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.

The New American Dream: A Tiny Home

The stairwell we climbed to our 5th floor apartment
every day, app. 400 sq. feet 

The UN Commission on Global Governance reported in 1995, “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” (United Nations, Our Global Neighborhood, The Commission on Global Governance, 1995, Oxford University Press)

It seems that our national sovereignty is yielding quite fast on the southern border without Congressional input, under the guise of a socially engineered humanitarian crisis. They could not erase national sovereignty fast enough in the name of “environmental cooperation.”

The progressives’ social engineering projects implemented around the world are not limited to just destroying national sovereignty, language, and cultural identity. Those who grew up under communism are familiar with the Soviet style, mass movement of entire villages to high density urban areas.

Social engineers had decided that land was better used in co-operative farms owned by the communist government. Private homes located on farm land were bulldozed and people were moved into densely populated cities with grey concrete apartments of 400-500 square feet, mushrooming practically overnight. They could not build them fast enough. Often it necessitated moving two families into a 600 square feet apartment, sharing the kitchen and the bathroom.

The Chinese have embarked on large scale social engineering over the next ten years, in their quest to move 250 million people from rural areas into high rise, high density newly built ghost cities that are currently uninhabited; few citizens have purchased the tiny apartments and few stores leased the bottom floor spaces.

“The government, often by fiat, is replacing small rural homes with high-rises, paving over vast swaths of farmland and drastically altering the lives of rural dwellers. So large is the scale that the number of brand-new Chinese city dwellers will approach the total urban population of the United States — in a country already bursting with megacities.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/world/asia/chinas-great-uprooting-moving-250-million-into-cities.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In this country, city planners who oppose urban sprawl and begrudge the average 2,300 square foot homes as environmental destroyers of the planet, have designed and built living units of 140-200 square feet, called aPodments in Sammamish, Washington. Resident Judy Green “shares the kitchen with seven other tenants on the second floor.” To get to her loft cubicle, she must climb six flights of stairs. Because of non-existent global warming, cars and elevators are not allowed. The “micro-units” are smaller than a hotel room and rent for $600-900 per month. I checked with my favorite hotel chain - their average hotel room is 375 square feet. The average jail cell is 6 feet by 8 feet. http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Tiny-aPodments-causing-big-controversy-in-Seattle--224002631.html

The “eco-progressives” use local government zoning to impose their ideas of “sustainable urbanism,” “sustainable communities,” and “equitable communities,” by changing the counties’ desired low density character and scale to high-density crime-ridden slums.

In Fairfax County, Virginia, the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission are crafting a plan to place Lilliputian slum dwellings in every area of the county. The Residential Studio Units (RSUs) will have a total surface of 220-320 square feet. Each high-rise will contain 75 such units and one parking space per unit. Locals object to the plan because it will reduce property values, change neighborhoods, increase population density, exacerbate the existing traffic congestion, and increase crime under the guise of “affordable housing” for the poor, low wage workers, and “diversity.”

“Social engineering is on the verge of being imposed on entire neighborhoods,” said Rush Limbaugh in a brilliant tirade. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will dismantle local zoning and force people to move into certain areas in order to achieve what they consider “racial, economic, and ethnic diversity.” This is “nationalizing neighborhoods” on a grand scale for our “own good and to achieve utopia.” By obliterating zoning regulations, we will have neighborhoods by government quota. (Rush Limbaugh EIB monologue, September 12, 2013)

Reality television is now indoctrinating Americans into accepting the idea of micro-dwellings with the July 2014 debut of “Tiny House Nation” on the FYI channel. According to their website,  “renovation experts and hosts, John Weisbarth and Zack Giffin, travel across America to show off ingenious small spaces and the inventive people who live in them, as well as help new families design and construct their own mini-dream home in a space no larger than 500 square feet. From a micro-apartment in New York City to a caboose car turned home in Montana to a micro-sized mobile home for road tripping – this is a series that celebrates the exploding movement of tiny homes.” http://www.fyi.tv/shows/tiny-house-nation/about/season-1

Perhaps “extreme downsizing” is the dream of retired people or the reality of young Americans who live with several roommates or in the basement of their parents because they cannot afford to buy a normal home on low wages driven by a mismanaged economy. What I do know for sure, this not an “exploding movement of tiny homes” and it has nothing to do with “financial independence.” Most Americans have never heard of such tiny dwellings, love their spacious homes, and are not remotely aware that they are an intricate part of a larger plan of social engineering people off the land, out of suburbia, and into inner cities. It is certainly not the new American dream; it is the new forced reality as envisioned and carefully planned by the elite’s UN Agenda 21.

Has anyone seen any influential people, CEOs, wealthy people, politicians, actors, Hollywood producers, radio and TV mouth pieces, lobbyists, corporatists, crony capitalists, who advocate that we live in spaces slightly larger than a jail cell and drive tin cans, give up their large mansions and multiple homes around the world, their jets and yachts?

 

Butler on Business, April 23, 2014

My 10 minute commentary on EPA biggest land grab of our land via waterways. I come on at the 43 minute mark.

http://host1.cyberears.com//25884.mp3

Butler on Business, April 16, 2014

The land grab at the Cliven Bundy ranch in Nevada. I come on at the one hour and six minute mark.
http://host1.cyberears.com//25775.mp3

Lessons Learned and Lessons Missed from the Attempted Land Grab

Photo: freedigitalphotos.net
 

The recent standoff at the Bundy ranch in Nevada has taught us many lessons, but the most important one was missed. We learned that the government will do anything to private citizens in order to grab land and private property either under the guise of protecting an “endangered” desert tortoise that is actually overpopulated, or getting rid of “feral” and destructive “trespassing cattle” grazing the land for generations, cattle that are in the way of developing a $5 billion Chinese solar panel plant (ENN), and the exploitation of rare earth elements in the larger adjacent area.

Mr. Bundy was too stubborn, the last rancher standing in Clarke County, Nevada, clinging to his inconvenient “feral” cattle, his agreement with the State of Nevada, with the BLM, his “prescriptive rights,” and his ranch.  I thought cattle were domesticated, not feral, and were raised for beef consumption.  

Mr. Bundy may or may not owe the $1 million in grazing fees. The case is not clear-cut on either side and may go all the way to the Supreme Court. If someone trespasses or uses someone else’s land for at least five years without the owner of the land taking legal action, that person can claim prescriptive rights. In Mr. Bundy’s case, twenty years have lapsed since payment of fees have been in question. http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/blm-worried-cliven-bundy-might-prescriptive-rights-might-use-defense-court/#2V4JpF3xbCxPfjSW.99

Mark Levin explained in his April 11th broadcast that “Bundy had agreements with the State of Nevada before the BLM claimed jurisdiction.” http://politicalarena.org/2014/04/13/former-chief-of-staff-to-attorney-general-ed-meese-says-bundy-is-right/

Photo: freedigitalphoto.net

The sad lesson was how innocent animals were hurt and no animal protection agency stepped forward to protest their treatment, how people were manhandled, tazed, frightened by fully armed and menacing agents, and how massive, extreme, and expensive was the government’s response to one farmer who allegedly has not paid $1 million in grazing fees. How many people are currently in court that have embezzled other people’s money, or have failed to pay money owed to the federal government, yet have not received the Bundy treatment?

Another lesson missed was that the federal government has huge land holdings, particularly in the southwest. Lord Monckton mentioned in his article that “almost one-third of the entire 2.3 billion acres in the country are owned by the federal government.” He is of the opinion that there should be a statute of limitations on civil debt, including the right of use. http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/hands-off-the-bundy-ranch/

The BLM citing alleged environmental damage by the Bundy Ranch was not credible because ranchers grow up caring for the environment that provides their livelihood. They are not likely to abuse the land or any property that sustains them and their families for generations.

 

The other important lesson missed was that putting so many ranchers out of business, coupled with other variables, is having a negative impact on the price of beef. U.S. cattle inventory is at a 63-year low for several reasons. William Hahn of USDA explained that “cow numbers were down… and the lower supply meant higher prices.”

U.S. is the world’s largest beef producer and Texas is the leader. Demand from China and Japan for U.S. beef has increased. Supply is tight, “everything produced is consumed.” Dry seasons, increased cattle feed prices due to grain use for ethanol are some of the variables affecting supply and beef prices. Wrangling Mr. Bundy’s cattle with helicopters and exhausting some to death certainly would not help the price of beef.

Ranchers are happy with the higher prices but consumers are looking at an increase of 5-10 percent for steak this year and 10-15 percent for ground beef. Consumers can switch to cheaper priced meats. Economists call this the substitution effect. Restaurants are cutting beef portion size and increasing their prices.

According to USDA, “beef and veal prices, which are already at or near record levels across the country, rose 4 percent in February and are up 5.4 percent over this time last year. As the largest monthly increase in beef prices since November 2003, this reflects, in part, an increase in exports, a decrease in imports, and further reductions in the U.S. cattle inventory.” http://www.ers.usda.gove/data-products/food-price-outlook/summary-findings.aspx#.UOvOfVevbwt

Replenishing the beef supply is not easy nor quick. It takes two years for cattle to be ready for slaughter.

There is an environmental push against meat consumption because cow flatulence produces methane. Methane is one of the gases which environmentalists blame for global warming. To mitigate such “pollution,” environmentalists would like to impose a flatulence tax per head.  

The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that animals emit greenhouse gases through flatulence and belching and pollute the air. The EPA is considering charging any farmer with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle, or 200 pigs an annual fee of $175 for each dairy cow, $87.50 for each beef cattle and $20 per pig. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/epas-air-pollution-target-flatulent-cows/

To influence and discourage the public to consume meat, a study from the Netherlands by Monique van Nielen of Wageningen University claims that “too much animal protein is tied to diabetes risk.” The study was done ex post facto, looking at dietary data from 11,000 select people who developed type 2 diabetes and 15,000 people without diabetes.

The study should have randomly assigned subjects to eat varying amounts and types of protein. This would have given a better indication if “too much animal protein is tied to diabetes risk.” Instead, the study looked at the diets of people who developed diabetes and those who did not. There were so many other variables besides meat consumption that were not controlled in the study.  

The Diabetes Journal discussed the effect of a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet on blood glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes in a 2004 study. http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/53/9/2375.full

The last and most important lesson about the Bundy land grab standoff in Nevada is heightened awareness to other land grabs, specifically what House Appropriation Committee Chairman Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky) calls “the biggest land grab in the history of the world” that would have a “profound economic impact” and it “would absolutely freeze economic activity in this country.”

What Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky) refers to is the joint EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2014 proposed rule, Waters of the United States, to spell out which streams and wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act. http://www2.epa.gov/uswaters

During the Congressional budget testimony last week, it was revealed that Waters of the United States would give the EPA authority over streams on private property even when the water beds are dry or have been dry for a long time.

The EPA website posted the rule for a 90-day commentary period. The science behind the rule has not been completed. Yet EPA claims that “the proposed rule will benefit businesses by increasing efficiency in determining coverage of the Clean Water Act.”

The Assistant Secretary of the Army for civil works, Jo-Ellen Darcy, opined that the nation’s waters and wetlands “are valuable resources that must be protected today and for future generations.”

EPA administrator Gina McCarthy stated that the EPA and the USDA are going to regulate 56 farm practices so that farmers no longer need to ask questions whether their activities are considered exempt under the Clean Water Act. http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/biggest-land-grab-in-the-history-of-the-world/

“The proposed rule will:

-          Preserve current agricultural exemptions for Clean Water Act permitting, including:

-          Normal farming, silviculture, and ranching practices. Those activities include plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, and harvesting for production of food, fiber, and forest products.

-          Upland soil and water conservation practices.

-          Agricultural storm water discharges.

-          Return flows from irrigated agriculture.

-          Construction and maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches on dry land.

-          Maintenance of drainage ditches.

-          Construction or maintenance of farm, forest, and temporary mining roads.

-          Provide greater clarity and certainty to farmers.

-          Avoid economic burden on agriculture.

-          Encourage the use of voluntary conservation practices.

-          Be consistent with and support existing USDA programs.”

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/cwa_ag_exclusions_exemptions.pdf

Congresswoman Murkowski and many farmers are troubled that the EPA, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), USDA, the Department of Energy, and the Army Corps of Engineers would gain so much power as to dictate grazing rights, food production, farming activities, animal husbandry, and the use of water and energy on private lands.

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.