Unalienable Rights versus Globalism
Michael Shaw (12 December 2009)
Have we abandoned the uniquely American concept of the political, legal and educational recognition of unalienable rights? If so, is there a political movement to restore the core purpose and principle of the American Declaration of Independence?
As documented in Understanding Unalienable Rights, the dictionary meaning of unalienable rights has been corrupted. School children are no longer instructed about this most basic element of the Declaration of Independence. Leading liberty minded legal and “think tank” organizations often fronting the freedom movement, treat or label the seeking of unalienable right protections as outdated. They argue a system of “civil rights”  as the appropriate man-made replacement. Think tanks of most stripes quietly argue that the idea of unalienable rights is flawed and indefensible. Correspondingly, the idea has been largely abandoned by academia and intellectuals.
The question then becomes: Can the American experiment in freedom continue without a foundation predicated on the notion that each person possesses a life that is their own? I conclude that without the political recognition of unalienable rights it cannot be assured that the political system will recognize that your life belongs to you.
This is not a moot issue. At the root of the globalist movement is Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. This worldwide program agreed upon by 178 nations, including the United States, reveals the directive that human population is to be decreased by 85% (United Nations; Global Biodiversity Assessment Report, page 673). This policy has appealed to many who argue “overpopulation.” Accordingly, says the consensus, everyone’s “right to life” must be discarded in order to achieve globalist objectives.