NDAA and Agenda 21 Progress in the NC General Assembly

GunnyFreedom

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
32,882
Stuart Rhodes is coming to Raleigh! Wednesday the 30th of May, 2012.

We are holding an educational meeting at 4PM on May 30th in the NCGA for the State Legislators to learn about Agenda 21 and the NDAA. Stuart Rhodes, founder of Oathkeepers will be there to present about 10-15 minutes on the NDAA.
 
Last edited:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...na-legislature-considers-anti-ndaa-resolution

Saturday, 19 May 2012 10:00[h=2]North Carolina Legislature Considers Anti-NDAA Resolution[/h]Written by Joe Wolverton, II




Considering it a crime to not report treason when one witnesses it, earlier this week, a bill was introduced to the North Carolina General Assembly that would declare the National Defense Authorization Act unconstitutional and treasonous.

The resolution’s primary sponsors are State Representatives Glen Bradley and Larry Pittmanand their bill was referred on Thursday to the Rules Committee of the North Carolina House of Representatives.

In the text of the measure the NDAA is accurately described as “repugnant to, and destructive of, the Bill of Rights of the United States and the constitutions of the United States and the State of North.” In response to this constitutional insult, the North Carolina bill expresses:

OPPOSITION TO THE PROVISIONS IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 THAT AUTHORIZE, IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE CONSTITUTION OF NORTH CAROLINA, MILITARY DETENTION AND TRIAL OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

Expressly cited in the resolution are Articles I, Section 9 (habeas corpus guarantee); Article III, Section 2 (right to a trial by jury); and Article III, Section 3 (the definition of treason). Each of these critical clauses of the Constitution are said to be violated by the NDAA, according to the bill’s authors.

Specifically targeted in H.R. 982 is Section 1021 of the NDAA. Section 1021 places the American military at the disposal of the President for the apprehension, arrest, and detention of those suspected of posing a danger to the homeland (whether inside or outside the borders of the United States and whether the suspect be a citizen or foreigner).

Read More
 
The Resolution to introduce a bill refusing compliance with United Nations Agenda 21 has been filed and is now available for co-sponsorship online. Here is the bill we are seeking co-sponsorship on:

House Joint Resolution 983 (H983)

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=h983

And here is a copy of the bill that it authorizes the introduction of:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByAbMc4d18WVR0VIUjN0ZUVBdnM

We need 2/3 support in both chambers on the Resolution in order to introduce the bill itself, and then we will only need a simple majority to pass the noncompliance bill in question.

Thank you in advance for your valuable support!

Glen Bradley
 
Also available online for co-sponsorship is a resolution to oppose the suspension of Habeas Corpus that is found in sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. This has already been overwhelmingly nullified by Virginia in a bipartisan vote by the invocation of the 10th Amendment. Our Resolution is not nullification, but a simple statement of opposition. House Resolution 982 (H982):

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=h982&submitButton=Go

Please consider co-sponsoring this bill as well as HJR 983.

The North Carolina Patriot Coalition, Oathkeepers, and myself will be holding a press conference in the press conference room at 10AM on Thursday, May 17th to discuss both of these bills.

Thank you!

Glen Bradley
 
Stuart Rhodes, founder of Oathkeepers, will be at the North Carolina General Assembly on Wednesday May 30th, at 4PM in room 544 of the Legislative Office Building to participate in an educational meeting to teach the State Representatives and State Senators about Agenda 21 and the NDAA Indefinite Detention provisions, along with Jeff Lewis co-founder of Patriot Coalition and the IntolerableActs.org Action Center.
 
Everyone is welcome. Let's show our elected officials that we support the bill and the resolution.
 
So Glenn, I 100% support the NDAA thing, but I need to know a few things about the Agenda 21 bill.

Say Thomasville wants to install bike lanes and build some community gardens. Both of those things are endorsed in Agenda 21. Will your bill disallow Thomasville from doing those things, or is this bill simply preventing towns from signing on to said international agreements?
 
So Glenn, I 100% support the NDAA thing, but I need to know a few things about the Agenda 21 bill.

Say Thomasville wants to install bike lanes and build some community gardens. Both of those things are endorsed in Agenda 21. Will your bill disallow Thomasville from doing those things, or is this bill simply preventing towns from signing on to said international agreements?

Not at all, the political subdivisions would be specifically prohibited from "implementing programs of, expending any sum of money for, being a member of, receiving funding from, contracting services from, or giving financial or other forms of aid to the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), or any of its related or affiliated organizations to include, but not limited to, Countdown 2010, Local Action for Biodiversity (LAB), European Center for Nature Conservation (ECNC), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (ICUN), and the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), promulgated on July 19, 1993, Executive Order #12852."

So the prohibition is not against 'bike paths' but from cooperating with ICLEI and affiliated orgs.

As long as Agenda 21 has not been approved by the US Senate, it cannot be enacted in the United States.
 
The major point here is that if ICLEI has a good idea, then it needs to be adopted voluntarily, like contour farming was adopted voluntarily, because it was genuinely a good idea that made sound fiscal sense. If, however, we adopt UN mandates because "our betters" know better than 'the plebes' by using the monopoly of government force, then it's clearly wrong.
 
Back
Top