Mountain Man vs statist, petty bureaucrats, and the UN

Do you own your property? Can you do what you want on it, within reason? Think so? Keep reading.

Eustace Conway. Dangerous American. Homegrown extremist.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Conway, 51 years old, is best known as “The Last American Man,” the title character of a 2002 biography and National Book Award finalist by Elizabeth Gilbert, the author of “Eat, Pray, Love.” He has lived in the wilderness since the early 1980s.

He traps, shoots and grows much of his own food, makes pants out of buckskin and stitches his own wounds. He bathes in the cold creek that rolls through his 1,000-acre Turtle Island preserve in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. And he teaches others how to live off the land.

Last fall, a team of health, construction and fire officials showed up for an unannounced inspection of the preserve, acting on an anonymous tip. Escorted by two sheriffs’ deputies, they executed what Mr. Conway describes as a “SWAT-team raid”—peering into outhouses, stomping around log cabins, and climbing hand-hewn ladders.

Their findings are compiled in a 78-page report with a bullet-point list of violations. Mr. Conway’s sawdust urinal and outhouses? Unpermitted, according to the officials. The wood he used to erect two dozen buildings? Built with lumber that isn’t “grade-marked,” meaning it doesn’t specify the mill where it was produced.

The open-air kitchen, with its crates of potatoes and stacks of pots? “Not protected from insects and animals,” according to the report. “It is, in fact, outdoors.”


Fred Reed has captured the new dynamic completely:

Nobody in America, ever again, is going to be left alone. Not ever.

A man living off the land on his own property is no longer tolerable to the state. Harden yourselves. God have mercy on us all.

Read the entire article Mountain Man vs statist, petty bureaucrats, emphasis mine.

Down in Tulsa, they’ve got some stuff figured out, and they want to tell you about it. From Maggie’s Notebook

WOW! So proud of my fellow Tulsans in the 9.12 Project for offering this important symposium. There are two sides to what I think of as Agenda 21 – two separate entities, joined at the hip: Agenda 21 and ICLEI ”International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.” In July 2011, Tulsa showed up as a “Local Government for Sustainability USA.” At that time, we were the only city listed under ‘Oklahoma,’ however, this article dated October 2011 is a “welcome” to Oklahoma City as ICLEI’s 600th member. Today, the site shows no Oklahoma membership. Today I’ve found a separate city membership page, and the State of Oklahoma continues to shows no participation – but friends, it once took root, and due to citizen participation, has apparently been uprooted.

Click this Graphic to track progress of OK SB 23 - Agenda 21

9.12 Project is holding a symposium to learn about the devastating and corrupt effects of Agenda 21 and their tentacles.

Understanding Agenda 21 – A Symposium

Date: April 5th and 6th, 2013

Location: Tulsa Marriott Southern Hills – 1902 E. 71st Street

Contact Information: Elaine LeoneNaomi Koehn

Just a few days ago the Oklahoma State House passed legislation to ban Agenda 21 in the state:

Continue reading Tulsa 9.12 Project Hosts Agenda 21 SymposiumMany many links to Agenda 21 information there.

Go, if it’s at all possible for you.

Here is a bit more on Agenda 21, from The Brenner Brief

This article is the fifth in a multi-part series designed to inform readers of the impending danger of United Nations (UN)Agenda 21To view prior installments, click here.

Agenda 21, also known as “sustainable development,” is the action plan to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, all energy, and all human beings in the world.  Thisplan was birthed at the 1992 United Nations Rio Earth Summit, officially known as theUnited Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). President George HW Bush signed the US was onto this plan by along with 178 other world leaders.

agenda_21_1The push for implementation of Agenda 21 in the US was provided by Executive Orders (EO). In 1993 President Clinton signed EO 12852, which established the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. In 2011 President Obama signed EO 13575, which established the White House Rural Council.

Clinton’s EO created the “President’s Council on Sustainable Development” expressly for the purpose of implementing the recommendations in Agenda 21 throughout federal, state, and local governments. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies offered challenge grants to state and local government to promote the implementation of the recommendations in Agenda 21. The federal government gave more than $5 million to the American Planning Association to produce the “Growing Smart: Legislative Guidebook,” which provides model legislation for states that, when adopted, requires counties and cities to adopt recommendations found in Agenda 21.

Obama’s EO established the White House Rural Council with 25 executive branch departments including Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, National Drug Control, Environmental Quality, Labor, Commerce, Interior, EPA, Housing, Health, Education to name just a few. The order covers 16 percent of the American population who lives in rural counties because they “supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation.”

Continue reading Agenda 21: How it’s impacting life in America, and still more links.

Still think you own your property?



Well said, Senator Johanns

I have come across a copy of a letter that Senator Johanns (R,NE) has sent to President Obama and Secretary Clinton with regards to the UN Arms Control treaty. He gets it right on this one, on all fronts. Well done Senator.

Dear President Obama and Secretary Clinton:
As defenders of the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, we write to express our grave concern about the dangers posed by the United Nations’Arms Trade Treaty. Our country’s sovereignty and the constitutional protection of these individual freedoms must not be infringed.

In October of 2009 at the U.N. General Assembly, your administration voted for the participate in negotiating this treaty. We understand that the final treaty text will not be publicly available until it has been agreed to, on a consensus basis,by all the nations at the conference to be held in New York in July. But having reviewed the Chairman’s Draft Paper made available by the United Nations, we are concerned that the Arms Trade Treaty poses dangers to rights protected under the Second Amendment for the following reasons.
First, while the Draft Paper nominally applies only to “international arms transfers,” it defines such transfers as including “transport” across national territory. It requires signatories to”monitor and control” arms in transit,and to “enforce domestically the obligations of this treaty” by prohibiting the unauthorized “transfer of arms from any location.”This implies an expansion of federal firearms controlsthat would be unacceptable on Second Amendment grounds.
Second, the Draft Paper requires nations to “maintain records of all imports and shipments of arms that transit their territory,” including the identity of individual end users. This information is to be reported to the U.N.-based Implementation Support Unit. The Draft Paper thus appears to suggest the creation of an U.N.-basedfirearms registryfor all firearms that are either imported into or transit across national territory, which raises both Second Amendment and privacy concerns.
Finally, the Draft Paper requires that nations “shall take all appropriate measures necessary to prevent the diversion of imported arms into the illicit market or to unintended end users.”This clause appears to create a presumption in favor of the adoption, at the federal level,of further controls on firearms. We are concerned that, in this regard as well as in others,the treaty will create an open-ended obligation that will in practice be defined by international opinion, and will be used to push the U.S. in the direction of measures that would infringe on both Second Amendment freedoms and the U.S.’s sovereignty more broadly.

We acknowledge, with gratitude, that your administration has clearly stated that the treaty must not infringe in any way on the Second Amendment. Notwithstanding, we must state with clarity what this entails.
First, the treaty should explicitly recognize the legitimacy of hunting, sport shooting, and other lawful activities -including the collection and display by individuals and museums of military antiques -related to the private ownership of firearms, and related materials.

· Second, the treaty should not include the manufacturing, assembly, possession, transfer,
or purchase of small arms, light weapons, ammunition, or related materials that are defined under domestic law by national authority as legal for private ownership, nor should it contain any open­ ended obligations that could imply any need to impose controls that would have any domestic effect on any or all of these items.


Third, the Draft Paper is based in part on recognizing the inherent right of all states to individual or collective self-defense. We certainly agree that this right is inherent, at least, in all democratic and law-abiding states. But we also believe that the right of personal self-defense is a human right that is inherent in the individual. U.N. organizations, by contrast, have in the past argued that gun control is mandated by international human rights law, and that the right of self-defense does not exist. The treaty should clearly state that any assertion of the inherent right of all states to individual or collective self-defense cannot prejudice the inherent human right of personal self-defense.


As the treaty process continues, we strongly encourage your administration not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure -ifnecessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference-that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense. As members of the United States Senate, we will oppose the ratification of any Arms Trade Treaty that falls short of this standard

We appreciate your consideration on this issue and look forward to your response.

Well done, Senator.

Lies and Doublespeak of American Planning Association And How to Fight Back | Green Mountain Scribes

This is important stuff for you to know. It bears very heavily on what you can do with your own (supposedly) property. Personally I have run afoul of these concepts and you would not believe what is in some of these codes. Hint: It has very little to do with the traditional rights of Americans to property. Reblogged from Green Mountain Scribes.

Lies and Doublespeak of American Planning Association And How to Fight Back

Stop Agenda 21By Tom DeWeese

I don’t know about you, but when I take on a cause or a project I’m proud of what I do. I support it against all detractors and nay-sayers because I believe in it. So, when proponents of a cause suddenly start to hide what they are doing, or deny they are even doing it – that should set off alarm bells and raise questions about the honesty and legitimacy of that cause.Case in point, when evidence emerged that the Earth was actually cooling instead of heating, the alarmists didn’t miss a beat as they changed the predicted disaster from Global Warming to Climate Change. These are cleaver guys.

Such is the case now with the enforcers of Agenda 21 and its policy called Sustainable Development. For the past several years, those imposing this policy have denied its United Nations origins, ignoring the many documents that clearly prove that the very term “sustainable development” can easily be traced back to the 1987 UN report titled, “Our Common Future.” That radical report has been used by the UN as a virtual springboard for a “wrenching transfor- mation” (Al Gore’s words) of human society. The words “sustainable development” are used in nearly every federal, state, and local development plan; on nearly every federal, state, and local government web site; and in nearly every public statement on new development policies. We even had a President’s Council on Sustainable Development, created by an Executive Order of Bill Clinton, with the stated purpose to impose the policies of Agenda 21 into United States law. Many serving on the Council helped write Agenda 21, including John Sawhill of the Nature Conservancy, Jay Hair of the National Wildlife Federation and Michele Perrault, international Vice President of the Sierra Club.

So, the exact words “Sustainable Development” come from UN documents and its exact policies are imposed at the local level – yet, we are told by its proponents, none of these development plans have anything to do with UN policy. It’s an amazing tap dance. As local residents question their county commissioners, city councilmen, mayors, state legislators, and governors about the origins of their policies, it has become routine for these “representatives of the people” to get a puzzled look on their faces and a wrinkle in their brows, as they say, “I’ve never heard of Agenda 21.” “That’s just a conspiracy theory.”

Yes, we’ve heard it for years now. But as more and more citizens begin to learn the truth and opposition builds, what is the response of the Sustainablists? Do they now stand up and proudly defend their policies? Do they attempt to open debate and allow other voices to be heard in a legitimate discussion about our “Common Future?” Do they try to find reasonable solutions for citizens who have become victims of such policies? None of the above.

First they have ignored those protests with the usual, “don’t know what they are talking about.” Then they have tried to ridicule those of us who have led the charge against the policy, calling it a conspiracy theory. As our anti-Agenda 21 movement has picked up steam, they have enlisted the big guns to attack our credibility, including front page articles in the New York Times, and in the pages of the Washington Post. Each of those articles took the position that protestors at public meetings are simply wasting the valuable time of legitimate professional planners who are just trying to do their jobs. How dare we question their motives or the origins of their schemes? There’s serious business going on here. Will the peasants please get out of the way of progress? ….

Continue Reading Lies and Doublespeak of American Planning Association And How to Fight Back | Green Mountain Scribes.

If you value property rights (and the rest of your rights) you need to be working on this at your local and state levels.

%d bloggers like this: