UN Charter Clashes With Free-World Constitutions

by Jane Gaffin

In his inimitable style, outspoken American radio broadcaster Paul Harvey (1918 – 2009) championed love of God and country while railing against such hardcore subjects as Big Brother government.

On September 24, 1993, he went so far as to roll out the sordid facts about the United Nations on his long-standing ABC show The Rest of the Story.

“One would think by listening to all the propaganda about the United Nations that they are some sort of benevolent, peaceful organization,” began Mr. Harvey.

“Never in the history of the United Nations has it stood for anything but killing and violence. They have never kept peace anywhere on this globe. Their sole function is to replace the U.S. military — dissolve all four branches of our armed forces.

“Their allegiance is only to the United Nations Charter which does not recognize the U.S. Constitution. This body is made up almost exclusively of communists and leaders of the bloodiest regimes on this globe.

“Their history and operating agenda is apparent to anyone who takes the time to sincerely and with an open mind, research the facts of this organization, separating truth from myth.

“Bilderberg participants — another group committed to one-world domination — in 1992 called for ‘conditioning the public to accept the idea of a U.N. army that could, by force, impose its will on the internal affairs of any nation.’ “

Too bad more people didn’t heed Mr. Harvey’s wisdom and echo his sentiments before the United Nations and Bilderberg Group succeed in gobbling down the last morsels of freedom, sovereignty and peace, which would have happened sooner except for the unexpected Internet wild card that did wonders for momentarily cooling the overheated jets of the psychopaths.

As Mr. Harvey mentioned, the UN is not an instrument of peace. Wherever one stumbles often across “peace” in the UN Charter, written in classic Orwellian Newspeak, the word literally denotes “war”.

The phrase “human rights” means those the UN deems to qualify, mainly Muslims and Communists.

“Freedom of religion” dictates that only those accepting the state’s One-World religion have “religious freedom”, which ostensibly is based on Islam.

Christians are being slain, along with their concepts of Christianity and God. The state regards anybody who owns a Christian Bible — much less reads it –to be an infidel, who, if not murdered, will be institutionalized as a certifiable nut case. Christianity has to be eradicated to easily sell the masses on the ideology that national constitutions and their Bill of Rights are outmoded folly.

Below, as a companion to Mr. Harvey’s introduction, is an undated article, U.N. Charter Clashes with Constitution, reprinted sometime after 1960 in the Masonic Home Journal.

The account mentions that an effort to make property rights a part of the UN Declaration of Human Rights failed in the United Nations in 1960.

The United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco, California, on June 26, 1945, and ratified two days later by the U.S. Senate. As well, reference is made to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), a special agency also formed in 1945.

Although the Charter article is United States-specific, it relates closely to other sovereign nations, especially in the Western World, where people’s rights and freedoms are protected as natural, God-given, inalienable, and are rooted firmly in British Common Law, the Magna Carta of 1215 and Bill of Rights of 1689.

However, it is through the destruction of morality, spirituality and brainwashing that free-market countries, specifically the U.S., “will drop in our hands like over-ripe fruit,” as Vladimir Lenin, Bolshevik Leader of the Russian Communists, put it.

Even Communist Leader Nikita Khrushchev assured confidently that communism would take over America without firing a shot. (Basically, the world views the U.S. and Canada as a singular “America”.)

The New Order of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany has stood on the world’s threshold in the form of a totalitarian One-World Order society far too long. Yet there is a glimmer of indication that at this late date the political winds may be shifting.

As recently as October, 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin and other outspoken world leaders, disgruntled with the hegemonic United Nations and its United States lapdog dictating how sovereign nations of the world will conduct their domestic affairs, addressed a forum on the subject of New World Order: New Rules or No Rules? (See transcript here.)

And to think it all started because a warped bunch of power-hungry screwballs decided to unilaterally enshrine a destructive One-World Disorder into a damnable U.N. Charter in 1945.

Exactly what constitutes the differences between the U.S. Constitution and the United Nations’ Charter? questioned the writer of the Masonic Home Journal essay.

The Constitution is a concise document; it is very clear in its meaning and specific in its terminology — despite confused interpretations of it on high.

The UN Charter, on the other hand, is so worded that even its framers were not certain about its meaning. Its provisions have been construed in many ways.

The Constitution guarantees certain rights and Freedoms which shall not be abridged. The UN Charter threatens to eliminate such basic rights as trial by jury, a right won in 1215 A.D. by our ancestors.

The Proposed UN Covenant on Human Rights says that Freedom of the press, one of our treasured rights, may be withdrawn “if necessary for the protection of national security, public order, safety, health or morals or the rights of others.”

Article 2 of the Proposed UN Covenant goes on: “Many of the rights ostensibly guaranteed in the covenant, including Freedom of the press, may be withdrawn during an emergency officially proclaimed by the authorities.”

What about Freedom of religion?

To most of us, this is the most vital of all. On this point our Constitution says: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

What does the UN Covenant say? “Freedom to manifest one’s religion shall be subject only to such limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.”

The question which all Freedom-loving Americans must ask is: Who is to judge whether or not our religion and the way we worship will endanger somebody’s “health and morals?”

The answer is terrifying indeed. Even a brief analysis of the UN Covenants and our own Constitution shows that we cannot live under both at the same time, because they are not in agreement — pious, high-sounding words to the contrary.

If we were to live under the terms of the United Nations, we would have to surrender the sovereignty of the United States. Once that is surrendered, we who love Freedom will have no constitutional safeguards. Neither would any part of the free world.

Remember, the Charter of the United Nations does not recognize as unalienable the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. It purports to grant these rights. What government can grant, it can also take away.

Americans who say they stand for both the United Nations Charter and the United States Constitution, are not familiar with the provisions of these two documents, or they are fooling themselves, or they were trying to fool somebody else.

The UN Charter and the U.S. Constitution are mutually exclusive. In studying the UN Charter, it is important to look beyond the appealing slogans; it is absolutely vital that we know what is meant by “human rights”, “equality”, “social progress” and “freedoms”. And we must analyze carefully the UN’s basic aim of establishing international peace and security in the common interest.

No one will deny that a situation of international peace and security would be ideal. It was toward this end, and with good faith, that America ratified the UN Charter shortly after World War II–without too close an examination of how this was to be accomplished.

Much depends on how such a situation would be brought about, and after that, on how security would be maintained. We need to know whether the methods used would secure Freedom or bondage. We need to understand the difference in the communist concept of “peace” and “security” and our own meaning of the words.

The main principles of the UN Charter appear, on the surface, to be “equal rights” and “fundamental freedoms”. These phrases dominate the preamble and the first two articles of the Charter.

However, close examination shows that these “principles” are not actually bases for action. They are simply to be “respected” to whatever extent is possible, while other and somewhat different principles are applied.

In Article 1, Item 2, the Charter states this as a UN purpose: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”

In America, equal rights have been recognized as a premise of Freedom, not merely a “principle” to be accorded respect when it is convenient to do so.

An unalienable right of man is the right to own private property, but there is no recognition of this right in the UN Charter.

Furthermore, an effort to make property rights a part of the UN Declaration of Human Rights was defeated in the United Nations in 1960. The UN Resolution on Nationalization, adopted in 1952, does not call for prompt and full compensation for nationalization of property and resources.

If property rights were embodied in the UN Charter, then no Marxist could subscribe to it. Karl Marx said, “In all movements, bring to the front, as the leading question in every case, the property question.”

Thus, while communists make the property question foremost in trying to destroy Freedom, patriots must regard it as foremost in trying to save Freedom.

In studying the UN Charter, special attention should be given to what it says about “international peace and security.” This is a phrase we find very frequently in communist propaganda.

The communist conspiracy intends to establish its brand of “international peace and security” in a world dominated by communists.

The methods they use include subversion, agitation and armed force. What methods are open to the UN organization?

The Charter describes several measures which may be taken by the Security Council “to maintain or restore international peace and security” and what contributions to these measures the member nations are expected to make.

The Charter adds that if the Security Council should consider these measures insufficient, “it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

In other words, the UN intends to establish its brand of international peace and security by any means, including armed force. That is what the dictatorships have always advocated. The communists practice their technique, according to the tenets of dialectical materialism. The UN technique is practiced according to the tenets of what might be called dialectical internationalism.

Neither suits Freedom-loving Americans. Our technique for seeking peace should be practiced according to the principles of Freedom and unalienable rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and granted by the Creator.

There are many more Americans who are questioning the motives of the United Nations Charter. And there are many more Americans who have reached the age in life where the future of our country has little meaning to them personally; but they are concerned for their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren.

They want to leave them the heritage they received from their forefathers. They know that, despite those who argue that the United Nations is our “last hope for peace”, a responsible, sovereign and strong United States is the only defense of Freedom in the world.

United States (Democratic) Senator Frank Lausche (who served as an elected senator from Ohio between the years 1957 to 1969) offers one more example of why many people view the United Nations with increasing skepticism:

“UNESCO, an official appendage of the UN, makes the following remarkable statement in one of its publications (The United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization publication No. 356): ‘As long as a child breathes poisoned air of nationalism, education in world mindedness can only produce rather precarious results. It is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should use means to combat family attitudes that favor Jingoism. We shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world peace.’

“It would seem, then,” said Senator Lausche, “that the ‘ideal world’ as envisioned by the UN functionaries may be brought into being at the expense of the family, and influences teaching a child to love his country. All of which may persuade fewer people to love the UN.

*******

Agenda 21: So-Called ‘Compromise’ with the Enemy is Idiotic

by Jane Gaffin

A version of this article ran in the March 21, 2001 Whitehorse Star under the banner Compromise is the Way to Failure.

So, what has been learned in those 13 years? That it is simply idiotic for Mr. and Ms. Good Guy to continue engaging in a so-called ‘compromise’ with the enemy.

The crux of all land issues and border disputes these days flow from bending over to the United Nations Agenda 21 — the blueprint for how the world will turn and slaves will behave in the 21st Century.

In other words, it is about an anti-constitutional, totalitarian New World Order society in which citizens are being denied property rights and the rule of law as is recognized to be the firmly-planted cornerstone of any democratic country.

It really is a quarter past midnight, time to forget about trying to negotiate energy-sucking, time-consuming concessions. It is high time for all sovereign nations that respect life, liberty and freedom to dismantle the corrupt international organization and get back to looking after business on respective home turfs.

From hereon, political wannabes must publicly demonstrate their sincere intentions to work toward annihilation of the U.N. along with the promise of returning taxpayers’ stolen money to homebase where it can be applied to less-wasteful causes. Candidates refusing the terms must be shown the egress.

*******

Individual landowners are feeling queasy these days.

They see the legal secure tenure to their privately-owned property weakening while the government arbitrarily extinguishes land titles through a constant stream of illegal and unconstitutional forfeiture and “civil remedy” laws. A bell-ringing example of land expropriation going on in Canada is explained by Alberta lawyer Keith Wilson in this 57 minute video: Property Rights in Alberta

Additionally, people are finding public lands sealed off to commercial ventures such as agriculture, mining, farming, ranching, logging, trapping and big-game outfitting.

Land-users who want to go off for a cross-country ski or a Sunday hike and picnic are learning that it’s harder to find wilderness areas open to lawful public use.

The easiest targets against which the green acolytes hurled their rhetorical claptrap are the recreationalists who have been demonized for their want of wide-open spaces to run and race snowmachines, all-terrain vehicles and four-wheel-drive units.

This land-grab scam has been on the drawing board for nearly 40 years but became astonishingly apparent when the environmental jihad hit its stride in the mid-1980s and the public has been losing ground since then.

The campaign has steadily grown worse because ordinary citizens are not educated or mentally equipped to deal with the United Nations Big Green Machine.

It’s a rarity to come across a person who has heard about Agenda 21, a land scheme cooked up by the United Nations whose mission is a patient chipping away until North American property owners are relegated to the endangered species list and the middle class is crushed.

No headway has been made in thwarting the expropriation measures in the 13 years since Norm Lenhart tried educating his fellow fresh-air buffs and other groups and individuals on where they had failed to combat land issues and what has to be done to fix the wrongs.

Of all the mistakes made in the past when dealing with the environmentalists, “compromise” was the greatest, emphasized the columnist in Off Road magazine back in March 2001.

His reposted article, “The Art of War Applied”, was directed at groups who could answer affirmatively to the question: “Having trouble with environmentalists?”

Taking a look at land closures around both Canada and America is a testament that “compromise” has resulted in the loss of millions of acres of once “public” land.

These are public lands which belonged at one time to all the public that have been sealed off from public use and been economically cleansed.

“On the heels of the so-named ‘extraction industry’, the outdoor recreation community comes in a close second as the target for unrelenting propaganda campaigns by the greens,” Lenhart added. “We are repeatedly portrayed as destructive, knuckle-dragging rednecks with sub-20 IQs, and ‘no compassion for nature, no sense of environmental justice’ ”.

The federal governments in both the U.S. and Canada have bent to pressures from professional environmentalists whose agenda runs counter to the most basic thought, beliefs and aspirations of a civilized and free society, he said.

The source of the government’s authority to close off public land should be by “the consent of the governed”. And the citizens did not give their respective governments’ mandates to take away public land that belongs to the public.

Lenhart’s arithmetic didn’t lie.

“When one begins with 4/4ths, and compromises half, he has a half left. The greens return a time later fighting for the other half. We agree to compromise again, and feel good knowing we have retained a quarter of what we once had,” he noted.

The process continues until the whole 4/4ths are designated as a “wilderness area”. Once it is designated as a “wilderness area” rather than just being “a wilderness area”, the area suddenly becomes off-limits for public use.

“Sadly, many of us are still caught in the throes of denial that war has been declared on us. Sadly, we have been shamed – nay, scared – into compromise by green propaganda.”

People also get hung up on shop-worn ideas like balance, negotiations and process, he continued. Hence, they end up wishing they could gracefully wiggle out of those signed initiatives, agreements and strategies.

But they don’t know how to undo what they did. “Nice guys” don’t renege on deals. They just finish last,” he said.

“In our fear of being portrayed as ‘the bad guy’, we have simply rolled over in a high number of situations where we should have held firm, fighting tooth and nail,” he stressed.

Lenhart challenged anybody to show him just one instance where compromise with any green group resulted in a gain for anyone except the green groups.

Lenhart views the idea of compromise with the greens as having a lot in common with the leftists’ beliefs that the definition of “bipartisanship” is that the right must give into the left. “Likewise, ‘compromise’ to a green means that an outdoor enthusiast must give into their demands.”

Lenhart was adamant about wholly abandoning the idea of making progress through compromise – compromising land, compromising individual rights and freedoms, compromising life and livelihood.

“(Compromise) has never gained us any land, only lost it. It has never meant victory, only defeat. We have lost both land and freedom.”

To add to Lenhart’s thought that the greens outshine their opponents when it comes to “knowing the enemy”, the guilt-ridden opponents have basically resorted to useless spluttering and grumbling among themselves but never developed any strategic plans.

Time after time, they have been stomped on the battlefield.

The second U.S. President John Adams believed that people could never preserve their rights and freedoms unless they first have a general knowledge of what they are trying to protect.

Then, they must know how to fight a war and win it – not through violence, but behind the scenes with strategy, careful planning and intrigue.

Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, written 2,000 years ago by a Chinese general, has served to teach beyond the limits of traditional warfare, advised Lenhart. The “how-to-Bible of the business” is used in corporate boardrooms, political campaigns and, yes, by the green groups as a guide for fulfilling their agenda.

Throughout many years of fighting, groups engaged in land-use battles have repeatedly set themselves up for failure, he said. “Outside the ultimate goal of victory, there has never been a cohesive, coordinated battle plan to bring the goal to fruition.”

A lot of this happens because of a house divided. Each organization must be congealed into an army that acts with one voice and one purpose before coming together as a coalition. It, too, must act with one voice and one purpose.

The Art of War leaves no room for ego. Those out to promote themselves serve only to hinder progress of the whole. Divisiveness plays right into the hands of the enemy.

“If you’re looking to make a name for yourself, look elsewhere,” he suggested. “Our own stubborn reluctance to come together has been one of the greatest weapons that the greens have. It has been used against us with devastating effectiveness.”

He’s right, of course. There is no glue to hold coalitions together. They are weakened with internal politics and fighting their allies rather than the enemy.

Professional soldiers like Norm Lenhart and Sun Tzu never count on their opponents making mistakes. They count on outwitting them. The Art of War outlines circumstances in which victory can be predicted.

He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious; he who understands how to use both large and small forces will be victorious; he whose ranks are united in purpose will be victorious.

Also victorious will be he who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not prudent. He whose generals are able and not interfered with by the sovereign will be victorious, too.

It is of prime importance when fighting land-use battles to develop a concrete set of goals and guidelines to work with and fight from a pro-active stance, warned Lenhart.

“We’re often caught with our pants down and again forced into a position of ‘re-action’ rather than ‘action’, which places us at a significant disadvantage.”

People were alarmed when they finally became aware of the corrupt scheme of governments starting to do regulatory takings of privately-owned property and banning public lands from public use, whether for recreational purposes or for cattle watering and grazing.

And the public is paying for its own demise.

The 192 member states comprising the United Nations tax people without their knowledge or permission. The money is laundered through the central office of the respective federal governments. Then the money funnels down through the system into the coffers of well over 20,000 worldwide NGOs (non-government organizations) and goes to pay the freight bills for the greensters who go forth to seize your real estate.

In February 2011, Canada redefined the term “real estate”. It no longer means “house and lot” or a major “investment”. The government reassigned value as a “consumer item”, like a car or a carrot. This renders the confiscation process less complicated for the government than when it is seizing real property which is suppose to be protected by such inconveniences as legal security of tenure and due process of law.

It took people a long time to learn that this war against property is not about the official green partyline of “Saving the Planet”.

This war on property is about “Saving Civilization” from the Marxists who started this war, pitting one group against another, and the rest of us have no choice but to end it before we are all destroyed. If landowners lose this war, they lose everything and are doomed to spend the rest of their days existing in abject poverty under the looming Marxist UN flag of a One World (Dis)Order.

There is no room for Mr. and Ms. Nice Guy” compromises with the enemy. It is idiotic. Compromise is simply a myth that has only led to failure.

It is high time to send out troops to hijack the apparat of the United Nations and wipe its slate clean of illegal international laws, treaties, policies, accords, pograms, organizations, thievery – and especially Agenda 21 – that are threatening individual property rights, the cornerstone of any democracy, plus endangering every nations’ sovereignty under so-called “free trade” agreements.

It is high time to curtail the corruption that has oozed down through the cracks of all political and bureaucratic tiers into every corner of every community in North America and Western Europe.

Basically, it is high time that Canada, the United States and all Western European and Commonwealth countries withdraw their financial support from the United Nations, a monstrous institution that outlived its uselessness long ago.

*******

 

Agenda 21 Continues to Drive People from the Land

by Jane Gaffin

Under the United Nations’ Agenda 21 –– a blueprint as to how society will live and behave in the 21st Century — the main thrust is to return all privately-owned property back to a strictly government-controlled domain. As per the Marxist doctrine, Agenda 21 doesn’t recognize privately-owned property that represents 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 land-planning fiasco is Alberta’s Land Stewardship Act which was drafted and passed behind closed doors by Premier Ed Stelmach’s Conservative cabinet in 2010.

“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.

If the Alberta government was so proud of this act that Conservative politicians claimed would better protect the rights of land owners why was it not debated in the public legislative forum as per proper parliamentary rules instead of the bill passed behind closed doors cloak-and-dagger style?

Alison Redford, a lawyer 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.

Delphication is the name of the game that government reps perform on a crowd that has gathered to give opinions.

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 Redford didn’t have any intentions of rescinding the Land Stewardship Act before unleashing her dog-and-pony show on Albertans. And the act didn’t have a hoot in Hades of being overturned when Albertans were strangely inclined to return the long-standing Alberta  Conservatives of 43 years to power on April 23, 2012, despite polls and pundits predicting a landslide victory for the Wildrose Alliance Party. (Redford announced her premature resignation as premier on March 19, 2014).

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 and laws are based — it has become exceedingly 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 fueled 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 earh-destroying projects.

To break the back of the United States, viewed as the last bastion of freedom standing in the way of global reform, the socialists, fascists, Marxists, Communists, environmentalists, Evil Eye — whatever you want to call them — have to dismantle Wall Street and devalue the American dollar against which ever other currency in the world is pegged.

Maybe their self-proclaimed mandate to dismantle the ancient financial institution is because Green Clubbers are poor sports about losing. More than one outfit has watched in astonishment as their multimillions 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 add up to more than Canada’s prime minister’s annual base salary of $317,574 Canadian.

But a career with a U.S.-rooted environmental organization, which oozes out into the whole world, comes with a price tag. Joiners must park their ethics, integrity, scruples and morals at the door before entering — if indeed these fatuous youth’s characters were ever blessed with those virtues, anyway.

The environmental movement is a secular religion. Anybody who chooses to become a card-carrying member of any of the more than 8,000 Green Clubs and another 40,000 to a million 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”. She is the goddess destined to be the centerpiece of Agenda 212’s 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 and one that Canadian “scientist” David Suzuki extols.

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 re-create 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 (New Democratic Party) 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, the-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 .

Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper has started referring to under the disguise of a “New Modern Order”, which promises to end in a “Modern Totalitarian Disorder”.

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 Maurice Strong chaired Earth Summit II in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil where the kooky blueprint for the 21st Century, Agenda 21, was born, although conceived many decades previously.

Sane people did not pay much heed. They didn’t believe the off-the-wall plot, which sounded like it was cobbled together by a bunch of dysfunctional sci-fi madmen, had a snowball’s chance in Hell of succeeding.

While the Democratic Clinton administration was in the White House (1993 to 2001) — and it has worsened with the Democratic Obama administration (2009 to present) — every real and fabricated rule, regulation, illegal law and Executive Order — such as the one President Clinton 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 for 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 high-density ghettos comprised of ugly, cinder-block, high-rise apartment houses. Stack’em, pack’em and rack’em.

“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 the late 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.”

That’s the whole idea behind the Master Plan.

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 regarding the basin located in southern Oregon and northern California 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 White House administrations.

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

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 affected citizenry continue to allow it? Evidently the masses are asleep at the switch, not feeling the pinch yet, and holding no empathy for those who are.

Below is the URL for an insightful Liberty Northwest News presentation titled The Systematic Elimination of Private Property, in which New Mexico rancher Wayne Price provides testimony to the abuses he and other ranchers have suffered over the last many years at the hands of the UN Agenda 21 land-grab movement and the government minions who bear no qualms about carrying out the orders.

Please take 18.5 minutes out of your life to listen to this man of the land who has lived this nightmare. You will learn more than you want to know.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/05/04/the-systematic-elimination-of-private-property/
******

 

Video: The Systematic Elimination Of Private Property

by Jane Gaffin
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/05/04/the-systematic-elimination-of-private-property/

Private property ownership, the cornerstone of democracy, is the heart of all other rights and freedoms.

Without the right to own private property, other rights and freedoms are worthless: the right to vote, the right to religion, the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to freedom of expression and thought, the right to mobility.

In other words, without the rights to individually own and control personal and real property, the rights to life, liberty, security of person and due process of the law — everything –is surrendered to the autocrats.

Without inalienable rights and freedoms endorsed by a nation’s constitution citizens are reduced to human property owned by the state.

The quickest way to individual ruination is through the nationalization of land and mass people-control which is manipulated by a very few universal powermongers who have more wealth already than they can use in a lifetime but continue demanding that the individual citizen contribute more.

First, the government kleptocrats take all the people’s money from their bank accounts, then all their lands to render them unproductive paupers with no home of one’s own, then make them and their children servants forevermore.

Above and below is the Oathkeeper URL for an insightful 18.5-minute Liberty Northwest News presentation that also can be watched on such places as YouTube or the Ask search engine.

In The Systematic Elimination of Private Property, New Mexico rancher Wayne Price provides testimony to the abuses he and other ranchers have suffered over the last many years at the hands of the United Nations Agenda 21 land-grab movement and the government minions who bear no qualms about carrying out the orders.

Mr. Price, who comes from a long line of heart-breaking experiences fighting government encroachments against his private property rights, gave this interview when he came in support of the Bundy family who were under siege at Bunkerville, Nevada, near Las Vegas, in April, 2014.

As soon as he arrived at the Bundys’ Bunkerville ranch, he realized no national media outlet was covering the government’s unconstitutional attack on U.S. citizens. Mr. Price called Alex Jones at his InfoWars command center in the Texas capital city of Austin, the showcase of Agenda 21 implementation.

The astute Mr. Jones heads up a dominant alternative media source and quickly recognized the federal government’s unprovoked assault on the Bundy-owned ranch and the grazing rights dispute on public lands as Agenda 21 personified.

Perhaps a culmination of reasons spurred Mr. Jones to immediate action. While chomping at the bit to be at the center of action himself, Mr. Jones was otherwise personally committed.

Able to spare a two-man crew, he dispatched journalist extraordinaire David Knight and cameraman Josh Owens who seemed to magically appear in several places at once, covering all bases of action that was beamed back to the Austin command center for worldwide distribution.

It was InfoWars broadcasts that incited the corporate-owned media to move its lazy arses. None of those major media presstitutes had ever heard of, much less mentioned, Agenda 21. Most commentators moronically spewed and spun political-correct rubbish and rhetoric without an iota of comprehension of what they were dealing with for truth.

The exception was Fox Broadcasting. Nevertheless, nobody there ever referred to the situation by its real name, either: Agenda 21.

In the video, Mr. Price speaks of being too traditional at first to accept what was happening to him over the encroachment on his land. He just wanted to “go along to get along” (a.k.a. Agenda 21 jargon).

Eventually, he listened to his son and discovered his problems stemmed from the fraudulent United Nations Agenda 21, an abomination born in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 as an environmental lie.

Agenda 21 is a blueprint for how society will exist and behave in the 21st Century. Regardless of which path is followed in the labyrinthian framework all passages lead to formation of a totalitarian one-world government.

The plot was masterminded by a small coterie of mad global elites under the environmental guise of “saving the planet” for every “endangered” species that are purported to be more important than humans.

Therefore, land-grabbing is high on the list of Agenda 21 implementation.

Mr. Price talks about why one New Mexico rancher was eventually sprung loose from his incarceration in a federal “re-education” gulag while another rancher languishes in what might truly be one of those FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) “re-education” camps.

Due to the Agenda 21 system, farmers and ranchers are being forced off their land in the name of “environmentalism” to give way to the rabid greens’ moneymaking scheme of Rewilding America.

Mr. Price knows what he is talking about. Therefore, I implore you, if you don’t do another blessed thing today, please watch this video presentation by Northwest Liberty News on Oathkeepers or on YouTube or on Ask.com or wherever you like. You still have a smidgin of free choice remaining.

Every word, every thought presented by the interviewee is absolutely true. He’s lived through Agenda 21, Biodiversity Project (a.k.a. Agenda 21), Wildlife Program (a.k.a. Agenda 21), sustainability (a.k.a Agenda 21), private-public partnership (a.k.a. Agenda 21); Endangered Species (a.k.a. Agenda 21).

It all ties together in a complex lattice work.

Under Agenda 21, people will no longer be allowed to eat red meat, thus no more reason for cattle, thus no more reason for water rights, thus no more reason for farmers and ranchers to live on and own land or have benefits of exercising grazing rights.

Governments everywhere are forcing property owners off the land into high-density “stack’em and pack’em” ghettos.

Please take 18.5 minutes out of your life to listen to this man of the land who has lived this nightmare. You will learn more than you want to know.

Then pass this video on to all your friends, whether you think they will be interested or not. They may think they aren’t interested now. But they soon will be when they discover they, too, are prohibited from owning titled and personal property — not a car or a bike, not even a Smart Phone.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/05/04/the-systematic-elimination-of-private-property/

or see: http://www.ask.com/youtube?qsrc=1&o=0&l=dir&q=the+systematic+elimination+of+private+property

 

The United Nations Agenda 21 Land Grab

by Jane Gaffin

How much land needs to be alienated from private use and ownership?

The government has a mechanism for withdrawing protected areas in the Yukon Territory (Yukonslavia), Parks Canada for establishing national parks, plus the Umbrella Final Agreement provides for each of the 12 Indian bands to set aside their respective special-management areas and traditional territories.

There is no legitimacy attached to wastefully and needlessly withdrawing 12 percent — much less all — of the land base from any jurisdiction.

This lunatic proposal flows from a document produced by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, staged in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992.

This is the same conference which called for the elimination of the affluent middle-class society. Read into that white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant male.

Why would any government be so contemptuous toward its people as to embrace a concept that is patterned after the oppressive bonds that took over 70 years for the Russians to shake?

The first step in the UN’s goal is to dismantle industry by focusing on the Marxist-Leninist method of seizing land and all means of production from the people in the name of saving the environment from big-game outfitters, trappers, farmers, ranchers, loggers, miners and other economic contributors.

The 1992 UN Earth Summit proposed reversing the advancements of human civilization by eliminating domestic livestock and fisheries, thus depriving the masses of meat and dairy products.

More than once, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans demonstrated its resolve to shut down placer mining, which, in turn, would kill off the tourist trade in outlying communities.

Without an industry to support a community outside Whitehorse, the Yukon’s capital city, there was no need for the rural communities to exist. Many rural residents learned how fragile their economies were, only they didn’t understand Agenda 21 was behind the plot to destroy them.

Such issues were brought to the fore in a 2002 Internet piece, captioned Rural Communities March in Britain, posted by the Canadian public policy centre, Rural Renaissance Project.

On September 22, 2002, over 400,000 country people were said to have marched through London, England, on behalf of rural rights.

“Money matters,” one marcher told the press. “But freedom brought us here.”

The Countryside Alliance was formed to protect rural sports from the increasing attacks of well-organized, well-funded animal-rights and environmental-extremists groups and an indifferent government.

Soon, everything from agriculture to forestry, from rural housing to trespass laws, were added to the list.

“No matter what ‘door’ is entered in rural policy, be it farming, forestry, hunting, livestock raising, it quickly becomes apparent that the entire rural system is at risk, not just one sector,” Robert Sopuck wrote.

In England, they discovered working in isolation, or better yet, fighting among themselves, merely armed the enemies…the extremists were picking off rural groups one at a time.

Sopuck continued: “Rural Canada is an easy target. Cities hold many more parliamentary seats than the countryside. Unthinking governments catering to urban majorities think little of attacks on the vulnerable rural minority and its pursuits. The record over the last decade looks like a vicious downward spiral.”

His examples included the animal cruelty act, firearms registration, anti-farming regulations, new natural resource-use controls, the onerous Fisheries and Oceans regulations, and the Species at Risk Act, designed to meet one of Canada’s key commitments under the United Nations Agenda 21 International Convention on Biological Diversity, and so forth.

Hey, Yukonslavians have felt every one of these things on the jaw.

Sopuck noted most of these new rules come from Ottawa, where Toronto holds 50 seats against the Province of Manitoba’s 14 seats, not to mention that Alberta only has 26 seats and Yukonslavia has a single ineffectual voice.

Is it any wonder the federal government can and does run roughshod over rural Canada?

Plaintive wails from American rural folks about what the urban activists did to them was heard by Nevada-based columnist/author Vin Suprynowicz. In his great, enlightening book, Send in the Waco Killers, a ruralist said: “They take away our kids and won’t let us decide how they should be raised up. The kids come home saying everything we taught them out of the Bible is wrong.

“They came with their environmental regulations and shut down the mill and the mine and threw us out of work; now they come onto our land and tell us you can’t cut the wood, you can’t dam the creek, you can’t run as many cattle, because it’s all endangered and protected.

“And that’s what they got away with BEFORE they started taking away our guns. Why do they want our guns? What on earth do they have in mind for us once we’re DISARMED?”

Again, the answer lies with the United Nations. No legitimacy.

But in a Cairo conference in 1995, the same year the Canadian Liberal Party politicians rammed that abominable Firearms Bill C-68 mess through the parliamentary and senate factories, Canada was one of the leaders of — and promised to be a role model for — the aggressive UN initiative to globally disarm civilians.

There are enough rules currently on the books for all firearms in Canada to be confiscated without compensation.

Not only does the law render citizens second-class and leave them without the constitutional right of “presumption of innocence”, which is being built into all subsequent laws, but the state is now a legalized robber baron of any of your personal property — firearms owner or not.

The state can take your cash, wall hangings, contents of your safety deposit boxes, whatever it wants.

So, how long do you think it will be before the state does a regulatory taking on your titled property?

Not long.

For starters, the state can get its claws into real property owned by the middle class by designating houses as “heritage”. The definition of “heritage” is getting younger by the year in Whitehorse and its subdivisions.

Then the board of “heritage” fascists can dictate to the owners, who must pay the bills, exactly which color of paint to apply so the ticky-tacky streets can be lined with ticky-tacky houses all painted the same ticky- tacky colour so residents can live in a ticky-tacky “sustainable” community.

Eventually, the jackboot, gun-toting “officers” (they don’t relish being called “bureaucrats” any more) will come to remove the occupants. The United Nations agenda declares that any survivors of rural communities will be relocated into human concentration camps, which are mainly the cramped, concrete ghettos called big cities.

It doesn’t matter if the dwellers live in Mexico, Canada, the United States or Britain, farmers and ranchers are being forced off their land and funneled into big city ghettos to find work or languish penniless on welfare.

It’s impossible to imagine freedom-loving Nevada ranchers like Cliven and Carol Bundy and their 14 offsprings forfeiting their personal rights and property to perish in a city ghetto lifestyle.

Before meeting the UN Agenda 21’s re-wilding scheme through the elimination of individuality, property rights, intake of meat and dairy products, use of hydrocarbon fuels, appliances, air conditioning and suburban housing, the planet must first be cleansed of capitalism.

Gee, hopefully the Dark Ages were fun because it looks like civilization is goosestepping “back from the abyss” toward those giddy times again.

According to the Communist Manifesto, the United Nations official manual, coupled with the Nazi doctrine, the best way to start striking down the evil middle class is to seize the land and all means of production from the eco-sinners.

While governments erode people’s civil rights and liberties in slow motion, the green Nazis are chipping away, too. Neither group does anything in monumental proportions to inflame the middle class to full revolt. Yet.

The people grumble, of course, about the blizzard of unjust laws and the unfair practices perpetrated against them. But the apathetic bunch of sheeples (cross between sheep and people) rationalize they survived the last batch of inconveniences with “it wasn’t so bad” and will endure whatever faces them presently and in the future.

Through the incremental method of encroachment, many middle-class capitalists and politicians are gradually brainwashed into accepting the socialists’ politically-correct, criminal rubbish.

“Oh, well, we didn’t really care about losing those mining claims” or “Oh, well, I didn’t like that piece of art very much, anyway.” And on it goes.

No one infraction is bad enough to raise a fuss or a fist, risking lives and limbs to engage in open rebellion, although, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, “the tree of liberty certainly must be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike so the rulers are warned from time to time.”

It would, however, be nice to see the Canadian, U.S. and other governments of the world show some political pluck and turn these countries into world-class “role models” by doing something astonishing to support meaningful capitalism (not crony capitalism) on the home front before rural residents perish under the weight of the UN Agenda 21.

The reason this Agenda 21 blueprint for architecting the 21st Century into a totalitarianism has been flourishing under the radar without people’s knowledge is because major corporate-owned networks have their marching orders from on high not to mention it.

Keep the masses ignorant, uneducated, then pounce.

The dominant alternative news sources are talking about Agenda 21 more each day. Even Sam Bushman, host of Utah-based Liberty Round Table, finally mentioned the term on his April 23, 2014 show in concert with his online guest Agenda 21 maestro, Tom DeWeese.

Mr. DeWeese, head of the Virginia-based American Policy Center has been talking about and fighting against Agenda 21 for the more than 20 years that the UN scam has lurked under the radar screen.

“Agenda 21 is a plan for the 21st Century on how to reorganize human society to live in the vision of the people who wrote this thing,” explained Mr. DeWeese.

“They call us radical fringe nuts and so forth but who were the people who wrote this? It’s some of the most radical organizations in the world who believe we should live on less — actual poverty is better than capitalism (to them) — and we should have zero economic growth in order not to upset the well-ordered society. These are actual things these guys promote–and that’s what is behind Agenda 21”.

And, of course, the lead drum-beater in identifying and disclosing Agenda 21 on talk radio for what it really is comes from the highly-popular Austin, Texas-based InfoWars that enjoys a large worldwide audience through a myriad of Internet and communication-network sources.

InfoWars is hammering the truth about the Agenda 21 scourge, and the idea is filtering out for pick up by other alternative news media and bloggers, regardless that the major networks wouldn’t be allowed to touch Agenda 21 with a vaccinated crowbar.

The Big Boys are part and parcel of the fraud through graft and corruption and are held under the tight thumb of very powerful globalists.

Nevertheless, good people working in harmony can slay the blight called Agenda 21 that isn’t even a law!

So why are citizens allowing bribed, fraudulent politicians to continue taking us down the destructive road to totalitarianism based on nothing more than international treaties and agreements that are backed up only by whatever horrendous laws the global elites can dictate be passed by individual, sovereign nations?

*******

Sustainability and a Free Society Are Not Compatible

 

by Jane Gaffin

A conservative-minded individual passes through several distinct stages before he is enveloped by the Marxist-Leninist ideology.

First, he rants that the philosophy is damnable, dangerous, disorderly, counter-opposed to law and the Christian faith and is a scourge to a “free society”.

Next, he is brainwashed to believe he has no rights and tires of standing up for some nebulous thing. The issue is of no importance one way or another to him, he says.

Finally, he asserts to having always upheld and believed in the socialist doctrine. He is converted to the fold and displays solidarity in the spirit of “going along to get along” with his new comrades.

When people stop fighting for their rights, beliefs and the law that govern their abilities to exercise their freedoms, they are finished; they are doomed; they are slaves.

Almost daily another person falls victim to socialism. And another so-called conservative politician is heard speaking from the left side of his mouth about the virtues of “sustainable development” and extolling extortion of the private sector with catchy terms like “partnerships” and “stakeholders” (euphemisms for “environmentalism” cum Marxism).

Why would conservative-thinkers praise “sustainable development” (euphemism for “environmentalism” cum Marxism)?

It is not compatible with a “free society”because sustainable development thwarts ownership of private property which is the cornerstone of any free and democratic society.

Yet the Canadian government’s report to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development in 1996 made a harebrained statement, “Canada believes the establishment of an international financial and economic system that is conducive to sustainable development must be a cornerstone of efforts to implement Agenda 21.”

Inclusive in private property are mining claims, which are privately-held property where a person conducts his business. But a regulatory taking of any privately-owned property by any government is the beginning of the end to a “free society”.

In upholding the United Nations’ desire to destroy capitalism, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against private property rights on July 29, 2003.

The law should be designed to protect people, liberties and properties and to maintain the right of each, political economist Frédéric Bastiat urged. It should cause justice to reign over all.

Unfortunately, law has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain. It has limited and destroyed the individual rights which its real purpose was to respect and uphold, Bastiat said.

The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous, who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty and property of others.

“It has converted plunder into a right in order to protect plunder,” Bastiat warned. “And it has converted lawful defense into a crime in order to punish lawful defense.”

Bastiat was proven right, as was journalist H.L. Mencken and Professor Butler Shaffer of Southwestern University School of Law, Los Angeles, plus a lot of other learned people.

Professor Shaffer pointed out that every political system was founded upon a disrespect for private property as well as the rightful authority to violate the property owner.

Not only were property rights not entrenched into the Canadian Constitution 1982, but on that fateful day in 2003 the Supreme Court of Canada had the unmitigated gall to rule that Canadians do not have property rights by virtue of the fact that “Anything you own can be expropriated without due process and without compensation.”

What kind of a democracy are we running here? What kind of a free society are we talking about here?

What kind of justice could an ordinary Canadian, who has no political connections, expect to find with a panel of judicial activists – the majority French – whose decisions were contrived to fit hand-in-glove with the property and firearms agenda of a Liberal Party of the day tied so tightly to the United Nations it was difficult to determine at the relevant time if Jean Cretien or Kofi Annan or Maurice Strong was the prime minister of Canada?

And that disgusting schmoozing has carried over into the CINO (Conservative In Name Only) government of Stephen Harper & Company. Currently, it’s hard to tell if Stephen Harper or UN’s Korean-born Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon or the de facto, Muslim-bent U.S. President Barack Obama is the prime minister of Canada.

The top court’s ruling meant that the-then Liberal government and all subsequent governments can simply ram a law through Parliament, giving itself the right and the power to confiscate each and every bit of Canadian-owned property falling under federal law without paying a dime in compensation to the legal owners.

So warned member of Parliament Garry Breitkreuz, the-then Official Critic for Firearms and Property Rights for the Canadian Alliance Party.

“This Supreme Court ruling should raise concerns for all Canadians over their ability to enjoy their own property, including the fruits of their labour. What more evidence do you need that Liberals are undoing everything our ancestors fought for, for hundreds of years?”

Parliamentarian Breitkreuz went on to make the true and profound statement in a news release that “a free and democratic society needs to have the best protection of property rights or else all is at risk.”

Breitkreuz repeatedly called for entrenchment of property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

His dream won’t happen as long as Canada is closely aligned with the United Nations, an unscrupulous international institution that does not recognize a “free society”. Its manifesto calls the new communist governance a “civil society” (a euphemism for New World [Dis]Order or One World Government; take your pick).

The UN created its Commission on Sustainable Development to advance Agenda 21, a method for removing land from human activity.

Sustainable development is a “corroborative decision-making and consensus-building process”. It enables crafty, free-wheeling, non-elected, non-accountable individuals to formulate public policy while by-passing statutes, Charter rights and the legislative process.

Through this politically-correct agenda, a swarm of an estimated 40,000 to a million non-government organizations (NGOs) operating internationally has spun off to concentrate on a myriad of “special interest” that aid and abet sustainable development.

The representatives who comprise these boards and councils are “policy hounds” who only bring in hand-picked, like-minded eco-greens from government, environmental groups and Indian bands to serve as other “stakeholders”.

The few token seats reserved for private industries never equal the eco-Nazis at the table.

Most private-sector reps are volunteers who are not paid for this time-wasting exercise and should have been out doing productive work all these years.

Countless presidents and directors from mining and other industry associations and private businesses have suffered burn out for many decades, attending an endless string of meetings that were and are charting their demise.

Private industry should have learned long ago never to try playing patty cake with rattlesnakes. Why “negotiate” a process when the decisions are predetermined?

If the industry reps are present at the table and don’t like the outcome (which they won’t), then they have no recourse.

As proven by the Group of Nine from business and industry that boycotted the Yukon Protected Areas shenanigans, the non-legal, land-grabbing strategy had to be put on perpetual hold. (Premier Dennis Fentie’s Yukon Party government should have embalmed, burned and buried that piece of junk! But, no. And it came back masqueraded under different titles and initiatives to further alienate land and property holdings from rightful owners.)

Not showing up to “negotiate” offered leverage. Industry at least had room to complain. It can ask governments at all levels to ignore the sneaky, ill-conceived environmental policies which allow bullish bureaucrats the power to withhold rights through a discretionary licensing and permitting system.

Same rings true with the placer miners. They should never have been at the table “negotiating” rights they already held. If they don’t like the outcome (which they partially compromise away each time they go to the so-called “negotiating” table), they don’t have any recourse because they were present when the decisions were made. The Green Clubbers always call that a “consensus”.

(See The Time for Compromise is Over by Jane Gaffin)

But the real hazard with these eco-groups, spawned in the name of “sustainable development”, is the absence of accountability.

It is one thing for industry to boycott the process but quite another matter if the general public does not like the policies developed by these specialty groups.

Ordinary citizens can’t unelect those who were not elected. The ones appointed won’t be unappointed until their designated tenure expires.

Most times, people don’t know what transpired behind closed-door sessions at these public-funded meetings that are wrongly designated off-limits to observers. These meetings are not televised and broadcast for home viewers and listeners like city council meetings and the legislative assembly.

Sustainable development is an evil, lunatic concept that eliminates individuality and provides a textbook description of how each person will behave collectively under the “Third Sector”, which is trendy UN vernacular for “Third Reich”.

“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and workplace air conditioning, and suburban housing, are not sustainable.”

Those are the words of Manitoba-born Maurice Strong, a UN puppet, addressing the opening session of the United Nations Earth Summit II in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 where Agenda 21 was born.

Everything went down hill from there.

Strong’s proposals called for reversing the advancements of human civilization by eliminating domestic livestock and fisheries, thus depriving the masses of meat and dairy products.

He proposed to dismantle all industry, including farming. Without industry, there is no need for rural and northern communities. For the last number of years, we’ve witnessed grain elevators yanked down, fewer if any trains whistling through, and rural communities across Canada and the United States turning into virtual ghost towns.

There will be no more comfortable houses heated with an oil furnace or electricity. Or if there is, the government will do the controlling of individual unit-heating and power requirements from remote computer sites using Smart Energy Control technology in the name of energy conservation.

To meet these Hitlerism objectives of eliminating benefits and amenities that serve humans’ health and comforts, first the planet must be cleansed of capitalism.

The best place to start is by ridding the planet of the middle class which is comprised of the educated, innovative money-earners. Survivors of the purge will be reduced to poverty and relocated into human concentration camps.

The principles of “sustainable development” are set forth to determine the food you eat, clothes you wear, where you live, how you dispose of waste, where you are “allowed” to work, how you get to work, and even the number of children you are “permitted”.

The ones diagnosed in the womb as having mental and/or physical disabilities which pre-supposes they are not capable of growing up as productive slaves in society will be murdered pre-birth; the ones born inadvertently will be injected with Big Pharma’s deadly vaccines.

The United Nations has decreed that a One-World Government will take custody of all children who are allowed to live.

The goal of sustainable development is to transform the world into a feudal-like governance by making nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society, explains Tom DeWeese, president of the Virginia-based American Policy Center.

He advises that the international agenda has been set in motion, beginning with the United Nations’ treaties and agreements.

“That agenda is now working its way down through federal to state to local government policy,” DeWeese added.

“It is now the official policy of the United States government; and every single city, town and small burg in this nation is working on plans to implement it.”

Sound familiar, Kanuckistanians?

There are no exceptions in DeWeese’s country nor in Canada.

Sustainable development is an odious concept that does not recognize constitutional rights nor property rights in any country.

While freedom cannot survive “sustainable development”, likewise “sustainable development” cannot survive in a “free society”.

One sage suggestion as to how society can start zapping this freedom-sucking pestilence came from journalist Henry Lamb, chair of Sovereignty International. [Mr. Lamb died on May 24, 2012, at age 74, following several health issues.]

All political candidates should be asked publicly before every election to state his/her commitment to a “free society” or to a “sustainable society”.

It cannot be both ways, he asserted.

Sustainability and a free society simply are not compatible.

Originally published January 29, 2012

*******

Agenda 21 Deems Beef “Unsustainable” and “Unaffordable”

by Jane Gaffin

Yukoners better be beefing up the bison herd if they want affordable red meat to eat.

In keeping with the United Nations Agenda 21 protocol that says meat consumption is “not sustainable”, beef is destined to soon become unaffordable for the average consumer, as exemplified in the recent Nevada “line-drawn-in-the-sand” standoff.

This 20-year land-grazing dispute is not about an endangered desert tortoise, unpaid grazing fees on 600,000 acres or which level of government owns the land.

This affair flowed from the Green Machine provisions of re-wilding North America as thrust forward in Agenda 21 that was born at the Rio Earth Summit of 1992.

In the specific Nevada scenario, the authorities were mandated to cleanse the land of cattle and turtles to make room for an underhanded caper to give the Chinese Communist a sweetheart deal to develop a solar/wind farm that needs an ultra-large spread yet can’t generate enough energy to spin a child’s pinwheel.

Under Agenda 21 — the people-control blueprint for architecting the 21st Century — all land would be under government-control. Individuals would lose their constitutional rights to own property which represents the cornerstone of all free societies. Without property rights, other rights and freedoms are worthless.

Loss of property rights and the raising of beef-producing domestic cattle to feed millions of humans each day are just two of numerous Agenda 21 taboos concocted to “save the earth”.

In 1994, the Earth First! green gang posted an Internet message titled Hunt Cows, Not Cougars: “Thats right, shoot cows. They dont run. They cant bite. They dont charge. They dont maul. They produce only two percent of the beef from 70 percent of the public lands. A pound of beef requires 2,000 gallons of water, a pound of wheat…Theres way (too) many of them.”

These Agenda 21 nutbars adopted a doctrine that puts “save the planet” ahead of humanity’s well-being. Wiping out Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions of other earth-dwelling species. Without humans cluttering up the planet, there would be no need for domestic livestock.

In January, 2003, a green sniper shot domestic cattle and horses in rural Alberta, northeast of Edmonton. Some livestock were killed; some injured to the point of having to be destroyed; some, suffering only superficial wounds, survived.

As recently as April 5, 2014, Canadians’ feistier American cousins, who also own free-roaming, grass-fed cattle, were attacked by a horde of muscle-flexing, gun-toting government proselytizers in an unprovoked aggression that saw valuable livestock slaughtered.

In southern Nevada, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, near the Arizona border, 65-year- old Cliven Bundy lives with his wife, Carol, at their homegrown town of Bunkerville. They enjoy their large family of 14 cowboys and cowgirls and 49 grandchildren.

The Bundys are the last ranchers standing. The federal government successfully pressured the other 53 ranchers off their land. Several died of heart attacks in the process.

The federal government wants the Bundys gone, too. The family patriarch, who arms himself with a shirt-pocket-sized constitution, isn’t going anywhere.

The Bundy family and their loyal supporters, including an unorganized civilian militia and Oathkeeper members, dug their bulldog-style heels into the hot desert earth and stood their ground against a government pack who came in pairs and trios in their big, shiny new trucks and SUVs that numbered between 80 to 100.

There were uniformed agents from the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, camo-garbed military, SWAT teams, police, snipers on the hillside and miscellaneous recruits armed with AR-15s, M16s, sidearms, Tasers and attack dogs.

One of the uniformed thugs grabbed a petite woman, who had recently finished cancer treatments, and ground her head into the gravel.

Another ruffian tased Bundy’s son, Ammon. As each of four barbs penetrated his skin, he pulled them out. Blood stained his shirt above his heart.

A taser left his brother David with a large red welt on his swollen neck. He was arrested and taken to a Las Vegas jail, but soon released without any charges laid. He was thrown into the street with a sack lunch to find his own way home.

What this battery of bullies hadn’t counted on was the estimated 1,000-strong cavalry of supporters who came from all over Nevada and the U.S.. Men, women and children, some on foot, others on horseback.

Many are of the Morman faith. Before facing what could culminate into battle, they went down on their knees in prayer.

Then they lined up single file on the opposite side of the barricade. They were mounted on beautiful steeds armed with American, Nevada and “Don’t Tread on Me” flags that waved atop long staffs planted firmly in their stirrups.

Draped from saddles were coiled lassos. They were skilled at twirling rope and could drop a loop over one of those federal hombre’s necks as easily as they could throw a maverick cow.

Some on the line of defense were armed with cowboy-style pistols dangling open-carry from hip holsters. Some were packing high-powered, sheathed rifles. Anybody not armed with guns could hurl rocks, cow turds and epithets.

The pea-brained bureaucrats, knowing zilch about cattle, rounded up and imprisoned some 300 head for auction.

These days, under Agenda 21 terms, this action is called property “forfeiture”. Proceeds help fund BLM’s shenanigans. In the old days, stealing cattle was called “rustling”; rustlers were hanged with rope.

No livestock auction could legally sell the animals unless Bundy signed off the registrations and brands, anyway. As it was, BLM’s promise of goods to be brought to the auction block was worthless. The dead cattle and the ones ultimately released from bondage to the rightful owners could not be sold.

At the relevant time, temperatures were soaring as high as 80 to 90 degrees F. The rustlers disconnected the cattle’s water supply lines, as well as damaging other vital infrastructure.

In further display of animal cruelty, they herded the confused beasts by helicopter across that hot desert until an estimated 132 out of a 1,000-head — worth up to $1,500 each — expired from heat exhaustion or were shot dead by those brave bureaucrats.

Gruesome pictures can be viewed in Info Wars’ April 20th article Bundy Family Unearths BLMs Mass Cattle Grave”.

To kill the two prize, secured Brahma-mix bulls — worth over $2,500 each — would have required an extremely high-powered weapon. The bureaucrats, who had no matador or bull- riding training, claimed the majestic animals were “a safety hazard”.

No joke? When incited, these huge, ornery-tempered bulls charge. A couple of greenhorns would have looked good swinging by the seat of their pants from those horns.

Not only were these thugs killing cattle, they have euthanized hundreds–if not thousands–of “endangered” desert tortoises, the very species the bureaucrats were supposed to be protecting.

Instead, these brilliant boys were environmental wreckers. They rounded up cattle that keep the brush cropped short to prevent brush fires from damaging tortoise habitats, and provide the cow pies for the little dome-shelled creatures’ high-protein diet.

Unbelievably, the corporate-owned news media ignored the whole mess…well, up until the popular alternative media InfoWars blasted the news over live Internet radio and TV and posted a myriad of articles and videos on its website.

From his Austin,Texas-based command center, broadcast dynamo Alex Jones, who comes from a long line of ranchers, immediately recognized the Nevada land dispute as Agenda 21 personified. His hometown, the capital of the Lone Star State, is the epitome of Agenda 21 implementation.

Jones dispatched two sleuths, journalist extraordinaire David Knight and cameraman Josh Owens, on a week’s assignment in Nevada.

In his inimitable style, Jones, and his ace InfoWarriors, blew the lid off the whole fiasco. It was crony capitalists thieving from the Nevada constituents while working in the shadows of the vile Agenda 21 and free-trade agreements.

It seems a Chinese billionaire named Wang Yusuo, the founder of energy giant ENN, teamed up with U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who owns Nevada and its residents, to capitalize on a few little incentives.

One mega deal involved a land-grab 113 miles southeast of Las Vegas that ENN sought to buy for peanuts. The land, appraised at $38.6 million, was for sale to the ChiComs for $4.5 million — less than one-eighth of the land’s assessed value.

Senator Reid, caught red-handed bilking his state and constituents, was sore at the cattlemen and their supporters’ interference. He resorted to demonizing them as “potential terrorists”.

The major news networks eventually showed up on site. Not one outfit mentioned Agenda 21–not even Fox News who gave the best coverage with discussions about constitutional and property rights at issue in the Bundy case.

Around April 12, some high mucky-muck agreed the troops should “stand down”. Nevada Deputies came to give the dudes 30 minutes to release the rest of the impounded cattle and to haul their sorry asses and bruised egos out of the area.

They vamoosed, leaving a trail of earth-defacing litter behind. But the government will no doubt regroup with a fresh crop of hired guns to continue the insanity that could escalate into an unwelcome civil war.

Unfortunately, it might be what has to happen to at least bring attention to and cripple the insidious Agenda 21.

*******