WHAT CONSTITUTION?!?!?!?
QUESTIONS NOT ASKED THAT HAVE RUINED A NATION
By Greg Evensen
April 6, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
We are witnessing the end of a nation, it’s magnificent history forgotten, it’s potential for world leadership absolutely ruined by lying presidents, a prostituted military general staff overseeing the killing of its fighting core, bought and paid for legislators in the service of the banks, and a court system caught somewhere between military rule and the elusive but deadly concoction of “maritime” law and suspended constitutional government. The still in effect state of emergency used since March 9, 1933, including the bankruptcy of the US, and its “dissolution” of the government is the result. That is why judges rule without regard to the constitutionality of the issue before the court. That is why judges have assumed the power they have without the authority or constitutional right to do so. That is why judges everywhere ignore legal rights, deprive the accused of informed jury rulings, and dismiss tax cases at will.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IS SUSPENDED AND NOT AVAILABLE TO DEFEND CITIZENS WITHIN THE COURT SYSTEM.
Congress can do what it likes and ignore you. The Council on Foreign Relations dictates to congress and the President what it wants achieved toward the ultimate goal of US assimilation into the world’s government and a complete loss of our independence or sovereignty.
That is why the Executive branch and the President are racing to close the deal with Canada and Mexico to create a giant borderless region where the banks win again. That is why mutual security or defense pacts are being brokered or already set in place to assure that unrest over this or any other slave creating legislation is protected, placing our economy AND YOUR JOBS on the fast track for annihilation.
It explains the lack of any significant roundup of illegals or protection from international criminal drug running. It makes clear why a useless, meaningless war is fought endlessly in Iraq and why no one has had an original thought concerning oil independence in 60 years.
These are issues and questions that have not been asked before a responsible, serious governmental agency for a generation or more. These same questions have been ignored by candidates running for public office, and have not been considered important by the very people who are going to be at the mercy of those officials, some of whom have held congressional public office since the early 1960’s.
We are sowing what we have reaped.
Read Entire Commentary
ONE NATION UNDER SIEGE
At state level, more attempts to limit guns
By Jennifer Steinhauer
State lawmakers across the country are ramping up efforts to pass new restrictions on guns, following nearly a decade in which state legislative efforts have been dominated by gun advocates.
Much of the proposed legislation — some 38 states are considering gun-related bills — focuses on cutting off gun access to convicted criminals and the mentally ill and on improving methods to trace guns used in crimes.
Underlying many of the proposals is an effort to redefine the gun debate as a law enforcement issue, rather than one that focuses on broad-based gun ownership, to sidestep prickly Second Amendment concerns.
"The key thing is that we want to protect Second Amendment rights," said Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, a Republican who has supported several bills that focus on guns used in crimes but not bills that would curtail ownership rights. "Democrats and Republicans can work together on this."
READ ENTIRE ARTICLE
Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007
A Bill to Provide for the Effective Prosecution of Terrorists and to Guarantee Due Process Rights. Support the latest efforts at restore-habeas.org
It restores the writ of habeas corpus for individuals held in US custody. It narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in a zone of active combat against the United States, and individuals who participated in attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.
It requires that the United States live up to its Geneva Convention obligations by deleting a prohibition in law that bars detainees from invoking Geneva Conventions as a source of rights at trial. It permits accused to retain qualified civilian attorneys to represent them at trial, or to choose self representation.
It prevents the use of evidence in court gained through the unreliable and immoral practices of torture and coercion. It charges the military judge with the responsibility for ensuring that the jury is appraised of sources, methods and activities associated with acquiring out of court statements that if known to the jury would impact on the credibility of the statement, or alternatively that such statements are not introduced at trial.
It empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable. It authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the military commissions.
It limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight. It clarifies the definition of war crimes in statute to include certain violations of the Geneva Conventions.
Finally, it provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionality of its provisions.
Freedom Under Siege
The U.S. Constitution After 200 Years
by Ron Paul
The Constitution and Money
The Constitution allows for a silver or gold standard, prohibits paper money, and does not authorize a central bank. Congress is explicitly given power to coin money in Article 1, Section A, but no similar power was given to print fiat money.
The low respect for constitutionally guaranteed individual rights is precisely the same reason we as a nation have totally ignored the admonitions and directives of the Founding Fathers regarding money.
The debates at the Constitutional Convention clearly indicate a rejection of the proposal to "emit bills of credit" (irredeemable paper money). Even without the Convention's specific vote rejecting paper money, a specific authorization is required if paper money is to be issued, since the Tenth Amendment prevents Congress from assuming power to create money and credit out of thin air as it does today. In Article 1, Section 10, the Constitution explicitly prohibits states from emitting bills of credit and directs all states to use only gold and silver coins as legal tender in the payment of debts.
The low respect for constitutionally guaranteed individual rights is precisely the same reason we as a nation have totally ignored the admonitions and directives of the Founding Fathers regarding money.
The Founding Fathers were well-informed and were recovering from a currency crisis with the continental dollar when they met in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution. "Not worth a continental" was an ongoing reality for all of the attendees.
Interstate trade barriers and runaway inflation with the continental dollar were the two main reasons the convention was convened. Some today would distort the intention of the framers of the Constitution with regard to money, but that is only to serve the interests of those who benefit from inflation.
It is interesting and important that, within the same sentence that Congress is given the power to coin money, it is also given the power to fix the standard of weights and measures. Clearly it was intended that the monetary unit be fixed in a precise weight of gold or silver. The phrase to "regulate the value thereof" has been grossly misinterpreted in the twentieth century.
Our leaders and courts have chosen to misinterpret this phrase to regulate the value of paper money by perpetual inflation -- a mockery of the Founder's intentions. The phrase permits Congress to designate the national coinage, prescribe the weight and fineness, and guarantee its authenticity. Instead of guaranteeing an honest unit of account (an absolute necessity for a healthy economy) Congress, with help from the Federal Reserve, has guaranteed its destruction through official counterfeiting. George Read, representing Delaware at the Constitutional Convention, wanted the power to "emit bills of credit" to be stricken from the document. He thought the words, if not removed, would be as alarming as "the mark of the beast" in Revelations.
John Langdon of New Hampshire felt equally as strong about the issue, saying he would rather reject the whole plan than retain the power to create paper money.
The strong motivation of the framers of the Constitution, in limiting money to gold and silver coinage, was to restore confidence in American money after the tragic events associated with the continental dollar.
In 1792, the Coinage Act defined the dollar as 371-1/4 grains of fine silver. Mistakenly, the Act also fixed the price of gold to silver at 15-to-1. This concept, called bimetallism, plus fractional reserve banking, played havoc with the monetary system throughout the nineteenth century.
In 1834 the ratio of gold to silver was changed to 16-to-1. But this kind of price-fixing between two commodities cannot work. Depending on the market, either gold or silver will be overvalued and tend to disappear from circulation. And that is exactly what happened periodically.
Today the free market places the ratio much higher. A sound system needs only to define the unit of account in one of the precious metals, preferably gold, and the market can adjust the ratio of one to the other on a daily basis.
Constitutional Issues of Taxation
Most Americans understand that all government functions must be authorized by their state constitution or the Constitution of the United States. While this understanding may not be as firm as it was in our grandparents’ day, it is still fairly well acknowledged. However, some feel that when it comes to matters of taxation, the government throws the Constitution out the window and all must follow the dictates of the government or pay the piper. While this is not legally true, there is ample reason for people to feel this way. The purpose of this article is to clarify what the Constitutional boundaries of taxation are and what we can do to stay clear of the boundary markers.
First and foremost we want to assure you that even government’s taxing authority must be exercised in compliance with your state constitution, or if
a federal tax, with the US Constitution.
Some of you who have investigated the Constitutional limits of taxation know that the subject can be difficult and frustrating. The Constitutional issues of taxation must be understood not only through a proper view of law, but also through a proper view of history. Taxation is as much a part of our nation’s history as is King George III or George Washington.
We will attempt to break down the Constitutional realities of federal taxation for you without inundating you with court cases and other citations. We will try to present a plain-English explanation that weaves together all the essential legal realities that are elsewhere [in other web sites and books] explored in such excruciating minutia (sometime correctly, sometimes not).
We hope to give you a strong and logical framework into which you can place all that you have read or seen, as well as all that you may find in the future.
CONSTITUTIONAL INCOME:
HOW THE IRS LIES TO EMPLOYERS
ABOUT WITHHOLDING
"Truth is the first object." -- Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Maese, 1809.
In my recent article on How The IRS Violates It's Own Code, the facts were carefully presented which definitively proved how the IRS deliberately lies and misleads Americans by unlawfully seizing (stealing) assets by circumventing the law.
This article will prove how the American worker and employer alike have been hoodwinked regarding the withholding process. The purpose behind this chicanery is not to benefit America, but to further enrich the coffers of the private banking cartel aka the Federal Reserve.
There is no need for an income tax, flat tax, sales tax or any other direct tax. All Americans are encouraged to look behind the curtain so that they might fully understand the grand plunder sucking the lifeblood out of our economy. See: http://www.devvy.com. Don't be fooled by this current illusion of a "booming economy." Debt is not prosperity.
Employers must withhold
So says the Great Deceivers, the Internal Revenue Service. Employers are routinely told that they must, under certain provisions of the tax code, withhold taxes of all sorts from an employee's paycheck. Funny thing though, when sincere Americans request that the IRS send its representatives to public seminars on this issue, the IRS is no where to be found.
Robert Schulz, Chairman of the Board of We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., made a swing through 37 cities in April and May of 2003. Before he arrived at each destination, he sent, via certified mail, an invitation to both the IRS and U.S. Attorney's offices to come to his public seminars and correct him if he was giving out the wrong legal facts regarding withholding. What could be more reasonable?
In not one of those 37 cities did either DOJ or IRS send any representative, begging the question, "Why not?" Schulz is a man of honesty and integrity. His invitations to DOJ and IRS were sincere; his only desire was to be absolutely certain that the information he communicated to attendees was legally factual. Instead, he was met with the same usual arrogance in the form of silence. Why do you suppose that is?
Abracadabra, courtesy of the IRS
Lynda Wall is an expert in the field of withholding and has been assisting employers and employees alike for many years in understanding the law regarding this issue. We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc. will be holding our national convention in Washington, DC this coming January and Ms. Wall will give a two hour, comprehensive seminar that will firmly establish in anyone’s mind once and for all how the IRS lies to employers about this process and the lawful remedy.
According to Ms. Wall:
"The IRS will tell employers and employees that according to IRC section 3402(a)(1) of their code: ".......every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary."
"However, this is what the law really says: no (federal, state, city or county) municipal corporation shall levy or collect or cause to be levied or collected any tax upon the income, or any part thereof, of any person, resident or nonresident (also known as the "Full Paycheck Law"). Employers are prohibited from taking amounts from pay for federal or state taxes, fees or other charges absent the lawful, knowing, written consent of the employee.
"The Code of Federal Regulations clearly advises the employers at 26 CFR §31.3402(p)-1(a) "An employee who desires to enter into an agreement for withholding...shall furnish his employer with Form W-4 (or its equivalent) for withholding. The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a request for withholding." Then, 31 CFR §215.2(n)(1) clearly tells the employers they cannot take amounts from the workers' pay for any form of State tax UNLESS the employee VOLUNTARILY elects to have such sums withheld.
"Consensual taking from pay occurs ONLY when an employee voluntarily elects in writing to volunteer to participate in any (federal, state, city or county) municipal corporate tax, program, insurance (disability, Medicare), trust (social security), including non-judicial tax levy, garnishment for taxes, tax offsets, tax interest or penalty and the employer consents such a request."
The fruits of your labor belong to you
Pursuant to 26 CFR §31.3402(p)-1(b)(2), either the employer or the employee may terminate the withholding agreement (W-4 or its equivalent) by furnishing a signed written notice to the other. An employer cannot lawfully take amounts from the worker's pay without the risk of being sued after the worker submits his/her written notice to terminate the withholding agreement (W-4 or its equivalent).
According to Ms. Wall, when the employer's tax professionals (CPA or attorney) are the ones negligently advising the company to convert and transmit the worker's property (pay), those incompetent tax professionals are at risk of being sued for negligence, malpractice and misfeasance. Sheds a whole new light on things, doesn't it?
State laws protect workers from non-consensual taking from pay without the worker's explicit, knowing, voluntary, written consent. Only the worker or contractor/payee can make the determination whether or not he/she wants to volunteer to participate in government taxes, fees or other charges (i.e., social security trust contributions [FICA], social programs [Medicare], benefits [disability]) as well as non-judicial liens/levies, penalties and interest.
By all means, every employee and employer should go to the law library and verify the information above. It is accurate, it is factual and it is the law on the books. Don't take the word of the IRS for anything. Check the facts for yourself. Then sit down and have a heart to heart chat with your tax professional and find out why he/she doesn't know the law. After all, they're supposed to be the experts looking out for you, the client.
Unlawfully penalizing employers
The IRS threatens employers with huge fines if they don't withhold payroll taxes. Funny thing though, according to a September 15, 2003 letter from GAO (General Accounting Office) to Congressman Elton Gallegly regarding W-4’s and reporting, this little nugget of truth stands out:
"Under current law, IRS does not have statutory authority to impose a penalty to enforce employer compliance with the reporting requirement. The reporting requirement was promulgated in Treasury regulations."
How many employers has the IRS defrauded for untold millions of dollars in fines when in fact, they had no legal authority to impose or enforce such penalties and fines?
Treaties and the Constitution
by George C. Detweiler
Contrary to current internationalist misrepresentations, the Founding Fathers never intended that treaty law supersede the Constitution.
Nearly 50 years ago, John Foster Dulles, secretary of state under President Dwight Eisenhower, asserted that "treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example … can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights." Leaving aside the fact that the Constitution and Bill of Rights protect rights, rather than grant them, Dulles’ calculated misrepresentation of the treaty-making power serves as a timely warning today, as a globalist political elite tirelessly promotes UN treaties and conventions that imperil long-cherished American freedoms.
Perhaps the most suitable example of a UN treaty that would "cut across" rights protected by the Constitution is the International Criminal Court (ICC) statute, which would create a permanent, 18-judge tribunal with a mandate over every living human being. Dr. Charles Rice of the University of Notre Dame Law School describes the ICC treaty as a measure that would "cancel the Fourth of July" by making all Americans subject to trial, in a foreign land, before foreign judges empowered to make "law" according to their whims. This arrangement would recreate one of the key offenses of the British Crown cited in the Declaration of Independence — that of subjecting Americans "to Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws...."
Lee Casey, a former Justice Department Counsel, has pointed out that the ICC treaty "contains no habeas corpus provisions, no right to bail, and no other means of compelling the [court] to conduct a speedy trial." Under the "international standards" that may govern the ICC, Casey further points out, suspects may be detained for five years or more without being charged with a crime. In addition, those arraigned before the UN tribunals established to prosecute "war crimes" in Yugoslavia and Rwanda — which serve as precedent-generating models for the permanent ICC — have been denied nearly all of the protections and immunities guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Defendants before those tribunals have been denied the right to defense counsel of their choice; they have been denied the right to confront their accusers; they have been required to offer self-incriminating testimony, and informed that refusal to do so would be considered evidence of guilt. Even more outrageous is the Stalinesque means used by these UN tribunals to carry out their judgments. British legal activist Barry Crawford, who has been an observer at the UN’s tribunal for Rwanda, warns that "in order to enforce its edicts, people have been quite literally kidnapped and detained in secret locations and denied access to defense counsel." Identical criminal methods have been used by officials at the UN’s tribunal for Yugoslavia. But the most outrageous aspect of the ICC treaty is this: After the pact has been signed and ratified by 60 nations, it will go into effect, thereby claiming world-wide jurisdiction — including the power to arrest and try citizens of nations (including Americans) that refuse to participate in the court.
Critics of the ICC treaty, particularly those in the Pentagon who are understandably concerned that U.S. military personnel could find themselves subject to vindictive prosecution, have urged the president not to sign the treaty, and the Senate not to ratify the document should it be signed. However, relatively few of the ICC’s opponents have criticized the premise that the president and Senate have the power to commit our nation to a treaty that would inflict upon our nation the horrors described above. Indeed, most commentary about the ICC and similar UN treaties reflects the same misunderstanding of the Constitution’s "Supremacy Clause" that was propagated by John Foster Dulles so long ago.
Treaties and Rights
The "Supremacy Clause" of the U.S. Constitution is contained in Article VI:
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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
As the Constitution was being constructed at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, the experience of the previous few years made it abundantly clear that it was essential to establish the central government’s power to conduct foreign affairs. It was necessary that the United States speak with one voice in matters of international diplomacy. To have 13 individual and separate states each conducting its own foreign policy, making its own treaties and sending and receiving its own ambassadors would have been an invitation to chaos; to have 50 states doing so today would be the quintessence of insanity.
The purpose of writing this article is to set the record straight so that people will understand the difference between the proper use of the treaty power, and the improper use of the treaty power, rather than have the people be misled by public officials who intend to deceive Americans by its improper use. Improper treaties are not law!
Despite the current great worry about the Small Arms Treaty being able to prohibit American citizens from owning firearms, there exist two, even greater worries:
(1) The ignorant status of many people in not realizing what tragedy will to occur to their freedom and liberty if we allow a National Gun Registry to be created. The Small Arms Treaty initiates such a registry. It also unlocks the door for the communist-led United Nations to enter into our Bill of Rights, and tamper with all other basic natural rights.
(2) The people’s lack of knowledge that no part of the Bill of Rights itself is subject to the repeal, revocation or rescinding process. Natural rights are not subject to these processes, because they are God-given rights and thus unalienable. The Second Article in the Bill of Rights was meant to give the people an option against tyranny from within and invasion from without. It was meant to prevent the enactment of disastrous and ruinous laws and treaties.
Specifically, a treaty cannot override the Second Amendment nor any of the other principles encased within the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. The following excerpt from Article VI of the United States Constitution, is very clear in stating:
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. [Emphasis added]
Read that sentence carefully! Many people do not understand that any law being made must not conflict with the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. Under THIS Constitution, our laws and treaties are acceptable only if they conform to the intent and purpose of what has been written in this master document. No law is acceptable if it conflicts with or alters the original text. THIS Constitution, and not the opposing United Nations Charter, is the supreme law of this country. In these times, however, evil laws and treaties have been written and designed to work against those previously established laws, which were supposed to prevent tyranny from happening.
No foreign country nor organization (such as the United Nations) has the power to alter, override, supersede, revoke, rescind or block the fundamental principles or the primary directives laid down within these precious documents: The Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.
For instance, the Bill of Rights requires the people to be armed (for their own safety and for the protection of their country and its principles). The Constitution requires government officials to provide the people with a common defense (an army, navy, etc.). All treaties made (prior) or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States are also to be the supreme law of the land PROVIDED that every treaty is “in pursuance of” (in conformity to) true law and right reason – and those principles enshrined in the 1789 Constitution that put limits on the power of government.
Our laws are required to promote the pursuance of liberty, justice, independence, true freedom and sovereignty. Note that the 1789 Constitution, when speaking of itself, refers to its own self as “THIS Constitution”, eliminating any doubt or argument as to its authority, supremacy, intention, or reasons for checks and balances. Treaties can only be lawful if written in accord to “THIS Constitution”.
There can be no doubt that “THIS Constitution” requires that (1) “All treaties” and (2) “the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof” (in pursuance of “THIS Constitution”) must conform to the provisions inscribed within “THIS Constitution”.
This overrules any possibility that a foreign (communist) Charter (such as the one initiated by the United Nations Organization) has any standing or authority over the government or the people of the United States!
Neither the United Nations nor any U.S. public official has the authority to require compliance or enactment of such an intolerable treaty such as the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty. The Small Arms Treaty must be stopped! It intends to delude, deceive, and destroy the American form of government, because without firearms there is no force to maintain a government “of the people” -- “by the people” – “and for the people”; nor to defend any of the other rights and principles listed in the Bill of Rights.
“THIS Constitution’s” Second Amendment is the bulwark which undergirds our fundamental republican form of government, that is guaranteed to the people of the United States (refer to United States Constitution -- Article IV, Section 4).
The principles within “THIS Constitution” were designed to protect and safeguard the people against sedition and tyranny in government. Did you know that a (so-called) law1 has been passed by Congress ordering our entire military (all branches of the United States armed forces and equipment) to be permanently given away to the communist-dominated United Nations to be made a part of the U.N.’s world army? Can you picture your future whenever the United Nations army is rendered fully armed while U.S. citizens are rendered completely disarmed? The objective of the Small Arms Treaty is to begin the process of disarming the entire American population, while foreign United Nations soldiers are authorized to police the U.S.A. under the up-coming United Nations “world army”.
Fortunately, our founding fathers did their job! They made us completely protected against such circumstances by the manner in which they defined the treaty clause. But we still face danger today because John Foster Dulles started the lie rolling that "a treaty supersedes the Constitution, and it can cut clear across the Bill of Rights”! This is not true! This false doctrine has been taught in institutions of (supposedly) higher learning. Check your Constitution and read Article VI clearly. All treaties must be made in pursuance to “THIS Constitution”.
Repeat: No law or treaty can be valid if it is contrary to the principles listed in “THIS Constitution”. It is important for the people to understand the criteria under which all treaties must meet and be subjected to before any treaty can qualify as being valid and ‘supreme law of the United States’. Unfortunately, the United Nations Charter itself was undeservingly ratified as a “treaty”, which is at the core of the problems we are facing today.
Be informed and spread the word to others of the true meaning of the treaty clause. It does not allow anyone the right to disregard or overthrow the essential elements and principles within our Constitutional system of government. Public officials have no authority to prohibit private ownership of firearms. The security of the United States has a need for an armed nation.
The best solution to stop this problem is to withdraw the United States from membership in, and from funding, the communist United Nations.
Most people are unaware that one of the greatest threats to their freedom may be a United Nations program which plans to depopulate 95% of the world.
The name of this plan is Agenda 21, and it was developed by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development, as part of a sustainability policy.
According to the United Nations website, Agenda 21 is a “comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations system, government, and major groups, in every area in which humans have impact on the environment”.
In a nutshell, the plan calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision making in the hands of private property owners.
It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control.
Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body.
Moreover, people should be rounded up off the land and packed into human settlements, or islands of human habitation, close to employment centers and transportation. Another program, called the Wildlands Project spells out how most of the land is to be set aside for non-humans.
Agenda 21 policies date back to the 1970’s but it got its real start in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro when President Bush signed onto it. President Clinton signed it later and continued the program in the United States.
Agenda 21 is ‘soft-law’ and did not have to be voted on by the Congress. A non-governmental organization called the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives, ICLEI, is tasked with carrying out the goals of Agenda 21.
Over 600 cities in the U.S. are members, and that number is growing. The costs are paid by taxpayers.
To read the full document click here. Watch the short video below to learn more on Agenda 21, in under 5 minutes.