Land Grab, Return to Feudalism in the 21st Century

"We want land!" - Poem written in 1907 by George Cosbuc

Writing about U.N. Agenda 21 document signed by 178 countries in 1992 in Rio, has garnered me the title of “conspiracy theorist,” and worse. No ad hominem attacks have succeeded in derailing me -- our country and future are too important.

The global governance I wrote about in my book, U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy, has been gradually implemented at all levels of government by executive orders, laws, regionalism, private/public partnerships, land grab and control, invasion of borders, no sovereignty, fiat currency replacement with digital currency, no national language, reduced mobility, water and travel restrictions, smart grids, fossil fuel interdictions and replacement with “green” energy, agricultural tampering, weather modification with cloud injections with toxic particles to mitigate the so-called global warming, population redistribution through mass migration/invasion, IOM-directed open borders, education indoctrination, no suburbia, and many others.

The federal government continues to acquire and control public lands. Already fifty percent of the land in western U.S. and 80 percent in Nevada is owned by the government.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), mushrooming in the 21^st century nationally and internationally, have bought private land and took it out of use in perpetuity via special contracts with farmers called agricultural conservation easements. Reducing taxation on their private lands in exchange for such conservation easements has been enticing to the farmers who did not realize that they were locking their lands into conservation forever.

Farmers and landowners can no longer do anything on their lands without the approval of the NGO that holds the conservation easement contract.  

Many public and private land areas have been slated for “re-wilding,” a return to nature with no human habitation; other areas have been subjected to the reintroduction of once extinct animals such as wolves, who now kill the ranchers’ cattle.

According to Margaret Byfield, her family has been embroiled in cattle grazing and water rights litigation with the federal government for 27 years. Her family owns 7,000 acres of land in Nevada. https://rumble.com/v47r7oi-land-grabs-30-x-30-and-natural-asset-companies.html

U.N. Agenda 21, now morphed into U.N. Agenda 2030, requires that every societal decision be made with the environmental impact on global land use, global education, and global population control and migration in mind.

U.N. Agenda 2030 has deemed “not sustainable” most human activities that form our modern civilization: private property, fossil fuels, consumerism, farming, irrigation, commercial and small farm agriculture, pesticides, herbicides, farmlands, livestock grazing, paved roads, golf courses, ski lodges, logging, dams, reservoirs, fences, power lines, suburban living, and the family unit.

Another U.N. driven, international policy initiative, 30x30, calls for the “formal protection of at least 30 percent of land and water by 2030 and eventually 50 percent. The science behind such an initiative is not based on hard scientific data but on computer models which are faulty at best.

The U.S. target is to increase the federal land holdings from 300 million acres to a goal of 30 percent by 2030. To reach that goal, an additional 400 million acres must be taken from private owners. The acquisitions will include national parks, national refuges, wilderness areas, and private lands with conservation easements in place.

Executive order #14008 of July 27, 2021, established that climate crisis is the most important national security issue and we must make sure that a “safe global temperature is achieved.” Nobody explained what a “safe global temperature” is, who decides that number, and how it is evaluated to make sure that number is “safe”? And who decides the definition of “safe” and its scientific and tested parameters? https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-14008-tackling-the-climate-crisis-home-and-abroad

“Shortly after taking office, President Joe Biden signed an Executive Order, directing the Department of Interior to outline steps to achieve the President’s commitment to conserve at least 30% of U.S. lands and waters by the year 2030, as recommended by scientists, to safeguard our health, food supplies, biodiversity, and the prosperity of every community. The Department of the Interior will undertake the process with broad engagement, including agricultural and forest landowners, fishermen, outdoor enthusiasts, sovereign Tribal nations, States, Territories, local officials, and others to identify strategies that reflect the priorities of all communities.” 30x30 Conservation Initiative: What Is It? | RVIA

A group of financial analysts decided around 2021 that it was time to make money from securities of natural assets, agricultural land and parks, and the idea of a natural asset company (NAC) was born.

NACs describe their problematic securities as such:

1.     Purpose (unlock the value of natural assets by allowing investors to participate in their management and the ecological benefits); by what metric is this done and who decides; who is then the actual owner of the natural asset? The securities investors or the generational owner with a deed to the land?

2.     Assets covered (marine ecosystem, forests, and agricultural land) How is this not a land grab?

3.     Ecological performance (NACs quantify and monetize natural outputs; treating them like a form of currency. NACs may profit from activities related to conservation, restoration, or sustainable management. Who decides the quantification, how is it done, by what metric, and how is it a form of currency?

4.     Control of Lands (public and private land, land use decision and access to natural resources on that land); sounds like a land grab to me!

5.     Global Impact (how we value and manage our natural resources); who are we?

A Natural Asset Company (NAC) is a security that “holds rights and manages the productivity and ecological benefits of natural assets such as natural forests, marine areas, and farmland.” It is a clear land grab, commercial fishing rights grab, mineral rights grab, mining rights grab, logging rights grab, etc. from the private owners.

Push back from the public squashed the SEC’s proposed rule to approve such a move and the NYSE withdrew the application. In “the fleecing of America’s property rights,” the good guys won the first battle but not the war.

As of now, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the lynchpin of U.N. Agenda 2030, are included in everything and everywhere around the planet. I came to the realization that this agenda is so insidious and so much part of every facet of our society, that it will take a huge miracle to dismantle it.

The already ensconced U.N. Agenda 2030 is regulating and controlling the globe into economic destruction and regression to a feudal society whereby 21^st century humans are beholden to the police state, to the landed, to the water and resources lords, to the globalist government.

Eminent Domain and Property Rights

If you ever wondered how entitled to your land and how cocky your elected board of supervisors are in regards to your property, all you have to do is watch the short video clip of such a “civil servant” from Dallas City Council, frustrated that she cannot confiscate for pennies on the dollar via eminent domain, the property of a wealthy Texan who had the money to fight them for years.

Monty Bennett owns the East Texas Ranch LP which has been in his family since 1955 when it was purchased by his grandparents. Tarrant Regional Water District wanted to run huge pipes through his property and he did not want the family land altered by the digging and wildlife affected by the 84-inch pipes. He sued them under Civil Action No.2014C-0144.

It was reported that Bennett tried to speak to the TRWD but “they refused to see him.” To protect his land, Bennett did something that even a famous Roman tried to do in order to avoid paying taxes to the Roman Empire, he buried a fly on his property with pomp and circumstance. Bennett actually built a final resting place on his property. Texas Law 711.035 exempts cemeteries from “taxation, seizure by creditors and eminent domain.”

There is one “public servant” in support of Bennett’s fight, Henderson County Commissioner Precinct 4 Ken Geeslin, who does not like the idea of eminent domain. He is quoted as saying to the Athens Review, “First off, I am not in favor of eminent domain. The government can come take property that may have been in a family for generations. I just can’t see that being right.”

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) often make contracts with property owners in exchange for grant money or reduced taxation. They are called “easements.” These NGOs are distributing grants to landowners strapped for cash who often enter into them in perpetuity, unable to do much to their land unless the NGO approves.

The property owners who have agreed to the terms of the pipes running through their property did not understand the size and the scope of the digging and the amount of mud excavated in the process. Geeslin said, “I don’t understand why they have not looked for alternative routes for the pipeline. They could possibly find a route that would not affect so many people.”

As it stands, the city was forced, after much litigation and expense in court to the tune of millions in taxpayer dollars, to alter the plans and to move around Bennett’s property. The Dallas City Council was asked to settle the case with Bennett out of court.

Sandy Greyson, District 12, was beside herself with indignation that she could not take a rich man’s land who had enough money to fight them in perpetuity. She did not believe that it was fair that Bennett had so much money and could fight them in court when “ordinary people, who cannot afford to fight the city of Dallas,” lose their property. It seemed outrageous to her that she could not take his property too. She said, “He’s fought us for years and has cost Dallas taxpayers millions of dollars.”

 “I’m not blaming anyone that we’re settling this case, but it’s just infuriating that if you’re rich enough, you can hold the city hostage for years and get what you want. There’s something really wrong with that,” she said. She did not see anything wrong with taking someone’s property that the City Council did not own, it was just wrong because she could not take everybody’s property.

As reported, the government is a victim because it no longer wishes to spend money on court costs or cannot afford to, in order to “force a citizen to give up land he does not want to sell.” http://www.sott.net/article/352989-City-council-in-Texas-furious-they-cannot-just-take-mans-land-who-is-rich-enough-to-fight-them

We understand the need for land in order to build highways, schools, hospitals, and interstates but, when the government intercedes on behalf of commercial businesses, claiming that the public good’s economic benefit exceeds the interests of the property owners, is an entirely different issue.  A business should pay for the land competitive market prices if the land owner is interested in selling.

Confiscating the land by condemning a poor neighborhood in order to build a shopping mall, a hotel, a bike path running in front of a person’s house and through an old beloved magnolia tree, cut down without permission, or a parking lot, is problematic at best, particularly when the local government gets to decide what a fair price for the land in question is.

The councilwoman obviously did not have in mind “the greater good” claimed by eminent domain for the people in her precinct. She just wanted landowners to bend to the Council’s wishes sooner rather than later.

 

 

Zoning Laws, Conservation Easements, and the Right to Your Land

I believe so strongly that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) pursue the path to confiscate land from American landowners and farmers under the guise of zoning laws, environmental preservation, and eminent domain that I wrote about Martha’s Plight and her Liberty Farm in my book, “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy.” http://www.amazon.com/U-N-Agenda-21-Environmental-ebook/dp/B009WC6JXO/ref=tmm_kin_title_0

Martha’s 70 acre farm is located in Fauquier County, a rural community not far from Washington, D.C. The rich soil is ideal for growing grapes and agriculture in general. Martha bought her farm with an agricultural conservation easement.

A conservation easement is a contract between a private property owner and a land trust. Conservation easements are signed because some people want to protect their property from unwanted development in the future but they also want to retain ownership of the land. The donation of an easement to a land trust may give financial advantage to the donor.  The conservation easement is passed on to any future owners of that land.

Martha Boneta repaired the historical barn, built an apiary, harvested hay, grew herbs, and rescued 165 animals, sold chicken, duck, turkey, emu eggs, candles made from beeswax, birdhouses, and fiber from llamas and alpacas. Although holding a business license, she was harassed, the license was not renewed, and a trench was dug to prevent parking on her property because it obscured the view shed.

Piedmont Environmental Council decided to rezone her property for alleged “violations” found during unannounced inspections. They settled the law suit in 2011.

The Fauquier County Board of Supervisors changed the zoning laws to ban Martha’s sale of fruits, vegetables, beverages, and other crafts in her farm store. The supervisors also passed an ordinance to force wineries in the area to close at 6 p.m. and to prohibit the sale of food unless the wineries obtained special permits from the zoning administrator.

Martha put a lot of hard work to breathe life into the previously abandoned property. It was her life-long dream to farm. She was not going to give up that easily. She became a property rights advocate and activist in Virginia, speaking at every venue and opportunity against the insidious U.N. Agenda 21, enabled at the local level by unscrupulous supervisors who had bought into the Agenda 21 environmental land grab.

The “visioning committee consensus” of ICLEI was nothing more than the wishes of a few global elites, telling each community across the country what was best for their citizens in terms of land and water use, keeping the environment as pristine and wild as possible, without the “destructive” encroachment of humans. As Americans became more aware of their true internationalist intent, ICLEI changed its name to Local Governments for Sustainability.

The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is a conglomerate of national, regional, and local government associations who promote “sustainable development” and protection of the environment because of the man-made global warming that does not exist. The focus is to limit economic and agricultural development in developed countries, a forced sustainable de-growth through EPA regulations and local board of supervisors’ zoning laws, and “regionalism” at the federal level, intruding on every facet of human life. http://www.icleiusa.org/

A lot of Virginians testified in support of HB1430 (The Boneta Bill), The Right to Farm Act, which passed the House of Delegates 77-22 in February 2013 but was blocked by the Senate Agricultural Committee by a vote of 11-4. Delegate Scott Lingamfelter promised to reintroduce the bill next year.

Martha’s source of trouble at the local level during 2009-2011 was Fauquier County zoning supervisor Peggy Richardson, who was IRS commissioner under President Bill Clinton.

It must have been absolute coincidence that Martha’s tax returns for 2010 and 2011 were audited by the IRS. This was the timeframe when her farm operations were dissected and her legal battles ensued. Martha Boneta believes that it was a “coordinated effort” to confiscate her farm through rezoning.

Zoning supervisor Richardson told TheWatchdog.org, “I could understand, given the external climate, that people might think there is something amiss. I think that’s a stretch, but I understand why people might feel this way. Coincidences do happen.” http://watchdog.org/91068/former-irs-commissioner-says-tax-audit-of-virginia-farmer-a-coincidence/

Martha wrote, “IRS came with a camera to the farm but I do not know what was photographed.  The IRS agent watched me put freshly harvested eggs into cartons and feed emus. Asked me about "boarding" farm caretakers -- very odd and unusual especially since ‘boarding’ a farm caretaker is identical to what PEC (Piedmont Environmental Council) complained and sued me over. Particularly odd since there is nothing in my (tax) return that has anything to do with ‘boarding’ labor for example.”

Joseph Farah writes that Margaret “Peggy” Richardson “was in charge when I exposed Clinton’s political abuse of the IRS. She was forced to resign and now she is on the Piedmont Environmental Council.”

http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/i-hate-coincidences/#8L0Ov7YSR5UiJVYB.99

If you think Martha Boneta’s case is an isolated incident of “conservation easement,” think again. Take for instance the case in Alameda County, California. The deceptively named Measure D, “Save Agriculture and Open Space Lands Initiative,” pushed by Oakland mayor Jerry Brown and the Sierra Club passed in November 2000. Most ranchers had no idea what they voted for - the restrictive use of thousands of acres of private land by the county.

Property owners lived on the land but could not make any changes or improvements to it without prior approval by the Board of Supervisors. Ranchers paid taxes on 100 percent of the land but could only develop 2 percent.

Chuck Moore, owner of Graceland Equestrian Center, petitioned during a hearing on January 8, 2013, to expand a covered area on his property to store hay for his horses.

The Sierra Club objected by stating that “The Board has a free hand to further restrict the use of land but it does not have a free hand to loosen the restrictions measuredly imposed on the development and use of land.” They insisted that “open space must be saved,” which begs the question, “Saved from what? Horses?”

The Supervisor, seeking to avoid litigation, suggested an insane solution. The rancher should purchase more property and donate it to the Sierra Club as “open space.”

The narrator asked pointedly, “Are we a nation that respects private property and individual rights or are we slaves to the government and special interest groups like the Sierra Club?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYMmePre-VI

This question can be easily answered by perusing the Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development (DICED). It is the Environmental Constitution of Global Governance. The Draft Covenant’s 79 articles, described in great detail in 242 pages, take Sustainable Development principles described in U.N. Agenda 21 and transform them into global law, which supersedes all constitutions including the U.S. Constitution. https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20//content/documents/IUCN+Intl+Covenant+on+Env+and+Dev+EPLP-031-rev3.pdf&embedded=true

Martha Boneta’s and Chuck Moore’s battles are two examples of thousands across the country who are fighting their local zoning czars for economic freedom, the use of their land, property rights free of intrusive, photographed, unauthorized, and illegal, often in the middle of the night land and home inspections, and the freedom to engage in unencumbered agricultural activities from environmental groups funded by wealthy globalists who would rather see humans disappear or moved into government approved urban ghettoes or zones where they can be better controlled and corralled.