Children Taught Agenda 21 With a Cartoon

I received the following from Mary Richmond on "Rainy Day Patriots."

Video:  Children Taught Agenda 21 With a Cartoon

This cartoon video was made for American children. Perhaps the adults can see the numerous things wrong with the new neighborhood designs being marketed as "smart growth," "sustainable communities," "walkable communities," etc.

Saga City - Our communities facing climate change

by SAGA CITÉ PLUS

Learn more at sagacitymovie.org !

Urban planning has great effects on collective choices that contribute to climate change. By defining the shape of a community, urban planning determines part of its energy consumption, and thus, the quantity of greenhouse gases released by dwellers. Nevertheless, it remains largely out of the general debate on this issue. SAGA CITY invites you to learn more about these stakes through to story of the city of Colvert.

French version available at sagacite.org.
Crouwdsourced subtitling : universalsubtitles.org/videos/vHFjkK1jJMfd/info/

h/t to Katie Baker at TPN

Agenda 21 treaty on the horizon

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45478

While liberal journalists continue to claim that Agenda 21 is just a “conspiracy theory” being advanced by right-wing crackpots, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the International Council for Environmental Law (ICEL) have released their fourth Draft of the International Covenant on Environment and Development. This document was designed from the beginning to convert the “soft-law” non-binding Agenda 21 into firmly binding global law - enforceable through the International Criminal Court and/or the dispute resolution features of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Two excellent analyses of this document are available here, and here. Read the entire 242-page document here.

Few people understand that it is standard operating procedure for the U.N. to issue a massive non-binding policy document to test the water and make adjustments to its plans before introducing the real, legally-binding treaty. For example, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a “soft-law” instrument, was the precursor to the two 1966 U.N. Covenants on Human Rights. The 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change called for “voluntary” compliance. But at the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, the group agreed to create a Kyoto Protocol to the Convention that would set legally-binding targets for all member nations.

Noah M. Sachs, a University of Richmond law professor and environmental expert, said: “Agenda 21 has been a dead letter for 20 years, its recommendations have not been implemented by most governments, and the U.S. has largely ignored it.”

Mr. Sachs is either ignorant of the facts, or is deliberately trying to mislead his readers. President Clinton’s President’s Council on Sustainable Development operated between 1993 and 1999 expressly for the purpose of implementing the recommendations in Agenda 21. At the 11^th meeting of the PCSD, Ron Brown, then- Secretary of the Department of Commerce, said that his department could implement 67% of the recommendations under his jurisdiction by rule, without the need for new legislation.

ICLEI: Advancing Agenda 21 around the world

The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) was created at the behest of the U.N. expressly for the purpose of advancing Agenda 21 around the world. They claim more than 1200 cities around the world have joined their organization for assistance in implementing “sustainable development”—defined to be the recommendations contained in Agenda 21. More than 600 of these cities are in the United States.

Mr. Sachs: Agenda 21 is not a dead letter!

A few organizations, Freedom21, Freedom Advocates in California, and the American Policy Center have been teaching Agenda 21 to people since the mid 1990s. In the last few years, Tea Parties, 9/12 and property rights groups have seen how ICLEI and liberal local officials have been converting the recommendations in Agenda 21 into binding law, by incorporating these recommendations into comprehensive land use plans. Dozens of cities have terminated their membership in ICLEI after local groups showed their elected officials how their plans actually reflect the recommendations in Agenda 21.

Those who like to ridicule by pointing to an imaginary global plot to rule the world, are either ignorant of the facts, or don’t want people to know that the IUCN and the ICEL have been working since 1995 to get Agenda 21 converted into binding international law. It is not a plot. It is not a conspiracy. It is a fact. The IUCN is not going to stop until they are successful. Virtually every environmental treaty adopted by the U.N. in the last several decades was written by the IUCN.

The IUCN consists of governments, government agencies, and non-government organizations. Seven federal agencies pay more than $500,000 per year to be members of the IUCN. Many of these people are the same people who are delegates and attend the U. N. meetings where these treaties are adopted. Federal employees helped write this fourth draft of the International Covenant on Environment and Development.

President Obama is on the Agenda 21 bandwagon

President Obama is on the Agenda 21 bandwagon. In addition to challenge grants offered by federal agencies to entice local communities to create comprehensive land use plans, he, like Bill Clinton, has issued Executive Orders to advance the agenda without interference from Congress. Obama issued an Executive Order to create the White House Rural Council last year. On March 15, he issued another Executive order creating the White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities. The next day, another Executive Order, National Defense Resources Preparedness, vastly expanded the President’s power to control virtually all resources in times of emergency.

In view of the facts that are readily available and undeniable, whenever a journalist or a politician, or an ordinary environmental extremist claims that Agenda 21 is not real, or is just a “conspiracy theory,” or the imaginations of right-wing crackpots, their comments can be dismissed and their motives challenged.

The U.N., the IUCN, and the ICEL—are working as hard as they can to get Agenda 21 converted into binding international law

The international community—the U.N., the IUCN, and the ICEL—are working as hard as they can to get Agenda 21 converted into binding international law. It will happen unless informed Americans stand up—as they have begun to do across the country—and kick out ICLEI, Agenda 21, and realize that use of the term “sustainable development” is nothing more than a sound-good substitute for Agenda 21.

Everyone should learn all they can about Agenda 21 and sustainable development, and join the battle to keep it away from America. A great place to start is here (video 18:54).

Meanwhile… Agenda 21 is in full swing in CA…

The wildlands plan calls for the rewilding of over 50% of the U.S. Well here in California they are closing roads, destroying dams and more. Here’s the latest in road closures to keep YOU the American people off of YOUR rightful land!!!!

PRESS RELEASE

Court Order Prohibits Motorized Vehicle Travel on 42 Popular OHV Routes
Release Date: Apr 4, 2012   Placerville, CA 

            Forty-two off-highway-vehicle routes that cross meadows in the Eldorado National Forest may be closed to motor vehicle travel this recreation season while the Forest Service completes an environmental analysis, announced Eldorado National Forest Supervisor Kathy Hardy.

The potential travel prohibitions are the result of a February 2012 court order by U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton. The order said the Forest Service failed to comply with the National Forest Management Act in 2008 when it designated “open for public motor vehicle use” portions of 42 routes that cross meadows. Judge Karlton ordered the Forest Service to “set aside” the decision that designated these segments as open and to reconsider the decision.

           A final court order with further direction to the Forest Service is pending. In the interim, Karlton ordered the 42 routes remain closed to motorized public use. The final order will identify specifically where travel will be prohibited until a new environmental decision is made.

“I know that prohibiting travel on these routes will be a big disappointment to forest visitors, but we have to be responsive to the order.” said Hardy. “I have a team of people lined up to complete a supplemental environmental impact statement as quickly as possible.”

          The SEIS is scheduled to begin in April or May 2012 and to be completed by April 2013.

Hardy says many popular high county routes may be affected by the closure. Some of these routes include: Barrett Lake Jeep Trail; Squaw Ridge Four Wheel Drive Trail; Clover Valley/ Deer Valley Trail; Strawberry Four Wheel Drive Trail; Carson Emigrant Trail; Allen’s Camp Motorcycle Trail and the Bucks Pasture Motorcycle Trail. The Rubicon 4wd Trail is not affected by this court order.

Maps and a complete list of the routes affected by the court order will be posted on the Eldorado National Forest website at:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/eldorado. These maps will be modified to reflect the final court order once it is received. A free-of-charge motor vehicle use map that shows the routes that are open to wheeled motor vehicle use will be available at all Eldorado National Forest offices in June 2012 reflecting the final order.
“I intend to close the routes where it makes sense to do so if the final order prohibits travel on routes that cross meadows,” said Hardy. “A route may be closed near a meadow or some distance away depending on how difficult it is to turn a vehicle around.”

           Some routes will also be closed indirectly because they branch off closed routes and will not be accessible.

Here’s the PR guy for this press release:

Frank E. Mosbacher, Accredited in Public Relations

Public Affairs Officer

530-621-5268 (Office)

530-621-5297 (fax)

Expose Our Corruption and We Will Steal Your Child!

Dave Hodges
Date: 04-01-2012
Subject: Corruption

"...current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable. A shift is necessary. which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations..."

Maurice Strong: Opening speech at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development

Bad things happen when Agenda 21/ICLEI advocates come to your town. When fully implemented, ICLEI regulations will severely limit access to electricity and transportation, deny the common citizenry noninvasive access to beautiful wilderness areas, destroy private business, impose unsustainable tax rates, will arbitrarily seize private property for personal gain, will promote corruption at the highest levels of industry and government, have endorsed and implemented extreme population reduction methods and now ICLEI advocates have added child theft to their list of heinous crimes against humanity perpetrated against those who would dare to oppose their fascist policies

Read full article HERE:  http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/Print-Page.htm?EdNo=001&Info=0187712

Agenda 21 is very real and has been adopted by the Olympic Committees! 

I have been skeptical of the Olympic committees, and the new world order symbols for quite some time.   The fact that Hitler actually created the modern symbols (rings) used, and used the first Olympics as a way to invade countries.

The Agenda-21 path the Olympics wanted to take was/is being financed  by international corporations like Shell Oil. 

"All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."  …Edmund Burke

A21 are changing name to Millennium Development Goals: GLOBAL POVERTY ACT IS BACK

Wow! Awesome article that tells us everything we need to know about their master plan.  It's more than a name change; this article describes their blueprint to achieve world domination. Everything they're doing (NDAA included) appears to me to fit their blueprint.

go to http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom208.htm ....you will see that the evildoers at the A21 (Agenda 21) are changing their name to Millennium Development Goals.  Just be on the lookout for the new terms.  Remember:  these people are changelings... and evil to the very core.

GLOBAL POVERTY ACT IS BACK

by Tom DeWeese  -  January 11, 2012  -  NewsWithViews.com  - h/t to AJ

He might be a whiz kid at creating computer software, but beyond that Bill Gates has proven time and again that he hasn’t a clue about why or how freedom works.

He constantly teams up with anti-free market types like the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) to produce “educational programs” in his software packages, misdirecting unsuspecting children with political propaganda. In 2002 he gave the NWF $600,000 worth of software to help these environmental radicals run their programs to block the drilling of American oil. Apparently Gates doesn’t understand that he needs oil to create power to run computers. Most recently his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donated $3 million to eight universities to reinvent the flush toilet. Environmentalists call that device “one of the world’s most destructive habits.”

Clearly Gates is a captive of his own wealth, suffering the usual rich man’s guilt over being rich – rushing full speed ahead to “give back to the world.” Funny how such giving back always seems to mean supporting socialist causes with money gained from the free market. Up till now, Gates has just been giving his own money voluntarily. Even if it’s to bad causes, he is certainly free to use his money anyway he chooses.

Now, however, his misguided meddling is about to involve the misdirecting of everyone’s income, and so the world’s richest useful idiot just became dangerous to freedom.

In November, as part of the G20 summit, Gates, representing his foundation, presented a report on a plan to eradicate world poverty. Said Gates, “I am honored to have been given this important opportunity. My report will address the financing needed to achieve maximum progress on the Millennium Development Goals, and to make faster progress on development over the next decade.” Gate’s report proposes a financial transaction tax (FTT) on tobacco, aviation, fuel and carbon (energy), to be enforced by all members of the G20 nations. The financial transaction tax has been excitedly talked about in the halls of the UN for a decade. Called the Tobin Tax, named after a Yale economist who dreamed it up, FTT would give the UN almost unlimited funding by taxing every stock and monetary transaction in the world.

Gates didn’t just dream this up on his own accord. He is actually resurrecting legislation a bill introduced in 2008 by then Senator Barack Obama. It was called the Global Poverty Act. Obama introduced the bill during his one abbreviated term in the U.S. Senate.

The bill was one of the only pieces of legislation ever introduced by Senator Barack Obama, and it wasn’t just a compassionate bit of fluff that Obama dreamed up to help the poor of the world. This bill was directly tied to the United Nations and served as little more than a shake down of American taxpayers in a massive wealth redistribution scheme. The Global Poverty Act would provide the United Nations with 0.7% of the United States gross national product. Estimates indicated that would add up to at least $845 billion of taxpayer money into UN coffers, to be spent (or wasted) by UN bureaucrats. The excuse for the taxing, of course, is to help end poverty in third world countries. The bill died in Congress in 2008 after passing unanimously in the House. Now Bill Gates has resurrected it.

Of course the United States has had an ongoing program of supplying billions of dollars in foreign aid and assistance to the poor for decades. In addition, the U.S. pays most of the bills at the UN for its many unworkable poverty programs. So what’s new about the Global Poverty Act, and why is it dangerous?

First, some history that led up to the Global Poverty Act. In 1999 and 2000 non-governmental organizations, NGOs held numerous meetings around the world to write what became known as the Charter for Global Democracy. The document was prepared as a blue print for achieving global governance. In reality it was a charter for the abolition of individual freedom, national sovereignty and limited government.

The Charter for Global Democracy outlined its goals in 12 detailed “principles:”

• Principle One called for the consolidation of all international agencies under the direct authority of the UN.

• Principle Two called for UN regulation of all transnational corporations and financial institutions, requiring an “international code of conduct” concerning the environment and labor standards.

• Principle Three explored various schemes to create independent revenue sources for the UN – meaning UN taxes including fees on all international monetary transactions, taxes on aircraft flights in the skies, and on shipping fuels, and licensing of what the UN called the “global commons,” meaning use of air, water and natural resources. The Law of the Sea Treaty fits this category.

• Principle Four would restructure the UN by eliminating the veto power and permanent member status on the Security Council. Such a move would almost completely eliminate U.S. influence and power in the world body. In turn Principle Four called for the creation of an “Assembly of the People” which would be populated by hand-picked non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which are nothing more than political groups with their own agendas (the UN calls NGOs “civil society”). Now, the UN says these NGO’s will be the representatives of the “people” and the Assembly of the People will become the new power of the UN.

• Principle Five would authorize a standing UN army.

• Principle six would require UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies “as part of a multinational global security system” under the authority of the UN.

• Principle Seven would require individual and national compliance with all UN “Human rights” treaties and declarations.

• Principle Eight would activate the UN Criminal Court and make it compulsory for all nations — now achieved.

• Principle Nine called for a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring “Sustainable Development.”

• Principle Ten would establish an International Environmental Court

• Principle Eleven demanded an international declaration stating that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires the creation of a “high level action team” to allocate carbon emissions based on equal per-capita rights – The Kyoto Global Warming Treaty in action.

• Principle Twelve demanded the cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions and for the “equitable sharing” of global resources, as allocated by the UN – here is where Obama’s Global Poverty Act comes in.

Specifically, the Charter for Global Democracy was intended to give the UN domain over all of the earth’s land, air and seas. In addition it would give the UN the power to control all natural resources, wild life, and energy sources, even radio waves. Such control would allow the UN to place taxes on everything from development; to fishing; to air travel; to shipping. Anything that could be defined as using the earth’s resources would be subject to UN use-taxes. Coincidentally, all twelve principles came directly from the UN’s Commission on Global Governance.

There was one major problem with the Charter for Global Democracy, at least as far as the UN was concerned. It was too honest and straightforward. Overt action displeases the high-order thinking skills of UN diplomats. The UN likes to keep things fuzzy and gray so as not to scare off the natives. That way there is less chance of screaming headlines of a pending takeover by the UN. So, by the time the UN’s Millennium Summit rolled around in September 2000, things weren’t quite so clear.

At the Summit, attended by literally every head of state and world leader, including then-president Bill Clinton, the name of the Charter had been changed to the Millennium Declaration and the language had been toned down to sound more like suggestions and ideas. Then those “suggestions” were put together in the “Millennium Declaration” in the name of all of the heads of state. No vote or debate was allowed — just acclamation by world leaders who basically said nothing. And the deed was done. The UN had its marching orders for the new Millennium.

Now the principles were called “Millennium Goals,” and there were eight instead of twelve. Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty; Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education; Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women; Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality; Goal 5: Improve Maternal Health; Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases; Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability; Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development.

Yes, these are sneaky guys, well trained in the art of saying nothing. Who could oppose such noble goals? The Millennium Project, which was set up to achieve the “goals” says on its website that it intends to “end poverty by 2015.” A noble goal, indeed. So what happened to the 12 Charter principles? Take a hard look – they are all still there.

Principles One, Two, and Twelve are right there in Goal 8 – to develop a global partnership for development. Now almost every world organization such as the World Bank carries a section on their web sites calling for “Millennium Development Goals” which control international banking and loan policy. They set policy goals for each country and sometimes communities to measure if nations are keeping their promise to implement the Millennium goals.

Principle Seven is clearly Goal 3, the only way to assure Gender Equality is to enforce compliance with UN Human Rights treaties. Principle Eight has already been achieved. Principle Nine is Goal 7. Al Gore is doing his best to enforce Principle Eleven. Global Warming, no matter how well the theory is debunked, just won’t go away because it is one of the Millennium Goals.

And then there is Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Act. Can you see which Principle that is? Of course, Principle 12 and Goal 1. Obama’s 2008 bill specifically mentioned the Millennium Goals as its guide and the 0.7% of GNP is right out of UN documents. In order to eradicate poverty by 2015, they say, every industrial nation must pony up 0.7% of their GNP to the UN for use in eradicating poverty.

The UN is now becoming an international collection agency, pressing to collect the promises the world leaders made at the Millennium Summit. The UN wants the cash. In 2005 former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said, “Developed countries that have not already done so should establish timetables to achieve the 0.7% target of gross national income for official development assistance by no later than 2015…”

At the Summit in 2000, the UN set clear goals to establish its power over sovereign nations and to enforce the greatest redistribution of wealth scheme ever perpetrated on the world. Now it has the Criminal Court; Sustainable Development (Agenda 21) is fast becoming official policy in every corner of the nation—only today we call it “going green;” and there is a full court press on to enforce Global Warming policy, in spite of the fact that there is now overwhelming evidence pouring out of the scientific community to fully debunk the scam.

Obama introduced the Global Poverty Act as he campaigned for the Presidency with the obvious and clear intention of showcasing the then little known Senator as a world leader. But the bill died in the Senate. Now, Bill Gates is proving his “useful idiot” status (a term coined by Lenin to describe capitalists who would sell the rope to hang capitalism), by serving as Obama’s lackey to resurrect the Global Poverty Act.

And right on cue, just after Bill Gates made his report to the G20 Summit calling for a financial transaction tax, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) introduced legislation to put a tax on “certain trading activities undertaken by banking and financial firms.” The bills, of course, are the Tobin Tax and in line with Gate’s report.

Clearly, Obama needs to show that, under his leadership, the United States is falling in line with the Millennium Declaration and its 2015 deadline for implementation. Truth, science and American taxpayer interests be hanged, as Bill Gates offers the rope, Harkin and DeFazio provide the knot, and Obama gets to pretend to be a “world” leader.

© 2012 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved

Related Articles:

1- Tea Party Candidate Warns of UN and Obama's Agenda 21

Wicked Writ of the Midwest

Wicked indeed… It would seem the elitists in Houston County, Minnesota want to implement Agenda 21 and take away citizen’s property rights. Disparaging the Constitution and treating the local populace as if they were nothing more than serfs. The very arrogant face of Progressivism and evil without a doubt.

One of the strongest American freedoms we have is the right to own property. It is what makes us a free society and is the very cornerstone of liberty.

Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

Exercising their quintessential American rights, landowners in Houston County, Minnesota decided they had had enough five years ago and set out to reclaim their rights after the County Commissioners started making directives on how people could and could not use their own land. The fight continues today as threats, court proceedings, the stripping of Constitutional rights and lawyer’s fees fly frantically back and forth, egged on by Progressives in positions of power who are more interested in the environment and instituting Agenda 21 than they are in the rights of property owners. Cass Sunstein, is that you hiding behind the EPA again? Who’s a little Marxist?

Enter Houston County’s Commissioner who called the Constitution an ‘old document.’

“I know we’ve sworn to uphold the Constitution but it is an old document; times have changed,” stated Commissioner Tom Bjerke.

Well sir… If you think that the Constitution is outdated, perhaps you should take your viewpoint and move to a more ‘Progressive’ country in Europe, or perhaps Russia would be a better fit for you. I’m sure you would be much happier with like-thinking comrades. Don’t let the American door hit you in the behind on the way out.

The County Commissioners have told those citizens attending meetings to sit down and shut up. The local paper has told them that they have said enough and have quit taking letters to the editor longer than 500 words. But if you are on the side of the Progressives, well have your say! The media propaganda machine is in full swing skewing the truth as usual as I understand it.

From The Blaze:

In 2007, Houston County sued a young, newly married couple due to the new land use plan. The couple, who had just legally bought the home, was given four options to “settle the situation.” The couple was required to move their house fifty feet, purchase an additional 32 acres of land, sell their property to a neighbor, or tear their house down. Dealing with “impossible options,” the couple chose to appeal the ruling in the Minnesota Supreme Court. The court refused to hear their case, thus leading them to sell their property. The couple is now renting the very house they once owned.

That’s ridiculous and just wrong. And they didn’t even get to have their day in court, which probably wouldn’t have mattered any way since the County and State have already decided that this couple had no rights, Constitutional or otherwise. What a farce. This makes me boiling mad. And this couple is not alone, there are over 50 landowners in the area facing similar situations. Ask yourself, what would you do?

The County Commissioners have ignored the petition requesting they resign – over 700 landowners signed that petition. For a small county in the southeast corner of the state, that is a huge number of petitioners. These Commissioners have ignored all efforts by the people to have their voices heard concerning their Constitutional rights as landowners. They are told at meetings, in no uncertain terms, not to bring up the Constitution.

But these patriots are not giving up:

A small group of landowners decided that it was time to educate others, and themselves. With easy-to-read handouts of the Declaration of independence, quotes of the Founding Fathers, and parts of the Constitution, the group spent their evenings going from door to door, talking to their fellow citizens and asking for support.

And the march to take back their freedom has brought them to the Minnesota Federal Court, where they will plead their case. Fighting oppressive regulations and the blatant violation of Constitutional rights, these patriots are also fighting the insidious label by the Progressives of restricting their property’s use for “the public good.” That is Progressive lingo indicating that they: a) don’t feel there is any such thing as private property, b) the Constitution is irrelevant and c) landowners are too stupid to know what is good for them. If they do not prevail in Federal Court, property rights will be gutted and zoning rights will be the standard. Mull that over for a second… It renders the Constitution meaningless – individuals will no longer have the right to say what they can and can’t do with their own property – bureaucrats will wield that power. How very Marxist.

From the Let Freedom Ring Blog:

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”. Houston County is essentially saying that they aren’t taking the property. They’re just telling private property owners that the county, not the landowner, will control the use of private property.

This is unacceptable. If Houston County wants to be the final arbiter of what land can be used for, then it should be required to purchase the land from the landowners at a fair market price. If Houston County isn’t willing to purchase the land for a fair market price, then it shouldn’t have decision-making rights, final or otherwise.

Essentially, Houston County wants everything for nothing. That sounds more like what happened in the former Soviet Union than in the United States.

I’m sure there are tons of legal documents being issued. This cannot stand. I’m beginning to see the scene from The Patriot where Benjamin Martin says to plead with the King and plead again if necessary. But pleading has been done on this over and over to no avail. Better yet, this is reminiscent of Andrew Jackson and his Manifest Destiny. The question is if the Federal Court rules against Constitutional rights, will we allow this wicked writ of the Midwest to stand? Or will it be time to take a stand that will shake this country to its very foundations?

I will leave it to each of you to search your souls and decide what side you are on. Remember the principles of our founding fathers and the Constitution – remember what this country was founded upon. Here is the press release announcing the lawsuit:

The Houston County, Minnesota Landowners Concerned About Property Rights have endorsed new litigation to get government back in the hands of “We the People.” The Complaint, to be filed in the Minnesota Federal District Court, asserts that the Houston County Commissioners, the Board of Adjustment, and the Planning Commission, as well as Houston County Zoning Administrator Bob Scanlan and Environmental Service Director Richard (Rick) Frank are violating the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the landowners in Houston County.

The case, which will be filed during the week of October 3, 2011, argues that the County, Scanlan and Frank have violated the private property rights, the rights of due process, the rights to freedom of speech and association, the right to petition for redress of grievance and the right to equal protection of the law to similarly situated landowners in the application of the County’s Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The case is being brought under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871.

“We are not a litigious group,” said Robert Ideker, a Houston County landowner. “We have tried to work with the County; we have attended dozens of meetings and hearings; we have written dozens of letters, but no one will listen. This last year, we even tried to talk to the Commissioners individually to express our concerns about the protection of property rights, and some landowners were told that the Commissioners would not speak to them. These are our elected representatives; it boggles my mind that they won’t even hear what we have to say.”

“At some of the meetings, we are told not to talk about the Constitution and the protection it guarantees to U.S. citizens. We need to get government back in the hands of the people; we just want the use of our property, our land and buildings. As we have told the County numerous times, we are not against civil law, but if our property use is not harming our neighbors or the environment, we should be able to use our property. We aren’t disrespectful to the County, but they should listen to our side as well. We are disappointed that we have to resort to the federal court to get a fair hearing on our concerns.”

The disagreements with the County came to a head when concerned citizens who had been deprived of their property rights went to the county officials, only to be rebuffed for their concerns. The landowners, often referred to as Landowners Concerned About Property Rights, then drafted a resolution, which was signed by 700 of the County’s landowners, that urged the County Commissioners to recognize the protections for private property and property use. That petition was presented to the Commission in 2007. The Commissioners never responded.

The Concerned Landowners filed litigation in state court challenging the land use plan and zoning ordinance in 2010, but during the research and discovery in the case, many landowners learned that the issues between the County and its citizens were significantly deeper than the land use plan; those issues go to the heart of the guarantees in the U.S. Constitution that are protected by the Federal Civil Rights Act. That is why the landowners are dismissing the state court case and endorsing the Federal District Court Civil Rights case. Dismissal of the state court case does not mean we agree with the County, it means we want to resolve all the claims at once and that can only be done in Federal Court.

“Civil rights are the rights belonging to an individual by virtue of his or her U.S. citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including property rights, civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination,” explained Ideker. “Specifically, section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act makes monetary and equitable relief available to those whose constitutional rights had been violated by a bureaucrat or official acting under State authority.

The Federal Civil Rights Act stands as one of the most powerful authorities under which federal courts may protect those whose constitutionally guaranteed rights are deprived. Section 1983 provides a way individuals can sue to stop past and prevent future violations of constitutionally protected rights. Section 1983 applies to both governmental employees as individuals and to state and local boards and commissions acting under state authority. It requires that the individuals or boards be responsible for the decisions they make, and not simply hide behind a claim that they are ‘following the law.’”

“It is disappointing that it has come to federal court litigation, but there is nowhere else to turn. We would still be open to talking to the County officials to try to come to a resolution,” said county land owner Tom Groeschner. “But we can’t really talk to them if they won’t listen to us. Don’t we have to put government back in the hands of ‘we the people?’”

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton  -  the NoisyRoom

Terror Alert: HR 1505!

By: Syver Alton Larsen and MJ

Voting on HR 1505, the inspiration of Rob Bishop of Utah, is ominously imminent. The simply stated purpose of the bill is to allow Border Patrol agents to access public lands in the interest of securing the border. In actuality, HR 1505 wipes out our Constitution, overrides the jurisdiction of other agencies, negates over one hundred years of law and policy, infringes on state’s rights… without congressional oversight and without recourse.

As Chuck Baldwin inscribes:

“Let’s first acknowledge that the federal government has absolutely no natural right or constitutional jurisdiction to claim (much less seize) land and territory outside of the District of Columbia. In many of the western states of the US, for example, the vast majority of land in any given State is now regarded as “federal” land. Ask yourself, where is the constitutional authorization for this federal land grab? When did the various State legislatures vote to give these properties to the federal government? When did the various State governors sign the State laws giving these properties to the federal government? When did the citizens of the various states vote to give these properties to the federal government? The answer is, nowhere, and they didn’t!”

Please look at the red area below… 80% of the United States is a massive amount of land that will be removed from individual and state authority. It includes ten entire states including Florida and Hawaii!

Map Source

What does HR 1505 do?

One will notice in the text of HR 1505, that it doesn’t seek to alleviate jurisdictional conflict, but rather completely decimate all other authority. Note the word “prohibit.”

• H.R. 1505 (R. Bishop), To prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes. “National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act”

o Press Release – Groups Call for Passage of Republican Legislation to Enhance Border Security on Federal Lands (7/8/2011)

Related Hearing – Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest and Public Lands Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1505 and H.R. 587 (7/8/2011)

“To prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes.”

HR 1505 hands total control to DHS in the interests of ‘border security.’ Here’s a sampling:

“(b) Authorized Activities – The Secretary of Homeland Security shall have immediate access to any public land managed by the Federal Government (including land managed by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture) for purposes of conducting activities that assist in securing the border (including access to maintain and construct roads, construct a fence, use vehicles to patrol, and set up monitoring equipment).”

This states very emphatically that HS can do what they want, not just in violation of authority of other departments, it also gives HS a waiver to violate Congressional statute, which directs the actions of those other departments. An explanation of those waivers is given in section (c), the clarifications.

Please take your time as you read all the laws HR 1505 wipes off the books:

“(c)(2) DESCRIPTION OF LAWS WAIVED – The laws referred to in paragraph (1) are:

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
• Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
• Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.),
• National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.),
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.),
• Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.),
• Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.),
• Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.),
• Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.),
• Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.),
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.),
• Public Law 86-523 (16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.),
• Act of June 8, 1906 (commonly known as the `Antiquities Act of 1906′) (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.),
• Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.),
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.),
• Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.),
• Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.),
• Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.),
• Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.),
• National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.),
• Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.),
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.),
• Subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the `Administrative Procedure Act’),
• Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-145, 113 Stat. 1711),
• Sections 102(29) and 103 of California Desert Protection Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 410aaa et seq.),
• National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.),
• Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-1 et seq.),
• Sections 401(7), 403, and 404 of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-625, 92 Stat. 3467),
• Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; Public Law 101-628),
• Section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403),
• Act of June 8, 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.),
• Public Law 95-341 (42 U.S.C. 1996),
• Public Law 103-141 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.),
• Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.),
• Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.)

Is this a monumental bill or what? Has there ever been another bill that has sought to remove so many of the laws of our land and seek complete and uncontested jurisdiction for over 80% of our physical territory? From an opinion piece by Scott Nicol:

Would complying with our nation’s laws really prevent CBP (Customs Border Patrol) from securing our borders?

Not according to the Border Patrol.

The irony is that the Border Patrol has not asked for the power to ignore environmental laws, but instead has sent officials to testify against Bishop’s bill in Congress. Last spring, the Government Accountability Office said, “Most agents reported that land management laws have had no effect on Border Patrol’s overall measure of border security.”

Source: http://njtoday.net/2011/11/03/an-environmental-assault-disguised-as-border-security/

Quote:

“Let’s say someone wants to close an access road across land for an oil lease project? Appeal to Homeland Security— no problem. You want a cell phone tap station deep in the boonies? Appeal to Homeland security— no problem. You want a pipeline transfer station and can’t get the appropriate environmental review? Oil supply is a matter of national security. Appeal to the DHS—no problem.

In short, if this bill passes (which it won’t), the laws of the US will apply, until they don’t based on the whims of whatever administration is in the White House. Does that truly sound like ‘small government’ to you?”

Even as amended, the bill allows Department of Homeland Security to build roads, fences, patrol vehicles, install surveillance equipment and deploy tactical infrastructure called “forward operating bases.” The bill waves 36 conservation management laws, including the Fish and Wildlife Act and the National Parks and Recreation Act.

http://www.norehberglandgrab.org/issues_nationalsecurity.html”>Quote:

John Leshy, a University of California-Hastings law professor and a former House committee staffer stated, “under the bill, Homeland Security’s actions would be immune from court review, except for constitutional claims.” The Great Falls Tribune further states, “Supporters of the measure say that’s exactly the point.” See “House measure would expand Homeland Security powers, waive environmental laws,” by John S. Adams, Great Falls Tribune, September 19, 2011.

What are other possible purposes of HR 1505?

In order for us to understand the full implications of HR 1505, one needs only to look at what the highly qualified professional, Dr. Ed Berry wrote in his article “Fatal betrayal: HR 1505.” Dr. Ed Berry described our Department of Homeland Security as a beast with “seven heads.” DHS is seven agencies wrapped into one:

1. TSA—Transportation Security Administration
2. CBP—US Customs and Border Protection
3. CIS—US Citizenship and Immigration Services
4. ICE—US Immigration and Customs Enforcement
5. SS—US Secret Service
6. FEMA—Federal Emergency Management Agency
7. USCG—US Coast Guard

Organizational Chart of the Department of Homeland Security

http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0644.shtm”>

Daily news is constantly referring to the excessive outreach and abuses of DHS, especially that of the Transportation Security Administration. As one can see from the chart above, there are six other “heads” coming from the main body of the DHS. In fiscal year 2011 it was allocated a budget of $98.8 billion and spent, net, $66.4 billion.

If this past year is an indication of the power grab the DHS is attempting, we can logically postulate that they have plans to continue their strangle hold in the following areas:

• DHS will eventually control travel
• DHS will eventually control food
• DHS will eventually control water
• DHS will control the land
• DHS will be building fortresses (underground fuel tanks, horse facilities)
• DHS will serve as Obama’s “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful (as our military) and fully funded”
• DHS will destroy the Tenth Amendment and State Rights
• DHS will enforce UN Agenda 21

So basically, it gives the federal government permission to ignore their own laws on public land.

A reader wrote an interesting observation regarding DHS’s power reach.

I said then that the SFA (Secure Fence Act) was only the beginning of a federal land grab that would not end until the federal government, under DHS / FEMA, had complete authority over the population. We wanted to feel safe from terror and we wanted to control illegal immigration. Well, that’s what happens when we look to the Feds to save us. Please note that the fence turned out to be a complete waste of money. Why? Because it was never about a fence. Though I have no evidence to support my claim, I am confident that part of The Secure Fence Act was to create an intra-governmental conflict between DHS, other federal department that would have to be resolved by further legislation. Enter H.R. 1505. The ultimate goal has always been DHS control over as much land and as many citizens as possible. Bush failed us badly with DHS. He used our fear of terrorism to create a monster in DHS and that monster is now roaming the countryside looking to constitutional rights to stomp on.

H.R. 1505 is the next logical step to the SFA; give DHS control of ‘public’ land. Once we get used to the impact of H.R. 1505, the step will be introduce legislation to redefine ‘public’ land. Imagine a law that expands DHS jurisdiction to include the ‘inspections’ of privately owned but state and/or federally subsidized housing, manufacturing, transportation, communication, utility, warehousing and storage facilities under the ubiquitous ‘security’ label.

Both The Secure Fence Act and H.R. 1505 seek to expand “Operational Control” over federal land. To the Feds, Operational Control is defined as: “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.”

Instruments of terrorism and other contraband are so broad in scope as to allow the federal government the right to access virtually any property at any time for any reason with or without a search warrant so long as the goal is the prevention of contraband into the U.S. Notice the lack of definitions for instruments of terrorism and contraband.

Also, notice that the DHS definition of extremists include: people who are antagonistic toward the Obama Administration, people who stockpile food, people who oppose illegal immigration, people who oppose global governance, those who oppose the loss of US manufacturing to overseas nations, those who criticize free trade programs and those who consider themselves Patriots!

If DHS has failed to control our southern border, why should we trust them with even more power? To date, DHS has prosecuted three Border Patrol agents for doing their jobs. The Border agents’ sentences were for far greater time than the drug dealers. What makes DHS think that they will do any better on our northern border? DHS has even stopped routine Visa checks on our Canadian border!

What sane United States Citizen would want to give total control of 80% of our country’s territory to an organization that is currently field testing equipment to detect pre-crime? If the DHS is field-testing a thought crime device now, it means this technology is being considered for use. Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST), a US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) programme designed to spot people who are intending to commit a terrorist act, has in the past few months completed its first round of field tests at an undisclosed location in the northeast.

As one reader composed:

The antithesis of U.S. law is the presumption of guilt. Guilt, then, necessarily hinges upon the actual commission or provable conspiracy to commit a criminal act. Even if an individual contemplates a crime but does nothing to carry it out that person is innocent under the law. Who hasn’t considered doing something unwise or illegal but changed their mind after having thought it through? Should they be arrested or surveilled (sic. Surveillanced) based upon the objective speculation of a machine? What psychological conditions produce the physical responses detectable by such a machine? Perhaps anger at a spouse, anxiety of travel to an important, time sensitive event, a wedding, a funeral or injury of a loved one might do it.

This is why lie detector (polygraph) tests are inadmissible as evidence in court. We already treat allegedly innocent people as criminal suspects every time we illegally search travelers at airports on the assumption that treating everyone as a potential terrorist is somehow preferable to proper police work. This mindset probably stems from the failure of said police work to prevent 9/11 and the resulting embarrassment of the various agencies involved. So, rather than correcting their mistakes, they simply oppress everyone.

There is, of course, the underlying agenda of complete social control by those in power. That, ultimately is what we all must resist. This Orwellian approach must be stopped.

From this evidence proving that DHS is experimenting with thought crime detection, we can only see that DHS has big plans for our future. If HR 1505 passes, it would give the seven-headed monster total control of 80% of our country’s land and even more tools to control our liberty, wipe out our Constitution and become an inescapable controlling force in our lives.  Alert: HR1505 is the real terrorist.

What you can do:

Contact your senators and representatives.

Communicate with others the dangers of HR 1505.

Contest the spread of Communism.

Sources:

Rob Bishop

Chuck Baldwin:
HR 1505: GIANT LAND GRAB FOR THE POLICE STATE

Map Source

H.R. 1505

Press Release:
Groups Call for Passage of Republican Legislation to Enhance Border Security on Federal Lands

Scott Nicol:
An Environmental Assault Disguised As Border Security

Quote:
A Leader and A Panderer: Bullock and Rehberg on HR 1505

Amended:
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 1505
OFFERED BY MR. BISHOP OF UTAH

Quote:
Oppose H.R. 1505, the Rehberg Land Grab

Fatal betrayal: HR 1505

DHS Organizational Chart

In fiscal year 2011 it was allocated a budget of $98.8 billion and spent, net, $66.4 billion.

A reader wrote:
Republican Sponsored H.R. 1505 Would give DHS Police State Powers over 80% of the U.S.

DHS definition of extremists:
Federal agency warns of radicals on right

Those who consider themselves Patriots:
New SPLC Report: “Patriot” Groups, Militias Surge in Number in Past Year

DHS has even stopped routine Visa checks on our Canadian border!
US immigration checks eased on Canadian border

Future Attribute Screening Technology:
Terrorist ‘pre-crime’ detector field tested in United States

As one reader composed:
Terrorist ‘pre-crime’ detector field tested in United States

Contact your senators and representatives.

Obama’s Choice: Dirty Oil (Keystone XL Oil Pipeline) or Clean Water and Land?

By Syver Alton Larsen and MJ

One big decision looms ominously on Obama’s horizon and he will not be able to blame anyone but himself for the consequences.  Obama must render the momentous verdict by November 1 to give or not to give approval for the historical Keystone XL Pipeline Project.  This pipeline will carry one of the world’s dirtiest fuels… tar sand oil which is vastly different from regular oil being ten times heavier than water and very corrosive.

Presidential permission is required because the 2,147-mile pipeline crosses the border between Canada and eight states of the United States.  The present route is scheduled to cross prime agriculture heartland, 19,000 square mile wetlands, and the world’s largest fresh water aquifer—the Ogallala. 

The Keystone XL pipeline would carry 900,000 barrels of dirty tar sands oil into the United States daily, doubling our country's reliance on it and resulting in climate-damaging emissions equal to adding more than six million new cars to U.S. roads.

Originally proposed on February 9, 2005, it is still in the making.   It began supplying oil to Illinois and Missouri in 2010. Phase II of the project, launched in February 2011, would extend the pipeline from Steele City, Nebraska, to Cushing, Oklahoma — a pivotal crude oil refining and pipeline hub and then on to the Gulf of Mexico.

According to The New American, the new segment of this project is waiting for Obama’s approval, but the Keystone XL is facing fierce opposition from landowners and concerned citizens.

“Though the pipeline has been in operation for almost a year, a new segment of the project, the Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion, also known as Keystone XL — which would originate in Hardisty, Alberta Canada, and run southeast through Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska, while incorporating Phase II of the pipeline to extend to Oklahoma markets and the Texas Gulf Coast ports of Houston and Port Arthur — is facing formidable hurdles. The Canadian government’s National Energy Board approved the expansion in 2010, but is awaiting final approval from the Obama administration”

According to the Nebraska Farmers Union, many landowners have been intimidated and threatened with the Right of Eminent Domain.  Does a foreign country owned business have that right?

In 2007, Congress passed and President George Bush signed into law Section 526 which disallows the U.S. purchase of tar sands oil.  Congressman Henry Waxman, Chair of the House Energy Committee, wrote to the Senate Commerce Committee in 2008, the law "applies to fuels derived from unconventional petroleum sources such as tar sands which produce significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions than are produced by comparable fuel from conventional sources." 

In the article it also states that the Canadian government and big oil are working  behind the scenes to get section 526 changed.

“Meanwhile, the Canadian government has been working behind the scenes to strike Section 526 from the books to clear the way for tar sands extraction. Using Freedom of Information requests, the Pembina Institute and Climate Action Network Canada uncovered a 2008 strategy memo by Canadian Embassy official Hélène Viau which urged U.S. oil lobbyists to send letters to the U.S. Department of Energy and the Department of State to show "concerns with regard to section 526 and argue that oil sands products should not be targeted by this provision," and to develop "a comprehensive oil sands advocacy strategy to focus on outreach to allies, influencers, legislators, etc."

And Big Oil lobbyists have taken Viau's suggestions to heart. Matt Fox, senior vice president of oil sands for ConocoPhillips warned U.S. legislators that Section 526 "could bring [oil sands] development to a screeching halt. You'd have to think twice about oil sands development if your intention was to deliver oil to the lower '48."

The debate regarding the Keystone XL involves the economic issues versus environmental issues. The final impact statement was released by the White House in August.

Video:  Why Oil Sands Pipeline Is Just Too Risky

Those who favor the pipeline list these benefits:

1. Making money for states tax revenues

2. Providing jobs

3. Advancing national security by less foreign oil dependence

Those who are against the pipeline submit:

1. Money cannot replace clean water and land

2. Jobs provided will be temporary

3. The U.S. already imports three-fourths of its oil from western sources

Quote from the Nebraska Senator Tony Fulton:

"I would be doing a bad job if I didn't step up and say that I have some concern about the proposed route of this pipeline. If that puts me on the same side as environmentalists, or folks that I don't typically see eye to eye with, so be it."

Narrator: Fulton wants TransCanada to re-route the pipeline. He is promoting legislation he hopes would give state government the power to force the company to by-pass the aquifer. He says building this pipeline without the Nebraska's input is a violation of state's rights. We ought to have some say as to how that pipeline makes its way through Nebraska. And at this point it has been President Obama, Secretary Clinton and TransCanada who have chosen this route.

Environmentalists site the Enbridge tragic tar sand oil leak in the Kalamazoo River occurring in July 2010, as an example of what will be repeated again.  Enbridge, competitor of TransCanada, says that there is no oil remaining in the river.  The EPA has estimated that over one million gallons of oil leaked into the Kalamazoo River and has still not been totally cleaned up.  Because the tar sand oil is heavier than water, it has sunk down into the river and the only way to remove it is through drudging. 

China has actively been investing in Canadian oil and many believe that the true intent of the oil pipeline is to make it easier to ship the oil from Texas ports to Asian markets.  The pipeline happens to follow part of the same route as the notorious North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA) Super Highway.

The only thing Obama fears more than the Environmentalists are the Labor Unions.  The political reality is that Obama would risk losing the votes and campaign donations of ALL 1.8 million Nebraskans whose lives depend on the Ogallala for clean drinking water and even most of the Environmentalists, but he cannot afford to lose the support of ANY Labor Unions that want the pipeline built at any and all costs for the jobs and tax-base it will generate.

TransCanada has refused to reroute the Keystone from going over the Ogallala, so they are trying to save money with pipe line construction, and is choosing economic concerns over environmental concerns that relate to the aquifer. Does greed always win in this world? 

We will know for sure by November 1, which one Obama will choose… Dirty Oil or Clean Water and Land.

Related:

Obama Allies’ Interests Collide Over Keystone Pipeline

EPA to property owner: 'Your land is our land'

At the GOP Debate last week the two agencies that got the most votes from the public and the presidential candidates to either get rid or completely or get rid of start over were the EPA and the Department of Education… and the IRS was the 3rd if you put the fair or flat tax systems in place.  Under Obama they’ve all grown and will keep growing.

$40 million in fines pending over plan to build new home

Just imagine. You want to build a home, so you buy a $23,000 piece of land in a residential subdivision in your hometown and get started. The government then tells you to stop, threatens you with $40 million in fines and is not kidding.

That's the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, with briefs being filed today by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of a Priest Lake, Idaho, family, Chantell and Mike Sackett.

Attorney Damien Schiff, who will be arguing before the high court in the case, said it's simply a case of a government run amok, and it poses a potential threat to perhaps not every landowner across the nation, but untold millions.

The Sacketts, Schiff said, "bought property, and the government in effect has ordered them to treat the property like a public park."

"The EPA has not paid them a dime for that privilege," he said. "The regime we have operating now allows the EPA to take property without having to pay for it, or giving the owners the right to their day in court.""

The organization has prepared a video to explain the case:

Video:  PLF Fights the EPA to Protect a Couple’s Dream

The case developed when the Sacketts bought a .63-acre parcel of land for $23,000 in a subdivision in their hometown of Priest Lake, Idaho. The land is 500 feet from a lake, had a city water and sewer tap assigned, had no running or standing water and was in the middle of other developed properties.

The couple obtained all of the needed permits for their project and started work. Suddenly, the Environmental Protection Agency showed up on the building site, demanded that the work stop and issued a "compliance order" that the couple remove the fill they had brought in, restore the land to its native condition, plant trees every 10 feet, fence it off and let it sit for three years.

Then they would, for costs estimated at roughly a quarter of a million dollars, be allowed to "request" permission from the government to build on their own land.

Or else, warned the agency, there is the possibility of fines of $37,500 per day – with the total now surpassing $40 million.

Chantell reported she was told by the EPA that if "you're buying a piece of property you should know if it's in wetlands."

"I started to do research. I said, 'So how do I find this piece of property in the wetlands [registry]'? And she said, 'Here's the coordinates.' When I actually pulled up the coordinates, it's not there."

No matter, said the government. Do what we want.

So the Sacketts went to court, only to be told the courts can't address a decision like this, as it's an administrative decision. The couple would have to meet the demands of the "compliance order" and pay the $250,000 to apply for a building permit, then challenge the eventual decision.

Or they could expose themselves to $37,500 per day in fines by refusing to cooperate.

The "taking" of their private property without due process now is the focus on the high court's hearings.

The brief explains that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that "no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." But the Clean Water Act gives the EPA authority to issue compliance orders, then fine defendants who are "in violation."

"Any citizen engaged in a range of activities may run afoul of the act," the brief explains. "The Clean Water Act's reach is extremely broad, requiring a permit for the discharge of 'pollutants' from a 'point source' into the 'waters of the United States,' which phrase has been interpreted by regulation to include 'wetlands.'"

The regulations, the brief contends, had been defined so broadly by the EPA that they have pertained to "land that appears to be totally dry."

"If the EPA has completed an analysis and made a determination that the property contains jurisdictional 'wetlands,' the citizen has no right to judicial review of that analysis. If the citizen hires professionals to conduct a 'wetlands' determination, EPA is not obligated to accept it. Despite any evidence, professional opinions, or agency advice the citizen obtains, EPA may still impose sanctions by a compliance order if it has 'any information' that" it wants to use to call it wetlands, the brief explains.

Further, the "compliance order" also demands that the private property owners give the EPA full access not only to the lands but to their private records about what is done to the land.

"Given that the order is not based on probable cause, it withdraws the Sacketts' constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches by requiring them to grant access to 'all records and documentation related to the conditions at the site and th restoration activities conducted pursuant to this order.'"

The EPA ordered the planting of specific trees and shrubs and then demanded that the land "be fenced for the first three growing seasons."

"Monitoring of vegetation on the restored site for survival and ground coverage shall be performed in October 2008, June 2009, October 2009, and October 2010," it ordered.

"The very existence of the order, subjecting the property to a federal mandate, prohibiting the intended, authorized use, and requiring expensive remedial actions, substantially reduces the value of the property and limits the Sacketts' ability to [use] it," the brief said.

"Although there has been no judicial decision to establish EPA's jurisdiction and authority to impose these deprivations, the compliance order threatens the Sackets with various 'sanctions.'"

The couple's eventual lawsuit claimed the EPA does not have jurisdiction and the order violates their due process and other constitutional rights.

"The second claim turns on the basic principle that, before a person can be deprived of liberty or property, he is entitled to a full and fair hearing 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,'" the brief argues. "The third claim is based on the related principle that a person cannot be punished for conduct that violates an 'impermissibly vague' law."

The district court rejected their case, as did the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"The court created a constitutional problem by reading the Clean Water Act to preclude judicial review of the compliance order," said the brief. "The court acknowledged both that the Clean Water Act's express language does not mandate the interpretation it ultimately adopted … and that courts should avoid statutory interpretations that raise serious constitutional questions," the brief said.

"The court never considered whether contrary inferences might support the conclusion that Congress did intend for individuals like the Sacketts to obtain review under the APA. Similarly, the court never considered whether the nature of the compliance order itself supports review."

Additionally, it's an order issued without probable cause and "the process that produces the order is entirely secret, with no notice given to property owners like the Sacketts."

"In sum, the compliance order has deprived the Sacketts of the only economically viable use of their property permitted under local law, deprived them of their right to exclude unwanted persons from their property, and deprived them of their right to be free from unreasonable searches of their property and effects. The Sacketts have never received any review, let alone meaningful review, of the compliance order," the brief argued.

Schiff earlier told WND the significant property rights and due process issues need to be resolved.

"When the government seizes control of your land, and you disagree with the justification, shouldn't you be allowed your day in court? Just as important, should EPA be a law unto itself, without meaningful accountability to the courts and the Constitution?" he said.

"We're very encouraged that the Supreme Court has recognized how important our case is," said Mike Sackett in a statement released earlier by the foundation. "We are standing up against an agency that seems to have unlimited resources and few if any limits on what it can do to property owners. We're standing up for everyone's right to go to court when the government hands you a raw deal– or takes over your hard-earned property. Thank goodness PLF has been helping us, and now PLF will be making our case in the nation's highest court."

Schiff told WND earlier that there is "no question that the power the EPA is claiming it has under the Clean Water Act is significant."

"Even if you have a good basis the think the EPA is wrong, the EPA won't let you get into the courthouse," he said. "They are able to shut the courthouse door by issuing compliance orders that are not judicially reviewable."

That puts a landowner in the impossible situation of either complying with the order with its potential cost of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars or facing that same penalty in fines.

And it's not just the Sacketts' land that could be subject to such orders. The foundation arguments suggest that private property across the nation could be at risk.

EPAofficials have declined WND requests for comment. They referred WND to a Department of Justice office, which did not respond.

The legal team noted that between 1980 and 2001, the EPA issued up to 3,000 compliance orders every year across the nation.

"The reality of the Sacketts' situation is that they have been unambiguously commanded by their government not to complete their home-building project, to take expensive measures to undo the improvements that they have made to their land, and to maintain their land essentially as a public park until the property is 'restored' to the satisfaction of the EPA. They have been threatened with frightening penalties if they do not immediately obey; but they have been refused the prompt hearing they should have received as a matter of right in any court," Pacific Legal argue

Source:  WND

Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws

USDA Closing Roads to Public Lands While Opening Doors for the United Nations

USDA Closing Roads to Public Lands While Opening Doors for the United Nations
08-11-2011 4:37 pm - Marti Oakley

Debbie Coffey PPJ Gazette Investigative Reporter

 

Where?

COLORADO –  “Montezuma County Sheriff Dennis Spruell is waiting for his conscience to tell him: Should he start handing out tickets this week to U.S. Forest Service agents who are closing backcountry roads? Should he cut locks on gates that shut off access to public lands?

The fact that a county sheriff is considering such actions against the federal government is a good indication that more than a run-of-the-mill dustup over road and trail closures on public lands is erupting in the far southwest corner of the state…

In recent weeks, protesters have marched on the local Forest Service and BLM office located between Cortez and Dolores, calling Forest Service officials “government pukes.”

OREGON – (3/2/11, by Sara Foster, NewsWithViews.com) “Josephine County, Oregon -When Gil Gilbertson was sworn in as Sheriff of Josephine County, a rural county in southwest Oregon, in 2007, he had 30 years of law enforcement experience behind him, both in the United States and with various military missions overseas.

So when citizens of the county began coming to him complaining of “harassment” by U.S. Forest Service law enforcement officers (LEO), he said he’d investigate their concerns, figuring he could work things out with the local ranger district. After all, as the county’s chief law enforcement officer he was in the “club” and moreover had gotten along with the “feds” — though he disagreed with their road closing policies and other efforts to keep the public off public lands which cover 68 percent of the rural county.

He contacted the local ranger district for information, but instead of answers he was bluntly told that No, they couldn’t, wouldn’t discuss anything about any complaints with him, but he could file a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act)… Gilbertson sent a blistering letter to the District Ranger of the Wild Rivers Ranger District in Caves Junction… ‘As the CLEO [chief law enforcement officer] of this county, elected by the citizens, saddled with the expectation and responsibility to safeguard their rights, I fully intend to uphold the laws against any threat, inappropriate or unlawful actions against them…”.

UTAH – (10/6/10, San Juan Record) “Hunters in San Juan County face a number of roads that have been closed on National Forests. ‘We have been hunting this area since my dad was a kid,’ said one Blanding resident, who asked that his name not be used. ‘It seems like they have closed a thousand roads’.”

MONTANA – ( 8/26/10, Helenair.com) “The Helena National Forest Service has truly been busy this summer. They have had excavators up in the forests removing roads and portions of roads for the sole purpose of making them impossible to navigate. These are not maintained Forest Service roads, yet the excuse they used was to save money in the long run by taking these roads off of their maintenance list. The sole reason for these road closures is to prevent sportsmen from accessing hunting grounds.”

IDAHO – (6/16/11, Capitalpress.com) “A county government in Idaho has filed a legal complaint against the U.S. Forest Service over road closures that allegedly limit residents’ mobility and discourage tourists. Valley County has asked a federal judge to declare the agency’s travel management plan for the Payette National Forest as unlawful due to violations of environmental and administrative law.
“They didn’t do it right,” said Matthew Williams, the county’s attorney. “No appeals, no hearings. They just did it.”

The road closures by the Forest Service have also been happening in California, Nevada and other states.

Former Sheriff Richard Mack, in his book “County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope” summed it up when he said “The founders of America warned us that we would lose more freedoms from gradual encroachments by those in authority than by sudden usurptions from any foreign enemy…The COUNTY SHERIFF is our nation’s LAST LINE OF DEFENSE, for the preservation and return to, fundamental and individual liberty.”

The USDA (a member of the new Rural Council and the IUCN, an organization that promotes U.N.’s Agenda 21) used your tax dollars to send David Ferrell, Director of Law Enforcement and Investigations, to Canada for the 9th Conference of the International Network for Environ­mental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE) where “… environmental compliance and en­forcement experts from over 50 coun­tries gathered to identify new actions to promote enforcement cooperation to…support the shift to sustainable devel­opment…”

On INECE’s website, it states: “Agenda 21: An international mandate for building compliance and enforcement capacity as an essential element of environmental management… Agenda 21, Chapter 8, Section 8.21. Each country should develop integrated strategies to maximize compliance with its laws and regulations relating to sustainable development. Does this seem like the Forest Service might “promote enforcement” to make U.S. citizens comply with Agenda 21? It’s important to know what the USDA is “participating” in:

“INECE is striving for a global network which starts first at local levels, networking among key institutions of government, the police, environment agencies, sectoral agencies; second among local groups and with related regional and national groups within nations; third, between governments and NGOs; fourth internationally in bilateral cooperation; fifth regionally among nations among all relevant groups; and finally, sixth, on a global scale among the various groups as needs arise and catalyzing ideas and approaches and cooperation around the globe.

The mandate for environmental compliance and enforcement was introduced as a direct result of the consensus at the International Workshop which gave the participants the confidence to move toward this very important international statement. Language in Agenda 21 empowered UN organizations to more actively support compliance and enforcement institution building activities.”
Regarding any mandate for USDA “enforcements” to close off roads, forests and public lands, remember the Tenth Amendment “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Sheriff Mack sums this up best “…local officials have the right, the power, and the duty to stand against the far reaching incursions by our own Federal Government.” Mack cited a Supreme Court case in which Justice Scalia wrote a ruling for the majority that stated “The Federal Government may not compel the states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program.”

TO LEARN MORE:  Many excellent articles on Agenda 21 by Cassandra Anderson at www.morphcity.com, and also by Marti Oakley (PPJ Gazette), including http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/just-another-brick-in-the-wall-un-agenda-21-in-us-law/#more-16780 “The Quiet Coup”: http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/the-quiet-coup-the-implementation-of-agenda-21/#more-17145

SOURCES:
http://www.fs.fed.us/global/wsnew/welcome.htm
http://www.fs.fed.us/global/wsnew/newsletter/july2011_wsnew.pdf
http://www.fs.fed.us/international/
http://www.fs.fed.us/global/latest_news.htm
http://www.fs.fed.us/global/links/links.htm
http://www.inece.org/
http://www.inece.org/history.html
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news260.htm
http://www.sjrnews.com/view/full_story/9783521/article-Concern-grows-over-Forest-Service-road-closures?instance=home_news_1st_right
http://helenair.com/news/opinion/readers_alley/article_070e3206-b0da-11df-90e6-001cc4c002e0.html
http://www.capitalpress.com/content/mp-county-roads-lawsuit-061011
http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/usda-closing-roads-to-public-lands-while-opening-doors-for-the-united-nations/

To write a comment you need to be registered
Register New