"Private Property and Freedom Are Inseparable."

Understanding Sustainable Development, "Smart Growth", and the Wildlands Project

Show 3 – Second Freedom 21 Radio Series (Jun 18, 2007)

WSAU (5.50 AM) News Radio, "55 Feedback", Wausau, Wisconsin

Michael Shaw – President, Freedom Advocates

Pat Snyder – Radio Co-Host

Tom King – Radio Co-Host

Comments [added/unintelligible]. Interjections/pauses removed. Emphasis not added.

--------Beginning of Show --------

Pat Snyder – Welcome back to "55 Feedback" as we continue this Monday, June 18th as we turn our attentions now to Michael Shaw. He has a Bachelors of Arts and Political Science, a law degree, CPA. Mr. Shaw is a co-owner of a multi-location California self-storage company and proprietor of Liberty Garden, which is a 75 acre coastal oasis acknowledged [ ] on a cover of an international environmental science journal for its breakthrough creation of a native plant wonderland. The purpose of Liberty Garden is to show through example how private property provides for better stewardship of the earth than does governmental control. And you can see www.libertygarden.com.

Michael is also President of Freedom Advocates, an organization dedicated to the constitutional administration of government, private property, personal and family autonomy, and the defense of the nation. As an entrepreneur and abundant ecologist, he sat on the Santa Cruz local UN Agenda 21 Committee in the mid-nineties. He now explains how Sustainable Development or Agenda 21 is being used to eliminate private property and destroy the freedoms that private property supports. He provides general information, theory, and a basis for hope via action in www.freedomadvocates.org, his web site. And we welcome him this morning. Michael, good morning!

Michael Shaw – Well good morning Pat. It’s nice to be talking in central Wisconsin.

Pat – Well it is, and it's a nice day here….what can you say. But we had you on, boy, it’s been a good couple of years now since we’ve talked to you. Let's refresh people a little bit about your background and how you came across Sustainable Growth and Development, and tell us about some of the things that really got your focus of this.

Michael – Well, I had owned this coastal landscape since the mid-eighties and had just encountered problem after problem after problem with being able to put it into any economic use. …And still do have those problems. So through the 80’s and into the 90’s I began studying the nature of private property and worked hard to understand why in Santa Cruz County I was having such difficulty. And then in the mid-90’s someone called me…I had been on the Santa Cruz Resource Conservation District Board of Directors. They work closely with the Federal Department of Agriculture and a friend of mine said, "Michael, you need to come up in the mountains and attend these Agenda 21 meetings. I went to a few and it was just bizarre stuff. People who said, "Mother Earth can't be scratched…we need to live collectively, etc." And I thought it was just a bunch of malarkey, until I began to understand by the late 80’s or around 2000 that this was not malarkey…that Santa Cruz was a pattern for the rest of the country in regards to the Agenda 21 program. That it was an international program. And that explained in substantial part why it was I couldn’t put my land to any use whatsoever.

Pat – Do you find yourself as you got involved -- because you have land and things to that nature you went to find out more – there’s so many Americans that just might have homes in cities and maybe don’t have the land like you do that just don't pay attention to this.

Michael – Well, I think it sneaks up on people. It hasn't starkly hit suburban landowners for instance, yet! But suburban landowners are within the target range of the Sustainable Development movement. It's intended that suburban housing be eliminated. So while landowners may have felt it first, certainly farmers feel it in the extreme. All of America will experience the throwback --in fact, we are all experiencing it through America's trade policies, etc. It's hard to identify it until it actually hits your home. But it's only a matter of time before everyone feels it. But at that point, once everyone's feeling it is really going to be too far gone to preserve the American system of government and the American lifestyle. And that's why we work so hard now to try to inform people about what's happening to many in America. Some understand what it is. Many do not. But everybody’s going to feel it over a period of time. And that's why it’s just so critical we begin to understand what the politics in America, Democrat and Republican, are doing to us without our knowledge.

Tom – Taking out the more incendiary parts of this in your mind, the whole idea of "Mother Earth can't be scratched", and all of that rhetoric…the other side of the coin, unfettered development, is certainly not an option that we want to let go either is it?

Michael – Well, when people say "unfettered development" I don’t understand what that means. There are only so many of us. I'm in New York right now and flew two days ago from San Francisco to here. And as I looked down I didn't see a whole lot of development. When you're in the sky flying across this country it is not as though this whole nation is being cemented over. (Pat laughs) And that's not a realistic possibility. There simply are not enough people. No where near enough people for that to be a real risk. So the concern that all of America is being cemented is just a silly notion.

Tom – But let’s face it! There's a huge portion of America that really is not "livable". It's not going to sustain a standard of living that most people would want to embrace, so… (Pat – By the way, that’s Tom King…not, not me.) …Why do you have to put that in all the time?! (Pat – Because, people should know who you are. You should say, "This is Tom King"… so they don't… Our guests sometimes don't realize it’s two different people.) All right, okay. (Pat laughs)

…I mean, so there’s going to be a huge portion of this country that's never gets developed. We’re talking parts the country that people want to live in, and the unfettered development of those parts the country: whether it be California, whether it be suburban New York City, whether it be suburban Madison, Wisconsin? We don't want to just let people develop… (Pat – If they couldn't live there though Tom, why would they develop it? If you're saying that they’re not livable or sustained?) If you don't put in some sort of restrictions, if you don't put in some sort of zoning, developers will build and just keep building out from these areas until it's one big urban area from Madison to Milwaukee, until it’s one big urban area from New York City to Boston, Massachusetts! It’s getting that way now isn’t it?! (Pat -- What you think Michael?)

Michael – Well, I don’t think that’s a real concern, even in California. You can fly over California and a very small percentage of California is actually developed. A very small portion of California’s coastal section is actually developed. And if a developer says, "Gee, I'm going to develop all of the state of California" (that's a small percentage of the United States), "I'm going to develop all of California", there’s simply not a market to reward me for my hard effort. So, who wants to develop something that can't be used? There are only 300 million Americans, and that's no where near enough people to take use of (development use) of all the landscape in this very large country.

Pat – Would you say there’s like a partnership, maybe it’s knowing or unknowing…like as you mentioned the group that says, "Let’s not scratch Mother Earth"…that group and the group that wants to control…that I want to say small minority…that want to be the controllers of property and land? Are they joined together? (Michael – Well they are…) Maybe unknowingly, I don't know. Because the folks that are like, "The Earth, we got to save it! Man is the virus!"…those people!

You get them as your soldiers and then let them go off and do the dirty work while you sit and pass laws to give the non-elected officials the power to operate.

Michael – Well, you're right on to it there Pat. Lenin, the chief architect of communism in Russia back in the 1920’s said, "Very few of our officials understand our philosophy. Most are simply useful idiots." That's where the hard-core environmentalists fit into this Sustainable Development Program. They don't understand the political and economic ramifications of the sustainable program. But they give the lip sync to the Sustainable Development environmental cause, and that creates the emotional feedback within the country to get people on the bandwagon under the environmental "E" of Sustainable Development, without understanding that it means a surrender of freedom -- the loss of the political independence for America and the transition from the free enterprise system into a system of "public/private partnerships".

Back in the old days when I was in school that was just called Fascism. "Public/private partnerships" is what Benito Mussolini instituted in Italy and Hitler followed with. And today in California for certain if you are an individual, free enterprising landowner, farmer or developer (you name the profession), and you're not a partner with government, you simply don't do business anymore. And that's sweeping the country. And as it happens, under environmental label we find ourselves in a situation where free enterprise dies and Fascism takes over. So those who are propelling this environmental movement oftentimes characterized as left-wingers, find that what they're really doing is promulgating a system of right-wing Fascist economics.

Tom – Wow! Linking environmentalists to Hitler, Lenin, and Mussolini all in the same segment. That was an impressive use of scare tactics! (Pat – Scare tactics Michael! That’s Tom for ya.)

Michael -- Well, someone who wants to call that scare tactics needs to do some study.

Pat -- Why do you disagree Tom with some of the things that he’s connected with the basis or what they wanted as Fascism, and compare what is being done with this Sustainable Development?

Tom – I guess I just don’t buy the argument that these "evil bureaucrats" are going to sell out the country, sell the country down the pike to protect what power they have. And the fact that environmentalists…why do you think that the coast of California isn’t totally developed at this point in many areas?! It’s because of those environmentalists who have fought unfettered development in many cases! (Pat – Your response to that Michael since you’re an owner along the coastline.)

Michael – Well, not all areas of the coast are desired particularly for development because there is not economic activity up and down the California coast. So the prospects that the entire…that the whole nation moved to the coast of California is a preposterous…

Tom – No, I wasn’t saying that of course. But certainly there are prime spots in California on the coast that developers have been eyeing, like prime cuts of meat! And if you take away people like the Sierra Club and environmental organizations, those areas would be full of condos and other development. Correct?

Michael – Well, California’s coast is 1100 miles long. Condos…you can get a lot of condos in every square mile. And I would say that a great percentage of America’s population would be living on the California coast if we developed the entire coastline with condos. And that’s simply not going to happen. There is not demand that is speculated by many Sustainable Development advocates…that are protecting it against a demand that doesn’t exist.

Pat – All right. Hold on a second Michael. We’ll take a break and be back. Boy, now who’s throwing up scare tactics Tom?! You’re saying that condos would be up and down the coast…and if it wasn’t for Sierra Club? To me that seems like a pretty good scare tactic. So keep sending your dollars in folks, because the Earth is coming to the end with evil man (and woman)! Back with more in just a moment.

------------- Break ---------------

Pat – Back we are with more of "55 Feedback". We’re on with Michael Shaw, the President of Freedom Advocates. You can go to the web site to learn more what we’re talking about… www.freedomadvocates.org. 845-2155 if you’d like to join in on this conversation. And we go down to Plainfield. Peter joins us. Hi Peter.

Peter – Good morning. I don’t know if your guest knows but Stevens Point is right at my locale here. (Pat – HmMmm.) And one of the newest departments at the University is this Global Environmental Management Department. GEM they call it. (Pat – HmMmm.) And it seems to me like one of the basic assumptions of all these movements and "Protect the Earth", and "Stop Development" groups is the assumption that the private landowner is going to crap up his site. And to me that’s just so counter-intuitive just in my day-to-day life and activities, private landowners that I meet are some of the fiercest protectors of their property and maintaining it and keeping care of it.

And where there are areas that it does seem like there are shenanigans going on are areas that are owned by the state, where land-use questions tend to be decided based on politics and whose got the power, and that kind of stuff. Whereas if you have a bunch of individual landowners it’s hard to control that group. And they all tend to work to improve their property, to keep it beautiful and not destroy it! But the assumption is just the opposite: if it’s in private hands, it’s going to be developed, it’s going to be trashed out. And to me, that is the most revealing part of the whole movement is their basic distrust and almost contempt for the private citizen.

Pat – What do you think Michael?

Michael – Well Peter’s got it exactly right. The dynamic with Sustainable Development/Agenda 21 is that all of society needs to be collectivized [centralized social and economic control]. George Washington said that, "Private property and freedom are inseparable." (Peter – Yes!) I remember being on your show a few years ago Pat, [Sarah] called in and said, "George Washington! Why he’s a dead old white man, and that idea is just simply out of date!" And clearly the sustainable developers use the environment to exploit that idea, that private property is a dead, old-fashioned idea that belonged in the days of George Washington, but doesn’t belong in society today.

And in Santa Cruz I can tell you – you talk about zoning – the Santa Cruz Mountains which is a redwood forest, the Board of Supervisors using zoning have said that, "Any owner with less than 40 acres cannot cut down a tree." Well, in our mountains the trees are growing so thick, that nothing grows on the ground, so all species are harmed, not just human beings trying to live there or earn a living by managing the forest. But deer can’t make it through the forest because the trees are too thick and the vegetation doesn’t grow on the forest floor because the sun can’t get through. And now small owners…these aren’t large owners…small owners of forestland are prohibited from cutting even a single tree. Now that’s not smart environmental movement!

Peter – I don’t know if the viewers or the listeners are aware, but there are many parts in Wisconsin [where] you had better get permission from the county forester to cut down specific trees. And it is mostly the small tracks of land, but that’s here, and…

Pat – Isn’t Peter, isn’t Marshfield like an "eco-city" now…or something like that? (Peter – Yes…) I think they voted that in like Madison, eco-city. And I don’t know all that’s involved in that, but it might mean certain restrictions on property owners to do things without checking in.

Peter – It’s interesting how they do it, because they develop all of these front organizations: "Concerned Citizens for _________". And if you look at the list of names on these "Concerned Citizens for This, That, and The Other Thing" – they’re all the same people. And they get state money for their little groups and stuff like that. Actually they represent a very small portion of the people, and if you look up addresses on these people a lot of them got their own little bit of paradise out in the country, in a super-large house living their dream, but heaven-forbid if someone buys the lot next door!

Pat – Right! Okay. I’ve got to get another caller into before the newsbreak. Let’s go to Hal on a cell phone. Hal.

Hal – Hi, good morning. (Pat – Hi.) It’s so easy to agree with parts of both sides, and I think everybody’s using scare tactics…the guest as well as both hosts. But there has to be some control. And if Rib Mountain’s not owned by the state, giving us benefits to all of us, I don’t think Pat you could possibly confess that that would be houses to the very top within 10 years. The ski hill would be gone because the land is much more valuable as a building site then it ever would be as a ski hill. And if we didn’t have some controls we’d run into that.

The major problem with privately owned forest in this state right now by a variety of censuses, ….having just gone through a program on woodland owners, is the breakup of the forest. The 100 acre forest is becoming 2 ½ 40’s, which is becoming 22 acre plots, and that is changing the environment totally. And you say, "Well, should there be controls or should there not be controls?" And I’m not familiar with areas where you’re not allowed to cut down the tree, unless it’s under a managed forest law? I guess I’m not familiar with that, but there may be areas with that as well. But there have to be some controls and some give and take on both sides. And I see both not willing to budge. And again, it’s only opinion – in California I haven’t seen some of the coast, that if that entire coastline was allowed for development, please don’t tell me there’s not enough money, or not enough incentive, or there’s not enough industry that would allow that to happen. It would happen in 25 years. That coast would be entirely bought up and would be housing in one form or another. Trees would come down, coast lines would erode,…whatever. I just don’t believe that.

Pat – I’ve gotta get a break in. We’ll let Michael respond (Hal – Okay. Thanks.) after that. Thanks Hal. And Michael, we will have your response to that coming up after our newsbreak [ ].

You’re listening to "55 Feedback". Your calls are invited.

----------- Newsbreak -------------

Pat – Welcome back here to "55 Feedback" with Tom King, Pat Snyder. We’re talking with Michael Shaw, who is the President of Freedom Advocates. His web site is www.freedomadvocates.org. We’ve been talking Sustainable Development and the whole situation with the Agenda 21. And we're going to learn more about that as we go. The lines are open at 845-2155. But first let’s let Michael respond here as Hal was at the end of the last segment half hour talking a little bit about compromise, as he saw things from both sides. And says that if "unfettered" (as Tom uses that word Michael), the California coast in 25 years would have nothing but condos and development along the 1100 mile stretch.

Michael – Of course there’s the Pacific Coast a lot longer than California. You’ve got all of Oregon and all of Washington. And then when you want to look at the Gulf Coast and the Atlantic Coast you’ve got thousands of more miles of condominiums. You could squeeze all the people in the world into condominiums that are lined up along coasts as is being described.

But the comment that struck me the most from Hal was the concept of scare tactics. I’ll read a couple of quotes from sustainable developers or the Sustainable Development documentation (Pat – Okay.) that I think will dispel our reaction to what’s happening through the United Nations, and through the Democrat and Republican parties in this country are anything but scare tactics.

When we stand up and begin to disclose to the American people about what it is this country’s really in the process of doing.

A man named Maurice Strong who’s a Canadian oil billionaire and was Secretary General at the UN Conference on the Environment and Development, which is known as the Rio Earth Summit where Agenda 21 was unveiled, said at the time that:

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class (that means average Americans) involving meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, appliances (meaning refrigeration), home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable."

Now if responding to a globalist movement that calls for the elimination of suburban housing as one example is a scare tactic, then there’s no purpose in having public discourse! And in fact if you really carry the philosophy of Sustainable Development through to its end, there will be no public discourse! It’ll be a world government that is based on public/private partnership economics. It is a world government the Sustainable Development program calls for a global population of 1 billion people. That’s a reduction of nearly 90% of today’s population levels. Now addressing those issues is not a scare tactic. One who wants to defend Sustainable Development policies by arguing that is one who’s simply trying to cover the muck up.

Tom – So in your view, you can’t even begin to see a scenario in our future where some of the ways we live today would not be sustainable. You won’t even admit that that’s a possible scenario? (Michael -- …some of the ways we live are not sustainable…) That they won’t be sustainable in the future…that we will have to change how we live on planet Earth? And the way we consume on planet Earth? (Pat – Haven’t we done that over the years Tom?) We certainly have! We have certainly made the planet much more livable than it was 40, 50, 60 years ago. (Pat –All right.) But some of the studies that have been done say if we don’t change the ways we consume, that there are going to be serious problems down the road. And he’s basically saying that that’s a scare tactic. That the Sustainable Development people are saying that…some of the things they’re saying are just trying to scare people. That it’s not going to happen. I’m just asking that he can’t see a scenario where it’s possible that the way we live our lives will have to drastically change in the future?

Michael – Well change is ongoing and is constant. But if you change the philosophy by which you live, if you order a society for the abolition of private property and for a world government and for substantially reduced human population levels, I say that’s a world of tyranny!

Pat – And that’s a scary world too: who lives, who dies, where you live, where you work, what building you have.

Michael – And that brings us right into "Smart Growth". (Pat – Right!) "Smart Growth" is the element for control of who and how people live.

Pat – All right. Let’s get another call in here. I think I’ve got Jim on the phone. Jim!

Jim – Yeah. We talk about scary things. What about the Supreme Court ruling last year when they said local governments could take somebody’s private property and use it for whatever. Turn it over to a developer. Tom’s worried about development. Well out on the East Coast or wherever it was they ruled on, they were taking a woman’s private home and going to put condos up. I didn’t think that…that’s scary!

Michael – Well they were going to take a woman’s home and give it to Pfizer [Pharmaceutical] Corporation, a public/private partner who’s involved in the kinds of medical conditioning that makes it easy to begin to reduce human population.

Jim – Anytime you want scary just let the government get involved. That’s scary!

Pat – I agree Jim! Yeah…they get involved, that’s right! All right, thanks Jim. That is a good point there.

Michael – For Tom’s consideration here there is certainly a role for government, and there’s a role for government in respect to the protection of the environment. The government has a role in protecting water quality. It has a role in protecting air quality. So if you go back to 40 years ago,

if I was living in Southern California growing up…our air quality was horrible! I didn’t drink water ‘cause what came out of the tap was just foul! That’s no longer the case. You go to Southern California today and you see things that I didn’t know existed because you can see so far. So the air quality’s improved and government has a role to make sure that the air’s not polluted, that the water’s not polluted, and that the property of another is not polluted.

But government does not have a role, and it is scary to think that they are assuming the role of taking private property, of abandoning the protections of the 5^th Amendment – that’s what the Kelo Decision the caller acknowledged a moment ago did. It really took away the 5^th Amendment protection for private property. That’s a scary reality!

Pat – Very scary and people don’t seem to take it as seriously as they should. I know they do in some cases but it quickly left the burners after a few weeks of attention by the media. Well let’s talk about "Smart Growth". What are some of the other names Michael that it goes under? …Comprehensive Planning. (Michael – Growth Control.) But they always lead us on to believe that they’re trying to help us so we don’t have…as Tom mentioned, the unfettered development or they always will throw in that we don’t want a hog development plant next to a residential area. They throw these scenarios in saying this is why there has got to be a plan.

Michael – I think we can start that discussion by saying that while government has a role in protecting the quality of the air and water, government may also have a role in certain broad- based zoning applications. In other words some land is going to be zoned for industrial, some land is going to be zoned for residential, some land is going to be zoned for commercial. It’s a problem when other peoples’ land is zoned for no economic use. We’re seeing that increasingly in California where landowners simply find that all they can do now is pay the tax! They can do nothing with their land! And that’s the problem.

The problem isn’t in say, "We’re going to put the industrial section over here, we’re going to put the residential section over there, we’re going to put agriculture in this area." So we get compatible neighboring uses. And the fact that parcels become smaller (in other words a 1000 acre forest is divided into two 500 acre forests) is really not so consequential. That’s simply allowing land-use to be participated in by a growing number of people. That’s a very American idea. And our consolidation of parcels, whether it’s for farming purposes or forestry purposes, is what is really hurting the American ideal. Because what we’re finding is that if you’re not Weyerhaueser, you don’t timber lumber. And we’re going to find a major international agriculture corporation controlling Wisconsin farmland.

Pat – Now can…for folks out there who don’t believe something like this could happen, as you mentioned parts of California, but also isn’t the state of Oregon a good case of…point of what happens when "Smart Growth" goes the wrong way?

Michael – Well I think Oregon has done a good job of fighting the Sustainable Movement. There have been ordinances (statewide propositions) that have passed heavily with citizen support. It has really harmed the Sustainable Movement greatly in that state. And the point of those statewide propositions has been for the protection of private property and its use. And without that America is no longer America. And Tom talks about the idea that change needs to happen. Well change happens! But the idea of going from a free society (predicated on the ideals of private property) to a controlled society (founded on the idea of public/private partnership for economics and a system of justice in the Sustainable Development justice system) is grimly transitioned from traditional American ideals of equal justice.

The justice system that emerges under Sustainable Development is called Social Justice. Of course you go to law school today and that’s what you’re going to learn, is social justice. Social justice means that we all live for purposes of the state. (Pat – Mmm. Yeah.) That’s a communist notion.

Tom – I would say that social justice also means that you live your lives in pursuit of the betterment of other peoples’ lives as well. Which is a good thing, isn’t it?

Michael – No. As soon as my life is dedicated to the benefit of you without my voluntary choice …in other words imposed by the law, we are living in a Communist Social system. (Tom – But there…) If you want to live your life for others, that’s fine.

Tom – There have always been laws regarding the use of property in this country as far as zoning, as far as…maybe not always, but for a long time. (Michael – Not always.) Not always, but for a long time. There have been rules regarding zoning, regarding eminent domain, regarding the taking of property for use for the betterment of the rest of the population of a particular area… whether it be for a highway, or a hospital, whatever the case may be (Pat – School.) correct? School…a park. So this is not something totally new. It’s been going on for years and years!

Michael – Well it is totally new in this sense Tom. The idea that the 5^th Amendment’s allowance for the exercise of eminent domain by the state for the pursuit of public purposes like the purposes you just identified…roads and schools…is something that has existed since the beginning of the country. But what happened last year as the caller acknowledged, in the Kelo decision was that the court now said, "Hey, if local government wants to make a partnership with a particular housing developer to build "Smart Growth" stack’em and pack’em government controlled units, then they can take your land and give it to their partner for the purpose of doing that.

Tom – And the majority of opinion on that was people rising up and revolting against that decision. (Pat -–Nothing has stopped it!) Well, they reversed the one decision, correct?

Michael – No, absolutely not! (Pat – No!) Kelo is the law of the land! Some states have eroded it. But think about this: if you’ve got to rely on your state government to protect your American ideals, then what is America’s government - national government doing?! America’s national government last year abandoned the key principle…again I’ll quote George Washington, "Private property and freedom are inseparable."

Pat – Wasn’t it a 5-4 decision?

Michael – It was a 5-4 decision, but 3 weeks before the Kelo decision an even more egregious property rights case, Lingle vs Chevron [Linda Lingle, Governor] out of Hawaii, was passed 9-0. And it really set the basis for the Kelo decision. Kelo got much more fanfare in the press. But all four of those justices who defended private property in the Kelo decision really pulled the rug out for private property in the Hawaiin Lingle vs Chevron decision. So our Supreme Court has taken us right to the ledge where the concept of private property, which is the basis for the American experience, is now flailing in the wind.

Pat – Mmm. Let’s get another call in here. Matthew joins us. Matthew.

Matthew – Hi, how are you? (Pat – Good.) Good. I just had to make a comment about Communism. It is Communism. After the end of Communism, the fall of Communism in 1989 – 1990 therein, the environmentalist movement had to take a new approach so they calmed down the environmental movement. And what they’ve done with it is brilliant! Patrick Moore who’s one of the cofounder of Green Peace after he left said they just kept taking more and more extreme routes to get their ultimate goal. We know what the goal is. We know the point to it. That’s why they did it. That’s why they took it, that’s why they’re using programs like "Smart Growth", and using the environmental movement to control people into the arms of Communism. And that’s how they’re pushing it. We’re being pushed at many different levels, but environmentalism is one of them because that controls the stewardship of private property thereof. That’s why it’s so important to control private property with stuff like "Smart Growth". We used to be stewards of the land and conservationalists, not environmentalists where you don’t touch the land, you just watch it grow. We’ve changed our ideology to that of not being conservationalists and yet we should be.

Pat – Okay Matthew, thank you for the call there. Coming back to the "Smart Growth" and things Michael when we talk about it, the one thing that’s scary which starts off is we lose local control from local elected officials to control zoning and they give up the rights as its controlled by regional or state. Now when you argue that point, the people for the state and the county say, "No, no…they’re always going to have control." Which side seems to be fibbing the most there?

Michael – Well, "Smart Growth"…you have to look at "Smart Growth" in the context of the other land-use program of Sustainable Development. The two programs -- one’s the Wildlands Project, and two is "Smart Growth". Now the Wildlands Project covers over half of America’s landscape. And the Wildlands Project calls for the elimination of all human influence and all human presence on that land. So what we end up with is half the land really off-limits to human beings and their use -- except maybe the use and enjoyment of the very narrow elite that really is standing behind the Sustainable Development/Agenda 21 Program.

Now the rest of the land is broken into catagories that include buffer zones. Very large percentage of the remaining land mass is a buffer zone to the wildland zones. And in the buffer zones things will be very heavily regulated by the consortium of globalist players, multi-national corporations and the like. Now where the people go are in these "Smart Growth" zones. I’ve always thought it was peculiar that in the state of Wisconsin, in central Wisconsin, it’s called "Smart Growth" areas. Now I really doubt that when the old game plays out that central Wisconsin will be a "Smart Growth" zone. "Smart Growth" are places like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco. The places where on these maps there are little black dots where all the people are to be congregated.

Pat – Is there a city right now Michael, a city in the world that the "Smart Growth" advocates or the Agenda 21 people think is, "Okay, this is the model city of the future." Would Tokyo be it?

Michael – Well, I think the idea more broadly is that all people will be stacked up in these cities that do not grow their land-mass. But that all development is to build to the sky in these very narrow zones called "Smart Growth". So sure Tokyo, New York, and San Francisco are on that pattern. But it’s one thing when the occupants of those cities are there because they want to be. Which is the traditional circumstance, at least here in America. (Pat – HmMmm.)

But the future circumstances that rural people will be pushed into these zones, and that all people will be forced to live there: they’ll be put on public transportation, their children will be taken at very early ages under government programs, and people will work for the common good helping their fellow man by working for government in their assigned role. And obviously the economics of this public/private partnership cannot begin to sustain a population around the world of 7 billion people. And that’s why the population will be reduced.

Pat – Now you see when we put a scenario like that what kind of a timetable are we looking at? Do you see this in the next 100 years if it’s unchecked? Because, ah, Tom’s in there shaking his head, he can’t believe it. He thinks (as Hal called earlier) it could be a scare tactic you’re throwing up.

Michael – Well, these aren’t my timetables, and it’s not my program. These are programs that can be read in their documents. The "Global Bio-Diversity Assessment Report", 1300 pages that came out of the same UN Conference as did the Agenda 21 document, calls for the elimination of private property and the reduction of human population to 1 billion people if we have an industrialized society. These are not my scare tactics. These are the realities of the world politic as its expressing itself.

Tom – How do the documents say that they’re going to accomplish those numbers?

Michael – They don’t. That’s why I don’t talk about the methodology for accomplishment. There are plenty of ways to accomplish it. Certainly the most disturbing one is that it would be accomplished through a series of wars. And I’ve given a lot of thought to the battles in the Middle East as being the precursor to broader wars that result in the elimination of mass numbers of people.

Pat – Let’s get one more call in before we have to close it out. Mike, good morning.

Mike – This seems to go along with the concerted effort in the state of Wisconsin by county and state governments to obtain the ownership of all riverfront and lakeside property within the state of Wisconsin, and all available timberland as it comes on the market. The state and counties keep buying it up and making it not available to be purchased by the public. (Michael – That’s right.) (Pat – That’s a good point Mike.)

Michael – [ ] …put it into the wildlands condition, off limits to human beings. That means the resource cannot be extracted for the use of the general public. And when we take half of the United States (where the resources are by the way), and say people cannot use those assets or access them, you can bet that if wars don’t get people, starvation and poverty will.

Pat – You think that’s not true, but you’re right with the different regulations Mike! Slowly but surely!

Mike – I’m sure of one thing. With the debt load that the state of Wisconsin has, we do not need to own any more state forest land or riverfront or lakefront property!

Pat – All right. Thanks for your call Mike. All right. Well, Michael, in wrapping up here what’s the message that you want to send out to the listeners. Of course, they can go to learn more to your web site, www.freedomadvocates.org, but what’s the last thing you want to leave folks with?

Michael – Well, I want to leave people with the idea that the politics of today, as messy as they are, are reconcilable once you understand what Sustainable Development is. And once you realize that both major political parties, even the minor parties in this country, are committed through their leadership to this globalist program. It leads to world government, and massively reduced human populations. It calls for the elimination in its own terms of the abolition of private property. If that sounds like Communism, well it is a communist legal system, but it is a Fascist economic system. And that’s the scariest dynamic ever exposed to the human race. And that’s why we need to understand what we’re fighting, because if we don’t understand it, we’re not going to win.

Right now the cards are stacked against us, they’ve got huge progress across this country and within our political institutions for making this globalist system of (I call it Fascist Communism) come to pass. Understanding it, and working at the local level…their program is a global to local fight. We need to understand the global nature so that we can see the local implications, and then begin to fight back on the local level so that we can have a national impact.

Pat – All right. Michael thanks for your time, and good luck to your daughter out there singing there at Carnegie Hall. (Michael – Well thank you Pat.) All right, take care. We’ll talk to you soon. (Michael – Great.) Bye. (Michael -- Bye.) All right, Michael Shaw. That’s today’s edition of "Feedback". News is next.

--------------- End of Program -------------

In cooperation with WSAU News Radio, this radio program and transcript were produced and provided by VFF21 -- Veterans and Friends for Freedom 21. © VFF21 - All Rights Reserved. Additional copies of the transcript are available at TakeBackWisconsin.info, and by e-mail at revereradio@vff21.info.

WSAU Information

WSAU News Radio (AM 550) Phone: 715.842.1672 or Call-in to 715.845.2155
557 Scott St. Fax: 715.848.3158
P.O. Box 5595 E-mail: wsau@wsau.com

Wausau, WI 54403, USA Web Site: www.wsau.com

Michael is the President of Freedom Advocates, an organization dedicated to the Constitutional administration of government, private property, personal and family autonomy, and the defense of the nation. As an entrepreneur and abundance ecologist he sat on the Santa Cruz Local UN Agenda 21 Committee in the mid-nineties, and now explains how Sustainable Development/ Agenda 21 is being used to eliminate private property and destroy the freedoms that private property supports. He provides general information, theory, and a basis for hope via action. See www.Freedomadvocates.org.

Having a B.A. and Political Science, J.D., C.P.A., Mr. Shaw is co-owner of a multi-location California Self Storage Company and proprietor of Liberty Garden, a 75-acre coastal oasis, acknowledged on the cover of an international environmental science journal for its breakthrough creation of a native plant wonderland. The purpose of Liberty Garden is to show, through example, how private property provides for better stewardship of the earth than does government control. See www.libertygarden.com.

mshaw@libertygarden.com