Tag Archives: Sustainable Development


images (2)







Say you’re a 501c3 non-profit group with a clever name and cute logo. Convince
a few strategic folks—a congressman, a senator, and a press that might as well be
your own PR firm—to back you up. Then take 19 counties in SWVA, and draw a
boundary line around them. Hold 12 “public information meetings”, without mentioning any of this to the 19 elected county boards. Your own board of directors has some tourism folks and planning district commission figureheads across the region—names that pop up on board after board—so you’ve got “district-wide participation”. Get their network to write some letters of support. Take ‘em to your buddies in Congress. Then get everything inside the boundary line designated a National Heritage Area, fast-tracked through those hallowed halls as easy as one-two-three, with no debate.

Then, bingo! In the immortal words of Nancy Pelosi, we’ll find out what’s in the
bill after we pass it. Congratulations! You are now the unelected “managing entity” of almost 21% of the state. As long as you do things just like the National
Park Service says, the Secretary of the Interior will turn on a pipeline of federal
grant money that will keep all your special interest groups’ special interests welllubricated. Just like that. In the name of preserving the unique cultural heritage of a huge chunk of SWVA—how did it ever survive this long without you?— you are now the man.

Really? Is that all it takes for a noble, self-governing country with a proud history to be snookered out of its representative form of government, not to mention the US and Virginia Constitutions, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights? A 501c3 with a gleam in their eye? In this issue, we follow the money and find out.

After examining some NHAs that have been around for a while, we’ve determined that across the board, their management plans start out sounding like promoting the natural assets of the region— the art, music and food—is the answer to all of your economic prayers, we documented that a few years
down the road, the plans for the region start sounding a lot more like the UN’s
official policy on land.

“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….” http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/unproprts.htm

But since we’ve encountered a reluctance to believe such a plan could ever replace the authority of our local boards and planning commissions, we decided to document the victims.

What we found is shocking. And in case there is still denial of the connection to the global plan of action, Agenda 21—the “secret” that’s been around for 30 years— we prove that it’s no secret. UN Agenda 21 is Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development—no matter how sweet it is made to sound—is UN Agenda 21. And the management plan for The Crooked Road National Heritage Area is one and the same.



No one can dispute Southwest Virginia’s
uniquely rich musical heritage. We must continue efforts to leverage that distinction in a
way that brings tourists to our region and job
opportunities to our citizens. But after careful
consideration, I remain unconvinced that
designating The Crooked Road as a National
Heritage Area is in the best interest of my
constituents. Tourism success stories in
SWVA occur when risks are managed and
certainty surrounds the project and unfortunately, that cannot be said about the NHA designation at this time.
Senator Bill Carrico

The Southwest Virginia Cultural Heritage
Foundation does not support the National
Heritage Area Designation.
Delegate Terry Kilgore, Chairman, Southwest Virginia Cultural Heritage Foundation


After much studying, I have decided that I will
not be supporting the proposed NHA designation for The Crooked Road. Too many questions persist and our proud music heritage is already being successfully marketed all across the country, and indeed the world. I
question whether the additional designation
will be worth the undertaking of risk.
Delegate Israel O’Quinn

While the goals of The Crooked Road National Heritage Area may be noble in trying to promote Southwest Virginia musical heritage,
the Federal National Heritage designation
may put the rights of property owners at risk.
That is why I have not and will not support
the National Heritage Area designation.
Delegate Nick Rush
Although I understand that the proposed National Heritage Area will
bring in new money, there are many concerns which remain unanswered.
Delegate Anne B. Crockett-Stark

Delegate Joseph Yost and Delegate
Will Morefield did not return our calls
or emails with a statement on the
NHA. However, Delegate Morefield has since gone on record opposing the NHA designation.

In 2012, the Smyth County Board of
Supervisors voted to defund The
Crooked Road Organization.

What if the Park Service decides to
regulate The Crooked Road? The
only recourse we would have is to
take them to court. He added that he
has a real problem with that because
our opinion of what infringes on property rights may differ.
Pulaski County Supervisor, Andy McCready

Supervisor Ron Blevins (Smyth
County), Supervisor Bill Gibson
(Washington County) and Supervisor
Bob Gibson (Russell County) are all
outspoken opponents of the NHA.
In November 2012, at their annual
meemeemeemeeting in Roanoke, the
Virginia Farm Bureau voted unanimously to oppose the National Heritage Area designation.

Who are Heritage Area VICTIMS?

Bart Dye’s bad fortune, along
with that of several other farmers
in his area of Shoals in southwestern Indiana, began in 1977, when,
as president of the Martin County
Farm Bureau, he organized the
farmers to oppose the expansion of
nearby Hoosier National Forest,
which was gobbling up farmland…………….
“Over 700 homes and businesses are currently within the
boundaries of the national lakeshore, despite the promise by the
federal government in 1965 that
there would be no condemnation of
homes and businesses,” said William Theis, a leader of STOP,
which he said has 310 members and
has collected 16,000 signatures on
a petition against dunes park expansion. “Literally hundreds of people
were forced to sell their homes
against their will and feel they were
not adequately compensated.”

The Yukon Cleansing

The Park Service essentially told everyone they
could go on living their accustomed
“subsistence lifestyle,” as it was a
“cultural value” worthy of protection.
But the deep changes NPS brought
pulled the future out from under the
people, for their rights didn’t extend
to the next generation and their present lives now operated under an incomprehensible permit system


Congress created the Yuma Crossing NHA, and hardly any of the locals knew about it until Lee Ott saw the surveyors on his property………


The Journey Through Hallowed Ground from Charlottesville to Gettysburg… is a sweet deal that could leave the Partnership “with a near monopoly on real estate development opportunities within the [JTHG] area………..

In the National Coal Heritage Area the people of
Hinton wanted funds to repair a local road. They lobbied their
legislators for several years, and finally the federal funding came
through. At that point, the National Park Service stepped in.
Because the local road was in a Heritage Area, Park Service
officials announced, the money would be used to create a Scenic
Parkway. The Scenic Parkwaycalled for condemning dozens of
properties, forcing people out of their homes.…..

The Wheeling National
Heritage Act Corporation…take properties away
from their present owners and
give them to other private retail
businesses of the City’s choosing….


images (3)

What did a historic survey find?

Private landowners ostensibly selling their properties to the National Park Service are in fact not bona fide sellers but are giving up title to
escape the legal expenses of a
foredoomed condemnation.

A problem arises when Park
Service officials are using
their jargon term SELLER
outside their circle, understood by the public in the
generally accepted meaning of
a free agent conducting business. A clever Park promoter
even coined the slogan WILLING SELLER/WILLING
BUYER, falsely implying that
the two parties are on an
equal footing. This slogan has
developed into a mantra recited at hearings and discussions on Park expansion for
the deception of legislators
and the general public.
 It is reasonable to assume that
Park Service extortion was
exercised in most of the
1,130 title transactions.



ARC + SWVA=Agenda 21






The Crooked Road, ‘Round the Mountain and the other colorful-sounding spin-offs of our

new-fangled “asset based economy”—the Appalachian Regional Commission dubs it their ”creative cluster”— take their foundation in Sustainable Development/UN Agenda 21. How do we know this? From their own account.

RESPONSE TO ANTHONY FLACCAVENTO’S CHALLENGE : The Washington County Tea Party  doesn’t need to make this stuff up, when the facts so clearly speak for themselves! We accept your challenge by reporting the truth.


What Sustainable Development Is and Is Not


A Challenge to the Washington County Tea Party

Prepared by Anthony Flaccavento, January 23, 2011

Materials gathered by the Washington County Tea Party portray “sustainable development” as a sinister effort to undermine American values and install socialist policies that eliminate private property. Based on nearly 20 years of work, research and writing in this field, I am putting forth this challenge to their attack on sustainable development. It is divided into four sections, corresponding to four core elements of their “argument”.

Sustainable development is being driven by the United Nation’s Agenda 21

· Contrary to the WCTP’s contentions, “Agenda 21″ and the UN have absolutely nothing to do with the vast majority of sustainable development (SD) projects and initiatives in Washington county, neighboring states or the nation as a whole. Out of a dozen sustainable development initiatives in the Appalachian region and more than 30 nationwide with which I am personally familiar, not a single one was launched or driven by Agenda 21, or is managed or directed by it. In fact, all of these initiatives were started at the grassroots, by a broad base of community people including local businesses, farmers, civic leaders, elected officials, etc. In 20 years of work and consultation with SD groups around the nation, I have never once heard “Agenda 21″ even mentioned.


We suggest that you start here, Mr. Flaccavento, and get it right from the horse’s mouth—as some of us quaint folks say around here in Appalachia!



Prepared for: Appalachian
Regional Commission
Building on the concept of sustainability,
a new corporate philosophy and ac-
counting form has emerged that takes
into consideration not only the tradi-
tional economic “bottom line,” but also
considers less quantifiable indicators
that measure social and environmental
The concept of the triple bottom line
originated from the notion of sustainabil-
ity and sustainable development. Ecol-
ogically sustainable development (ESD)
thinking was first espoused in the
Brundtland Report (World Commission
on Environment and Development,
1987) and reiterated during Agenda 21
and the Rio Declaration on Environment
and Development (1992)……………….
Social and Environmental Justice:
Advocates of social and environmental
justice stress the need to promote op-
portunity and equity within our society,
between societies, between genera-
tions, and between species………………….
This broader perspective, sometimes
called sustainable development or the
Triple Bottom Line (TBL) is relevant to
the types of economic development
projects typically funded by ARC within
the tourism program……………………
[The Ford Foundation] felt that the ARC
work would provide a platform for build-
ing a better understanding of the oppor-
tunities and challenges for adopting a
TBL perspective in rural areas including
…new government policies and new
government roles will be needed to
change existing organizations into more
flexible and fluid entities that will support
sustainability…Developing this compre-
hensive approach will be a
central governance challenge……..
A recent study was completed of the Crooked Road portfolio of projects. Since ARC has
provided funding for virtually all of the Crooked Road projects (mostly in tandem with
other Federal, state, or local funds) it provides a test of the value of using a more strategic
project funding that could be encouraged in other ARC states.
…..first-rate TBL uses relevant, common indicators to make it easier to
compare performance or “value added” across organizations and requires honest, open and
transparent disclosure. Ideally, it has been suggested that TBL should lead to improvements incorporate performance. TBL reports should include key goals for improving organizational
performance into the future – preferably quantitative and time-bound goals. The Global
Reporting Initiative, a program developed under the auspices of nearly 20 agencies including the
World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the United National Environment
Program and the World Resources Institute, standardizes TBL measures and areas to be reported
and currently has more than 1,300 participating organizations.

Here is another analysis of Sustainable Development and The Global Reporting Initiative………





I spent several hours navigating through the myriad of resources, data, and links. I am sure, most Americans do not have the interest or the time to research what is happening to their country.

GRI is encouraging organizations to report (read snitch) on Sustainable Development compliance in their countries.

The list of past supporters includes….The Ford Foundation.

“The Global Reporting Initiative and the United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development signed a Memorandum of Understanding
in 2008 to set internationally recognized sustainability reporting
standards. It was done to foster sustainable development in developing
countries and transition economies.”
The real ultimate goal is to spread the wealth and arrest development
in countries like U.S.

Should United Nations dictate to the rest of the world what economic justice is? I do not wish to receive lectures on respect for diversity from UN totalitarian governments that disrespect women, other religions, and repress minorities through genocide.
We had informants under the communist system—it allowed the
totalitarian government to better control the masses. We have whistleblowers
in capitalism; we do not need UN’s rules to control us
through organized snitching……I fail to see how a private corporation
is obligated to report anything to the United Nations.
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh


What YOU Should Know: Wildlands


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 benefitas 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.

Essential Background Reading 

Why Property Rights Matter

The Problem With The Endangered Species Act

International Domination of US Environmental Law and Private Property

The Wildlands Project

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
  • 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

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 Wildlands Project calls for establishing thousands of core reserves and interconnecting corridors from Alaska and the Northwest Territories to Chile and Argentina.

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.



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 17th, 1997, and ‘Track II’ (A/51/950) of July 14th, 1997.

ICLEI =UN=UNconstitutional!

Virginia Right!

Categorized | ICLEI, News



Posted on 13 May 2011.

The local officials who question or sneer at the idea that ICLEI is some sort of UN plot to take away our sovereignty need to read this from the ICLEI website:

ICLEI holds up the flag for Local Governments at UNEP Governing Council

February 24, 2011

At the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GC26/GMEF), that took place from 21-24 February 2011, in Nairobi, Kenya, ICLEI has been flying the flag for Local Governments. ICLEI was in attendance as a Local Authority Major Group Co-Facilitator, a representative of the interests of local governments. (Emphasis mine)The UNEP is the United Nations Enivronmental Programme. Here’s the UNEP website. They are the environmental branch of the UN system:

UNEP, established in 1972, is the voice for the environment within the United Nations system. UNEP acts as a catalyst, advocate, educator and facilitator to promote the wise use and sustainable development of the global environment. To accomplish this, UNEP works with a wide range of partners, including United Nations entities, international organizations, national governments, non-governmental organizations, the private sector and civil society.ICLEI is in deep with this UN agency:

In collaboration with partners such as UN-Habitat, Cities Alliance and ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, UNEP is working on making cities more liveable, better prepared for the multiple environmental challenges they are facing, as well as giving them a stronger voice in the international climate negotiations. The Constitution says NO! NO confederation among local/state governments! PERIOD! They cannot hold up a flag or be part of a representative or part of a stronger voice before UN agencies. Any US city/county/town a member of ICLEI is contributing to an unconstitutional system. I appeal to every veteran or retired veteran or any other patriotic citizen in the local government in any of the 600 ICLEI member cities to do your duty: Simply get out of ICLEI.

via http://www.varight.com/news/need-proof-iclei-is-unconstitutional-for-a-us-municipality-to-join-try-this-iclei-represented-local-governments-at-a-un-environmental-meeting-in-february-2011/