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.