| Main Menu
|
|
Shortage Ecology
"Sustainable Development" is the current buzz term that represents the effort to collectivize property in America by controlling and limiting human action. Sustainable Development is a synonym for "shortage ecology" and is embodied in the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which is the foundation of the land use element of Sustainable Development.ESA is predicated on international treaties and is rooted in the Precautionary Principle, which abandons the legal standard that presumes innocence. Since ESA puts the government in control of plants, the ideals of private property are destroyed, natural resource shortages arise, and natural calamities -- such as devastating forest fires -- increase.
|
Sustainable Trouble: The attempt to transform the vision of America
The political targets of Sustainable Development include the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence. The economic target is free enterprise and the ideals of private property. Justice becomes a fatality of this new order.
 Read more... Written by Michael Shaw |
|
The Nature Conservancy - a Major Threat to Liberty
The Nature Conservancy is a beneficiary of a public/private partnership - the remake of the American economic system. As inside players in the Sustainable Development scam, the Nature Conservancy has harmed many lives. Pulic private partnerships scheme to implement the Wildlands Project in order to take global corporate control of land and resources.
Read more... Written by Michael Shaw |
|
|
|
|
Now showing!
Shaw v Santa Cruz County: Shaw Appeals
Disincentives preclude innovation
“Because of the Endangered Species Act—what developer or land owner would want to purchase or own the land and do what we are doing? Disincentives preclude innovation. It is no wonder that no one else is following this common sense formulation for success: Pull the weeds and manage the plants and the hydrology.”
- Michael Shaw
Liberty Garden takes on confiscatory court ruling
“Twenty-five years ago, the Court posited that a regulation of private property ‘effects a taking if [it] does not substantially advance [a] legitimate state interes[t]... Today we correct course. We hold that the ‘substantially advances’ formula is not a valid takings test, and indeed conclude that it has no proper place in our takings jurisprudence.”
-Ron Zumbrun
Read more>
Login
|
