Our Land - Collateral for the National Debt to the World Conservation Bank
Quote:OUR LAND - COLLATERAL FOR THE NATIONAL DEBT
August 17, 2007
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 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 around 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 naïve. 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 Bushes’ 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 Secy. of Ag. Bruce Knight, speaking at the World Pork Expo in Des Moines, 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. Property rights are protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.
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 than 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 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 describers 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 of 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.
Another related article that details the securing of this collateral via nature reserves. I had heard that Brazil has put up the entire Amazon basin as collateral for it's loans.
Quote:Collatralizing Our National Debt
Senator Doug Whitsett
April 17, 2009
The United States has become a debtor nation. Our federal government now owes more than $10 trillion in national debt, or about $35,000 for every man woman and child now living in this country. That money has been borrowed from other nations and from huge private banking consortiums.
Like others who lend money, these nations and banking entities expect more than just a promise to repay the debt. They expect something to be offered as security to make good on the debt in case of default. For instance, the lenders who extend a home equity loan require a mortgage on the title to the home as collateral. If the borrower defaults on the loan, the lender is able to foreclose on that property and sell the home to recover the amount of money that was lent. Likewise, when someone finances the purchase of an automobile, the lender holds the title to the vehicle until the loan is paid in full. If the buyer fails to make timely payments on the debt, the lender is able to repossess and sell the vehicle to recover the amount of money lent.
Just like all lenders, the nations and banking entities extending credit to the United States expect such debt to be securitized by collateral. Nevada rancher and economist Wayne Hage postulated in his 1989 book Storm Over Rangelands that our creditors expect collateral in the form of an implicit mortgage on the land owned by the United States government. Mr. Hage suggested that the near exponential growth in lands being set aside for environmental preservation had more to do with providing collateral for our lenders than with preserving the environment for our posterity.
The federal estate is worth many trillions of dollars. This enormous wealth is primarily comprised of timber, mineral deposits, coal deposits, and vast natural gas and oil resources. Those nations and banking entities that have loaned the United States trillions of dollars consider these gigantic reserves the collateral that secures their loans. They want these resources, their collateral, preserved until the loans are repaid. The direct result is that our government continues to exclude more and more of our vast natural resource wealth from development in direct proportion to the growth of our national debt.
Over the past three decades, our government has excluded areas from development that contain much of our natural resource wealth. A few salient examples come to mind. The Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge that holds billions of barrels of easily recoverable oil and huge quantities of natural gas is banned from development. The Staircase Escalante National Monument that holds one of the world’s largest coal deposits is excluded from mining. The Green River Basin that holds more oil in its oil shale deposits than mankind has ever used is banned by presidential order from exploration and development. The vast Bakken formation in Montana and the Dakotas also holds more known recoverable oil resources than man kind has ever used and is also off limits. United States companies are forbidden from exploring and developing known oil and gas resources on our outer continental shelf. Even though the United States is often characterized as the Saudi Arabia of natural gas reserves, much of that wealth is locked up as well. Have we ever wondered why we annually purchase $700 billion in fossil fuels from other nations at the same time that our own nation possesses some of the world’s greatest fossil fuel resources?
Moreover, our government has designated more than 100 million acres of publicly owned land as wilderness reserves. To put that amount of wilderness acreage into perspective, it is more than 150 thousand square miles, an area half again larger than the entire land mass of Oregon. As we all know, wilderness reserves are excluded from development and from natural resource harvest of any kind.
Of course, national parks, national monuments, national heritage areas, road-less national forest areas, marine reserves, and many other exclusions are in addition to the wilderness reserves. In fact, the total area officially excluded from development and natural resource harvest is about the size of Texas.
The rate of acquisition of private lands by the federal government has also increased dramatically in recent years. The most usual method is for non-government conservation organizations to purchase the “last great places” with the stated intent of preserving them for future generations. After ownership is transferred to the conservation organization, it is usually sold to the federal government for a handsome profit. These profits are then used by the conservation organization to purchase more “last great places” for future sale to the government. The insidious process is self perpetuating and is extinguishing private property ownership at ever increasing and more alarming rates.
The conservation easement is a similar and equally effective means of extinguishing ownership of private property. Property ownership has been characterized as owning a bundle of sticks where each stick represents a portion of that total ownership right. In this analogy, individual sticks could represent ownership rights such as easements, mineral rights, water rights, or the right to develop the property. A conservation easement represents the sale of one or more of this bundle of rights to another owner while the property owner retains the remainder of the bundle of rights. Generally, a conservation organization purchases a conservation easement for the purpose of conserving the property by preventing the use of the rights purchased. The property is conserved in order to keep the property from being substantially altered, or to prevent the change of use of the property. In many cases, the end result is that the requirements of the conservation easement cause the property to become an uneconomic unit for the original owner. When that reality becomes apparent, the only viable purchaser may be the conservation organization that purchased and holds the conservation easement. Once that conservation organization purchases the property distressed by the conservation easement, it usually becomes available for sale to the federal government. This is also an insidious, self perpetuating process that insures the acceleration of the transfer of private property to the federal government to build the value of the federal estate.
On March 30, President Obama added another two million acres, another area about half the size of Klamath County, to the wilderness reserves when he signed the Omnibus Public Lands Act. He said “This legislation guarantees that we will not take our forests, oceans, rivers, national parks, monuments and wilderness areas for granted, but rather we will set them aside and guard their sanctity for everyone to share.”
President Obama’s administration has been borrowing money at previously unheard of rates. The direct result is that our national debt, and the requirement for collateral to secure that debt, has been growing at an unprecedented rate as well. Would it have been more appropriate for the President to have told the people the whole truth? Is the real truth that our creditors required further guarantee that their collateral is sufficient and safe? Do our creditors require further guarantee that this nation will not use the natural resources that secure the debt until the debt is paid?
The question that begs asking is, how will this nation ever repay its debts, when it is excluded from using its natural resources to create the wealth required to repay the debt?
Supplemental map detailing some of the nature reserves and heritage sites throughout the world.
UNESCO World Heritage List
Let me know if anyone finds anything more complete or a listing of properties repossessed or put up as collateral from IMF / World Bank / BIS loans.
There are no others, there is only us.