The Wrenching Transformation of America - Part 3
By Tom DeWeese
May 4, 2009
So how is this wrenching transformation being put into place? There are four very specific routes being used.
In the rural areas it's called the Wildlands Project.
In the cities it's called smart growth.
In business it's called Public/Private Partnerships.
And in government it's called stakeholder councils and non-elected boards and regional government.Â Â
The Wildlands Project was the brainchild of Earth First's Dave Foreman and it literally calls for the "re-wilding" of 50% of all the land in every state - back to the way it was before Christopher Columbus set foot on this land. It is a diabolical plan to herd humans off the rural lands and into human settlements. Crazy you say! Yes. Impossible? Not so fast.
From the demented mind of Foreman, the plan became the blueprint for the UN's Biodiversity Treaty. So now the scheme is international in scope.
But how do you remove people from the land? One step at a time. Let's begin with a biosphere reserve. A national park will do. A huge place where there is no human activity. How about Yellowstone National Park? Then you establish a buffer zone around the reserve. Inside the buffer only limited human activity is allowed. Slowly, you squeeze until you squash that human activity.
Once accomplished, you extend the area of the biosphere to the limits of the former buffer area - and then you create a new buffer zone around the now larger biosphere and start the process over again. In that way, the Biosphere Reserve acts like a cancer cell, ever expanding, until all human activity is stopped.
And there are many tools in place to stop human activity and grow the reserve.
Push back livestock's access to river banks on ranches. 300 feet ought to do it. When the cattle can't reach the stream, the rancher can't water them -- he goes out of business.
Lock away natural resources by creating national parks. It shuts down the mines -- and they go out of business.
Invent a Spotted Owl shortage and pretend it can't live in a forest where timber is cut. Shut off the forest. Then, when no trees are cut, there's nothing to feed the mills and then there are no jobs, and -- they go out of business.
Locking away land cuts the tax base.Â Eventually the town dies. Keep it up and there is nothing to keep the people on the land - so they head to the cities. The wilderness grows - just like Dave Foreman planned.Â Â Â
It comes in many names and many programs. Heritage areas, land management, wolf and bear reintroduction, rails to trails, conservation easements, open space, and many more.
Each of these programs is designed to make it just a little harder to live on the land - a little more expensive - a little more hopeless. Now tell me how they can deny that the process is herding people into human habitat areas?
Today, here in your area, one of the latest Wildlands scheme is called Yukon to Yellowstone or Y2Y -- a 2000 mile no-man's land corridor from the Arctic to Yellowstone.
The second path is called Smart Growth. After they herd you into the city, they have more plans for you in regimented and dense urban communities. They put a line around the city and tell you no growth can take place outside that line. Urban sprawl, they say disdainfully.
They refuse to build more roads as a ploy to get you out of your car into public transportation, restricting mobility. Those able to build apartment houses may find it impossible to provide parking - we don't want any stinking cars!
Because there is a restriction on space inside the controlled city limits there is a shortage of houses, so prices go up. That means populations will have to be controlled, because now there is a shortage of land.
Third, inside the human habitat areas, government is controlled by an elite ruling class called stake holder councils.
These are mostly Non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, who, like thieves in the night, just show up to stake their claim to enforce their own private agendas.
The function of legitimate government within the system will be simply to enforce the dictates of the councils.
The councils are unelected, but all powerful. They are controlled by a small minority in the community. They will make you ask permission for anything necessary to live in the community. They can dictate the kind of building materials you may use in your home - or whether you can build on your property at all.
Then, if they do grant a permit for building, they might not decide to let you acquire water and electricity for your new home - and they may or may not give you a reason for being turned down.
They can even dictate that you get the proper exercise - as determined by the government. San Francisco has built a new federal building - the greenest ever built. But the elevators will only stop on every third floor so riders are forced to use stairs - for their own health, of course.Â Â Â Â Â
These councils fit almost perfectly the definition of a State Soviet: a system of councils that report to an apex council and then implement a predetermined outcome. Soviets are the operating mechanism of a government-controlled economy.
The fourth path is Public/Private Partnerships. Today, many freedom organizations are presenting PPPs as free enterprise and a private answer for keeping taxes down by using business to make a better society.
In truth, many PPPs are nothing more than government-sanctioned monopolies in which a few businesses are granted special favors like tax breaks, the power of eminent domain, non-compete clauses and specific guarantees for return on their investments.
That means they can charge what they want and they can use the power of government to put competition out of business. That is not free enterprise. And it is these global corporations that are pushing the green agenda.
For example, using government to ban its own product, General Electric is forcing the mercury-laden green light bulb on you, costing 5 times the price of incandescent bulbs. Such is the reality of green industry.
PPPs are building the Trans Texas Corridor, using eminent domain to take more than 580,000 acres of private land - sanctioned by the partnership with the Texas government.
And PPPs are taking over highways and local water treatment plants in communities across the nation. It is not free enterprise, but a Mussolini-type fascism that will only lead to tyranny. And it's all driven by the Agenda 21 blueprint of Sustainable Development.Â Â Â Â
Truly, Sustainable Development is designed to change our way of life. Local communities are now being targeted by international forces. Here's how.
In June 2005, I reported on the UN's efforts to recruit the nation's mayors to directly impose Sustainable Development policy into our local communities. The mayors were invited to attend the UN's World Environment Day conference in San Francisco.
The mayors weren't there to simply discuss policy, they actually committed to an agenda with specific goals. As part of their participation, the mayors were pressed to commit to specific legislation and policy goals by signing a slate of UN accords. Two documents were presented for the mayors' signature.
The first document was called the Green Cities Declaration, produced by the United Nations Environment Programme. This document was essentially a statement of principles which set the agenda for the mayors' assigned tasks.
The Declaration is amazingly bold in that it details exactly how the UN intends to implement a very specific agenda in every town and city in the nation. The final line of the Declaration explained the UN's goal very explicitly: Each year cities shall pick three actions to adopt as policies or laws."Â
The second document signed by the mayors was called the "Urban Environment Accords." The document includes exactly 21 specific actions (as in Agenda 21), for the mayors to take -- controlled by a time table for implementation.
For example, under the topic of energy, action item number 1 called for the mayors to implement a policy to increase the use of "renewable" energy by 10% within seven years. Energy action item numbers 2 and 3 dealt with reducing energy consumption.
These action items are classic examples of the UN trying to go around the U.S. Congress and federal energy policy and force a backdoor implementation of the UN's Kyoto Accord, which the U.S. has never ratified.
Perhaps the most egregious action item offered in the Urban Environmental Accords dealt with the topic of water. Action item number 19 called for adoption and implementation of a policy to reduce individual water consumption.
The UN document begins by stating: "Cities with potable water consumption greater than 100 liters per capita per day will adopt and implement policies to reduce consumption by 10% by 2015." There is no scientific basis for the 100 liter figure other than to employ a very clever use of numbers to lower the bar and control the debate over water consumption.
You must be aware that 100 liters is equal to about 26 gallons per person, per day. According to the UN, each person should have less than 26 gallons each day to drink, bathe, flush toilets, wash clothes, water lawns, wash dishes, cook, take care of pets, and more.