![]() |
|
|
November 30, 2008 at 23:17:50
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 11/30/08: by Derry Brownfield (Posted by Linn Cohen-Cole) Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
I consider Wayne Hage one of the most intelligent men I ever met. On our very first visit he was explaining the World Bank, the International Monetary fund and how the world bankers planned on collateralizing the world debt with land. Not just the U.S. national debt, but also the "WORLD" debt. A listener sent me a copy of a report of the FOURTH WORLD WILDERNESS CONGRESS, which was held in Denver in 1987. Over 1500 people from sixty countries were told that wilderness lands were to protect the reindeer, the spotted owl and other endangered species. Ninety percent of the group consisted of conservationists, ecologists, government and United Nations bureaucrats. The other ten percent were world banking heavyweights, such as David Rockefeller of Chase Manhattan Bank, London banker Edmund de Rothschild and the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, James Baker, who gave the keynote address. George W. Hunt, an investment councilor, served as official host and sat in on all the meetings. It was George Hunt that wrote the report from which I have gleaned much of my information.
During the first three days, the group was told that the WILDERNESS CONGRESS was about beating the ozone deterioration and bringing the rain forests back. The following days were closed to the public. With only the bankers in attendance, the topics discussed centered on the creation of a "WORLD CONSERVATION BANK" with collateral being derived from receipt of wilderness properties throughout the world. This bank would have central bank powers similar to the Federal Reserve. It would create currency and loans and engage in international discounting, counter-trade, barter and swap actions. Rothschild personally conducted the monetary matters and the creation of this WORLD CONSERVATION BANK. This bank would refinance by swapping debt for assets. A country with a huge national debt would receive money to pay off the debt by swapping the debt for wilderness lands. The plan was to swap one trillion dollars of Third World Debt into this new bank. In the long term, when the countries won't be able to pay off the loans, governments from around the world will give title to their wilderness lands to the bankers.
George Hunt wrote: "Title to the lands will go to the World Wilderness Land Inventory Trust. This Trust will float into the World Conservation Bank by the unanimous decree of the world's people, saying, God bless you for saving our reindeer. Those people at the congress were ignorant. They don't suspect anything. They're very naive. Not stupid, ignorant. I'm talking about the 90% that were not the world banking heavyweights."
Hunt goes on to say that World Bank loans, as they stand now, are not collateralized. They're saying, we want collateral, so when we loan-swap this debt, we're going to own the Amazon if you default. They're going to make their bad loans good by collateralizing them after the fact with all of this land and somebody is going to end up with title to twelve and half billion acres. They have multi-trillions of dollars upon which they can create currencies and loans and they're going to begin to barter and counter-trade and loan-swap against the United States. The World Conservation Bank is a scheme to monetize land. This will function as a world central bank and out of that bank there will grow a one-world fiat currency.
This isn't some scheme conjured up during the Bush and Clinton administrations. The United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development was created in 1982. The commission published the "BRUNDTLAND REPORT," setting the stage for unlimited enactments to take over ecology, and environmental and pollution laws throughout the world. The report stated: "We will have a proposal for very harsh, quasi-spiritual ecological laws for MOTHER EARTH. A MOTHER EARTH COMES FIRST mentality will arise throughout the world."
When James Baker made his keynote speech in 1987, he stated that, "No longer will the World Bank carry this debt unsecured. The only assets we have to collateralize are federal lands and national parks." Baker's definition of federal lands includes Heritage sites, of which there are about 20 in the United States. I say "about" 20, because they are being added on a regular basis. As I write this article, Congress is about to vote on a proposed Rim of the Valley National Park that would include over 500,000 acres of National Forest land and 170,000 parcels of private property including many farms and ranches. At the same time there is a bill before Congress called the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act that would increase the acreage of designated wilderness by 50% in the lower 48 states. *** While our Heritage sites take in quite a large amount of territory, such as Yellowstone National Park and Mesa Verde, the Grand Canyon and the Everglades, other countries have much greater areas. Brazil for example has the Amazon Conservation Complex and Canada has the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks. As I write this story, the list includes 851 properties in 141 countries, comprising over one third of the earth's land mass. Will all this land collateralize the world's debt? Probably not, so along comes NAIS (the National Animal Identification System).
According to the United States Department of Agriculture, "The first step in implementing a national animal identification system (NAIS) is identifying and registering premises that are associated with the animal agriculture industry. In terms of the NAIS, a premise is any geographically unique location in which agricultural animals are raised, held, or boarded. Under this definition, farms, ranches, feed-yards, auction barns and livestock exhibitions and fair sites are all examples of premises." That may be the definition some government bureaucrat will give you, but the word "premises" under the "international Criminal Court Act 2002- Sect 4, states: The word "premises" includes a place and a "conveyance." Why check with the International Criminal Court Act? Because on June 8, 2007, Under-Secretary of Agriculture Bruce Knight, speaking at the World Pork Expo in Des Moines, Iowa, is quoted as saying, "We have to live by the same international rules we're expecting other people to do."
Throughout the entire Draft National Animal Identification System Users Guide, land is referred to as a premises and not property. A "Premises" has no protection under the Constitution of the United States, while property always has the exclusive rights of the owner tied to it. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution protect property rights.
The word "Premise" is a synonym for the word tenement. A definition of the word tenement in law is: Property, such as land, held by one person "leasing" it to another. Webster's New World Dictionary 1960 College Edition defines "Premises" as the part of a deed or "lease" that states its reason, the parties involved and the property in "conveyance." Webster then defines "conveyance" as the transfer of ownership of real property from one person to another. It is quite obvious that the bureaucrats in Washington had a very good reason to use the term "premises" and never mention "PROPERTY."
Let's take another look at the wilderness areas and the World Bank's plans to collateralize its loans. While the wilderness areas cover about one third of the earth's surface, they are wilderness areas for a good reason – they were useless or difficult to homestead, farm or use in a constructive manner. Worldwide, the best and more valuable land is occupied by farmers, ranchers and people with the ambition to produce. Wouldn't the World Bankers rather have some productive property besides mountains, deserts and swamps?
I am convinced that the word "premise" will put an encumbrance on your deed. The bankers say they want to monetize land. It's your land and my land they want to monetize.
The bankers are in the process of accumulating the wealth of the world. Very few privately owned assets can be termed "real wealth." According to scripture, God made Abraham very wealthy, giving him LAND, CATTLE, silver and gold. (Genesis 24:35) Four thousand years later, wealth continues to be LAND, CATTLE, silver and gold. I don't know where the world deposits of silver and gold are stored, but I'm sure the bankers have them in their control. That only leaves LAND and CATTLE, which I believe could be next on the list. Genesis 47 describes how Joseph had storehouses full of grain to feed the people, but he didn't have a welfare program. During the first year of the famine, Joseph took "ALL THE MONEY" the people had for only one year's supply of grain. The second year he took all their cattle for another year's supply of grain. The next year they said, "We have nothing left but our bodies and our land. Buy us and our land in exchange for food and we and our land will be servants to Pharaoh." Genesis 47:21 states, "And as for the people, he removed them to the cities and made slaves of them."
James Madison made a statement concerning how our people could lose our freedom by gradual and silent encroachment by those in power. Is it possible that those in power today are gradually and silently in the process of removing the people to the cities to make slaves of them? Federalizing our land and our cattle would certainly be a step in that direction.
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Tell Congress:
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Editor |
|
|
|
| 5 comments |
|
take the Bankers' personal real property
I sure hope Americans stand ready to defend our land. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:24:34 PM
|
|
The biblical stuff is interesting
but I'm not sure it will be used as a basis for public policy. I live in a rural area, and will include this in some presentations. There's another phenomenon that is interesting regarding this article. Millions of acres have been taken out of private hands and placed in so-called "Land Trusts." These trusts are supposed to protect the land from unbridled development, thus keeping the areas scenic, good for tourism, etc. These trusts are all the vogue, but people don't realize who ultimately controls them. Some of the land is restricted to farming or even to become "forever wild" by the land trust restrictions. Land trusts purchase development rights to properties, making the land virtually worthless for resale. I decoded this scam during the controversy in New York City surrounding the "community gardens in the 1990s," small plots of land, usually vacant lots owned by the city, that were taken over by citizens and turned into gardens. The "big boys" wanted this land for development. One of the first "nonprofits" to take a swipe at these gardens was the "New York City Partnership," a creature of David Rockefeller, which actually swallowed and digested the city's chamber of commerce! The name of the group is now "The Partnership for New York City." I actually had the dubious honor of working at this institution for a brief time, which is how I found out about its existence. Anyway, the "Partnership" wanted these choice parcels for development into low and middle income housing in Greenwich Village, which has become rather posh living quarters. An offer of $4 million was made for these parcels, by whom I forget, hundreds of them, and was refused by the city. This was under Guiliani. I knew that the folks who made the offer wanted the parcels and would not be content to let them slip through their hands. Later, some Rockefellerite land trust, supposedly with the help of Bette Midler, scooped half of them up, the others going someplace else. It was weird, but it did clue me in to how the "Land Trusts" are really "Land Grabs." I later was a reporter for a local upstate newspaper, which is how I found out how active these "land trusts" were in acquiring land. They are all up and down the Hudson Valley, assuming such innocuous names as "Scenic Hudson," etc. Anyway, these trusts and institutions have grabbed up a lot of land, much of the land grabs funded by the state. Sometimes, the state or local governments have grabbed up the land, such as most of the Adirondacks under the Adirondack Park Agency (I may not have the name right). A lot of it is farmland, which supposedly is "protected" from development. The agency recently lost a case, fortunately, thus allowing a farmer to put up some buildings as dwellings for farm workers. Anyway, this is a huge mess, and I believe it relates to this incredible focus of the elite on ways to grab up all the land. by Peter Duveen (13 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 197 comments [30 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:43:15 PM
|
|
USDA Ag Survey - Seizure Prioritization
This article brings to mind the 'mandatory' 28 page USDA agricultural survey I was sent this year. Within its 28 pages it wanted to know (among the other 27 and a half pages of information) the number of chickens I had hatched out, the number that had died, how many acres I had under cultivation divided up by irrigated and nonirrigated, whether I had grain storage capacity and how much, whether my barn was built pre or post 1970, and whether I had high speed internet access. Call me clean country crazy, but I thought immediately in response to this lunacy, 'the better to prioritize my seizure.' Without question, now we know where some of the Halliburton Hotel populations will come from... by Susan Guest (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 91 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:20:06 PM
|
|
I don't believe
these forces can be fought effectively through legal or traditional pacifist approaches. The will, intelligence and awareness of Americans is at the lowest ebb. Will Americans fight none-the-less? The options are diminishing. The enemies include the global financial elites. The armies are at the beck and call. The elites regard us as cattle to be harvested or disposed of as they wish. Our options are few. What, in heaven's name... if there is a heaven, are we to do? by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [399 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:58:15 PM
|
|
Reply: thanks Rich,
thanks for the link. sorry I didn't notice this last night .... was sick and fell asleep ... sick today too but have the patients I can't 'not' see this morning. by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [399 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:50:46 AM
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |