Help strengthen alternative media by visiting our supporters

Sheepdog Supplies

Don’t Color Outside Of The Lines

Regionalism is another example of breaking jurisdictional boundaries, this particular methodology has destroyed our country's boundaries and has made everything a mess as representation no longer exists.


Don’t Color Outside Of The Lines

by Karen Schumacher

According to the Free Dictionary the term “Don’t color outside the lines” means “To think or act in a way that does not conform to set rules. Likened to the way a child might color outside the lines of a coloring book.” Lines provide structure and boundaries that creates a picture everyone can recognize.

Many of our Founding Fathers had a deep religious faith that guided their boundaries in life just as Christianity provides boundaries, the Ten Commandments are pretty simple and clear.  However, as most understand, it is not always easy to refrain from straying outside of those boundaries, and for those who do, life can get pretty messy.  Everyone can relate to that.

Christianity also has a foundation of a personal and individual relationship with God, judged only by Him. Individualism exemplified that we are responsible for our own behavior, sovereign and separate from everyone else, a concept which might have been used as one basis for our government.  Each federal branch is separate with clear boundaries on their duties and roles, just as each state, county, and city are sovereign from each other and separate.

Boundaries provide for our structured government while adhering to those boundaries have preserved the structure.  Messes occurred along the way but using the rule of law and the boundaries within government roles, problems were cleaned up, for instance adding Constitutional amendments that provided new boundaries on what is acceptable in our society. 

However, America no longer functions within any boundaries.  As a result, by not coloring within these lines, everything has become messy.

Unfortunately in the world there are still people, governments, and now corporations that are repulsed by the idea of individualism and sovereignty while encouraging youth in “breaking traditional rules” as boundaries and individualism are barriers to collective control over everyone.  As part of collectivism, “consensus building” and capacity building, rather than following the rule of law, were introduced in Agenda 21.  Following suit, now, instead of following the rule of law and the Constitution that provides boundaries, the government gathers together at ritzy, all tax payer funded places for a good time, listening to corporate and other lobbyists, slapping each other on the back for reaching a “consensus” on what they will collectively do to their constituents, then go back home and brag about what they are doing “for” you.  All of our government’s original boundaries laid out by our Founders have flown out the door.  Where is it found in any Constitution that allows about half of the governors in the U.S. getting together to make policy decisions that are then dumped on each individual state?

The lines our Founders drew were for a reason, and it was not for compromising or reaching a consensus. 

It has always been the goal of the United Nations (UN) to force collectivism upon us by shredding boundaries.  Agenda 21, also known as sustainable development (SD), laid the foundation for restructuring our government, creating more blurring or elimination of boundaries.  President Clinton essentially destroyed our government structure by implementing his President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) that embedded all SD principles into our government in 1993.  This council began the process of dragging in corporate heads for partnerships, non-governmental organizations (NGO), and Tribes that dismantled a representative government.  These groups represent the obliterated boundary of elected representation.

It was also around this time that boundaries in the education system were destroyed.  The 3 R’s of reading, writing, and arithmetic were taken off the table as essential for learning.  Goal #10 of the PCSD centered on “teaching the concepts of SD”.  Education for Sustainability: An Agenda for Action report originated from the PCSD in 1996 which effectively removed parents as the authority on their child’s education on page 54, instead turning it over to indoctrinated teachers, international and global players, UNESCO and other UN organizations, government agencies, NGOs, and corporations.  This in spite of Supreme Court cases that upheld parents’ rights and authority over their children.  No parent was involved in the decision to revamp the education system or relinquish authority over their child. 

Instead, the steps were started for “…establishing necessary partnerships, as the foundation for a coordinated strategy for education for sustainability” with the “infusion of education for sustainability into formal and non-formal educational institutions.”, found on page 57.  Global education also became the focus on page 67 with the new electorate outlined on page 88.  The mess that has been caused by this change in the structure of our education system has resulted in several generations of uneducated and indoctrinated individuals who now only react to issues rather than using any scrap of intelligence to think.

Education has insidiously and systematically been used to dismantle the boundaries of not only our government structure but individual autonomy, it is now group think.  Subtle classroom changes reinforced this, not only by removing individual desks that were sovereign to the student and using “community supplies”, but also by eliminating individual work with group tables becoming the forum for discussions on collaboration and “consensus“, with a grade assigned to the individual partly for the group work but also for group participation.  Grades are given for agreeing, not thinking.

Regionalism is another example of breaking jurisdictional boundaries, combining countries, states, counties, cities, and even legislatures.  This particular methodology has destroyed our country’s boundaries and has made everything a mess as representation no longer exists.  These regional groups listen to what is fed to them, usually by NGOs, and corporations during their ritzy gatherings, which contributes to the loss of constituent voices.  Chaos is created in legislatures as legislators who stand for Constitutional boundaries are in conflict with those who have adopted the consensus decision by the groups in which they belong.  Surely this division has to be a deliberate tactic by those who designed SD in order to breach more government boundaries, those abiding by Constitutional boundaries, the others by SD dictates.

What used to be clearly understood as inalienable rights have now been stripped and renamed human rights with the UN dictating its own rules on what rights should be.  The relationship is now between humans and the UN, not between humans and their Creator.  Now indoctrinated Americans are demanding everything is a right, health care, education, employment, housing, and the list goes on.  However, since these rights are man-made and all come out of the UN, there doesn’t appear to be any exclusions in rights, until of course those man-made rights are revoked which creates temper tantrums.  With no boundaries, everything becomes unrecognizable, what does America stand for?  What is the picture being colored?

Religious beliefs are also a UN target with Churches, or faith based organizations as the UN calls it, joining the cause, removing boundaries taught within faith as well.

Even though Agenda 21 was established 30 years ago this boundary erasure is being carried forward by Agenda 2030 and the World Economic Forum (WEF).  Staying within the lines that were drawn by our Founders are no longer a consideration.  The chipping away of the constraints of our Constitution was deliberately done to eliminate our sovereignty.  Can’t have collectivism if one is sovereign and independent. 

This is the new Constitution, “a living document”, adopted in 1999.  Because the constraints and boundaries of the Constitution are no longer followed everything is messy.  With the integration of SD into our government 30 years ago, as SD issues have expanded, those issue are being forced into our lives.  These expanded issues include LGBTI, same sex marriage, racism, human rights, vaccines and healthcare for all, migration, gender equality, mental health, sex reassignment, in fact every aspect of life is part of SD.  Indoctrinated American citizens, the group think, who support these issues vote for representatives who also support them.  No longer is it the voice of the governed, it is the voices of teachers, NGOs, professional organizations, youth, foundations, corporations, and the “federal government’s role in advancing education for sustainability” (pg 76).  We are fortunate that we are being told what will be done to us further down the road to either help us prepare to acquiesce or stop it and put Constitutional boundaries back into place.  Which is America doing?

The structural changes from SD in our government continue to destabilize how we live. Every piece of nonsense seeping out of the government is based on SD, not constituent voices.  Much of it can be blamed on the removal of Constitutional boundaries by W.J. Clinton but those who have participated in not restoring the boundaries are complicit as well.  In the end, we will all be judged individually for our actions, not collectively. 

It isn’t woke, it is sustainable development.

There is a reason why people don’t color outside the lines.  It just makes everything messy.

This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. Consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here


5 Comments on Don’t Color Outside Of The Lines

  1. I thought our country gave up on the issue of religion in 1800. The Treaty of Tripoli, which stated we are not a Christian nation, had been signed and the country elected an atheist as president.

    • “From this, Miller concludes: “A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic … yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts”

      • The eleventh article of the Barlow translation has no equivalent whatever in the Arabic. The Arabic text opposite that article is a letter from Hassan Pasha of Algiers to Yussuf Pasha of Tripoli. The letter gives notice of the treaty of peace concluded with the Americans and recommends its observation. Three fourths of the letter consists of an introduction, drawn up by a stupid secretary who just knew a certain number of bombastic words and expressions occurring in solemn documents, but entirely failed to catch their real meaning. Here the only thing to be done by a translator is to try to give the reader an impression of the nonsensical original:

      • It is to be remembered that the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18-19) and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.

Comments are closed.