Please join us for our regular 2nd Thursday meeting, May 10th, 6:30 PM, 3169 Linden Drive. Bristol, Virginia….downstairs meeting room, right of lobby.

Charlie Sewell will be our guest speaker:

The 74 Most Powerful Words of the Constitution.

BACKGROUND TO THE WILDLANDS PROJECT

Rural landowners who desire to use their own property are shocked when they learn new regulations increasingly restrict them from doing almost anything. These regulations ostensibly protect endangered species, viewsheds, open space, or a host of other reasons for limiting the owners rights to use their land. Although the environment and society allegedly benefit from the regulations, it is the landowner who pays the price through lowered property values. Rarely does the property owner receive just compensation for the societal benefit―as required by the U.S. Constitution and almost every state constitution. Rather the property owner is required to pay the entire cost, even though all of society supposedly benefits.

These regulations are usually developed by planners or other professionals who have no real-life experience in rural living. Because they have no real understanding of  what is required to develop exploit natural resources, they establish idealistic arbitrary and capricious rules that make farming, ranching and timber growing increasingly difficult and less profitable. When some resource users find they can no longer farm, ranch or produce timber profitably they are forced to sell their property at a greatly reduced value because the same regulations devalue the land. Those who own property near an urban area face an added burden when their ad valorem taxes skyrocket due to the growing potential for development. Yet, when they try to sell their land for development they find their property value has plummeted because regulations requiring open space and other societal benefits severely limit the ability to develop the land and therefore its value.

Property owners in America have always accepted the need for regulations. Common law since the time of the Magna Charta has always allowed the government to restrict property use that would otherwise cause problems of safety, health, harm or nuisance to the community or the property owner’s neighbors. However, the imposition of regulations to provide vague benefits to society or the environment is relatively new in America. This new process is called sustainable development. With sustainable development, no longer do property owners in the United States have unalienable property rights, as penned in the Declaration of Independence and protected in the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Instead, government imposes on property owners what are termed “usufructory rights.” Since unalienable property rights provide the foundation to liberty and wealth in America, sustainable development portends dire consequences to all Americans.

By definition, usufructory rights are the rights to use and enjoy the profits and advantages of something belonging to another, as long as the property is not damaged or altered in any way. Conceptually, it is similar to renting or leasing something within limits set by its true owner. The usufruct system of property use is derived from the Latin word ususfructus. Originally it defined Roman property interests between a master and his slave held under a usus fructus (Latin: “use and enjoyment”) bond. The Romans expanded this concept to create an estate of uses in land rather than an estate of possession. Having seized lands belonging to conquered kingdoms, the Romans considered them public lands, and rented (ususfructus) them to Roman soldiers. Thus the emperor retained the estate (possession) in the lands, but gave the occupier an estate of uses.

The growing mountain of environmental and other regulations that supposedly benefits the public good in the United States today has stripped Americans of the unalienable right to possess land. Instead, Americans increasingly have only the usufruct right to use the land and pay taxes (rent). As with the Romans, the government retains the right to determine how the land is used.

  The Link Between Sustainable Development and The Wildlands Project The usufruct principles of sustainable development first became public at the 1976 United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I) held in Vancouver. For instance, the Preamble of Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report states that: 

Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….” (Italics added)

Throughout this UN document the socialist model for private property rights are set forth as the basis for future United Nations policy:

Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means of…achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development…. Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over such land…. Change in the use of land…should be subject to public control and regulation…of the common good. (Italics added)

State control over private property has been central to every international treaty since the 1970s. The United Nations’ World Commission on Sustainable Development formalized this into international policy when it published its report Our Common Future in 1987. This landmark report helped trigger a wide range of actions, including the UN “Earth Summits“  in 1992 and 2002, the International Climate Change Convention, The Convention on Biological Diversity and worldwide “Agenda 21” programs. Agenda 21 is a 40 chapter master plan to reorganize national laws to the socialist principles of central control. The United States signed Agenda 21 during the 1992 Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Chapter 15.3 requires “urgent and decisive action” be taken “to conserve and maintain genes, species and ecosystems, with a view to the sustainable management and use of biological resources.” To do this chapter 15.4 requires that “Governments…should:

(a) Press for the early entry into force of the Convention on Biological Diversity, with the widest possible participation; and

(b)  Develop national strategies for the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of biological resources.

Chapter 15.5 of Agenda 21 continues by stating that “conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats…should include the reinforcement of terrestrial… protected area systems…and promot[ion of] environmentally sound and sustainable development in areas adjacent to protected areas with a view to furthering protection of these areas.” The United Nations and its international allies designed the Convention on Biological Diversity to be the workhorse in fulfilling these requirements. The treaty was merely a 18 page outline of what needed to be done. Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) correctly called it “a preamble falsely described as a treaty.” The implementing language was to be added after enough nations ratified it to put it into force. Even so, Article 8 of the treaty uses almost identical language used in Agenda 21:

(a) Promote a system of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity;

(e) Promote environmentally sound and sustainable development in areas adjacent to protected areas with a view to furthering protection of these areas.”

By August of 1993 the Clinton administration accepted Agenda 21′s challenge when it directed “natural resource and environmental agencies…develop a joint strategy to help the United States fulfill its existing international obligations (e.g. Convention on Biological Diversity, Agenda 21)…the executive branch should direct federal agencies to evaluate national policies…in light of international policies and obligations, and to amend national policies to achieve international objectives.” This effort became the primary reason for the need for vice president Gore and president Clinton to reinvent government.

To accomplish this, president Clinton also created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. The council was comprised of green-oriented industrial leaders, natural resource cabinet heads and leaders of major environmental groups. The council produced a host of socialist guidelines to implement Agenda 21 in a series of documents under the banner of Sustainable America from 1996 to 1999. These became the official policies of the federal government and were heavily promoted by environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and foundations. All are centered on the usufruct concept of property.

The United Nations intended that the implementing language for the Biodiversity Treaty be taken from the Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA), a 1040 page tome that ostensibly scientifically defined the reason and the methodology for protecting biodiversity.  The GBA establishes the need for the usufruct concept,

• Property rights are not absolute and unchanging, but rather a complex, dynamic and shifting relationship between two or more parties, over space or time. Section 11.2.3.1.2
• One option for ensuring against excessive species depletion is the allocation of property rights in order to create markets. Section 12.7.5
• A common characteristic of many ecosystems is that resources are non‑exclusive in their use: they are in the nature of local public goods. Property rights can still be allocated to the environmental public good, but in this case they should be restricted to usufructual or user rights.  Harvesting quota, emissions permits and the development rights are examples of such rights. Section 12.7.5
• “The point here is that the reallocation of property rights implies the redistribution of assets.” section 12.7.5 (Italics added)

The usufruct concept of property had to be in place before any part of Agenda 21 and the Biodiversity Treaty could be implemented. Perhaps the most chilling, however, is that in order to protect biodiversity, the GBA called for placing vast areas into wilderness and protected from human use:

Representative areas of all major ecosystems in a region need to be reserved….  Reserved “blocks should be as large as possible…. Buffer zones should be established around core areas and corridors should connect these areas. This basic design is central to the Wildlands Project in the United States (Noss, 1992), a controversial…strategy…to expand natural habitats and corridors to cover as much as 30% of the us land area.” (Section 13.4.2.2.3)

In other words, the Wildlands Project was designed to be the cornerstone of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Although the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity was stopped in the U.S. Senate in 1994, explained below), millions of dollars are spent annually to implement it without benefit of the treaty. It has already destroyed the lives of thousands of people. Eventually, every American will experience its severe consequences.

  The Wildlands Project 

The reference to Noss, 1992, in the GBA is to a special issue of Wild Earth, a publication of the Cenozoic Society, a NGO committed to re-wilding the United States. In this issue, Dr. Reed Noss lays out in detail the land conservation strategy to implement the Wildlands Project.¹ The Wildlands Strategy calls for establishing core wilderness reserves that are interconnected by wilderness corridors, all of which would be surrounded by buffer zones managed to protect the wilderness areas (See Figure 1).

The strategy normally is accomplished in five steps:

1. Identify existing protected areas such as federal and state wilderness areas, parks, national monuments, refuges and other designated sites. They should be from 100,000 to 25 million acres in size. These are already wilderness or close to it. Such tracts would serve as “core reserves” completely off-limits to human activity.
2. Identify other multiple-use government land that can be politically forced into wilderness status. Roadless areas are highest priority, but existing roads can be closed if roadless areas are not available.
3. Create wilderness corridors along streams, rivers and mountain ranges that interconnect the core reserves.
4. Purchase, condemn or regulate private property to fill in the gaps where public land did not exist. Usufruct regulation is preferred because the government would not have to pay for the land.
5. Create buffer areas around land not in core reserves or interconnecting wilderness to manage them sustainably so they protect the core wilderness areas.

Wildlands Project co-author Reed Noss explains that in the core, corridor and buffer areas, “The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.”¹ The Wildlands Project is the master plan for both Agenda 21 and the Biodiversity Treaty, and represents a grandiose design to transform at least half the land area of the continental United States into an immense “eco-park” cleansed of modern industry and private property. Says Noss;

One half of the land area of the 48 conterminous [United] States be encompassed in core [wilderness] reserves and inner corridor zones (essentially extensions of core reserves) within the next few decades…. Half of a region in wilderness is a reasonable guess of what it will take to restore viable populations of large carnivores and natural disturbance regimes, assuming that most of the other 50 percent is managed intelligently as buffer zone… Eventually, a wilderness network would dominate a region and thus would itself constitute the matrix, with human habitations being the islands.²

The Wildlands concept is largely the work of Dave Foreman, the principal founder of the eco-terrorist group Earth First! and a former member of the board of the Sierra Club. Foreman describes the Wildlands Project as an effort to “tie the North American continent into a single Biodiversity Preserve.” Foreman summarizes Wildlands as “a bold attempt to grope our way back to 1492″ — that is, to repeal a half-millennium of Western civilization, with its unique blessings of material prosperity, technological progress, private property and individual rights. Indeed, the vision statement of the Wildlands Project is stunning in scope;

Our vision is simple: we live for the day when Grizzlies in Chihuahua have an unbroken connection to Grizzlies in Alaska; when Gray Wolf populations are continues from New Mexico to Greenland; when vast unbroken forests and flowing plains again thrive and support pre-Columbian populations of plants and animals; when humans dwell with respect, harmony, and affection for the land…³

John Davis, editor of Wild Earth, acknowledges that the Wildlands Project seeks nothing less than “the end of industrial civilization…. Everything civilized must go…”⁴

In this bizarre scheme, human civilization must be radically reconfigured, mines would be closed, roads torn from the landscape, timber harvesting stopped and human populations relocated. All of this is to be done, according to Wildlands co-founder Michael Soulé, in harmony with a prophetic vision: “The oracles are the fishes of the river, the fishers of the forest and articulate toads. Our naturalists and conservation biologists can help us translate their utterances. Our spokespersons, fund-raisers and grass-roots organizers will show us how to implement their sage advice.”⁵

Defeating the Biodiversity Treaty

All of this could be dismissed as flatly ridiculous were it not for its central role in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and its near religious support by nearly all of the environmental NGOs. Agenda 21 and the Biodiversity Treaty would permit a restructured and unaccountable UN Trusteeship Council to regulate any human activity that presents potential harm to biological diversity. Secretary General Kofi Annan’s July 18, 1997 UN Reform plans, “[the Trusteeship Council will] be reconstituted as the forum through which Member states exercise their collective trusteeship for the integrity of the global environment and common areas…. At the same time, it should serve to link the United Nations and civil society in addressing these areas of global concern.”⁶ In principle, this mandate would cover all human activity, given that almost anything humans do is deemed as harmful to biological diversity.

The Senate was asked to authorize the creation of implementing “protocols” that would be written after the treaty had been ratified and would be binding upon the signatories. The “factual” information upon which the implementing language was to be based was found in a 1,140-page UN Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) that was in draft form when the Senate was considering the treaty.

The Senate was poised to ratify the Biodiversity Treaty in September 1994, when the American sheep industry obtained a portion of the draft GBA from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in Switzerland, the original author of the treaty. As noted above, the GBA specifically cites the Wildlands Project as the template for protecting biodiversity. It was the smoking gun.

The draft GBA, along with maps provided by Environmental Perspectives, Inc. depicting what this would look like when fully implemented, arrived the day of the vote and was taken to the Senate floor by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) a mere hour before the scheduled cloture vote for the treaty. The extremely controversial UN information caused then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME) to withdraw the treaty from consideration. It was never voted on.

The connection between the Biodiversity Treaty and the Wildlands Project was not a coincidence. The treaty was originally written by the IUCN in 1982, about the time it was promoting a new science called conservation biology, which, in turn, provided the justification for the Biodiversity Treaty. Two of the key promoters of this unproven science were none other than Reed Noss and Michael Soulé who, along with Dave Foreman, co-authored the Wildlands Project. Although few Americans have even heard of the IUCN, this organization has its fingerprints on just about every alleged environmental problem in America today. Read the International Domination of US Environmental Law and Private Property for more information on this connection.

http://www.discerningtoday.org/ALF/twp_bkgrnd.htm

____________________________

¹Reed Noss. “The Wildlands Project, Land Conservation Strategy.” Wild Earth, Special Issue, 1992, pp. 10-25.

²Ibid, p. 15.

³Dave Foreman, et. al. “The Wildlands Project, Land Conservation Strategy.” Wild Earth, Special Issue, 1992, pp. 3.

⁴John Davis. “The Wildlands Project, Land Conservation Strategy.” Wild Earth, Special Issue, 1992, pp.9.

⁵Michael Soulé. “The Wildlands Project, Land Conservation Strategy.” Wild Earth, Special Issue, 1992, pp.9.

⁶Documents ‘Track I’ (A/51/829) of March 17^th, 1997, and ‘Track II’ (A/51/950) of July 14^th, 1997.

Left, right and middle….here are four analyses of the times we are living in:

Martial Law Executive Order: History Should Cause Concern, Not Comfort

Written by Joe Wolverton, II

Thursday, 22 March 2012 10:01

Last weekend The New American published an article about President Obama’s issuing of a new Executive Order granting himself power to seize control of America’s national resources during a time of “national emergency.” The article was reprinted around the country and became the subject of debate among those who saw the edict as a pathway toward peacetime martial law and those who reckoned it was “no big deal.” Some of those dismissing the content of the order as unimportant were pundits typically found criticizing the President. Ed Morrissey of Hotair.com, for example, told readers that the “the general impact of it is negligible” and that it was nothing more frightening than a regular restatement of previously promulgated emergency preparedness plans. For those unfamiliar with the story, here is a brief summary of the Executive Order and its contents. On March 16, the White House posted an Executive Order entitled the National Defense Resources Preparedness Order. In it, the President granted to himself the authority to approve the dispensing of all domestic energy, production, transportation, food, and water supplies as he deems necessary to protect national security. Despite the national defense hurdle that ostensibly must be jumped in order for the order to take effect, the text of the document itself does not limit implementation to a time of war. In fact, the specific sections of the order make it clear that the President may take complete command and control of the country’s natural resources in peacetime, as well.

Read more: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/11278-martial-law-executive-order-history-should-cause-concern-not-comfort

Obama Seizes Control Over All Food, Farms, Livestock, Farm Equipment, Fertilizer & Food Production Across America

Obama seizes control over all food, farms, livestock, farm equipment, fertilizer and food production across America

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) “We told ya so” just doesn’t quite cut it anymore. As the American sheeple slept, selfishly refusing to take a stand against tyranny, the Obama administration has been plotting what can only be called a total government takeover of America.

On March 16, 2012, President Obama issued an executive order entitled, “NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order…)

This executive order states that the President alone has the authority to take over all resources in the nation (labor, food, industry, etc.) as long as it is done “to promote the national defense” — a phrase so vague that it could mean practically anything.

The power to seize control and take over these resources is delegated to the following government authorities:

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

This takeover is designed, in part, to “stockpile supplies” for the U.S. military. Authority for this total takeover of all national resources is granted with nothing more than the writing of a single statement that claims these actions are necessary to “promote the national defense.” As stated in the order:

the authority delegated by section 201 of this order may be used only to support programs that have been determined in writing as necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense:

(a) by the Secretary of Defense with respect to military production and construction, military assistance to foreign nations, military use of civil transportation, stockpiles managed by the Department of Defense, space, and directly related activities;

What all this means is that the U.S. government now claims the power to simply march onto your farm with guns drawn and demand all your crops, seeds, livestock and farm equipment.

Think I’m exaggerating? Read it yourself!

And for those living in denial who refuse to accept the reality of what’s happening in America, remember the following:

• When NaturalNews reported on the existence of the NDAA, we were told our reporting was misleading because Obama opposed it and wouldn’t sign it.

• When Obama betrayed America and signed the bill, we were told our reporting was misleading because “it didn’t apply to Americans.”

• When Obama admitted it did apply to Americans, he announced that he would choose “not to use it on Americans” but only by the grace of his restraint. Nobody who previously accused us of misleading the public had the integrity to offer us an apology and say, “Gee, you were right, it DOES apply to Americans!”

• Now Obama has seized control over all food, farms, livestock, water and transportation across America. How many brain-dead Americans will continue to live in denial and try to convince themselves this is not happening? Sticking your head in the sand does not make this go away…

What California did to Rawesome Foods, the Obama administration can do to everyone

Remember the armed raids on Rawesome Foods? With guns drawn, California authorities assaulted the food distribution center, arrested the farmers, then proceeded to destroy $50,000 worth of food including milk, eggs, cheese and watermelons. (http://www.naturalnews.com/033220_Rawesome_Foods_armed_raids.html)

As outrageous as that raid was, it’s only the beginning. Now, thanks to Obama’s executive order, the federal government can conduct Rawesome-style raids on all farms, all grocery stores, all food co-ops and even individual home gardens.

It’s written in plain English. This is no longer debatable and it’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s Obama administration policy. For what other purpose would this be issued in an executive order if it was not seen as actionable by the government? This piece of paper, you see, gives them the (false) authority to do whatever they want and then have the front-line soldiers who carry it out claim “we’re only following orders.”

Read more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035301_Obama_executive_orders_food_supply.html

Jim Garrison

Martial Law by Executive Order

President, Wisdom University; Author, ‘America as Empire’

President Obama’s National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order of March 16 does to the country as a whole what the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act did to the Constitution in particular — completely eviscerates any due process or judicial oversight for any action by the Government deemed in the interest of “national security.” Like the NDAA, the new Executive Order puts the government completely above the law, which, in a democracy, is never supposed to happen. The United States is essentially now under martial law without the exigencies of a national emergency.

Even as the 2012 NDAA was rooted in the Patriot Act and the various executive orders and Congressional bills that ensued to broaden executive power in the “war on terror,” so the new Executive Order is rooted in the Defense Production Act of 1950 which gave the Government powers to mobilize national resources in the event of national emergencies, except now virtually every aspect of American life falls under ultimate unchallengeable government control, to be exercised by the president and his secretaries at their discretion.

Read more : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-garrison/martial-law-under-another_b_1370819.html

“National Defense Resources Preparedness” executive order: Power grab or mere update?

posted at 10:30 am on March 18, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

We’re getting a lot of e-mail this weekend about an executive order issued on Friday afternoon by President Obama titled “National Defense Resources Preparedness.”  While the timing of the EO is curious — why send it out on a Friday afternoon when an administration is usually trying to sneak bad news past the media? — the general impact of it is negligible.  This EO simply updates another EO (12919) that had been in place since June 1994, and amended several times since. Read more: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/18/national-defense-resources-preparedness-executive-order-power-grab-or-update/

UN Agenda 21:

Such a sweet melody it plucks on your heartstrings.

This time, it goes to a tune that sounds like this….

We MUST help those poor farmers! They’re all getting OLD! And with all this development going on all over the place—just LOOK at Northern Virginia!!!—if  the government doesn’t step in and tell us what we should do with our farmland, why, by 2050 when we have to grow twice as much food to feed ourselves, we’ll all starve!

Wait-I know!!!

Let’s put some government agency on the deed and then they’ll fix it! They’ll know just what to do!!!

Yep. They’ll fix it allright.

If it hadn’t been for freshman board member, Bill Gibson, a couple of months ago the Washington County Board of Supervisors would have given the thumbs up to spending another $46,000 of our taxpayer dollars on the ultimate bailout for the poor, beleaguered farmer, without having raised the first question. What is the utlimate bailout? It’s the one that puts the government or one of their subsidized agencies—in this case, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation—-on the deed. When the term of the deed is PERPETUITY, is it really that hard to figure out who ends up with the property? If you’ve never heard of the Wildlands Project or the UN Biodiversity Treaty—the plan to make 50% of the US off limits to humans—you better click on the links below and grab your reading glasses.

http://swvateapartyab.org/?p=1419

http://www.wildlandsprojectrevealed.org/

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/video/watch/49_henry_lamb_on_wildlands_project/

But those poor farmers—they’re all nipping up on retirement age and if Big

Brother doesn’t DO something, the Evil Developers will swoop in, and there goes

my view shed!

Here’s a question: Where’s the bailout for the beat-down small business owner? Besides food stamps?

Here’s another one: How many bureaucracies does it take to screw your property rights?

Answer:

• The monolithic USDA, [USDA’s budget 2010 staffing level=104,751 total staff years]

• along with their state counterpart,

• a special department within the state counterpart,

• plus two county agencies

• and one state-subsidized land trust outfit, all here to save the day!
  

The USDA and the VA Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, (VDACS} through their Richmond Office of Farmland Preservation by way of the Washington County Ag Extension Agency (Virginia Cooperative Extension of  VA Tech and VSU) and Holston River Soil and Water Conservation District. Plus the VA Outdoors Federation, to close the deal.

Submitting the program summary below, on  February 14th, Conservation Easement Specialist Meg Short with the HRSWCD appealed to the County for matching funds to promote a Purchase of Development Rights Program that will provide some dough (and maybe some tax breaks) for the cash-strapped farmer. The only catch—a split title that puts the land trust on the deed–VA Outdoors Foundation–in this case, who will  then create a management plan for  the VOF to oversee. Forever. They cut you a check for the difference in the free market value of your land and the assessed value of your land under easement. Meaning that you have sold away your rights (and those of your heirs or any future owner) to ever do anything on the land other than what this snapshot in time portrays. That means no subdividing, or development outside of the current use of the land. Supervisor Bill Gibson, seconded by Wayne Stevens thought they should at least know what they were voting on.

The vote was tabled. Temporarily.

Whether YOU knew it or not,

on your “list of greatest concerns for Washington County in 2008″ was “preservation of farmland, forestland, and open space….expressed in the County Comprehensive Plan.  In 2008, local public and private organizations banded together to promote the formation of a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program, in order to protect farmland and open space in Washington County.”

General Information and Program Summary (page 175)
Updated: January 2012 – Holston River Soil and Water Conservation District

History
Agricultural and recreational enterprises bring over 60 million dollars per year to Washington
County. Preservation of farmland, forestland, and open space was one of the top citizen
concerns expressed in the County Comprehensive Plan. In 2008, local public and private
organizations banded together to promote the formation of a Purchase of Development Rights
(PDR) Program, in order protection farmland and open space in Washington County. A PDR
program compensates property owners who voluntarily agree to sell the right to develop their
land. The development rights are held in perpetuity in the form of a conservation easement. The
Washington County PDR Program was established in July 2010.

Organization
The Washington County PDR program is governed by a 5 member, county appointed committee.
The program is administered by the Holston River Soil and Water Conservation District. All
parcels considered for the PDR program will be ranked according to established criteria to
prioritize and maximize parcel conservation potential.

Funding
The Washington County Purchase of Development Rights Program will be funded by a variety
of sources and partners – including local, state, federal, and private organizations. To date,
$30,000.00 has been dedicated from the Washington County FY 2011/2012 budget, and an
additional $16,000.00 has been raised by local entities for the PDR program. State funding,
totaling $46,000.00 from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(VDACS), has been awarded to match local funding. Additional funding is still being acquired.
Local match is necessary in order to apply for grants from organizations such as VDACS and the
Natural Resource Conservation Service.

 

Also presented to the Board for their consideration was information on the primary designer of the PDR program, the American Farmland Trust.

AFT is partnered with the USDA / NRCS, the United States Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Conservation Service.

In 2001, the VA State Legislature appointed America Farmland Trust to the Task Force that would develop the Model Purchase of Development Rights program for VA. So who are these guys? A powerful environmentalist lobby, heavily involved in promoting Sustainable Development. They were big proponents of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, better known as Cap & Trade, the issue that Coal Country spoke loud and clear on by ousting 28-year incumbent congressman, Rick Boucher, for supporting.

The upshot of all of this? You only thought Cap and Trade didn’t pass. It’s the USDA’s brand new industry. And one that American Farmland Trust is actively engaged in, by way of transforming American farm policy for the 21st century.

How do you suppose they’ll do that? By coming up with some newfangled agricultural products, the kind that aren’t “ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization“. And what would that be?

…a new revenue source for farmers in that they produce environmental products. They produce open space and wildlife habitat, maybe carbon sequestration. There are a number of things that farmers could be producing and those could be, in effect, new revenue streams or new crops for farmers and ranchers across the country, a way to reward them, those that produce high-value environmental services. John Grossi,  former President of American Farmland Trust (2007)

Jon Scholl, American Farmland Trust’s new president in 2008, was former Counselor to the Administrator for

Agricultural Policy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).

Supervisor Gibson made a motion to table the vote, for further review. He could not get a second.

Owens and Gibson voted nay.  Joe Straten, Dulcie Mumpower, Phil McCall, Randy Pennington and Wayne Stevens voted in favor of funding the PDR program.

Property….whose

property is it?

Since we, the descendants of those men and women who fought and died for that ideal are now considered too dumb and helpless to keep our land without a bailout plan, here’s what Big Brother is prepared to do for you….the Commonwealth is going to spend $46, 581,081 a year to turn land conservation into an industry all of its own. (See LandScope VA, below) They’re going to subsidize the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and create an army of acolytes to minister to  landowners, anointing them with eternal salvation by saving Mother Earth and getting to pocket some cash at the same time. Governors past and present are getting on this train to glory, too, pledging 400,000 more acres each term. The VOF becomes such a wild success, they can’t keep up with the demand.

▪Demand has been so high that the foundation now operates eight offices with 40 staff, including a dozen who are part-time or temporary hires.

▪VOF now protects about 650,000 acres across 106 localities — an area half the size of Delaware. Of the nearly 800,000 acres of open space protected in Virginia since 2000 by all federal, state, local, and private entities, approximately two-thirds have been protected by VOF easements.

Conservation is going so well, in fact, that about 18% of land in Virginia is being conserved. How much land is developed?

According to VA’s Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Landscope (see below)…..12%. One third LESS.

So, how much land is devoted to agriculture in the US?

Considering all agricultural purposes, including cropland, grassland pasture and range, and
grazed forests, agricultural lands cover nearly 1.2 billion acres, that is, over half (52 percent) of
total U.S. land area….Conservation Reserve and Wetland Reserve Program

Administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), the CRP has a current enrollment of 34.7 million acres on 430,000 farms. In 2009, the
USDA is prepared to distribute $1.8 billion in CRP payments (FSA 2008). CRP is one of many
USDA programs funded directly through the Commodity Credit Corporation as approved by the
2008 Farm Bill.

Since it was introduced in 1985, CRP was reinitiated and expanded by the 1990, 1996,
2002, and 2008 Farm Bills. Beginning with an enrollment of 2 million acres, CRP acreage
ballooned in 2007 to an all-time high of just under 37 million acres.3 With a 2007 budget of
almost $2 billion, CRP is the largest federally funded conservation program (FSA 2007). With
the approval of the 2008 Farm Bill, the CRP is reauthorized through FY2012.

Virginia Outdoors Foundation | Annual Report FY 2011

The period between 2000 and 2010 was a golden
decade of conservation in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Driven by the most generous tax incentives in the
nation—the Land Preservation Tax Credits—Virginians
preserved nearly 900,000 acres of open space. More than
half of those acres were the result of landowners granting
conservation easements to the Virginia Outdoors
Foundation. During this time, VOF preserved open space
at a rate of about 5 acres every hour. Today, we protect
more acres of land in Virginia than any other state, local,
or private entity, and we hold more easements than any
land trust in the nation.

http://www.landscope.org/virginia/overview/

VAConstitution Party, 2nd Tuesday Constitution Group Appeal to Governor McDonnell:

Are you in favor of indefinite detention for American citizens?

The events detailed below are confirmed by Del Bob Marshall, patron of HB 1160. The vote is tomorrow, January 30th at 2PM in the House and could be landmark legislation, leading the way against NDAA for the rest of the country.

See post by Democrat Activist Rosa Koire about why this is such an important vote in Virginia, all party politics aside, for all Americans

——————————————————————————————————————-

27 January, 2012
Virginia, Cradle of the Republic, Roanoke 

For Immediate Release

ANSWER TO: The Free People of VA

CONTACT:   Dave Mason, Vice Chairman, Constitution Party of VA (540)885-1730

Phillip Spence, 2nd Tuesday Constitution Group, (540)309-6650

2nd Tuesday Constitution Group and her Liberty Partners must know: 

“Governor McDonnell, do you support the unlawful   detention of US Citizens?”

“Governor McDonnell, do you support HB 1160, claiming the rights guaranteed to United States citizens that have been nullified by the National Defense Authorization Act?”

For those enjoying the liberties long sought after and associated with life in these united states, is there any other answer, other than a resounding NO?

It has come to our attention that influence extending beyond the Courts of Justice Committee, where HB 1160 is being heard, has been exhibited in in the form of “intimidation”, an effort by our own Governor to “Drop a Poison Pill” on HB1160.

Prior to the subcommittee taking a vote on the anti “citizen detention bill” Governor McDonnell sent a note to Committee Chair Iaquinto expressing that he was “opposed” to the bill… the same bill that is designed to prevent the violation of the Virginia Constitution and our United States Bill of Rights.

We must ask Governor McDonnell:

“Are you compromised in your service to the Commonwealth of Virginia by your position on and commitment to this administration’s “Council of Governors”???

We are asking Governor McDonnell to be the Chief Protector and Supporter of The Constitution of Virginia, and her CITIZENS as it his SWORN Duty!! Governor, what is your response?

Mitt Romney: “Yes, I would sign it” here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNHyGKf7OGQ

Nullify the NDAA: Virginia House Bill 1160

Posted by Michael Boldin

Introduced in the Virginia House of Delegates is House Bill 1160 (HB1160) which “Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia.”

The bill is sponsored by Delegate Bob Marshall and was introduced on 01-16-12. It has been assigned to the House Courts of Justice Sub-Committee: #2 Civil. Visit this link for information on this Subcommittee.

The bill reads as follows:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. § 1. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, no agency of the Commonwealth as defined in § 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, political subdivision of the Commonwealth as defined in § 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, employee of either acting in his official capacity, or any member of the Virginia National Guard or Virginia Defense Force, when such a member is serving in the Virginia National Guard or the Virginia Defense Force on official state duty, may engage in any activity that aids an agency of or the armed forces of the United States in the execution of 50 U.S.C. 1541 as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-18, § 1021) in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of any citizen of the United States in violation of Article I, Section 8 or 11 of the Constitution of Virginia.

Virginia is now the first state in the nation to introduce and consider a version of the Liberty Preservation Act (click here for model legislation for your state) in response to unconstitutional kidnapping provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. Sources close the to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect up to ten states considering various laws or resolutions in response to the NDAA in the 2012 state legislative session.

CLICK HERE to track the status of NDAA nullification legislation around the country.

CLICK HERE to view a suite of model resolutions and legislation available for introduction in your area.

*****UPDATE 10:32AM – CONTACT INFO FOR SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS:*****

Courts of Justice Civil Law Subcommittee

Chairman Sal Iaquinto        delsiaquinto@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1084
Delegate Terry Kilgore        deltkilgore@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1001
Delegate Manoli Loupassi        delmloupassi@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1068
Delegate Gregory Habeeb        delghabeeb@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1008
Delegate Peter Farrell                delpfarrell@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1056
Delegate Randy Minchew        delrminchew@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1010
Delegate Joe Johnson                deljjohnson@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1004
Delegate David Toscano        deldtoscano@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1057
Delegate Jennifer McClellan        deljmcclellan@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1071

Remaining Courts of Justice Committee Members

Chairman Dave Albo                deldalbo@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1042
Delegate Robert Bell                delrbell@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1058
Delegate Ben Cline                delbcline@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1024
Delegate Todd Gilbert                deltgilbert@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1015
Delegate Jackson Miller        deljmiller@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1050
Delegate Ronald Villanueva        delrvillanueva@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1021
Delegate Richard Morris        delrmorris@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1064
Delegate Vivian Watts        delvwatts@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1039
Delegate Charniele Herring        delcherring@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1046

*****UPDATE 2:45PM*****

Passed out of subcommittee today – 6 Yay – 3 Nay
YEAS–Iaquinto, Kilgore, Habeeb, Farrell, Minchew, Johnson–6.

NAYS–Loupassi, Toscano, McClellan–3.

ABSTENTIONS–0.
NOT VOTING–0.

*****UPDATE 01-26 2:14PM*****

Bill number has been changed in the title and the blog text – HB1160. Thanks, Catherine Crabill!

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter – @michaelboldin – and visit his personal blog – www.michaelboldin.com

Against Indefinite Detention of her Citizens?

SUMMARY AS INTRODUCED:

Unlawful detention of United States citizens. Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia.

It’s short, sweet and one paragraph long. And it asserts that US citizens stand safe under the protection Article 1 of the US and Virginia Constitutions. Safe from our government.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. � 1. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, no agency of the Commonwealth as defined in � 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, political subdivision of the Commonwealth as defined in � 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, employee of either acting in his official capacity, or any member of the Virginia National Guard or Virginia Defense Force, when such a member is serving in the Virginia National Guard or the Virginia Defense Force on official state duty, may engage in any activity that aids an agency of or the armed forces of the United States in the execution of 50 U.S.C. 1541 as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-18, � 1021) in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of any citizen of the United States in violation of Article I, Section 8 or 11 of the Constitution of Virginia.

The National Defense Authorization Act rocked the red-white-and-blue back on its heels.

At first, it was shuck, jive and dodge the real ugly question:

Senator Rand Paul: My question would be under the provisions would it be possible that an American citizen then could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely?

Senator John McCain: I think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat.

YEAS–Iaquinto, Kilgore, Habeeb, Farrell, Minchew, Johnson–6.

NAYS–Loupassi, Toscano, McClellan–3.

 

——————————————————————————-

It’s not about PARTY. IT’S ABOUT PRINCIPLES.

Statement from Democrat Property Rights Activist, Rosa Koire, www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com

Author of Behind the Green Mask

Virginia House Bill No. 1160, as offered on January 16, 2012 is an important bill in many ways.  It asserts the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution in determining that Virginia will not be a party to, or assist in the implementation of a law that violates the Virginia constitution.

In addition to raising constitutionality of the National Defense Authorization Act as it is currently written, Virginia has an opportunity to pass a bill that reaffirms it commitment to the fundamental precepts upon which our nation was founded.  Virginia, one of the original thirteen colonies, participated in a war for independence which joined people of differing religious beliefs, cultural origins, and political viewpoints in the birthing of liberty.  This hard-worn battle must be fought every day in the halls of Congress and the Senate, and in the statehouses of every state in the Union.

I urge you to recognize that this battle is non-partisan, vital, and elemental to our continuing ideal of ourselves as a nation conceived in liberty and committed to the protection of our citizens.  Please vote to support Virginia House Bill No. 1160.

Thank you,

–
Rosa Koire, ASA
Executive Director
Post Sustainability Institute
www.PostSustainabilityInstitute.org
www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com
www.SantaRosaNeighborhoodCoalition.com

Passed on June 18, 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. §1385) after the end of Reconstruction. Along with the Insurrection Act of 1807, the expressed intent was to limit the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies from using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order”; it simply requires that any orders to do so must originate with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.