Govern America

Interview with Darren Weeks

Mar 06, 2024

“It's not over, until it's overcome.” – Roger Mundy
I am very encouraged that there has been a great awakening in recent years. Much of it is due to the fact that the “other side” has overplayed their hand and has shown themselves for the totalitarian fascists that they are. They have awakened a sleeping giant, and they don't know what to do about it, so they flail like a giant beast, being stung by a thousand bees, and with each swipe, they reveal more of their true fascistic nature. – Darren Weeks

After my wonderful interview with Vicky Davis (one of the thousand bees), I asked her advice for other interview candidates and without missing a beat, she said, “Darren Weeks!”

Background and Personal Journey

Can you share with us your journey from a teenager picketing abortion clinics to becoming the founder and executive director of the Coalition to Govern America?

Growing up, I was very active in my local church. In my teens, I founded an organization called Reborn Ministries, which I had used to syndicate radio broadcasts on different stations. During that time, we were on a large station in Detroit, when a listener sent me a letter telling me about how the Farmington Hills School District was teaching witchcraft in the schools. Being young and very naive, I thought I'd pay them a visit, and inspect their curriculum. Nobody had prepared me, and so I was quite shocked at how nasty they became when I told them who I was and why I was there. That was my first experience with attempting to expose government corruption. Needless to say, it didn't go very well.

At some point, I had learned that the Martin Scorsese movie, The Last Temptation of Christ, was playing in my local town. I had read about the movie and felt that it was a blasphemous attack on Christianity, so I decided to organize a protest. In hindsight, I think it was a mistake, since the movie would have probably been a huge flop had we ignored it.

But it was through that protest that I met Wes Rowlader, who ran the local chapter of the American Family Association. We would become dear friends and he would even become the “best man” at my wedding, years later.

Wes was doing a lot on the local level, and it was through him, that I met and was able to work with Robert LeMieux, a former professional hockey player, who had an organization at the time called the Dads Foundation. Bob was traveling the state speaking out against the Michigan Model for Comprehensive School Health Education.

The Michigan Model was an experimental and dangerous curriculum that was being pushed in Michigan schools, at the time. This was the 1980s. In addition to exposing grade-schoolers to some of the most raunchy and pornographic sex education imaginable — written by Planned Parenthood — the Model utilized a number of experimental components.

For example, there was something called "Problem Solving with People" in which they made the teacher a classroom facilitator who presented several social scenarios where the children would be required to vote on the best outcome. Whichever outcome was the popular one, ruled the day. Hence, their answer to “values clarification” education was “values neutral” education, neither of which aligned with Christian or what we would call traditional western values.

In the Model, there was also a “calm breathing” technique — which was actually a form of hypnosis. It was taken from a book in which the author had repeatedly warned its readers that the techniques were dangerous and only to be practiced by well-trained professionals. The State of Michigan had adopted this, almost verbatim, in the curriculum. As a result, we had heard of at least one child being permanently damaged by this technique, randomly slipping into altered states of consciousness.

There were many other things about the Michigan Model that were terrible, and they were very bad to undermine parental rights. The teachers' manual was a three-ring binder. When parents would object to a particular part, the officials would snap open the binders, remove the objectionable material, only to put it right back after the fury died down.

We raised enough of a stink that eventually the legislature held public hearings on the matter. But they never fully got rid of it; the Michigan Model still exists in some form today. And Michigan was a pilot for the entire nation.

How did your early experiences in radio and TV broadcasting shape your perspectives on media and communication?

There are a lot of left-wing liberals in TV news.

One day, a left-wing director was discussing social issues with me and recognized that I was a conservative. He said he thought I would like Rush Limbaugh. I had never heard of Limbaugh before, but decided to check out his show. What I noticed is that Limbaugh would talk positively about America's future; his talk didn't match what I was seeing in society.

Then, one night, in Master Control at WILX-TV, I was paging through a satellite magazine and noticed that you could tune the C-band satellite channels to different audio frequencies, and that there were radio stations there. This opened up a whole new world to me. Keep in mind, this was before anybody had ever heard of the Internet.

One of those satellite radio stations was Republic Radio International (now Republic Broadcasting Network). I started listening and realized that this was the information that I hadn't been getting from people like Rush Limbaugh or any of the other mainstream media outlets, including and especially our own news department.

One time, there was a state police raid on a local patriot militia group. Our local news station, where I worked, sent a crew to cover the event live, but they were getting their information from the state police, who weren't telling them anything.

Meanwhile, John Stadtmiller and Mark Koernke, both of whom were in Michigan at the time, knew the people who had been unfairly targeted. They were on the air at Republic Radio, and had a lot better information and insight as to what was going on. I remember thinking how odd it was to see our reporters at the station, attempting to cover this “secret police operation”, and hearing John and Mark talk about how the state police had conducted a botched raid and found nothing. Two worlds were colliding from different directions — the Establishment news pushing the propaganda narrative, and the patriots attempting to get the truth out.

I began bringing a VHS tape into work with me every day and would record the satellite radio for eight to ten hours a day, during my shift, and then would go home and listen to them in my spare time.

Through the satellite radio channels, there were some people that were running fax networks to get information out. I got on one or two of those and received regular updates on the fax machine.

What insights or turning points during your time in the media industry led you towards activism and the establishment of the Coalition to Govern America?

In the early 2000s, I had become friends with a few people in the patriot movement. I was doing some webmastering for a couple of them.

I took a job at WLNS-TV in April 2001 and my wife worked mornings at her job. One morning, she called me from work and woke me up to tell me she had learned the state legislature was attempting to pass a measure that would require all six grade girls to get a mandatory vaccine for Human Papillomavirus virus. By this time, we were parents of two young girls.

I got up and went to the computer. I found the bill they were pushing and began to make phone calls to the capitol. One of the sponsors was a senator by the name of Beverly Hammerstrom. I called her office and spoke to one of her staffers, who politely informed me that the senator had done her research on the matter. She then assured me that there were “many people” who were working on the issue. When I inquired as to who the people were, she cheerfully told me about a Washington D.C.-based organization, to which Hammerstrom was a member, called Women in Government.

I got off the phone and did some digging. I found on their website where they listed Hammerstrom as their “Immediate Past Chair”. They also listed their corporate partners, including Merck & Company — the same pharmaceutical company that manufactured the HPV vaccine that Hammerstrom was now pushing in her bill, trying to force it upon all six grade females in our state! I was furious!

I printed out everything and took it to work — straight into our news director's office that day. I laid out everything for him on his desk. “Here is the bill she's pushing. Here is the group she is working with. Here is where she was on the board of directors as the 'immediate past chair' of the group. Here are their corporate sponsors, including Merck.”

“Damn, man! You work for 60 minutes!” he exclaimed. It was a nice compliment, coming from the chief of the news department. To his great credit, he sent out a news crew, and they ran the story on the 5:00 news, the next day. Hammerstrom had been exposed!

I have to say that it gave me great satisfaction and pleasure watching her trying to hide behind her desk, as the reporter peppered her with questions about her corruption. She looked very tiny, at that moment. Ultimately, the bill was killed.

Phil Hendrix, the news director, stopped by to thank me for the story that evening and we discussed what had happened. He said that the news crew had told him that the staffers at the capitol were bewildered as to why the media was making a big deal out of the fact that the senator was pushing legislation to benefit corporate sponsors of the group she chaired. They didn't think it was a big deal because this was just how government business was done.

Constitutional Principles and States' Rights

How does the Coalition to Govern America interpret the vision of the Founding Fathers regarding individual freedom and the republic?

The founding fathers feared a strong central government. In fact, there was much debate as to whether there should even be a federal government, and if so, how much power it should have.

There were some protections placed into the Constitution to alleviate these concerns, such as the Tenth Amendment, where it says that the powers that haven't, specifically, been delegated to the federal government, are reserved to the States and to the People.

Much of the power that the federal government has is due to the ignorance of the People, including state officials.

For example, federal legislation does not apply to the states, unless the states pass implementing legislation. This is why you will often see the federal government offering the states money as bribes to pass implementing bills. And with that carrot, also comes the stick. They equally threaten to withhold federal funds unless the states comply with federal “mandates”. They can bribe the states, but they cannot force the states to comply, unless it is a power that is specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

What specific actions do you believe are necessary to restore and preserve these constitutional principles today?

Nearly all of the pundits in the media attempt to keep our focus on the president, as if he were king. Or they focus on the House and Senate. Very little attention is ever paid to our state and local governments. But that is the only area where we have any real control.

I am very encouraged that there has been a great awakening in recent years. Much of it is due to the fact that the “other side” has overplayed their hand and has shown themselves for the totalitarian fascists that they are. They have awakened a sleeping giant, and they don't know what to do about it, so they flail like a giant beast, being stung by a thousand bees, and with each swipe, they reveal more of their true fascistic nature.

Roger Mundy was a great friend of mine who started a group called the Kansas Tenth Amendment Society. They would meet every regularly to discuss and strategize. They tracked bills in the state legislature and would visit their capitol to educate and instruct their representatives.

Norm Davis had a group called, Take Back Kentucky, which did a similar work. Jackie Patru had a group in Pennsylvania. Jeannie Burlsworth still has a group called, Secure Arkansas. There is a multi-chapter group in Michigan, called Stand-Up Michigan.

Many of these groups agree on certain issues that they would tackle, then recruit people to watch for bills on the chosen subjects. In the past, they utilized phone trees, where each person would call ten other people, who, in turn, would then call ten more, and on and on, until you had hundreds of calls going into the capitol on a particular bill.

I interviewed a staffer from our Michigan state capitol who confirmed to me that if they get more than five calls on any one subject, they consider themselves inundated because so few people ever focus on their states. That was several years ago, and things may have well changed since then. But the point still remains that most people focus on the federal government and completely neglect the states. And believe me, there is plenty of corruption on the state level to keep anyone busy. And of course, there are always local city and county governments which need our attention as well.

What can people do? Find a place to plug in, and get educated. There are many groups like I've described. In fact, there has really never been more of an opportunity than we have now. With the advent of social media, it has become really easy to find like-minded people in your area to form organizations.

Attend your local city council or township meetings. Run for precinct delegate. Run for your local school board, or alderman.

Get a group together and make an appointment to visit your state legislators' offices and educate them on states' rights. Many of them are well-meaning, but lack understanding of their proper role.

Talk to your county sheriff and find out where he stands on Constitutional issues. Many times, it is the county sheriff that serves as the shield against the federal and state goon squads. If you don't have a Constitutional sheriff, you might consider helping another candidate defeat them in the next election, or running yourself.

Liberty requires eternal vigilance. If it is to be maintained, it must be through the work of those who cherish it. At times, you may suffer defeat, but the setbacks only make the victories sweeter.

Can you discuss the Coalition's stance on States' Rights and its importance in today's political climate?

I've already mentioned the Tenth Amendment, which states that the powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States and the People.

But Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution says that “... no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

The formula our Founding Fathers designed for us is that the States were to be the representatives for the People. We have completely lost sight of the fact that we are to present our issues to state elected officials, who then re-present us to Washington D.C. The states have influence that the individual, alone, does not.

So many times, I get frustrated when I hear of a state official filing suit, in federal court, to seek redress of a particular abuse imposed upon the state by the federal government. It's akin to begging your oppressor for relief.

Instead, states need to band together and stand up to the federal government and tell them they won't comply. It is the states, after all, who established the federal government.

Opposition to World Government and Military Involvement

What are the main reasons behind the Coalition's opposition to organisations like the United Nations and NATO?

The League of Nations grew out of WWI. The United Nations grew out of WWII. With each advancement, the excuse was peace and diplomacy. They supposedly were going to provide a forum where the nations of the world could meet together and discuss issues and resolve differences, peacefully. That wouldn't sound so bad, if that's all it were.

But, looking back over the decades, we see the better part of a blood-soaked century of various wars. The best case that you could make for them is that they are a miserable failure at everything they ever touch. But that would be too generous and kind.

As we again approach the precipice of yet another world war, I think it is a fair question to ask, how is their diplomacy really working out for us? Probably, not very well.

In the fictional world of George Orwell's 1984, everything was turned on its head. The motto of the “Party” in Orwell's world was: “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength”. Sadly, the fictional world of Orwell has become our nightmare world of reality.

By their own words, the United Nations “wages peace”. What they apparently mean by this terminology is that they commit themselves — or more accurately, they commit the sons and daughters of the poor working class — to military operations under the banner of “peacekeeping”.

“Waging peace” — also referred to sometimes as “spreading Democracy” — is a thinly-veiled attempt to paint a happy face on their never-ending quest to overthrow, neutralize, and destroy every country, government, or regime that poses a challenge to their domination of the world.

The entire purpose of the United Nations is technocratic, totalitarian world government. And you can't really talk against the United Nations and NATO without giving a dishonorable mention to their key enablers — the U.S. State Department. Without the Department of State, the United Nations would be a shell of what it is today. Certainly, without U.S. funding, it would be nowhere near its size.

NATO is the UN global military, which has morphed from the Cold War task of keeping Soviet power in check, to doing everything they can to provoke Russia into starting WWIII.

And of course, along the way, the politicians line their pockets with blood money from the weapons industry.

Could you explain the Coalition's perspective on current wars and military engagements by the U.S.?

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says that only Congress has the power to “declare war”. The last time Congress declared war was on December 8, 1941, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Congress has, from time to time, issued “Authorizations for Use of Military Force” — something they call AUMFs. But those are not what the Constitution authorizes. It doesn't say anything about a police action, peacekeeping, nation-building, or guarding poppy fields in Afghanistan so the Taliban doesn't destroy them.

A formal declaration of war against a country is required, and that declaration must come from the Congress — not the president acting as a king and dictator. Since that formal declaration of war hasn't happened since 1941, that makes every war since then illegitimate, under the U.S. Constitution.

How does the Coalition to Govern America view the role of the military in international conflicts?

The military should not be involved in international conflicts. The purpose of the military is to provide for a strong national defense.

In his farewell address to the nation, George Washington said to “observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. … In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others should be excluded.” In other words, we need to mind our own business and avoid getting entangled in everyone else's mess.

Unfortunately, those in charge have done exactly the opposite of everything that Washington advised us to do.

Sadly, the military has become the unwitting fighters for covert CIA operations and nation-building, conducted by State Department globalists whose ambitions are world hegemony.

I can give you my opinion about the role of the U.S. military in international affairs, but what really matters, are what the policymakers, and those who influence them, say.

In the July/August 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs, — the flagship publication for the globalist Council on Foreign Relations — Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. said, “In defense of the world Order, U.S. soldiers would have to kill and die. ... We are not going to achieve a New World Order without paying for it in blood, as well as in words and money.”

Schlesinger admitted they have every intention for America's finest to be sacrificed upon the altar of world government. I promise you it won't be his bloodshed he's referencing. It's your sons and daughters that he intends to use as cannon fodder to achieve their “World Order”.

Trade Policies and National Sovereignty

How does the Coalition evaluate the impact of multilateral trade agreements like NAFTA and TPP on American industry and jobs?

The “free trade” agreements that are pushed forward by politicians today are designed to benefit multinational corporations at the expense of both working class Americans, and the poor people in the developing countries that are a party to the agreements. Often, they are sold as a benefit to the people of the developing countries, but even they are exploited as wage slaves.

This was the case with NAFTA. We were told that NAFTA would lift the people of Mexico out of poverty, so they wouldn't have any need to migrate northward. In fact, the opposite happened. Multinational corporations moved to Mexico in large numbers, and drove a lot of Mexicans off of their land. Farmers were not able to hold onto their property. The displaced populations, having no place to go, migrated to the United States in large numbers.

These multilateral “free trade” agreements remove tariffs on imports and, hence, allow big corporations to shop around the world for the cheapest labor. It's a global race to the bottom.

In addition to not having to pay their employees the kind of wages they would have to pay Americans, the corporations also benefit from a much more lenient regulatory environment. For example, many developing countries don't have the kind of regulations the U.S. has in terms of safety standards. They work long hours, often in unsafe conditions, and often even live right there on the premises, so they are trapped.

As a result, you hear stories about employees committing suicide by jumping off buildings. FoxConn, who had been contracted by Apple, had so many suicides that they actually installed nets on their buildings to catch suicidal workers. Tough day at the office?

That's the world they are creating under modern-day globalism. The billionaire shareholder benefits; everyone else is a slave.

What is the Coalition's stance on bilateral trade, and how should it be structured to benefit both participating nations?

At one time, people used to brag when they had something that was imported, because imported products were typically expensive. Tariffs on imports protect domestic industry and jobs. It isn't surprising that globalists use words like “protectionism” as a pejorative. It is clear that the United States could use a return to “protectionist” policies because I believe that the American people are worth protecting.

Trade agreements should be bilateral, as opposed to multilateral. Agreements on trade should be limited to certain products that we are unable to produce ourselves due to certain reasons, such as climatological conditions. For example, coffee, cocoa, and some tropical fruits could be subjects for some negotiations. In exchange, we could assist their country in obtaining products or services that we manufacture so that it would be a win-win for industries and the individuals involved, without gutting the entire economy and devastating the workforce.

Can you elaborate on the Coalition's concerns regarding national sovereignty in the context of global trade agreements?

First of all, all of the international trade agreements have some form of dispute resolutions that cede sovereignty to an international tribunal, so the nations that are involved, are agreeing to allow an international court to make decisions about their domestic policies.

Secondly, agreements such as NAFTA (since renamed “USMCA”) carry with them the hidden agenda of creating a western version of the European Union.

During the George W. Bush administration, Bush had pushed forward the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and there were plans to extend the trading block all of the way down to the South American countries. The ultimate goal was something they called the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). This is a form of regionalism.

Regionalism is the means by which they break down borders by creating a layer of governance over a border area. In doing so, they empower a regional council of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to work to harmonize regulations and laws within the region. The goal is to make it so that the borders, within the region, could be eliminated and areas within that region can all be comfortably merged.

We see many forms of regionalism at work today from the local level, counties and municipalities, to states, and internationally.

Immigration, Environment, and Population Control

What are the Coalition's views on immigration reform and refugee resettlement in relation to national security?

Unfortunately, traitors in Washington D.C. have sold us out and are implementing international treaties such as Articles 13, 14, and 15 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says that everyone has the right to leave their country of origin, change their nationality, and seek asylum in other countries.

As I said previously, the goal of the globalists is to create what they called “The Free Trade Area of the Americas” (FTAA), which would be the western equivalent to the European Union and would extend from North America all the way down to South America.

A preliminary step toward the FTAA, was the North American Union, which was put forward and actively pushed by the George W. Bush administration in 2005, who called it the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America”. The proposed SPP was a merger of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. A part of the SPP was a planned superhighway system, which was to be about five football fields wide to facilitate Mexican trucks on U.S. highways, railway systems and centralized infrastructure. Another “feature” was an inland port network along this super-highway system that would be flying the Mexican flag over what was once the sovereign United States of America. And this entire monstrocity would be foreign-owned, meaning we get to pay tolls to a foreign company for every mile we drive on highways we previously built.

In conjunction with the Bush administration's efforts to push the North American Union, right around that same time in 2005, the globalist Council on Foreign Relations published their report, “Building a North American Community: Report of the Independent Task force on the Future of North America”. In the report they advocated for the free movement of goods, services, and people within the borders of the three North American countries; the inward borders would essentially be de-emphasized in favor of an “outer security perimeter”.

We are to believe that the idea was dropped after they received backlash. However, globalists never give up on their bad ideas. Their bad ideas go dark, where they continue working on them, covertly. Everything we see today with the created crisis at the U.S.-Mexican border indicates that things are going according to plan.

Refugee resettlement should be completely and immediately outlawed. Immigration must be subject to qualification with a very limited number of accepted applicants. There should be a lottery of only the best competing applicants, and a handful of those win.

To be eligible for potential citizenship, candidates should be required to follow steps which include learning American history, learning the English language, following our laws when they're allowed to enter. Anyone who violates any of our laws is disqualified and deported. Similarly, anyone caught sneaking into our country, illegally, is disqualified.

Successful applicants will have went through an assimilation process to learn our values, our culture, and what it means to be an American. They will appreciate being welcomed into our country, will be proud to be called “American”, and be willing to fight for and preserve our country.

The Bible says in Matthew 7:6, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

When we allow other countries to send the worst of their criminals, rapists, gangs, mafia, drug and human traffickers and cartels into our borders, we are “casting our pearls before the swine”. We won't be a great nation for long if this is allowed to continue.

How does the Coalition balance environmental concerns with its opposition to the modern environmentalist agenda?

In Matthew 23:24, Jesus condemned the scribes and Pharisees — the news media and leaders of his day — for being hypocrites that were “blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel”. The more things change, the more they stay the same!

What passes for the “modern environmentalist agenda” has little to do with protecting the environment. It is about grift, and population control. How many real environmental issues are ignored because of bogus issues like “global warming” or “climate change”?

My brother-in-law who used to serve aboard a Navy vessel once told me that every evening at sundown, the entire ocean behind the vessel would be filled with floating bags of garbage. The U.S. military would routinely throw all of the ship's trash out to sea.

Yet, the government wags their finger at us about carbon dioxide — which is not a pollutant — it's plant food. Carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the environment, without which we all die. The climate has always changed, and will still be changing long after we're gone. People have nothing to do with it.

But scribes and Pharisees of our day say things like, 98 percent of scientists agree that anthropogenic greenhouse warming is real.

First of all, consensus isn't science. In fact, consensus is the exact opposite of science. The process of science is one of debate. Theories are put forward, published, objectively taken apart or substantiated and built upon. There has to be the ability to openly challenge the thesis. You don't wake up one day and take a vote and say that the “science is settled”. Anyone telling you that science is settled, is lying to you.

Secondly, that 98 percent number is completely contrived and bogus. It assumes that they've talked to every climate scientist in the world and gauged their opinion about whether we're impacting the climate, and that they reached a consensus and nearly all of them agree. They haven't, and they don't.

There are plenty of scientists that disagree with the notion of human-caused global warming or climate change. I've talked to many of them, both on and off the air.

The reason you don't hear from more of them is that they don't get air time on the TV networks, they're censored on social media and in search results, and can't get any grant money to fund their research. I have even talked to some who have received threats of physical violence and have been the victim of lawfare tactics. Ask yourself, if the science is truly settled, why is so much of it being censored?

The “climate change” agenda is about charging you for the air you breathe, and taxing you for everything you produce and consume, to the point where it will be so expensive to live, many won't survive. The ones who do, will be so miserable they'll wish they hadn't — except the super-wealthy. The ultra-rich will profit from it and be able to buy their way around the restrictions.

Can you discuss the Coalition's stance on government or corporate-implemented population control measures?

This is ultimately a war of the ultra-wealthy against the rest of us. They own all of the shares of all of the major corporations. Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street — they own it all. They own the major banks — Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan, Wells Fargo — and these banks, among others, own the shares of the Federal Reserve Bank, which controls the U.S. government and all of its politicians. No, it isn't the other way around!

I hear you say, “what about Congressional oversight?”

Watch the video of then-Federal Reserve chair, Ben Bernanke, when he was confronted Sen. Bernie Sanders concerning a $2.2 trillion loan program the Fed gave to banks after the 2008 financial crisis. Sen. Sanders asked Bernanke to tell the American people to whom the Fed lent $2.2 trillion of “their money” and what were the terms of those loans?

“Will you tell us who they are?” Sanders asked. Bernanke flatly and arrogantly answered, “no”.

There is your “oversight”. They do what they want, when they want, and drag us along as their debt slaves.

The concepts of “human capital” and “human resources” were developed by economists and introduced into the American vocabulary in the early 1960s. The decade of the sixties was also the beginning of the cultural revolution and the war on the institution of the family.

These may seem like disjointed facts, but I believe they serve as the perfect foundation of the war that rages against humanity today. We are viewed as property of the international banking cartel, and are being managed and culled, when necessary, and when our value drops below the threshhold where we are no longer contributing enough to society.

Joan Veon, author of The United Nations Global Straightjacket, used to attend the globalist meetings and heard them coin the term, “Family Dependency Ratio” in relation to the number of people contributing versus those who are a liability on the system.

In 1969, Richard Nixon commissioned the National Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. It was chaired by John D. Rockefeller III and issued its final report in 1972, recommending, among other things, increased access to “family planning”.

That same year, the Club of Rome issued its alarmist report, “Limits to Growth”, which warned of catastrophic consequences of unchecked population growth and resource consumption. It suggested that a decline in human population must be necessary to avoid ecological collapse.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the following year was the 1973 Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision that unconstitutionally took away the states' rights to prohibit the slaughter of unborn children in their mothers' wombs.

Henry Kissinger's National Security Study Memorandum 200 targeted poor, developing countries for depopulation as a matter of U.S. public policy in 1974.

Jimmy Carter's 1980 report Global 2000 had similar dire warnings of doom and gloom.

These measures — and many more could likely be named — helped lay the foundation for a global micromanagement of all life and resources on the planet — Agenda 21.

Agenda 21 is a 40 chapter document that was unveiled in 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. The is the UN's blueprint for the 21^st century on how to achieve what they refer to as “sustainable development”, which they define as “this generation's ability to meet its needs without compromising future generation's ability to meet its needs.”

Notice the focus is on meeting “needs” and not desires, ambitions, aspirations, hopes, dreams, etc. The outcome of all Agenda 21 plans, when fully implemented, will be global technocratic and socialistic enslavement, resulting in utter and completely hopeless global poverty.

Property Rights, Constitution, and Local Governance

How does the Coalition to Govern America view the relationship between private property rights and individual wealth?

The land is the means of production. All wealth stems from private property ownership. You cannot have individual wealth without private property rights.

What are your thoughts on global initiatives like Agenda 21 and sustainable development in terms of property rights?

All throughout the United Nations' documents, they talk about the importance of different peoples having “access to land”. But “access to land” isn't private property ownership. Agenda 21 puts the means of production, the land, off limits to people.

Programs like Agenda 21 and the more recent Agenda 2030 are implementations of a long-laid plan to organize and micromanage all life on the planet.

Going all of the back to 1934, the Phillip County News in Montana ran a story headlined, Tugwell Predicts New Regulations for Land With Federal Control. The article said,

“Use of all land, public and private will be controlled by the federal government in the future, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Rexford Tugwell predicted this week. Land which cannot be operated effectively under private ownership will be held by the government as public forests, parks, game preserves, grazing ranges, recreation centers and the like, Tugwell asserted.”

“We have depended too long on the hope that private ownership and control would operate somehow for the benefit of society as a whole. That hope has not been realize.” Tugwell said present acreage reductions plans were only an emergency stop gap. “What is done is merely to keep a part of each field of each farm out of use. It seems to be obvious that this cannot be a characteristic feature of a permanent policy.”

Tugwell then advocated reducing the amount of acreage available for farming, saying that we have too many farmers and “we could probably raise all the farm products we need with half our present farmers”.

He then said, “Private control has failed to use wisely its control of the land. We are preparing a land program not merely for the benefit of those who held title to it but for the greater welfare of all the citizens of the country.”

In the decades since, farmers and ranchers have been under major attack, many driven out of the business. National monument designations, nature preserves, parks, wildlife refuges, wildlife corridors, scenic byways, blueways, watersheds and buffer zones, land trusts and conservation easements — the list of encumbrances is endless. But the amount of land available is finite, with more being locked up all of the time. In addition, you have billionaires, major corporations, and foreign interests buying up hectares of farm land.

In 1992, at the UN UNCED conference, in addition to Agenda 21, they introduced the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The purpose of all of these documents were to lean upon policymakers and legislators to mandate controls upon the land, water, and air — all of the essentials of life.

Now, in the name of fighting “climate change”, they are going to war on our food supply. There was a cattle rancher who recently appeared on the Laura Ingraham Show who stated that there are a billion less cows for beef production than there were just a year ago. Simultaneously, you have the globalist goons at World Economic Forum telling us that we will “own nothing and be happy”, while their propaganda outlets are constantly promoting bugs as a delicious and healthy source of protein.

The bottom line is, Agenda 21 and the UN system will be the death of all individual liberty, wealth, and private property, globally — if the People don't rise up and learn about it and put a stop to it.

Their motto is “think globally, act locally”, and they're doing it. It's being implemented at the state and local levels. People need to attend their city council meetings, their county and township government meetings.

Get a hold of your local government's Comprehensive Plan for Land Use. I obtained a copy of ours, where I live, and discovered they had our property designated as “Parks and Recreation” — except that is where my house is sitting. It's land that I “own”.

Everybody will be fighting these battles in the coming days. Some are fighting them now. It won't pay to put one's head in the sand. The battle will come to you some day. It doesn't matter where you live. Every inch of land is accounted for and they have a plan for it. You might as well get involved and take the fight to them.

Can you elaborate on the Coalition's interpretation of the Second Amendment and its implications for gun ownership?

The Second Amendment states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The words, “shall not be infringed” is about as clear a language as can be penned. It means that any law the government passes that infringes upon our rights to keep and bear arms is unlawful under our Constitution.

I believe the first part of the Second Amendment shines some light upon the intent of the Founders. “A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state...”

The definition of a “well-regulated militia” was codified into law a few years after the 1787 convention with the Militia Act of 1792 which required every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 to be available for military service in times of national emergency.

What kind of national emergency? Invasion from a foreign government? Or how about attack from the national government?

The people feared the federal government having a standing army. This is one of the things that James Madison addressed in Federalist 46, when he was attempting to quell opposition to the new Constitution. He said:

“The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. … Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.”

James Madison felt confident that if the federal government had a standing army, they would be no match for the States with an armed citizenry. He went on to elaborate:

“The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”

It is clear from his words that James Madison saw the “well-regulated militia” as being the ordinary armed American who would serve as a check on the threat of federal tyranny.

How does the Coalition promote grassroots efforts to influence local and state governance in line with constitutional values?

The original purpose of the Coalition to Govern America was to have people on a grass roots level to organize in their state and instruct their representatives on Constitutional issues that impact our liberty. The vision was to have a Govern Michigan, a Govern Indiana, a Govern Ohio, Govern Tennessee, etc. But in states where there are good groups, we are always wanting to connect people with those groups.

Govern America is our national, weekly, radio call-in broadcast, through which we have been educating and informing people about various national, state, and local issues for about two decades now. We talk about local issues, and also the national and international scene. We attempt to unravel the dialectic of the controllers, each week. We are not hero worshipers, so our viewpoints are not always popular, but people are welcome to call in and disagree, as long as it is civil.

Most of all, we document what we do. We cite original sourced material, play audio directly from the think tanks and other sources, and debunk the nonsense.

When we started, it used to be much more difficult to find people who are active in these issues. Today, the sleeping giant has awakened. The billionaire globalists talk about it all of the time in their think tanks. They don't know how to deal with people like us, so they trend more toward their totalitarian tendencies, which only serves to bring more people over to our side.

It's easy to become discouraged, seeing all of the negative things that are happening in our world today, and how the government is cracking down on patriots and freedom-lovers.

But the reality is, if we weren't being effective, they would just ignore us. The fact that they are having to deal with us, strategizing on how to censor and subdue us, indicates that they're afraid. We've damaged their propaganda agenda. There are many of us that are going county by county and working to route out corruption and take the political system away from the corrupt Establishment.

No one said it would be easy. Though we are not guaranteed success, we must be faithful because the stakes are too high. I have seen miracles take place when situations seemed absolutely hopeless. It's easy to forget that the evil monsters, operating behind the scenes, are just mere men. They're disgusting, filthy, evil, diabolical, demonic men, but they are only men. We have numbers; our numbers are growing. They are terrified of us; they have good reason to be. If we give up, we guarantee their success and the technocratic enslavement of future generations.

I will leave you with the words of my dear friend and mentor, the late Roger Mundy. Whenever a discouraged and frustrated patriot would be confronted with a particularly egregious measure that threatened our lives and liberty, the common refrain from these concerned people would often be, “if this happens, it's over!”

In his soft, soothing voice that served just as much as a rebuke as an encouragement, Roger would gently reply, “it's not over, until it's overcome.”

Thank You for Being Part of Our Community

Your presence here is greatly valued. If you've found the content interesting and useful, please consider supporting it through a paid subscription. While all our resources are freely available, your subscription plays a vital role. It helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. Please make full use of our Free Libraries.

Discover Our Free Libraries:

Unbekoming Interview Library: Dive into a world of thought-provoking interviews across a spectrum of fascinating topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Explore concise summaries of groundbreaking books, distilled for efficient understanding.

Hear From Our Subscribers: Check out the [Subscriber Testimonials] to see the impact of this Substack on our readers.

Share Your Story or Nominate Someone to Interview:

I'm always in search of compelling narratives and insightful individuals to feature. Whether it's personal experiences with the vaccination or other medical interventions, or if you know someone whose story and expertise could enlighten our community, I'd love to hear from you. If you have a story to share, insights to offer, or wish to suggest an interviewee who can add significant value to our discussions, please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com. Your contributions and suggestions are invaluable in enriching our understanding and conversation.

Resources for the Community:

For those affected by COVID vaccine injury, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Discover 'Baseline Human Health': Watch and share this insightful 21-minute video to understand and appreciate the foundations of health without vaccination.

Books as Tools: Consider recommending 'Official Stories' by Liam Scheff to someone seeking understanding. Start with a “safe” chapter such as Electricity and Shakespeare and they might find their way to vaccination.

Your support, whether through subscriptions, sharing stories, or spreading knowledge, is what keeps this community thriving. Thank you for being an integral part of this journey.

Lies are Unbekoming

Discussion about this post