the environmental concerns over water management.  I do not understand why Mr. Putnam feels that Floridians cannot conserve their own land and water and that the United Nations would do a better job.

This is not a Florida problem; this is a United States sovereignty problem. Currently the UN controls 21 geographical areas in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Philadelphia, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.   Our founders warned us of the destruction brought by foreign governments.  John Adams, in his inaugural address of 1797 warned that if we were not careful, if our Government could be “influenced by foreign nations, by flattery or menaces, by fraud or violence, by terror or intrigue, the Government may not be the choice of the American People, but of foreign nations. It may be foreign nations that govern us and not we, the people, who govern ourselves.”

We had better wake up America.  Our sovereignty is being eroded.  We are quickly becoming a government ruled by foreign nations.  This is but one example.

Floridians concerned over Mr. Putnam’s either ignorance over the facts or lack of concern for Florida’s sovereignty should call him immediately at (850) 488-3022.