SIZING UP THE SOCIALIST MACHINE IN AMERICA

Out here in the hinterland (medium sized city), watching our national, state, and local leadership all falling into the socialists abyss, is becoming like trying to catch a flood with your hands. It keeps on coming, in spite of the best efforts of good Americans who are aghast at the deluge. Count me among those aghast.

I began the day doing research on how conservancy groups are using non-profit status to acquire private property, taking the land out of the hands of citizen ownership and putting into the hands of the "collective." Once taken, the land is forever off of the property tax rolls, taken out of productivity, and placed firmly into the collective maintenance of the public coffers. This is going on daily all over the United States of America. The tools used to accomplish this are many and diverse and sometimes draconian. Peer pressure, tax incentives, tax pressures, regulations, eminent domain, shaming... you name it, anything will be used to accomplish the goal. So I guess it is no surprise that a global socialist foundation would be funding a school, teaching media relations for the socialist agenda.

In my search today I came across a site for The American Hiking Society Evidently, the American Hiking Society wants to influence Americans to give up land for their lovely hiking experiences...so from their site, I found this: The Spin Project " The SPIN Project is dedicated to working with social justice organizations ready to deploy communications strategies for social change."


The site goes on to say:Using Media to Improve Media "A grant from the Ford Foundation allows SPIN to offer specialized services to advocates and scholars who are pressing for a more diverse, more local, more inclusive media landscape." Further revelations: "The SPIN Project works with a broad range of policy, advocacy and grassroots organizations striving to strengthen democracy and public participation. Our clients are typically small to midsize organizations focusing on issues concerning civil rights, human rights, social justice and the environment."

Continuing: "The SPIN Project honors the multiracial, multicultural and diverse constituencies of the groups we work with, and consistently works with individuals of different ages, sexual orientations, ethnicities and incomes."

That looks like a recipe for a fractured society, if ever I've seen one. Nothing there about advocating for our national principles held in the Constitution.

Now I suspect the Ford Foundation is in the stratosphere of billionaires and money in the bank. And I am sure the Ford Foundation would like nothing other than to use its money to influence the political landscape in America, bending America to its socialist conformity.

To that end I found this under the heading "Campaign Support:"": "In addition to strategizing on fieldwork with trainees, the SPIN Project has contributed to campaigns in an in-depth, ongoing capacity. SPIN will provide ongoing, advanced media consultation around political or cultural campaigns by “parachuting” a staff person into the field. A SPIN Project media professional will provide concrete skills on a real-time campaign with local activists and serve as a mentor to develop media capacity in existing campaign staff.

I guess that is what Nancy Pelosi meant when she said they would parachute in, eh?

And you thought hiking was just a nice walk in the woods. Instead, hiking is now an advocacy group for 'social justice' and 'multi-cultural diversity.' I mean, how can you take private property away from an owner if it isn't for the sake of collectivism and communitarian enjoyment? The flood is not coming from the dark shadows under the floor boards anymore. The flood is coming from our corrupt government policies and filtering down through non-profit orgs. who are benefiting from tax-payer largesse. Today, I am very worried we have not enough hands to catch the deluge. The American people are going to have to stand up ....against the "American Hiking Society," for crying out loud?? Yes. That is what it will take to save the nation. Why should a hiking organization using tax deferred non-profit status promote a political foundation that works tirelessly to undermine our Constitution? The hiking organization isn't promoting just hiking, it is promoting the taking of private property.

That's exactly the problem, friends. You can't join a hiking organization. You can't join the Chamber of Commerce. You can't join the local Community Foundation. You can't join anything anymore without researching who is being funded with your dues. (I've had the same disappointment with even the local art guild who now is filled with advocates for socialism. Why should an art guild maintain tax deferred status while promoting a political agenda?) Like the unions were taken over by the global socialists, even hiking and biking orgs. have been taken over by rabid socialist communitarians who despise the American Constitution and individual rights.

You are known by the company you keep. If you want to fight the socialist machine in America, you are required to analyze and reject those organizations who are now led by collectivists, and are driven by global foundations such as the Ford Foundation. The company I keep is the Tea Party movement which is trying to save America from the entrenched America haters who live here and fund these anti-American efforts in nearly all aspects of our society.

The flood is upon us. The socialist machine has reached peak infiltration. Our government has given them free reign and allowed them tax preferred status through non-profit tax breaks. All levels of our government have been cooperating with this, bought and paid for by American tax payers. This needs to be exposed and stopped.

I hope you will stand with the Tea Party. I hope you will carefully research what organizations you join and reject those who are working against our goals of saving the nation.

This article was published also at COMMIE BLASTER

WHERE SOVEREIGNTY WENT

A few posts back I asked a question regarding the implementation by a President of an unratified treaty. I was seeking legal counsel on the subject, but so far have not received legal advice. Still waiting...I decided to research some more....

In case you think a President has restricted powers and that our election of a President is a rather inconsequential exercise of our voting process, you might want to rethink that. Yes, our Constitution gives each branch of government restrictions, "checks and balances" if you will. Not to let a little thing like that get in the way...our recent Presidents have completely ignored the premise of Constitutional restraint.

Evidently, the United States of America has hopped onto a process where we do things based on the United Nations' ideas of how America should be operating. The reason this has come to my attention is the implementation of a United Nations Treaty...under the name of the Rio Treaty or the Kyoto Treaty or Agenda 21...not three different treaties, but the same treaty under different names. (again, the global Marxists keep changing the names of things to deflect criticism and continue on their happy march to global Marxism.)

From Bill Clinton's creation of the President's Council on Sustainable Development, to Obama's creation of the White House Rural Council, we have two Presidents implementing Agenda 21, a United Nations treaty, WITHOUT Congressional approval.

Why would they do this?? They do it because #1. they know the treaty is not compatible with the United States Constitution, and #2. they know the people of the United States would not vote for one iota of it, and 3. they can put the revenue stream in place without our consent over use of our own money. So they do it anyway...by executive orders.

Well, the last time I checked, the President of the United States does not have dictatorial powers. These executive orders are illegal representations of a United Nations treaty that the American people don't want. Legal counsel, please advise.

Wikipedia on the word "Treaty" - Sole Executive Agreement

"A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a “manifest” violation is required such that it would be “objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision."

"A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority????" Well, I suggest we'd better not "presume" such a thing in the case of United States' Presidents, because they have done just the opposite. Electing a President who refuses to adhere to the will of the people or respect the U.S. Constitution is obviously a bigger problem than most people realize. Hence, the Presidential election is not so inconsequential after all...is it? We used to think that Congress and the Constitution held the reins on Presidents. Evidently not so much.

Wikipedia on the word "Treaty"

"In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senate, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President."


Under the United States Constitution, no treaty is valid unless it is ratified by Congress. Yet, we now have Presidents implementing United Nations treaties and edicts without the consent of our representative Congress and thereby, without the consent of the American people. Evidently, from that last paragraph, a sole executive agreement is a treaty by executive order, the President acting alone. Yet, our Constitution requires Congressional ratification of a formal treaty. I'm confused. Are you??

I searched further to find that there is such a thing as a "sole executive agreement." This is also considered a treaty. I found more on that:
"Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert.^[8] The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so."Cite Wikipedia on Treaty-Clause

"Although it has not yet done so????" Drat the luck! So, even if a President agrees to a United Nations treaty by his signature and / or implements the tenets of a treaty, it is still subject to adherence to the U.S. Constitution. But no one has nullified such actions?? No process or matter of regulation coming through our government by way of the United Nations' treaty compliance regarding sovereign land use, water use, energy use, etal, is consistent with our Constitutional rights. The rub is that we have local and state elected officials complying with the processes and regulations, thereby implementing a UN treaty, and bypassing referendum or voter consent in doing this. The process has become corrupt. The funding and dictates are coming from the executive branch of our government in order to implement the wishes of the United Nations for control over the U.S. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this??

Our only hope is to UNELECT those who participate in this corrupt scheme of anti-Constitutional dictates, from Presidents all the way down to city councils and county commissioners.

Back to the Agenda 21 (Sustainable Development and Smart Growth) question of treaty implementation without the American voters' consent, I am still looking for legal counsel on the subject. There is nothing in our Constitution which gives the United Nations authority over our land use, energy use, water use, building codes, or anything else within the purview of our sovereign lands. Somehow American Presidents are swearing to uphold our Constitution, but at the same time, putting United Nations' orders and regulations into place using our Federal government as force and our taxes as funding. All of this without Congressional consent.

This is where our sovereignty went. How and when do we get it back??

LAND AND MONEY GRAB - IT'S ALL ABOUT GREEN

It's so lovely to think about parks and recreation. Realizing that parks and recreation are luxuries, environmentalists have, over time, decided to take a much different approach to convince the public to spend tax money on parks, greenways, trails, open areas, e.g. Realizing that luxuries are usually thrown out the window when times are tough, environmentalists figured out that they had better make themselves, parks and recreation, seem necessary in order to get funding to further their cause. Now parks and greenways, trails and open areas, are deemed necessary for clean air, clean water, and healthy living.

Please. I love parks as much as the next guy. I like to go for walks with my family and my dog. I love the great outdoors, trees, water, nature, and wildlife. I am not for paving over the entire world with concrete. That sounds like I should be a number one fan of greenways and conservation agencies. But there is a rotten fish in the country that is smelling to high heaven on the American landscape. The rotten fish is Agenda 21. And Agenda 21 has latched onto every environmentalist group and every government agency in America for subversive purposes that have nothing to do with love of the environment.

You might say, so what? Isn't it great to preserve the environment anyway? What does it matter if a United Nations plan for global socialism is the underlying motive for environmentalism? Believe me. It matters.

The United Nations has unleashed environmental radicalism across the globe for at least the last 20 years. Environmentalism has become the perfect foil for controlling the world's populations. Environmental groups in the United States, after lobbying State and Federal government, agencies and politicians relentlessly for years, have gained nearly unlimited access to our tax money to implement Agenda 21 within the United States.

Agenda 21 is the parent document that encompasses many projects. Among these are: Sustainable Development, the Wildlands Project, Biosphere Programs, and more. Under the umbrella of Sustainable Development came Smart Growth, Urban Planning for Livable Communities, Eco-Tourism, Livable Cities, e.g. Under the Wildlands Project came Biosphere Preserves, World Heritage Sites, Lands Conservancies, Our Global Neighborhood, just to name four associated types of organizations. These groups are all intertwined and have been integrated into our federal agencies and our national policies. In short, our government has been collaborating with global, environmental, soviet style, restructuring of our land uses and our freedoms. None of the groups mentioned are elected by Americans. None are concerned with the parameters of our Constitution. All are using the United Nations criteria for the environment as a guideline to force the American public into submission. And worse, they have figured out a way around our election process to do it.

Yes, the ship has left the port....the train has left the station...the plane took off....the cow is out of the barn. So now what? We know now that Agenda 21 has been insidiously infused into our government. Unlike roads, bridges and other necessary infrastructure, funded through normal channels, Agenda 21 is being funded with our taxes under the radar without our consent. In other words, your community is not deciding to create a recreational greenway by appropriating local money out of the tax bin to do it. Instead, your local councils are going to any number of cooperating government agencies to steal federal and state money for grants to do these projects. That way, you think you are getting a "goodie" from the state and the feds, and you think you don't have to pay for it. At the same time, in case you haven't noticed, the states and the federal government are broke....so far broke that the debts are in the billions and trillions. Who do you think is going to pay those debts?? The U.N.? I don't think so..... And in this process, Americans are being shut out of controlling their own lands.

What we need to do now is expose it and rid ourselves of it. That means we need to vote out politicians who have willingly sold us down the river by allowing our tax dollars to be used to undermine our Constitution. We need to stop funding grants and tax deductions for greenways, trails, open areas, and other environmental initiatives within our communities. We need to get rid of every town and city plan that has adopted Smart Growth and Sustainable Development. Why? Because the plans are not drawn up or initiated by your local councils, mayors, or commissioners. All of this is drawn up by a global cabal that has designs on making American land off limits to American ownership.

So why are they doing this? Out of the kindness of their hearts, the love of wildlife, and the adoration of our land? No. Nothing to do with such altruistic motives. It's money. And it's resources. (notice they are targeting buffers around water..creeks, lakes, rivers, etc. ) Think about it. If you can assure that Americans do not have access to the land and the resources in and on that land, who controls the land and resources? The U.N.? The Federal and State governments? It certainly isn't American citizens. Do your local councils even care about that? Or do they just care about bringing home some bacon, grabbing grant money, and walking around like silly, trophy-winning, fools?

The United Nations is all about global power over sovereign nations. What better way to get that power than to control the lands in those sovereign nations? Very clever, don't you think? And all for the supposedly sublime love of the planet. We are stupid idiots to let this happen right in front of us.

If you want to know more, there are a few more articles below. I could go on and on and on regarding this issue. While we are stewing about government unions, Islamic eruptions in the Middle East, gay marriage, abortion, government debt, murder and mayhem.....the country is being stolen out from under us.

Private Land Lockup by William Norman Grigg
Reed F. Noss, the radical “deep ecologist” who co-created the 1991 Wildlands Project proposal with Foreman, describes how the surface of North America would be covered by “an interconnected system of strictly protected areas (core reserves), surrounded by lands used for human activities compatible with conservation that put biodiversity first (buffer zones), and linked together in some way that provides for functional connectivity … across the landscape.” In both the “core” and “buffer” areas, Noss explains, “the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.”

Every environmental preserve — such as habitat for endangered species, national monuments, wilderness areas, or UN-designated World Heritage sites or Biosphere Reserves — is a potential Wildlands Project “core area.” Dave Foreman urges radical eco-activists on the ground to “identify existing protected areas” and have them designated core areas. They can then be connected to other core areas through “corridors” across the landscape.

Foreman also instructs eco-radicals to “look for gaps between wild lands or public lands” for future acquisition “by public agencies or by private groups like the Nature Conservancy.” Wildlands activist John Davis states that the whole purpose of this strategy is to keep “expanding wilderness until the matrix, not just the nexus, is wild” — in other words, until property owners, miners, ranchers, loggers, and others living and working in targeted areas have been driven off their lands and cattle-penned in urban reservations.

Writing in Science magazine, Charles C. Mann and Mark L. Plummer warn that as the Wildlands Project unfolds, “most roads would be closed; some would be ripped out of the landscape.” This is certainly what RMAP portends for owners of Washington forestlands. Eventually, continue Mann and Plummer, the project will require “nothing less than a transformation of America [into] an archipelago of human-inhabited islands surrounded by natural islands.” Environmental author Alston Chase bluntly warns that consummation of the Wildlands design will mean “the forced relocation of tens of millions of people … the removal of human habitation from up to half of the country’s land area.”



Judy Keeler Article-2003
"Has the environmental community become so intertwined with our elected officials, as well as our state and federal agencies, they are selling us out to a "higher order?"


Greensboro Misses Out On Greenway Grant
"GREENSBORO — Local leaders lamented the news Wednesday that Greensboro missed out on a $14.6 million federal grant that would have provided most of the money needed to complete the Downtown Greenway."
"Federal officials said they received more than 1,000 applications, totaling in excess of $19 billion."
From the same article, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood describes the idea that greenways and trails will transform how we travel to work...i.e. by foot, bike, and horse. Does that sound innovative or regressive to you?
“These are innovative, 21st century projects that will change the U.S. transportation landscape,” LaHood said in a prepared statement. “Many of these projects could not have been funded without this program.”

Project for Public Spaces This page provides a list of funding sources for greenway projects. You will see how many creative funding opportunities using tax money are out there. They do mention private donations, also, but remember even those are tax deductions reducing the tax coffers for other necessary government uses.

Biodiversity Movement in Pennsylvania This article was written 7 years ago...just to show you how deep the damage is and how long this has been going on.

Kansas City Action Plan This site just shows you how comprehensive the planning is in one city in America. Multiply that across the entire country. Ask yourself, how much of our money and resources are being used for recreation and open areas.

UNDERSTANDING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - CONNECTIONS TO THE CAROLINA THREAD TRAIL

This article is also published at Pundit House

The following is a rebuttal article I have written and submitted to our local newspaper, hoping to offset the slick sales pitch being touted by the local executive of the Catawba Lands Conservancy regarding the Carolina Thread Trail. ( Due to space issues, the newspaper can only print a condensed version. Below is the entire article.)

The idea that we all love nature and do not wish to wreck the planet is a given. However, Sustainable Development NGO's and nonprofit conservancy organizations have created a lucrative and diabolical network across the entire nation by using our love of nature and the planet as a ruse to socially restructure our laws, our private property rights, and our Constitution. I am fighting this issue locally in Gastonia, North Carolina. Many others are fighting this issue in cities and towns across the country. I expect this article is not the last I will have to write on this subject. Have a read below:

The Carolina Thread Trail is but one arm of a larger group of nonprofit organizations that are systematically working with governments at all levels to gain control over private property. The "trail" of tax laws, money, anti-private property initiatives, and conspirators is long and convoluted. I hope to try to explain this tangled web of central planning and deceit as concisely as possible. However, if you are seriously interested in knowing how and why this intricate web of land grabbing has taken hold in America, you may research websites by searching terms such as: Agenda 21, history of Sustainable Development, history of the President's Council on Sustainable Development, the Wildlands Project, and many more. If you would like to know more on this, please contact me.

Briefly, Agenda 21, which debuted in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit, is a United Nations action plan for worldwide environment and development. It is a comprehensive blueprint for actions to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by governments and organizations connected to the United Nations in every area where "humans affect the environment." (Funny, I can't think of a human life that does not have any affect on the environment, so that pretty much covers every living, breathing human being on the planet.) The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development created Agenda 21 with someone called Maurice Strong as the primary author. (Please research Maurice Strong, also.) Because Agenda 21 is an anti-private property rights agenda and would likely bring about resistance from Constitutional. freedom-loving Americans, the initiatives now carry lots of utopian sounding names such as: Smart Growth, Sustainable Development, Lands Conservancies, Greenways, Livable Communities, etc.

In 1992 the first President Bush signed onto the Rio Summit Environmental Treaty, incorporating Agenda 21, but our Congress never ratified that treaty. Not dissuaded by the power of Congress, the next President, Bill Clinton, decided to implement Agenda 21 by executive order, creating "The President's Council on Sustainable Development." "Sustainable Development" is the core philosophy of the Carolina Thread Trail and the Lands Conservancy, and the plethora of non-profit land taking organizations all over the country. This Presidential Council created the federal use of tax credits to implement Agenda 21 in America.

As the issue of eminent domain use for the Carolina Thread Trail came up recently, I conferred with several local people, commissioners and other interested parties, only to find out that few people are aware of the origins of "Sustainable Development" in America. The problematic issues with Sustainable Development and the Thread Trail are larger and more far reaching than just the eminent domain issue. Most have never heard of Agenda 21. Yet our daily lives are now impacted by decisions initiated by the United Nations that we, as citizens, have never voted into place. These decisions have been put into action by cooperation between levels of governments, non-governmental organizations (NGO's), non-profit organizations, and central planners. Local policy statements, such as Gastonia 2020, and local planning boards have adopted land use restrictions based on the United Nations' plan called Agenda 21. Groups such as the Carolina Thread Trail and the Lands Conservancy have been established to operate the initiatives of Agenda 21 by using tax subsidies to support them. There are now, at the latest count, over 1700 nonprofit lands conservancy groups operating within the United States. (In 1950 there were fewer than 50) At this writing, well over 4o% of all land in the United States is held by the Federal, State, and local governments, not including the restricted use lands in the conservancies and trusts.

Mr. Cable, the executive director of the Catawba Lands Conservancy, proudly points out that an area the size of Connecticut carved out of 15 counties is planned for the Carolina Thread Trail. Connecticut comprises 4,845 square miles. If you were to superimpose that amount of land onto our local area for instance, that would be an area from Charlotte across to Shelby, and from the South Carolina border north to the Virginia border vertically. North Carolina has 48,000 square miles. So, a swath of at least 10% of the entire state, as an example of size, would be "restricted use" controlled by the Carolina Thread Trail alone. The Carolina Thread Trail is planned in North and South Carolina. (This does not include the areas already controlled by federal, state, and local governments, the Lands Conservancy, the Land Trust Alliance, and all of the other non-profits who are in the business of restricting land use in our State.) I might ask the question, “ How much is enough?”

The Carolina Thread Trail organization and all of the Conservancy non-profits boast that conservation increases property values. This is a "maybe so, maybe not," argument. Conservation easements lower property values for property tax purposes. Land that is undeveloped has a lesser tax value than developed land. This means that localities will be increasing taxes on the rest of the population to make up the tax losses created by the conservation easements. This is a socialist redistribution policy where the rest of the population pays to support the tax breaks to landowners who are "contributing" their land to a "restricted use" contract in perpetuity. The opposite argument of the decrease in tax value is, as Mr. Cable states, is the idea that conservancies increase property values. The simple explanation of this is that taking land out of use, or “restricting use, by owners or future buyers, creates a scarcity of land. When you create a scarcity of any particular necessary thing, the price goes up. When land prices go up, the poor and the middle class have fewer opportunities to buy and use the land for their own needs. So Mr. Cable has a point that conservancies increase property values with regard to market prices. That can be a bad thing for future buyers and dampen the market severely. The land taken out of ownership use is, for all historical purposes, is now restricted forever by feudal landlords made up of non-profits and governments.

As for the word, "voluntary, that Mr. Cable keeps pointing out as one of the selling points of the Thread Trail, I would like to point out that the tax consequences of the taking of the lands is not voluntary on the part of the rest of the local population. As our taxes rise to support the taking of these lands, we are not voluntarily agreeing to support the landowners who are getting the tax breaks. Local government officials are making those decisions without referendum. The last referendum on the subject, in Gastonia, was rejected by the voters.

It is not surprising that some landowners want to take advantage of tax breaks. What is unconscionable is that our leadership is promoting this socialistic policy without public and press scrutiny and loud opposition. The decisions to create these policies are not in the interest of individual taxpayers or the public's knowledge of the consequences. In fact, the public generally has no knowledge of Agenda 21 or the Sustainable Development origins. Instead, the public is being fed a clever Madison Avenue sales pitch on "saving the environment," when in fact, what is happening is a transfer of property and wealth to a privileged few on a ruse of "saving the environment." In reality, citizens are being forced to support Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 without consent or knowledge.

Resources:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_agenda_21_coming_to_a_neigh.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/agenda21rpt.htm

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011022312907/life-and-science/energy-and-environment/agenda-21-part-iii-maryland-county-abolishes-agenda-21-now-for-the-rest-of-the-country.html

http://www.vimeo.com/8821807

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=history+of+the+President%27s+Council+on+Sustainable+Development&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= - q=history+of+the+President%27s+Council+on+Sustainable+Development&hl=en&sa=X&tbs=tl:1,tl_num:20&prmd=ivns&ei=jGRyTaj

http://www.redstate.com/barleycorn/2011/02/11/conservation-easements-the-evil-no-one-knows-cares-about/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_trust

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=history+of+land+conservancy+trusts+in+the+U.S.&aq=f&aqi=m1&aql=&oq= -

http://www.catawbalands.org/your-land-trust/conservation-vision-2030/

http://www.sheelahclarkson.com/land/

http://www.onencnaturally.org/pages/ConservationTaxCredit.html

ICLEI Special Report from Tom Deweese

IT'S ALL ABOUT TAKING YOUR MONEY AND LAND

Sometimes you come up against a dragon you cannot slay. Remember what I said in a previous post about "Futility" not being "Fun?" The more research I do on the Lands Conservancies and their unholy marriage to our government(s), the more I wonder if it will ever be possible to divorce our society from them. It's a tangled web and very insidious. Especially because we have government officials who are just all to happy to throw away the private property rights of individuals for the communitarian "common good" they have been sold by the environmentalist groups. It's going to take a lot more than my one little voice and a few people here and there to rid us of this scourge.

Meanwhile, I'm sharing a 2009 article (below) from Met Life telling their clients all about the fabulous tax advantages of "conservation easements." In essence, in this article, Met Life is selling the idea of transferring private property over to nonprofits and governments for the sake of wealth management. Government agencies are participating with full vigor to implement all of the conservation easements and protections they can get their hands on. Mind you, as you consider this issue, that the land being transferred is going out of private hands into the hands of government bureaucracies and nonprofits using your tax dollars to do it.

I don't know about you, but I don't believe I have ever had the issue come before me on a ballot. In other words, I was never consulted as a voter to bless the use of my tax money (Fed, State, or Local) to be used as an incentive to take private property for the "common good" creating conservation areas. An entire huge industry has erupted around this concept. And our taxes are going for grants to employ slews of bureaucrats and tree huggers just for the purpose of transferring (redistributing) the wealth of land and money.

The article states this as of 2009: "The 1980s saw strong growth of the land trust movement so that today the Land Trust Alliance, a grassroots organization that unites and champions organizations in local communities working to save natural areas, now represents 1,600 land trusts nationwide. The Nature Conservancy and other preservation organizations are major forces in land conservation today. " That statement is just the tip of the iceberg, as you know that today, two years hence, the nonprofit conservancy groups have multiplied like roaches.

If it weren't so tragic, I'd be laughing at the description of the Land Trust Alliance as a "grassroots organization." I guess if you think the United Nations is a "grassroots organization" that has any jurisdiction within the sovereign United States, you might think that statement is true. But the entire premise of this land taking operation was established and is being implemented through a United Nations' Agenda 21 initiative. There is nothing "grassroots" or American about this. In fact, the entire premise is completely antithetical to the protection of property rights in the United States Constitution.

2009 Met Life Article on Land Trusts

2011 White House report on the Land Trust Alliance

Excerpt: "In communities across America, nonprofit land trusts are working with private landowners to keep farm, ranch and forest lands in productive use, create community parks and open space, protect important fish and wildlife habitat, and conserve our scenic and historic heritage. With the help of more than 100,000 volunteers and 2 million members, land trusts have conserved more than 37 million acres, including more than 12 million acres protected by voluntary conservation agreements with private landowners."

Well, I'm an artist and not exactly a math genius, but even I can see that statement says that out of 37 million acres, 12 million acres are "protected" (which actually means "restricted use") by voluntary means. That would mean that 25 million acres are involuntarily confiscated?

Over 40% of all land within the lower 48 states is now held by governments and out of the hands of private ownership. If 2/3 of it is taken involuntarily by land trusts and governments as indicated in this article, what does that say about our Constitutional private property rights? Not much, if you ask me.

Now I can think of some serious unemployment I would like to personally cause. I'd put everyone involved in the Agenda 21 business in America out of business and out of work. And I don't think I'd be willing to pay them unemployment benefits. But that's just me. I'd haul them into court on charges of fraud and treason. But that's just me.

So there is another part of the ongoing saga of Lands Conservancies taking America away from our citizens. Stay tuned. I'm so incensed on the subject that I am likely to continue my rant for a while.....

SUSTAINABLE BS FROM "CONSERVATION" PROPAGANDISTS

If I've learned anything through the recent research on "Lands Conservancy" groups and the "Trails" and "Greenway" groups, it is that they have no elected authority, yet they are controlling local governments in every .....yes, I mean every....square inch of the United States. I've used the analogy before, that they are like a plague of locusts who have descended upon our land. The more I find out about them, the more that analogy applies.

Three things make this unethical and predatory land grab work. One is that the folks behind these schemes are very good salespersons. They are schooled in all the right buzz words and, when performing in front of City and County councils, they speak of "Sustainability," "Livability," "Connectivity," "Land Protection," "Preserving Natural Environments," "Community Involvement," etc. They are also very good at doing the CYA dance...taking no responsibility whatsoever for the taking of land, dropping all of the responsibility onto the local governments. In short, they are Public Relations experts, but won't do the maintenance or the land taking themselves. It's a very clever con.

The second thing that makes this land grab work is the lack of understanding of the local councils on exactly what the motives are behind it. Councils and Mayors and Commissioners only hear the sales pitch. They are told about all of the magnificent natural qualities of their local environment and how important it is to preserve those natural qualities. You could not possibly disagree with that, now could you? Next they are told EVERYONE in their area wants access to all of the natural beauty around them. So, wouldn't it be just tragic to deny that access? Then they are told that the entire community wants preservation and conservation and protection of the land and resources. Gee, would you want to disagree with the entire community? Nevermind that there has been no referendum on the matter. The local government councils are also told that all of the adjoining counties are participating or seriously considering participation, so you would not want to be left out, now would you? Being flattered into thinking the local landscape is so valuable, and being pushed into the herd by these slick master salespersons, local governments are swallowing this sales pitch, hook, line, and sinker.

Next the money starts flowing into the "planners" pockets. These are the folks who create maps of trails and land masses, over-laying trails and "open areas" onto private property. After that, the tax deduction ploy begins and the city or county starts going after the land owners. The tax deductions come from the Federal government where many agencies hand out grants and tax deductions for the purposes of "conservation," "watershed preservation," "protection of natural environments," "recreational access," and all of the aforementioned buzz words. Put tax deductions out there and let the frenzy begin.

I'm planning to stay on top of this subject for a long time. In the meantime, below is an excellent article explaining how Agenda 21 is being implemented in your town and mine.

Kathleen McCarthy on Agenda 21 - The United Nations Taking Private Property Near You

Rubber-Stamping Agenda 21 Starts in Scott County

Commentary/Politics - Editorials	ShareThis
Written by Kathleen McCarthy
Wednesday, 16 February 2011 05:30
How’s this for a conspiracy theory? A global agenda, unveiled in 1992 during the United Nations Conference on Environment & Development (UNCED, also known as the Rio Earth Summit), that is being progressively implemented in every level of government in America through a United Nations (UN) initiative called Sustainable Development Agenda 21. Agenda 21, as it is referred to in the UN’s own documentation (UN.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21), is “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts [sic] on the environment.” Its purpose: to centrally own and control the planet’s resources under the guise of “smart planning” and “sustainable development.” In fact, for most UN-accredited non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Agenda 21 is synonymous with sustainable development. The two primary goals of Agenda 21 are to (1) decrease the world population to “sustainable” levels as a means to effectively control labor, the planet’s number-one resource, and (2) eradicate individual property rights via comprehensive land-use planning that dictates land use according to a global master plan that includes control of everything from food to health to energy to security, and the list goes on. Locally, in Scott County, the slow incremental steps of this globalist agenda are wide open for all to see. On February 3, the Scott County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to adopt the state of Iowa’s “Smart Planning Principles” as part of its Comprehensive Plan. The language of such principles sounds laudable on the surface: collaboration, efficiency, diversity, revitalization. Who could not be for these principles? On January 20, the county staff explained that adopting these principles was a requirement to be eligible for future state and federal sustainability grants. The fine print the county staff would prefer you don’t read is that the resolution adopts Iowa Code 18B Land Use, which reads in part: “Governmental, community, and individual stakeholders, including those outside the jurisdiction of the entity, are encouraged to be involved and provide comment during deliberation of planning, zoning, development, and resource-management decisions and during implementation of such decisions. Individuals, communities, regions, and governmental entities should share in the responsibility to promote the equitable distribution of development benefits and costs.” This language reinforces what many critics of Agenda 21 are concerned with: Accepting state and federal grants eventually leads to ceding local authority to more centralized regional councils of unelected governments – with the authority to levy more taxes (Does SECC911 ring any bells?) so they may further their top-down goals. Supervisor Larry Minard addressed this concern prior to his vote, stating: “If such an organization does develop that relates to planning and other issues that might come before it ... the state will decide that and they will decide whether it’s a taxable organization or it doesn’t tax. They will decide what’s going to happen; we won’t. But I can guarantee you that if we have that organization that Scott County will be a participant and play an active role. And we will do what ... allows our people to have that quality of life that we think they should have.” Coming down the pipeline soon is the county’s “Sustainability Plan” (funded by a federal grant), which if approved will be another brick in the wall of Agenda 21 implemented locally in Scott County. This global-to-local strategy began with President George H. Bush as the signatory for the U.S., one of 178 nations that adopted Agenda 21 at UNCED. In 1993, Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-California) submitted House Joint Resolution 166 for the implementation of Agenda 21, but it failed. So President Bill Clinton created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) via an executive order to implement Agenda 21 that same year. It is important to note that Congress has had no say in the matter because Agenda 21 is considered to be a “soft-law policy recommendation” requiring no ratification because it does not qualify as a “treaty.” Soft-law policies are not internationally binding but can find easy application through local legislation. For most Americans, it is inconceivable that our own government would be party to any program or process, such as the United Nations’ Agenda 21, specifically designed to reduce population and eliminate private-property rights. Yet this is exactly what is taking place across our land, and around the globe. It is a long-range plan that is methodical and precise in its execution. Sadly, like most effective conspiracies, many participants are not even aware of its existence as they propel much of this nefarious agenda forward through local, state, and federal programming in our schools, land-use agencies, county and city services, health and emergency-management processes, and, most critically, our courts. The most widely used tool for implementing Agenda 21 locally is through stakeholder councils, which are charged with creating consensus on some project, typically the result of a perceived crisis in the community, such as a poor water-management system or high population density. (Supervisor Minard believes 350 humans per square mile is one such problem in terms of sustainability in Scotty County.) Once a project has been identified, NGOs, regional councils of governments, not-for-profits, etc. have a vast stock of sustainable-development cookie-cutter solutions available through the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). That organization was launched in 1990 at the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future and has its headquarters in Toronto, Canada, with branches worldwide, including in Berkeley, California. ICLEI’s sole mission is to assist local governments, such as counties and cities, by providing policy recommendations for implementing sustainability programming. ICLEI was instrumental in writing a portion of the Agenda 21 handbook, specifically Chapter 28, and in the formulation of Local Action 21 Strategies that ensure the “unwavering, systematic implementation of local action plans over the next decade,” as reported in ICLEI’s Motto, Mandate, Movement (2003). Agenda 21’s primary directive is for human wants, needs, and desires to conform to the views and dictates of the planners. According to Harvey Ruvin, vice chair of ICLEI and clerk of the circuit and county court of Miami-Dade County, Florida: “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” (For more information, see Understanding Sustainable Development: Agenda 21 at FreedomAdvocates.org.) Rather than all men being created equal – with government’s role to ensure each individual’s rights are not violated – “equity” will be accomplished by implementing international economic order and transferring resources from developed countries to undeveloped countries. Because the United States has a higher standard of living than most countries, developed or not, our standard of living must decrease to bring about international economic balance. That is what is meant by redistribution of wealth. Instead of utilizing private enterprise, however, the redistribution is taking place utilizing public/private partnerships. This model is accelerating and will soon appear to be the norm rather than the exception. Public/private partnerships are antithetical to free enterprise. Big business melds with big government to form the unholy alliances that corrupt competition. The lethal combination of economic power and government force inevitably leads to tyranny, and clearly defines nearly every democracy on the planet, past and present. Agenda 21 is primarily implemented through a network of agencies that provide carrots in the form of federal and state grants dangled in front of mostly unsuspecting bureaucrats and elected politicians who consider themselves omnipotent budget managers instead of upholding individual’s personal-property rights as their oaths of office dictate. Institutional laziness that infects every level of U.S. government makes formulaic programs even more attractive to bureaucrats and politicians because all the heavy lifting is already done. The funding abounds via tax-funded agencies and foundations. So that just leaves the quid pro quo or the necessary pay-to-play, which is, simply put, the sacrificing of Americans’ unalienable rights – namely property rights that are forsaken so that massive amounts of land can be transferred, bought/sold, and/or controlled for the use of a global central-planning cabal. Most nations are enthusiastically on-board with Agenda 21 because they have far less to lose and much more to gain. This is not the case in America. We have everything to lose and nothing whatsoever to gain. Perhaps that’s why Agenda 21 is such a stealthily crafted conspiracy, one that has plausible deniability as long as you don’t read any of the fine print. Be clear here: The “planners” are literally banking that you won’t.

EMINENT DOMAIN FOR GREENWAYS?

I keep saying I'm taking a break....and then things draw me back into the dialogue. We have been having a local issue regarding the use of Eminent Domain for taking privately owned property for greenways, walking trails, and "open areas." So I was "taking a break" from writing, when I discovered our County Commissioners are deliberating this evening on this same subject. Our City officials have already proven to be pawns in the game of land confiscation for the anti-private property rights environmentalists. I felt it was necessary to jump back in to encourage the County Commissioners to uphold private property rights and reject the use of Eminent Domain, taking property for these environmentalists who lack respect for property ownership and want the entire world to belong to a "common."

Here is a copy of my editorial published in the Gaston Gazette today:

Eminent Domain For What?

If someone told you that some or all of the property you own could be confiscated against your will for a common area, an open area, a walking or biking trail, what would you say? You search for and find that perfect property to buy, only to find out that a 10 or 20 foot swath of that property next to a creek or stream is required greenway? Would you still want to buy it? Let's say you bought a piece of land for the scenery, the quiet solitude, and the privacy. Should government force you to relinquish your land for the sake of recreational common access? Maybe we should ask Mayor Stultz.

While environmentalist conservation groups avow that they have no "eminent domain" powers, they create partnerships with local governments in order to use those governments to do the dirty work for them. Greenway websites emphasize that all land acquisitions are "voluntary." As we have seen recently in Gastonia, that is not exactly the truth with regard to the recent greenway project.

Eminent Domain is a property-taking law originally devised for the government to take land for critical infrastructure such as roads and utilities, to provide service to the population surrounding the property in question. Environmentalists have convinced politicians that they have the power and right to take privately owned property for “public benefit” by means of eminent domain on the basis of walkways, biking trails, and the vague definition of "open areas."

Greenways’ websites promote all kinds of utopian benefits through restricting land use, creating open areas, and building walking and biking trails. They even call greenways "alternative transportation" to get grants from the State and Federal Departments of Transportation. Do you wonder where our transportation money is going?

The operating capital for these groups is government grants and tax-deductible donations. This means governments are giving tax dollar grants to organizations with which the governments are partnering, while at the same time governments are handing out tax deductions to donors who give land or money to the greenways, trails, and conservancy organizations in order to encourage people to fund the taking of property. Cleverly, the money trail is the real trail being created under the guise of greenways. The conservancy foundations are not working for free. The more government grants and tax deductible donations they get, the fatter their salaries and bank accounts grow.

Recently I found a published plan on the City of Gastonia website. It is at cityofgastonia.com or you can google search "Gastonia 2020 Plan For Our Future." The plan states our government should "Encourage the protection of land through foundations and land trusts." It states our local government is to "partner with land conservancies and other public and nonprofit environmental agencies." What would be the purpose of such partnerships? Would those "partnerships" involve tax-funded grants for the taking of private property? In this instance, the word "protection" means "restricted use."
Historically, the “mob” always demanded "protection" money, too. What a coincidence! Did you vote to have our government partner with land trusts and conservancies to "protect”……oops, I mean “restrict” land use? If you did, was it your own land or land belonging to someone else you wish to restrict? Did you vote for a plan allowing our local government to take land by eminent domain for a greenway or a bike trail? You didn't? Neither did I.

Instead of encouraging private land ownership and industries, our local government wants you to believe that by partnering with anti-private property rights groups, restricting land ownership, we will create some desirable location attracting businesses and lots of industrious, educated people. What industrious and educated persons want to buy or own a piece of land that could be taken or restricted at any whim of the local government for any reason whatsoever such as greenways? I think there is an oxymoron in there somewhere. Should we ask Mayor Stultz about that, too?

Our County Commissioners are deliberating the threat of eminent domain for the Carolina Thread Trail on Thursday, February 24. You can show your support for our guaranteed Constitutional property rights by contacting them and telling them you are against the use of eminent domain for any such purposes as greenways, trails, and open areas.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

So there it is. Our local problem is not just happening to us. The drive for property-taking by local and state governments, operating in unelected partnerships with environmentalist groups, is going on all over the United States. If you are reading this from whatever town in anywhere USA and are facing the same onslaught from these nonprofit land grabbers, please feel free to use my op-ed as a model to go after the offenders.

Below: Written by Adolf Hitler in 192o / The platform of the National Socialist Workers Party
WE DEMAND A LAND-REFORM SUITABLE TO OUR NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS, THE PASSING OF A LAW FOR THE CONFISCATION OF LAND FOR COMMUNAL PURPOSES; THE ABOLITION OF INTEREST ON MORTGAGES, AND PROHIBITION OF ALL SPECULATION IN LAND.

(Two articles down in this blog is Hitler's entire list.)

SCAM ON YOU

 Our local newspaper published an article today touting the exciting revelation that the Carolina Thread Trail recently awarded $564,795.00 worth of grants to 13 community projects.  The Carolina Thread Trail is part of a network of non-profit organizations related to the Lands Conservancy and Land Trust organizations.  While the writer of the article was obviously excited about this announcement, I wonder if anyone reading the article would be interested to know where the money comes from.  If you are one person asking that question, here is the answer.  It is money from tax deductible donations (giving tax breaks to some) and tax money from all levels of government, making us all pay.  Can we afford to take land out of the hands of private ownership and place that land onto the public sector dole?  If we wish to continue to use taxes to undermine private property rights, why do it the slow way?  Why don't we just declare the entire country is a publicly held green zone and no one has a right to use their own land any more?

The premise of the Lands Conservancy groups is a scam.  First it is based on the lies of anthropologically (man-made) caused climate change.  And secondly, but worse, it is anti-private property rights.  In case you are not aware of it, the United States Federal government already owns thirty percent of all the land in the country.  (Should the U.S. default on its debts, our land could be "snatched up" by whoever holds those debts.  Speak Chinese anyone?)  That is just the Federal government.  Millions and millions of acres of land are currently being bought out at fire sale prices, using tax incentives by the Land Trusts and Land Conservancy non-profits in the country.   The confiscation of land by government supported Lands Conservancies and Land Trusts is using your / our tax dollars to take land out of reach for any private citizens' use whatsoever for all eternity.  Donations to these organizations are tax deductible also, so not only is the property tax on these lands lost, but the donation tax breaks are lost to the government.  Why?  All for the prospect of keeping land out of the control of private ownership, putting land out of reach for private purposes, and wearing silly green hats and badges for "green" causes.

"Oh," you say, "but what about the "feel good" opportunity to save our environment from those dastardly developers who wreck the landscape?"  Well, you can "feel good" all you want, but government grants coming out of your taxes means you are paying for property that will forever not be owned and controlled by private citizens.  The Carolina Thread Trail is just another avenue for taking private property out of the hands of citizens and using taxes to do it.  

Today's local newspaper article written by Amanda Memrick states it this way: "Scenic land that might otherwise be snatched up by developers and turned into subdivisions or shopping centers is being conserved, thanks to low land prices brought on by the soured real estate market."

Note the word, "SNATCHED."  The higher property taxes and other taxes become, more of these non-profit groups use tax dollars to "snatch" up privately owned land.  The higher property and estate taxes become, the private ownership of land becomes near impossible.  The worse the economy, the more opportunity for government to put "developers" out of business.  Who do you think is making themselves "feel good" about that?  The big government, anti-private property groups, Lands Conservancy groups, and the Carolina Thread Trail.  Mind you, government, non-profits, Lands Conservancies, and the Carolina Thread Trail do not pay taxes on the property they confiscate.  Instead, they use your money by force to support their agendas.  So, who would you say is doing the "snatching?"

The newspaper article also cites Randi Gates, Carolina Thread Trail community coordinator saying: "We see a rise in property values that are adjacent to trails."  

However,  to show you how manipulations of tax laws create a self-fulfilling prophecy, here is a quote from Land Trust   "An easement may confer federal and state income tax advantages. If property appreciates greatly heirs may not be able to pay the taxes. A conservation easement on land may reduce a property's value and thus reduce estate taxes allowing heirs to keep the property." 

First, I might ask, keep the property for what?  The Land Conservancies' uses are restricted.  And which is it?  Rise or fall of property values regarding Land Trusts and Conservancies?  I guess it depends on which side of the fence you are on. Tax payer or tax taker.  The taxes for heirs on property they inherit is reduced or eliminated, but the land sits there with no possibility of any control by the heirs. Maybe they somehow technically "own" the land, but they take tax deductions in trade for regulations and restrictions on what they can do with that land.  What is the point of holding the land?  You could sell it outright for someone to actually make a living off of that land, or you can sit there and get tax deductions for letting the land go to some public use that is no longer under your control.  As the government makes policies pushing land holding farm families out of business, the heirs have two choices: turn the land over to the land trusts and conservancies and get tax deductions for life, or sell the land to someone else who can use it for capital production.  Again, tax policies will punish you if you sell and make a profit or if you inherit the land.  Government policies are manipulating the outcome.  Which would socialists have you do?  Make a living off of the land?  Or sit on your butt and get tax deductions for doing nothing?  And who is paying for that?  As Margaret Thatcher wisely stated, "Socialism is just great, but sooner or later you run out of other people's money." But I digress.

Another assertion by Randi Gates was that the Thread Trail easements and greenways benefits include: "alternative transportation, environmental benefits of getting cars off the road and the health benefits of getting people to walk, run or pedal down a greenway.  She says, "this helps economic development." 


Excuse me, how does increasing taxes to pay for greenways help economic development? When was the last time lots of people took the greenway to work or to the grocery store?  When does taking a walk on a greenway replace cars on the road?  Yes, it's nice to have a place to walk, run, or bike, but is this the best use of tax money when the country is nearly 14 trillion dollars in debt?  We can take a walk in our own neighborhoods for a lot less money.  If you don't live exactly adjacent to the greenway, you have to drive to get there anyway.  How much sense does this make? 

A bad economic climate hurts privately owned business as well as residential property owners.  Government policies create our economic climate.  Government policies and taxes can keep otherwise expendable, and recreational, income out of the hands of the population, not to mention income for necessities.  So when government confiscates more and more income from citizens, privately owned businesses suffer.  When privately owned businesses collapse from these policies, unemployment goes up, property values do down, and higher taxes ensue so government will attempt to make up for the lost tax base.  And the whole thing becomes a downward spiral of declining abilities to thrive.  While some take advantage of tax deductions for purposes of Land Conservancies and Trusts, the rest of the population has to pay increased taxes to make up the difference.  We end up with lots of  regulations, plus parks and greenways maintained by public tax money, but the tax base is diminished.  Meanwhile the land is no longer considered privately owned property.   

All of this becomes an open opportunity for land confiscation by the non-profit environmental groups.  The legal creativity of the trust and easement agreements is wide ranging and covers all kinds of land use circumstances.  In this way, they have all of the bases covered.   They can "snatch" up property at undervalued prices.  They can hand out more tax deductions to those wealthy enough to donate and those who are struggling to pay the higher property taxes.  They can let someone live on the land with severe restrictions for the rest of their life and then the land falls into government hands.  And, here is the cutest part, the Trusts and Conservancies can market themselves as the "feel good" green cause du jour!"

Just remember this:  When you play this game of chasing down tax deductions for anti-private property rights initiatives, you are hitting your fellow Americans in the gut three ways.  First, while you ease your personal burden of tax debt you are placing that burden of tax debt on everyone else.  Second, increasing America's debt burden puts the entire country at risk.  Third, you are undermining the essential market principles of legitimate private ownership on which the country is founded. When government colludes with non-profits to "snatch" land rights using tax money to subsidize these land deals, we are all suffering the consequences from it.