‘Land-Use Planning’ Means Driving People from the Land

Under the United Nations’ Agenda 21--Agenda for the 21st Century--the main thrust is to return all privately-owned property back to public domain. As with the Marxist doctrine, Agenda 21 doesn’t recognize privately-owned property because it is the cornerstone of all free societies.

America’s 50 states are being carved into 12 land-planning regions in anticipation of the forthcoming North American Union of which Canada and Mexico are part of the “three amigo partnership”.

“Partnership” is a keyword that denotes Agenda 21.

Canada is under regional land-planning concepts that link one province’s land to another under the guise of environmentalism.

One of the latest land-planning fiascos is Alberta’s Land Stewardship Act which was drafted and passed behind closed doors by Premier Ed Stelmach’s Conservative cabinet.

“Stewardship” is the keyword that indicates the Land Stewardship Act is a product of the UN’s Agenda 21. Also, under Agenda 21, “meat-eating” is not considered “sustainable” which translates into the elimination of all livestock raised for food consumption.

Unbelievably, the proposed legislation was never brought to the floor of the Alberta legislature for debate. Therefore, opposition members, press, general public, lawyers and, most importantly, landowner associations’ members and their executive directors, who never miss a trick, knew nothing about this land-grabbing Land Stewardship Act for a year.

For good reason, Albertans were in an uproar over this draconian law that dictates exactly what landowners can and cannot do with their land. If the fines and fees don’t do them in, the clincher is that regulators can expropriate land without compensation and the landowners are not allowed legal redress to defend themselves with due process before a court of law.

Alison Redford, a lawyer well-steeped in the United Nations doctrine, no doubt was elected to replace Ed Stelmach as leader of the Progressive Conservative Association in October 2011 because of a promise to rescind the Land Stewardship Act.

As the interim premier, she dispatched a dog-and-pony show to go around the province consulting with angry and frightened Albertans who had plenty to say.

“Public consultation” is another meaningless catch-all phrase that comes from the UN’s Agenda 21. It is cleverly designed to look like people are given a chance to provide input when in fact they are not. The decision is predetermined.

“Dillification” is the name of the game that government reps perform on a crowd that has gathered to give opinions. It simply means dishing out something that sounds good but doesn’t work.

These tales told by idiots spouting sound and fury but signifying nothing is a long-time Rand Corporation mind-control technique that bureaucrats and politicians use during virtually every government meeting attended by unsuspecting public participants.

In other words, the members of public are “being had”. They are merely window dressing in this illusionary process in which the governments’ plans are pre-designed and pre-approved.

It’s happened time after time in the Yukon, especially apparent in protracted meetings concerning federal firearms Bill C-68, Development Assessment Process and hard-rock and placer mining regulations.

This is exactly what happened in Alberta.

The unelected, UN-trained premier didn’t have any intentions of rescinding the Land Stewardship Act before unleashing her dog-and-pony show on Albertans. And the act is definitely not going to be overturned if Albertans are inclined to return the long-standing Conservatives to power on April 23.

Although the so-called environmental movement is still in full cry, the UN’s Agenda 21 has nothing to do with a cleaner, healthier environment and lifestyle; Agenda 21 is all about totalitarianism, as is very plain as one piece of unconstitutional legislation after another is passed into Canadian law.

The three main factions in dispute are the “radical”, “religious” and the “rational”. But the “rational” can never trump the “radical” unless they learn the rules of the game.

As the bar is raised on environmental lunacy--on which most public policy is based--it has become more difficult for rational environmentalists and conservationist, who truly care about and know how to manage their land, to be heard.

Environmentalism became a huge growth industry fuelled by the enormous wealth accumulated over the last 50 years, largely by people previously engaged in natural-resource industries.

Now the guilt-ridden rich pretend to atone for their “eco-sins” by donating wads of cash toward any and ever “Earth-Saving” crusade.

National environmental organizations, born in the United Nations and nurtured mainly via the United States, have grown into giant corporations structured like the big industrial multinationals the Greens love to hate.

More than a Green Machine, the environmental organizations have turned into a Greenback Machine. They have even joined the big boys down on Wall Street, which environmentalists have always viewed as a vile, artificial mechanism for greedy corporations to raise capital to run projects.

To break the back of the last bastion of freedom, the socialists, Marxists, Communists, environmentalists--whatever you want to call them--have to dismantle Wall Street and destroy the American dollar against which ever other currency in the world is pegged.

Maybe their mandate to destroy the ancient financial institution is because Green Clubbers are poor sports about losing. More than one outfit has watched in astonishment as their multi-millions from donors evaporated into an ozone hole after a short-sell went sour or an attempt to outwit the futures market failed.

Easy come, easy go. There’s more where that money came from. Just dream up another “Earth-Saving” scheme and presto! Funding is readily available.

A career in environmentalism can be financially rewarding. Reports show chief executive officers drawing annual base paycheques of more than $200,000 U.S. plus bonuses, perks and bribes which add up to more than Canada’s prime minister’s annual base salary of $317,574 Can.

But a career with a U.S.-rooted environmental organization, which tentacles out into the whole world, comes with a price tag. Joiners must park their ethics, integrity, scruples and morals at the door before entering.

The environmental movement is a secular religion. Anybody who chooses to become a card-carrying member of many of the more than 8,000 Green Clubs and another 40,000 worldwide non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which are ironically government-funded, have to accept the doctrine and preach the gospel.

The sermon is about crisis and Armageddon, hype and hyperbole. The ultimate goal is to render humanity naked, hungry and dead as a sacrifice to Mother Earth--otherwise known as Gaia meaning “She Who Must Be Obeyed” and is the goddess destined to be the centerpiece of a One-World Religion.

The first step to achieving the wonky Earth-Saving goal means eliminating human activity from all land.

The idea was spawned from a vision to convert half the land in North America into core wilderness reserves immediately--the other half later. “Later” is here, folks.

The Wildlands Project was actually a brainchild of PhD biologist Reed Noss under auspices of the very wealthy Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society, both keywords of the UN’s Agenda 21.

The plan was taken to the next level some 20 years ago by Dave Foreman, who used his one-time aspirations to be a preacher to co-found a radical, fanatical environmental group called Earth First! (Exclamation mark is part of the title.)

Radical environmentalists worship Foreman as some sort of an out-of-balance folk hero. The group adopted the belief that all decisions had to place Earth First!-- even ahead of humanity’s well-being and even if it spelled human extinction.

“If you’ll give the idea a chance,” Foreman once wrote in his own Wild Earth magazine, “you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions if not billions of other Earth-dwelling species.”

To place fruit flies and lower species above importance of humans is pure Marxism.

But Foreman’s perverse Earth First! Wilderness Preserve Plan of the 1980s decided it was not enough to preserve the roadless, undeveloped country that remained.

The Greens must recreate wilderness in large regions by moving out the cars and civilized people, dismantling the roads and dams, reclaiming the plowed land and clearcuts and reintroducing extirpated species.

All these plans are contained in the UN’s Agenda 21 that deems individually-owned vehicles “unsustainable”.

In 1992, Foreman revamped the program into the Wildlands Project--another UN Agenda 21 term--to carry out a continental wilderness recovery of North America.

John Davis, as editor of Foreman’s Wild Earth magazine, once wrote: “Does...the Wildlands Project advocate the end of industrial civilization?” he asked. “Most assuredly.”

Foreman himself wrote: “(The Wildlands Project) is a bold attempt to grope our way back to October 1492, and find a different trail…Local and regional reserve systems linked to others ultimately tie the North American continent into a single Biodiversity Preserve.”

“Biodiversity” is another UN Agenda 21 buzzword.

One of these continental-land links is the Yellowstone-to-Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y, in shortwrite) for which the NDP government under Ujjal Dosanjh’s watch generously donated an immense amount of British Columbia land for “the cause”.

All UN Agenda 21 groups are intertwined like the snakes in Medusa’s hairdo. The Wildlands Project was anointed by the United Nations Environment Program, which was founded by Maurice Strong, then Geneva-based senior advisor to the United Nations and World Bank.

The Canadian-born prophet of doom and friend of high-profile Canadian politicians, a land baron who made his multimillions selling oil as chair of Petro Canada, was once one of the most influential persons on the planet. He remains influential in his work to replace the United States superpower with China and to bring in a one-world government which Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper has started referring to under the disguise of a “New Modern Order”.

At one time, Strong and his hypocritical cronies had an invisible grip over every aspect of everybody’s life without them knowing it.

He authorized the vision for a Wildlands Project to be published in the Global Biodiversity Assessment, a massive parent document which provides guidance for every little community spinoff publication.

The Global Biodiversity Assessment describes how biodiversity should be preserved under the UN Convention. In Section 13, the Wildlands Project is named specifically as a key feature to successful implementation of booting people off their land.

The Wildlands Project was introduced in 1992--the same year of the Maurice Strong-chaired Earth Summit II in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil where Agenda 21 was born.

While the Democrat Clinton administration was in the White House--and it has worsened with the Democrat Obama administration--every real and fabricated rule, regulation, illegal law and Executive Order--such as one signed in 1993 creating the President’s Council on Sustainable Development--was used to prevent people from using public land under Agenda 21’s “travel plans” and dictated what owners could and couldn’t do with their privately-owned land.

The screws tightened in 2011 when de facto U.S. President Obama formed the menacing White House Rural Council with nothing more than a stroke of his pen.

There has been--and continues to be--a litany of tragic blows dealt to a myriad of true conservationists who love and care about their land which they depend on to return bountiful rewards of food and other resources to sustain life.

Farmers, ranchers and resource developers even sustain life of those nutbar Green Clubbers and politicians who thwart the landowners’ ever effort. Agenda 21’s plans are to force all rural residents off their land into densely-populated ghettos comprised of ugly, cinder-block, high-rise apartment houses.

“The Y2Y project envisions wilderness from Yellowstone to the Yukon, and the Cascadia Bioregion vision adds the forests and river bottoms from Washington to northern California--including the Klamath Basin (in Oregon),” wrote Henry Lamb, who founded the Environmental Conservation Organization as a mechanism for providing truth about the green movement.

In his 2001 piece called “Tightening the Screws”, Lamb continued: “All across the land, policies and programs are being implemented that have the effect of forcing people off their rural land--to achieve some imagined environmental benefit.”

Lamb’s words also pertain directly to what is happening on public and private land across Canada. If farmers can’t get water, they can’t farm.

“Sympathy will be dispensed, and tax dollars offered,” predicted Lamb. “But in the end...if they can’t farm, they must leave the land.”

In this specific economic hardship incident, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service decided three suckers and a coho salmon--or some equally perverse numbers--needed the water more than the farmers, as though they can’t share.

Lamb challenged people to question any politician or federal officer what the Klamath water decisions had to do with the Wildlife Projects.

They will reply, “Nothing!” because most of them believe their own words.

Some field officers of federal agencies are just following orders, Lamb advised.

However, their bosses were selected by the president/vice-president team of Bill Clinton and Al Gore who appointed them directly from the very environmental organizations that dreamed up and promoted the Wildlands Project.

Many of the second- and third-tier officials remained throughout subsequent administrations.

Elected officials refuse to listen to any mention about United Nations land grabs, even though it is spelled out in one document after another. And the snail pace of Dave Foreman’s vision is creeping to fruition--project by project, law by law, rule by rule.

The United States and Canada, specifically in the northern territories, are being transformed into Foreman’s bizarre vision, which is the objective spelled out in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

“It is a sad day in the United States when the government officially places the value of a sucker fish above the needs of its citizens,” lamented Lamb.

Although the Convention of Biological Diversity does not appear to have been signed by the U.S. or Canada, the drive to force people from the land continues. And the U.S. and Canada have signed onto a bunch of other dangerous non-legal-binding resolutions and agreements.

Much of the power is held by foundations and corporate-funded environmental organizations. And most assuredly, they have tightened the screws on the bureaucracy and politicians in Ottawa with perks and bribes which renders the small Canadian population particularly vulnerable to these minority crazies.

Why does the effected citizenry continue to allow it?

One thought on “‘Land-Use Planning’ Means Driving People from the Land

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

*