Archive | Land Issues RSS feed for this section
August 3, 2012

Steven Boyd and Karen Bursey are the latest victims of Bureaucrat’s Rule #1


Anyone hanging out here for any length of time will already be familiar with Bureaucrat’s Rule #1, but for the benefit of any newcomers, here it is in all its repulsive glory:

Bureaucrat’s Rule #1:  The Rules are More Important than People

As you can see, it’s quite a simple rule and it is gleefully used the world over by tyrannical bureaucrats who love nothing more than crushing mere citizens under the weight of their ever-more-oppressive rules.

Steven Boyd and Karen Bursey bought some property in Conception Bay South, Newfoundland.  They proceeded to build their dream home and things were going fine until they discovered they had violated one of Conception Bay South’s many rules about how you can build on your own land.

The town bylaw says the home must be 1.5 metres from the property line.  They had an exemption of up to 1.35 metres by the town council.  Their home is 1.26 metres from that property line.

The problem was discovered after the foundation was poured, and was compounded by the shape of their property, located in a cul de sac.  The property lines are curved, not straight.

As other commentators have said, that’s about the length of a single poker card.

Hardly seems worth forcing someone to tear down their home, does it?

Mindless automaton of the State: Conception Bay South Mayor Woodrow French

Only if you’re a mindless automaton of the State whose life purpose is living by Bureaucrat’s Rule #1.  In this case the mindless automaton of the State has a name: Conception Bay South Mayor Woodrow French.

It’s not about an inch, it’s not about two inches, it’s not about four inches, seven inches,” French said.

It’s about the policies of the town and where buildings have to be located within the town.”

“We have rules and regulations in place, and everybody has to follow those rules and regulations,” French said.

Ah yes… The Rules are More Important than People.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

August 2, 2012

Western Wheat Farmers finally get a taste of freedom from the oppression of the Canadian Wheat Board

Can you imagine starting a business, creating a product and then being sent to jail for the “crime” of selling that product to whoever you wanted?  This sounds absurd, doesn’t it?  Of course, yet this was the reality for farmers in Western Canada for the past 70 years.

The Canadian Wheat Board made it a crime for a farmer to sell the fruits of his labour, namely the wheat he grew on his own land, to anyone but the Wheat Board.  What’s even more grotesque is that this law applied ONLY to farmers west of the Ontario/Manitoba border.  If you farmed in Ontario or Quebec, for example, you could sell your wheat to anyone you wanted.

By any standard imaginable, this is wrong, yet the Wheat Board fought long and hard to keep their monopoly on the fruits of Western labour in place.

Here is a brief explanation of the problem and the hypocrisy of the system, written by

Freedom is not something that should differ from one province to the next.  When it comes to wheat and barley it differs vastly.  

Eastern farmers, millers and bakers can buy, sell, trade and export to whomever they please.

Western farmers, millers and bakers are imprisoned by the Federal Government, the Canadian Wheat Board and their bureaucrats.

The difference is not in legislation, but in policy.

The Canadian Wheat Board Act includes all of Canada.  The difference is in the way it operates.  When an Eastern farmer or processor wants to buy, sell, trade or export, they simply call 1-800-ASK-4CWB and are immediately granted approval.  In some cases our Eastern colleagues do not even apply, but simply but, sell, trade or export to whomever, however, and wherever they see fit, without so much as a call tot he bureaucratic nightmare we call the Canadian Wheat Board.

When a Western farmer tries to carry out the same transaction, they are told that they must sell it to the Canadian Wheat Board.  If you do not follow this demand you will be charged and jailed like twenty plus Western farmers already have.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 21, 2012

Alabama vs Agenda 21 and the United Nations. Alabama (and Liberty) Wins!


“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 interest of the society as a whole.”

–Agenda 21

In a move that sent shivers of delight through every Freedom-loving man and woman in North America, both houses of  the Alabama State Legislature unanimously passed Senate Bill 477 (SB 477) and sent a very clear message to the United Nations and anyone who supports it.

Don’t Tread On Alabama!

Here is the critical wording of SB 477:

“The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21.’ ”


That’s what leadership looks like.   A decisive decision followed by decisive action.

United Nations go away.

Don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

April 30, 2012

How Some Sucker Stole the Water


The Christopher di Armani-produced Rights and Freedoms Bulletin of April 28, 2012 carried a frustrating article about the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) declaring war on British Columbia’s Fraser Valley farmers.

The ditches the farmers dug to drain their land have been designated “fish habitat”.

The heavy-handed, gun-toting, jackboot boys told the farmers they can no longer clean their ditches or farm within 30 metres of the ditches, regardless that no fish will ever inhabit the drainage channels.

If farmers are forbidden from dredging their ditches, their properties will flood, thus raising the water table and greatly encumbering their ability to graze cattle and grow crops that feed their families, neighbours and communities which are inhabited by those jackboot bureaucrats.

Further, Fisheries decided it would take control over any bridges and other crossings and has demanded that farmers plant trees along the banks so the bureaucrats can declare the land unfarmable when the work is finished.

The land guardians have no way to appeal Fisheries’ overzealous application of the federal Fisheries Act which has been a thorn in the side of every land-user in Canada for the last eon.

“The DFO is taking this land from these farmers without any concern about their livelihoods or understanding about agriculture,” said Jordan Bateman, Canadian Taxpayers Federation’s British Columbia Director, whose organization stepped up to the plate to give assistance.

“Why are we spending thousands or millions of dollars to employ Fisheries and Oceans bureaucrats to persecute in-land farmers?”

Good question. (more…)

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

April 25, 2012

Mining Study Cuts to the Core


(Originally published in the Yukon News, March 20, 2000)

Dutch Van Tassell Photo, 2009

“When you push somebody far enough, they will stand up and fight. If they don’t fight for their rights, then they are done for. They are slaves.”
— Jim McFaull (1952 to 2012) —


Private property ownership is the cornerstone of any free society. The land issues the late Jim McFaull held insightfully under study and discussion for many years help serve as more examples of how the United Nations’ Agenda 21 is working stealthily under the radar in tandem with federal, provincial, state and community governments to transfer all privately-owned property into public domain that will ultimately be placed under control of a one-world government. Ironically, he faced much opposition from his mining colleagues who don’t know or care that they have rights and are not going to fight for them. They just want to work under a “fashionable” Agenda 21 phrase:”Go along to get along”. JG


A blizzard of conflicting legislation and regulations blanketing this territory has eroded the miner’s rights to enter, locate, prospect and mine a claim, says a study released on February 28, 2000.

Report on the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and its Regulatory Regime’s Impact on the Free Entry System of Mining Law delivers what the title promises. (download PDF)

Author Jim McFaull has tackled the complex legal issue head-on. But the 50-page document is far from dry stuff.

McFaull is an accomplished writer and communicator. He has stitched the story together with simple language and an easy style so the layman can comprehend the text. (more…)

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

April 10, 2012

Property Owners Are An Endangered Species


The delegates who heard about the Wildlands Project during a 1998 Alaska Miners Conference may have naively thought the plot too outrageously unrealistic to pay heed to at the relevant time.

A reprint of Kathleen Benedetto’s paper in the July/August 1998 Mining Voice warned that the ranting of a handful of radical activists really was a must to be taken seriously.

The plan was being endorsed by environmental heavyweights and over 35 organizations, including the United Nations-approved Sierra Club and The Nature Conservancy.

They were lined up at the trough with their wonky ideas funded by wealthy, U.S.-based grant foundations such as Patagonia, Pew Charitable Trusts, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Lynhurst Foundation, W Alton Jones Foundation and the Ted Turner Foundation.

Before the Internet Revolution, Turner Communications controlled the flow of the former mainstream media information that served to warp the minds of the masses.

The main tool behind the principles of the Wildlands Project, founded circa 1991, is the U.S. Endangered Species Act. It is not sufficient for Wildlanders to preserve what is remaining of roadless, undeveloped land. They want to re-create large swaths of wilderness by dismantling roads and dams, which, by the United Nations’ Agenda 21 standards, are not “sustainable”.

Through regulatory takings of privately-owned land, they want to reclaim plowed farmland, ranches, grazing leases and clear-cuts. Their plans cover reintroducing extinct species while disposing of some human population which Wildlanders view as a disgusting scourge to the planet.

If Wildlanders sound like a bunch of lunatics escaped from an insane asylum, then so is former U.S. Democrat vice-president Al Gore, who just about won the presidential bid in 2000. He and Wildlanders are cut from the same cloth. (more…)

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

April 7, 2012

‘Land-Use Planning’ Means Driving People from the Land


Under the United Nations’ Agenda 21Agenda for the 21st Century–the main thrust is to return all privately-owned property back to public domain. As with the Marxist doctrine, Agenda 21 doesn’t recognize privately-owned property because it is the cornerstone of all free societies.

America’s 50 states are being carved into 12 land-planning regions in anticipation of the forthcoming North American Union of which Canada and Mexico are part of the “three amigo partnership”.

“Partnership” is a keyword that denotes Agenda 21.

Canada is under regional land-planning concepts that link one province’s land to another under the guise of environmentalism.

One of the latest land-planning fiascos is Alberta’s Land Stewardship Act which was drafted and passed behind closed doors by Premier Ed Stelmach’s Conservative cabinet.

“Stewardship” is the keyword that indicates the Land Stewardship Act is a product of the UN’s Agenda 21. Also, under Agenda 21, “meat-eating” is not considered “sustainable” which translates into the elimination of all livestock raised for food consumption.

Unbelievably, the proposed legislation was never brought to the floor of the Alberta legislature for debate. Therefore, opposition members, press, general public, lawyers and, most importantly, landowner associations’ members and their executive directors, who never miss a trick, knew nothing about this land-grabbing Land Stewardship Act for a year.

For good reason, Albertans were in an uproar over this draconian law that dictates exactly what landowners can and cannot do with their land. If the fines and fees don’t do them in, the clincher is that regulators can expropriate land without compensation and the landowners are not allowed legal redress to defend themselves with due process before a court of law.

Alison Redford, a lawyer well-steeped in the United Nations doctrine, no doubt was elected to replace Ed Stelmach as leader of the Progressive Conservative Association in October 2011 because of a promise to rescind the Land Stewardship Act.

As the interim premier, she dispatched a dog-and-pony show to go around the province consulting with angry and frightened Albertans who had plenty to say.

“Public consultation” is another meaningless catch-all phrase that comes from the UN’s Agenda 21. It is cleverly designed to look like people are given a chance to provide input when in fact they are not. The decision is predetermined. (more…)

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 13, 2012

Withdraw from the UN’s Agenda 21. It’s easy. Just follow the lead of College Station, Texas.


Jane Gaffin wrote a great article about the United Nations’ Agenda 21 the other day titled Everybody Has Heard of Agenda 21; Most Just Don’t Know It.  After reading that I stumbled upon an article about a city in Texas named College Station.  This Texas city had withdrawn from Agenda 21, the program created at the UN’s 1992 Earth Summit on climate change held in Rio de Janeiro.

Specifically, College Station, Texas, was opting out of International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), a group that promotes what it calls “Local Governments for Sustainability” by enforcing “sustainability, climate protection, and clean energy goals” on its member communities.

City Councilman Jess Fields explains why College Station decided to cancel their ICLEI / Agenda 21 membership.

At last Thursday’s council meeting, I proposed to the council to withdraw College Station’s membership in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) – an international organization founded in 1990 by the United Nations. Our city has been paying somewhere north of $1,000 to be a member of this organization, yet it is not to be found anywhere within the budget. Few have ever heard of ICLEI, and fewer still know that College Station has actually been a member since 2009.

I am truly excited to announce that the proposed 2013 College Station budget will not include funding for this organization. It is an insidious, extreme institution that does not represent our citizens, and for our taxpayers to continue to fund it would be ridiculous.

I applaud our management staff for their thoughtful decision to agree to withdraw from ICLEI in the next budgetary year. In particular, I’d like to thank Jason Stuebe, Assistant to the City Manager, for his extraordinarily thorough research into this and many other topics. Our staff has made the right decision here.

I also want to thank a citizen, Mary Oliver, for her steadfast efforts to bring this issue to my attention over the past couple of years. Without her interest in the subject this might not have been possible. College Station is blessed to have citizens like her who care about what goes on with their local government.

For those who think a single person can’t make a difference, I give you Mary Oliver of College Station, Texas.  I also congratulate her for her tenacity to see her city remove itself from ICLEI and Agenda 21.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 12, 2012

Bill 36: Stripping Property Rights from Albertans


Alison Redford’s so-called conservative government’s decision to implement Bill C-36, The Land Stewardship Act, which effectively gives control of all land in Alberta to the provincial government, is a death blow to property rights in Alberta. Under this law, government bureaucrats will now dictate to land owners what they can and cannot do on their own land.

If this sounds obscene to you, then you’d best hang on tight, because it gets worse.  Much worse.  But first, a little background.

Bill 36, The Land Stewardship Act, was initially brought forward by former Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach’s government.  It caused a lot of outrage among farmers and oil patch workers, and with good reason.  The Bill allowed government bureaucrats the ability to rescind water licenses, feed lot approvals, oil patch licenses, and much more, without the ability for the land owner to challenge the decision in court or be paid compensation for the loss of use of their land.

This is the sort of abuse I would expect to see in Soviet Russia, not in the province that most Canadians view as the lone province that still defends Freedom and Liberty in Canada.  Of course that perception is not true and hasn’t been for decades, but it still persists despite all proof to the contrary such as that embodied in Bill 36, The Land Stewardship Act.

When Alison Redford took over as leader of Alberta’s Progressive Conservative Party and with it, the office of Premier of Alberta, the very first thing she did was stop Bill 36 dead in its tracks.  That was a good sign that the new but unelected Premier of Alberta was going to respect the rights of Albertans.

That good sign was, however, very short-lived.

While Premier Redford did create a Property Rights Task Force that traveled the province to garner feedback on the proposed bill, she has promptly ignored everything the Task Force told her in the report and will now move Bill 36 forward unchanged.

Redford obviously has a very different definition of “democracy” than I do.  Her definition would appear to read as follows:

Democracy according to Alison Redford: the right of the Premier of Alberta to follow the dictates of unelected career bureaucrats and their anti-freedom agenda while utterly ignoring the will of the people and their Rights while trampling their Freedoms and Liberty into dust.



If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 11, 2012

Everybody Has Heard of Agenda 21; Most Just Don’t Know It


I can ask people if they have heard of Agenda 21. The inevitable answer is “no”. The response to my short explanation is either met with disdainful silence or with a “you don’t know what you’re talking about” retort. If I ask the same people the same question 30 days later they still say “no” they haven’t heard of Agenda 21. Obviously, my explanation didn’t register with them.

On the contrary, my audience has heard of Agenda 21. Everybody has heard of it. They just don’t know it because the term has seldom if ever appeared in the major media outlets in the 20 years since the project materialized at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil during a United Nations Earth Summit Conference in June, 1992.

Anybody who has heard the shop-worn terms and guilt-ridden phrases from the random collection below used in their communities, counties, provinces, territories, states, countries has heard of Agenda 21:

  1. Sustainable Development
  2. Sustainable America
  3. President’s Council on Sustainable America
  4. White House Rural Council
  5. Land councils
  6. Sustainable Development Initiatives
  7. Environmental Initiatives
  8. Community Initiatives
  9. Sustainability
  10. Unsustainable
  11. Stewardship
  12. Partnership
  13. Stakeholder
  14. Smart Growth
  15. Environmental (this or that) (more…)

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

Go To Top
Get Adobe Flash player