Weekly Update:

A Publication of the Michigan Militia Corps

Volume 3, Issue 27

September 12, 1996

Habitat II: Dangerous to Your Wealth

by Laurel A Macleod, Legislative Coordinator, Concerned Women For America.

"The United Nations has done it again. Another world-wide conference in a faraway place---and another radical agenda. Where will it end?" This time it was the Habitat II conference in Istanbul, June 3-14. Its agenda would mandate sweeping, worldwide change at the international, national, and local levels.

"What irony, that we will be in ancient Constantinople, one of the cities that launched Christianity. Yet today it will host delegates from every nation who are seeking to spread the most virulent, anti-Christian, anti-family values around the world."

Our first morning was spent clandestinely attending the Women's Caucus, a group of radical feminist organizations that had banded together to lobby for abortion on demand and gender re-education in the schools. Former New York Congresswoman, Bells Abzug - grande dame of the American feminist movement - was chairman.

Immediately, the Caucus began to distribute their proposals for changes in The Global Plan of Action. That document, finalized at Habitat II, would contain the final views of every nation. It would mandate lifestyle changes for every person in the world. Abzug obviously believed they were invincible. We soon discovered, however, that there were chinks in the feminist armor. Not everyone swallowed their rhetoric. Our 3-member CWA team spent its time writing talking points and amendment language for other countries who were sympathetic to the pro-family movement. We distributed flyers to delegates from around the world, to alert them to the abortion, sexuality, and homosexuality education that is rampant in the United States. At the same time, the U.S. delegation, hand-picked to represent the Clinton administration, worked against us, often siding with the Women's Caucus. But our voices, and the values of the people we represented, were heard!

The Habitat II Global Plan of Action puts its goals in "soft language." That sounds good but means something very different. The major focus of this "one world" plan is the concept of sustainable development, a radical economic / environmental philosophy of the far Left.

Before you know it, UN goals will directly impact our lives. Sustainable development really means that you should not be allowed to consume more than you need for mere physical survival. And the UN plans to decide what is "adequate" or "sustainable!" Americans would have to live by UN criteria.

Those who consume more than they need to exist become "irresponsible global citizens." Sustainable development will ensure that these citizens give their "extra" to poorer nations. This is the redistribution of your wealth.

With astonishing blindness, proponents of this brand of "justice- driven" socialism ignore the fact that the same consumer nations they condemn are also the greatest producers of goods and services for the world.

Today, President Bill Clinton and his executive agencies are looking for ways to implement these UN mandates. In 1993, the President used Executive Order #12852 to create a Council on Sustainable Development. The council's report, issued in March, 1996, recommended "monitoring" (and thus controlling) America's population growth. It also presented strategies for limiting the consumption of goods and services by each and every American.

In terms of everyday life, our current President is examining ways to implement a system - sustainable development - that could lead to these limitations:

How many, what kinds of cars you can own.
How much heat or air conditioning you can use in your own home.
How large your home can be.
How many children you should have.

These demands will be accomplished through undue taxation, unfair regulation, and manipulative education. In effect, the UN - as an outside agent with no immediate stake in the U.S. - will be stepping into our homes as a type of global governor. And with no accountability to American Citizens! In the name of "global cooperation" and "peace," every principle of our nation's Constitution is being violated.

The second conference goal reaffirmed by the official U.S. delegation was to assure all people the "right to adequate housing." What does this vague term mean? Habitat's goal is that governments should provide a home for every citizen - regardless of ability to afford one. But who's going to pay the global rent?

CWA's team spent most of our time battling the insidious and dangerous social issues that continually came to the forefront during the heated debates over the Habitat II goals. One bitterly contested issue was raised in paragraph 18 of the Platform for Action. It advocated "various forms of the family." Once again, the U.S. delegation fully supported that wording.

In Istanbul, Melinda Kimble, one of the leading U.S. negotiators, told CWA's delegation that she could not remove the language or add "traditional families" because of a direct order from Washington.

Traditional families also came under attack in paragraph 9 which described the "rights and responsibilities of parents." Canada fought to have all mention of parental rights removed, arguing that recognizing these was "inappropriate." It was obvious that the U.S., Canada, and the European Union were working together to undermine the traditional family. Sadly, many nations catered to their demands for fear of losing foreign aid from the West. Abortion became an issue when the U.S. delegation surprised the entire body with a paragraph that was not originally in the document. Paragraph 22 required "access to basic health services, including reproductive end sexual health care services..." While they may sound compassionate, these terms always mean abortion on demand, along with condom distribution and graphic sex education in the schools - all without parental consent.

Finally, one of the most important issues of the Habitat agenda was the creation of "partnerships" with local communities - as seen in Goals 2000 and previous UN global plans for action. Today, the UN has already developed special partnerships with specific towns and cities in the U.S. without the knowledge or approval of state or federal legislatures. These partnerships supposedly exist to aid "reforms" and create "peaceful communities," but they actually make us even more vulnerable to UN domination.

Under The direction of President Clinton, the U.S. has made great gains in promoting abortion on demand, abortion-inducing forms of birth control, and the promotion of homosexuality around the world. The goals of Habitat II agree with this destructive social agenda. And as we have seen, the President and his administration are also leading the charge for sustainable development.

As local communities nationwide buy into sustainable development without understanding the costs, the impact of Habitat II will be felt more strongly every year.

Tell your congressmen your concerns about sustainable development. Ask them to eliminate taxpayer funding of organizations that push this agenda. Ask for their response in writing. Remain vigilant on the local and state level for initiatives related to sustainable development. We must take a stand.


ONCE AGAIN, the UN flag will be raised over city hall in Lansing on October 24th and once again, the people of Michigan will be there to protest this travesty. We will not give up!

Join us on the steps of the Capitol building in Lansing, on October 24, 1996, starting at 8:30 AM. There will be bands and nationally known speakers. Three of the speakers will be Gene Stirred, Bill Cooper & Jim Collier.

(Editor's note: I was there last year and the papers said there were over 500 people protesting the raising of the UN flag. Let's make it 1000 this year! Even if you don't live in Michigan, please try to make it a point to attend.)

Angry Tax Payer Raises Stink

SAGINAW - It wasn't the type of return Internal Revenue Service workers wanted.

Someone rushed into the agency's Saginaw office Friday morning, emptied a bag of manure onto the counter, and fled.

"Haven't we all wanted to do that?" joked Saginaw County Sheriff Tom McIntyre. Still, McIntyre said: "It's not an acceptable channel in which to display your disgust with the system. I'm sure them are proper channels to bring forth complaints. The (incident) really stinks."

Maintenance workers at the federal office quickly cleaned the mess, and workers returned to offering tips and distributing forms. The stench eventually gave way to the sweet smell of air freshener.

An office worker said she was "mad," but could not comment because it's a violation of agency rules.

The agency's Detroit spokeswoman, Elcy Maccani, said "We're an easy target, unfortunately. There have been occasional incidents in IRS offices like protests or sit-ins, but this is the first time anything like this happened in Michigan." Employees hadn't seen the vandal before, workers said.

McIntyre said the act could bring misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct or malicious destruction of property. Both are punishable by $500 fines or 90 days in jail.

IRS works am accustomed to abuse, Maccani said, "After a while, you develop a thick skin."

"We believe in the job we're doing and have a good group of professional employees, but no one would enjoy constantly being the butt of jokes or the target of someone's wrath."

Grand Rapids Press, September 8, 1996

Clinton Asks 1.1 Billion More to Fight Terrorism

President Bill Clinton, on Monday, called on Congress to provide nearly $1.1 billion to hire more FBI agents to fight terrorism and to improve U.S. airline security in general.

Vice President Al Gore headed the White House Commission of Aviation Safety and Security, that wrote a report on enhancing airport security and announced its key points last week. They were presented to the president on Monday and included a call for better bomb-detection equipment, profiling of passengers, and matching passengers to their baggage.

While endorsing these measures and announcing an additional executive action to implement several of them, Clinton said he wanted Congress to provide money to go beyond the issue of airline security and fight terrorism more broadly.

The recommendations did not elicit a wave of strong support from those overseeing airline travel at Metro Airport in Detroit. Instead, officials of the airport, and Northwest Airlines, the main carrier, expressed a wait-and-see attitude.

"The only thing we're definitely in favor of is the profiling enhancements," said Jim Faulkner, a Northwest Airlines spokesman based in Minneapolis. The airline is compiling its own database of people who could present a safety risk. But one airline source, who did not want to be identified, said some of the recommendations, including the baggage-matching proposal, would cripple air travel at busy hubs like Detroit. The proposed procedure also would rule out the practice by airlines of sending lost luggage on a flight to be rejoined with a passenger. "The positive match bag would literally bring a place like Detroit to a halt," he said. "It's just a stupid idea."

The Clinton-backed safety recommendations announced Monday would cost $429.4 million. On top of that, Clinton proposed $667.4 million in antiterrorism measures that are not solely aimed at airport security. They included:

$436.9 million to improve security at U.S. facilities around the world.
$114 million to expand and strengthen federal law-enforcement agencies, including the FBI, BATF, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
$117 million to protect Americans in the aftermath of terrorist acts, including $93 million to the Pentagon so it can teach soldiers about terrorist tactics and how to use protective equipment.

Americans are justifiably angry over these recent incidents but anger and fear do not justify the draconian measures the Clinton administration is pushing to allegedly improve air safety. These proposals are expensive, technologically impractical (not to mention, probably futile), but they also involve an unacceptable invasion of passenger's privacy.

Passenger profiling would include information from law enforcement agencies, past travel history, credit ratings and other data. The aim of profiling would be to pick out possible terrorist suspects, whose luggage would be screened for explosives. Nothing, however frightening, can justify this massive invasion of people's private lives. Computers make it possible to generate a vast amount of data about each of us, so it's necessary to be vigilant and fight against its inappropriate use. Also, there is no known relationship between some of the data the commission proposed to be used and a propensity to blow up a plane.

Those investigating the TWA crash are increasingly convinced that whatever caused the explosion was not hidden in the checked luggage.

According to the Joan Beck article in the Detroit Free Press, there are more problems with the White House recommendations. Current technology lags behind the development of sophisticated bomb-making methods and is expensive and time consuming. A sophisticated terrorist could assemble a bomb on board a plane from materials carried through airport security. Some extremists might even be willing to set off an on-board explosive and die with it.

But, even if the impossible, perfect security could be developed and tolerated by an impatient public, it wouldn't solve the problem of terrorism. The world has too many other tempting targets for terrorists than airplanes, and most of them lack security protections. Terrorists can drive a truckload of explosives into the underground garage of a crowded building, or park it by the entrance. Terrorists can cause hundreds of deaths by destroying bridges or tunnels or expressway interchanges or stadiums or convention centers or dams or theaters or churches on Sunday morning. And they need not use bombs to kill unsuspecting civilians.

Terrorists can strike at Americans abroad where this country has little or no control over security.

Terrorism is intolerable, but it needs to be kept in perspective. If we allow fear to erode our civil rights and curtail our personal freedoms, all of us will be its victims, and we will have helped it accomplish some of its goals.

Detroit Free Press, September 10, 1996.

A Plan to Confiscate Your Automobile

Your car is four years old? In the not too distant future, owning a car that is "old" may become a legal impossibility. If a law passed recently in New Jersey is allowed to stand and if other states use it as a model for their own legislation, a centralized emissions inspection "regime" in New Jersey and other states as well would fail most cars more than four years old. At that point, those cars would be denied registration and ultimately forfeited to the state. New Jersey's auto emissions law was signed by Republican governor, Christine Todd Whitman. Like all other states, New Jersey is obligated to comply with the strict air quality goats set forth in the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act. Washington, in its zeal to enforce these standards, has threatened those states that do not comply with the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal highway funding. Since automobile owners possess less clout in state capitals than big utility companies, manufacturers, and other industrial polluters, they have become the target for zealous enforcers.

A modified version of the Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Chassis Dynamometer Test known as IIM 240, favored by the EPA, would be implemented during 1997-98 in conjunction with roadside monitoring strategies that use infrared sensing equipment and random testing by police. This "enhanced testing" is being pushed hard by an Arizona-based company, Envirotest, and its lobbyists in state capitals around the U.S. Each new contract for the program means millions of dollars for Envirotest - plus a government-enforced monopoly on all emissions testing and repairs conducted in that state.

Up to 60% (EPA estimate) of older cars are expected to fail the dynamometer test, because vehicles more than four years old typically have experienced minor wear and tear that slightly increases their emissions beyond the strict standard for each car's model year. That tiny amount of increase is of no real significance to air quality. Still, under the New Jersey law, it would be cause to deny a vehicle renewed registration. Since it is already illegal in most New Jersey counties to keep an unregistered vehicle, even on private property, the state may ticket, impound, or even confiscate your unregistered car or truck - without compensation. By the EPA's own admission, almost no car more than 10 years old is expected to pass the dynamometer test.

What this boils down to is that anyone who can't afford the hundreds of dollars in repairs to bring his car back into compliance will not have the option of parking his own car in his driveway until he can come up with the money. It also means the owners of older collectible or specialty vehicles will see their hobby "criminalized" (failure to submit to the test, or keeping an unregistered car on your property can result in jail time in New Jersey). A collector's second car could be taken by agents of the states (whose agencies, incidentally, share in any moneys recovered as a consequence of impoundment or forfeiture of unregistered automobiles).

New Jersey officials argue that historic and collector cars older than 25 years will be granted an exemption. However, it is the state bureaucracy that will define what qualifies as an "historic" or "collectible" automobile.

What's this really about? It is not about air quality. It's about getting people out of their cars, and into some other form of transportation more easily controlled by the state.

The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 1996.

Keep Feds Out of Schools

While most Americans support local control of education, massive federal programs promote nationalizing education. The reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act mentions such things as "standards for all children" and "community service." And the administration's Goals 2000, based on the National Educational Goals, often states what all children will do, such as "demonstrate community service."

Proponents of Goals 2000 correctly say its voluntary, but states' proposals must be approved by the U.S. Secretary of Education. And Goals 2000 involves such non-academic areas as distribution of contraceptives and "midnight basketball."

Pushing much of this federal agenda is the Office of Education Research and Improvement in the U.S. Department of Education, headed by Sharon Robinson, formerly a longtime staffer of the National Education Association. Bob Dole was correct to focus on the teachers unions, primarily the NEA, as a major part of what's wrong with American education.

Former NEA pres. Catherine Barreft announced that by 2000, teaching the basic skills would be down to "about 1/4 of the school day so the teacher can rise to his true calling, a conveyor of values, a philosopher... We will be agents of change." What kind of change? At the 1996 NEA convention, they passed resolutions (supporting abortion rights) having nothing to do with academics.

Grand Rapids Press

To subscribe to the Weekly Update, put out weekly by Michigan Militia Corps state command, simply send a message conveying that to xxx.