Kenneth Warning is a lifelong resident of Le Sueur County.
Tina King moved into the county in 2020.

Kenneth Warning is for limiting government regulatory intrusion on private property. Tina King is on the county planning and zoning board and stated “serving on the commission has provided me a greater insight into land use decisions and how government decisions shape the lives and character of our county.” – From her campaign website. (Emphasis added.)

Kenneth Warning believes in limited government involvement at the local level. Tina King has stated that she will join forces with the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC), an NGO that lobbies state legislators. – Southern Minnesota News, August 6, 2026

Concern with the county being heavily reliant on programs approved by AMC and NACO, is about lessening the sovereign, independent, authority of the county, its cities, and townships, when signing onto government programs. These arrangements demand consent to stipulations and funding that must be met, rendering the county subservient to state and federal controls. When you give your decision making power to another entity, you are the useful rubber-stamp-puppet. This also increases expenditures passed on to the taxpayers.

Most government programs are connected to grant funding and have a prerequisite requirement that the entity have a comprehensive plan in place. These comprehensive plans require an expensive “study” before being approved. Each additional program for which a grant is applied for, may also require an expensive study. All of the money spent on studies for subsequent projects adds up with nothing concrete having been accomplished.

A relevant example of this is from a statement by Tina King at the July 8, 2024, Elysian City Council Meeting, where she expressed disappointment that the city was not putting more dollars and effort into the FEMA sponsored Upper Cannon River Watershed Flood Risk Reduction Study. As president of the Lake Francis Association, she cited that it was a great opportunity to have an assessment done for issues that affect Lake Francis: rising water levels contributing to shoreline erosion, diminished water quality, and no wake zones that impacted the community. She included a report however, where the DNR attributed theproblem to the City of Elysian’s storm water and watershed causing the lake to rise, in addition to natural springs.

The original focus of a flood study was for the City of Waterville, then later expanded to encompass all of the Cannon River Watershed, including Lake Francis. This study alone cost $400k; $300k came from a federal grant (taxes), with a county match of $100k (more taxes). The study is ongoing and when finally complete, it will not have accomplished anything more than identifying potential recommendations, yet the study is a strict requirement if any
additional grants are to be secured as a solution to the flooding of Waterville. Expressing a desire for this study to aid Lake Francis appears to be misdirected, as the DNR has pointed out it is the city of Elysian’s storm water and watershed runoff that are a huge factor in the rising Lake Francis water level. Water quality is then affected as phosphorus and nitrates add to the growth of algae and lake weeds.

At a January 30, 2025, Comprehensive Plan Open Forum, Tina King led the discussion at her table and stated clearly that her concern was focusing on the water quality of the lakes. Being she is President of the Lake Francis Association, owns a shoreline clean-up business, and has focused on expensive FEMA sponsored watershed studies as remedies for Lake Francis, it would benefit all of District #5 if the elected commissioner would not have such a focused interest in a singular cause.

We recommend that you vote for Kenneth (Butch) Warning. He is willing to represent you and protect our county from undesired change executed by outsiders, at our expense.

This is an independent expenditure prepared and paid for by We Are The Taxpayer, PO Box #62, Le Center, MN 56057.

It is not coordinated with, or approved by any candidate, nor is any candidate responsible for it.

Travis Bowman opposes data centers anywhere in Le Sueur County.
David Preisler would welcome data centers in industrial parks.

Travis Bowman believes county regulations and the permit fees are too high.
David Preisler does not see a problem with them.

Travis Bowman sees county government as too big and salaries too high.
David Preisler did a comparison of county staff per department and salaries with other counties when he was first seated as a commissioner in 2023. Staff and salaries have grown each year since. The county administrator’s salary is roughly 25-30% above the state median, placing Le Sueur County the 6th highest in the State, after Hennepin, Dakota, Washington, Olmstead, and Ramsey.

The bottom line difference between the two candidates is that Travis Bowman’s ideology follows along the lines of the majority of Le Sueur County citizens. He is of a conservative mindset in spending and preserving the current make-up of our communities. David Preisler follows the habit of big spending and advocates for change in our communities.

Travis Bowman does not have the experience in governance that David Preisler has, and that is precisely why we favor Travis for the role of county commissioner. David Preisler has been tied to big government for a very long time, his connections reach beyond the best interests of Le Sueur County, and his role as a lobbyists brings potential change into the county that should be reserved for larger, more congested communities, not the connected neighborly atmosphere that the citizens of the county enjoy and wish to preserve. Bigger is not always better.

From David Preisler’s campaign ad:

It was at this time the citizens of Le Center were convinced to combine their middle school and
high school with Montgomery and Lonsdale, and lost activities that drew people into town. The
progressive mindset was not a blessing to businesses of Le Center. The current board of
commissioners is now advocating for economic development growth to revitalize the city.
Also from his campaign ad:

The recent Comprehensive Land Use Plan the commissioners adopted in June of 2026, proclaims that agricultural property taxes do not generate a sufficient tax base as compared to residential land. The ordinance that allows rural single family residences and rural residential subdivisions is now being relaxed to permit increased building in agricultural districts for the explicit purpose of increasing the property tax base.

Both incidences above show a clear pattern of creating a problem or need, then creating support for a remedy of the situation that needs fixing. The newly adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan also projects increased population growth in Le Sueur County. Think about that. The population will not grow by natural means. It can only happen by immigrating people into the county. We support immigrants that will integrate and contribute to the functionality of our communities, yet that is not what we see happening in counties around us. We saw in our city of Le Sueur this past winter, a celebration to welcome new immigrant neighbors (with a request to bring food donations). Now we learn of an “affordable housing” grant awarded to the city and we hear of a proposed “Family Resource Center” where all social welfare services can be applied for and obtained under one roof right in the city of Le Sueur (there will be one in Montgomery also), eliminating the need for poverty stricken persons to travel to Le Center where the services are already available at the Government Center. This would triplicate services currently provided. What will this added cost be? David Preisler has stated that he is not opposed to these “Family Resource Center.” We must ask what is in store for the transformation of our communities.

David Preisler holds several active roles within the NGO, Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC): Vice Chair of Environment & Natural Resources Policy Committee; on the task force for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); and an AMC Delegate from our County.

The service of county commissioner is labeled as a non-partisan position, yet you can rely on the fact that everyone sitting on that board has a political bias. It is our conviction that David Preisler has a political ideology contrary to that of the majority of residents in the county. Big Government connections of local officials are not always in the best interest of the citizens. From a constitutional standpoint, legal lines are very possibly being crossed.

It is with these many concerns that we’ll opt for an unexperienced person with an honest, conservative conviction, to represent us on the board of county commissioners, over a political lobbyists with progressive motivations. Travis Bowman has proclaimed his willingness to serve in this capacity. It is time to take a break from increased government rules over us and the continual raising of our taxes for programs we neither need nor want.

We recommend that you vote for Travis Bowman.

This is an independent expenditure prepared and paid for by We Are The Taxpayer, PO Box #62, Le Center, MN 56057.

It is not coordinated with, or approved by any candidate, nor is any candidate responsible for it.

Both Jim Reeder and Danny O’Keefe:

• Are lifelong citizens of Le Sueur County.
• Are successful businessmen in Le Sueur County.
• Entertain the acceptability of data centers in Le Sueur County.

There are many critiques about Danny O’Keefe’s past service that we do not support. However, realizing that all County Commissioners in the State of Minnesota are subject to the pressures of the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC), we have no reason to believe that Jim Reeder will vote differently after they send him to the very same training (brainwashing), that all new commissioners are required to attend, and place pressure on him to be their “rubber stamp” as well.

Unless the candidate is well informed on the universal agendas taking place in counties all across the United States, they are very likely to accept the program of county governance being taught in the propaganda loaded courses at the AMC training. Even then, it will take a person of strong character to vote his or her conscience and uphold the rights of the constituents that voted them in, taking a stand against the demands of the AMC, the other Commissioners, the County Administrator, and the Assistant County Administrator/Planning and Zoning Administrator/Environmental Resources Director. The pressure to “abide by the rules” will always be present.

The major ‘red flag’ on Jim Reeder comes from his campaign ads which use the wording “Rural Strong” and “Future Ready.”

While we do not know if he intentionally used these words as code for people that would understand their deeper meaning or not, we know of programs under these titles with deeper meaning for each. In light of the fact that these may be referring to programs that we cannot support, we are leaning toward the side of extreme caution and have given our support to Danny O’Keefe.

It is our responsibility to discern what is being presented to us in order to protect children from indoctrination, and our taxes from being used for programs based on prejudice. We encourage you to do your own research and judge for yourself on whether there is a connection with these phrases, and then to vote your conscience as you see fit. We are fortunate to have the right to speak our concerns in public and are taking this opportunity to do so.

Concerns with “Rural Strong” come from this website: ruralstrong.us and specifically the following words on the site:

“For over 35 years, Teresa Purcell has been unafraid to take on what others deem impossible to build a democracy, government and economy that works for all of us. Renowned for working to build power for women, rural and BIPOC voices across the nation, Teresa has worked in 38 states championing innovative strategies, communications, mobilization, data and capacity building tools. She pioneered the use of data analytics in vote-by-mail programs, …”

Today, significant representation gaps remain.

As of 2025:

• 74% of Congress was white, while only 58% of Americans identified as non-Hispanic white.
• Women held just 28% of congressional seats and 33.5% of state legislative seats.
• Only 16 United States Senators belonged to racial or ethnic minority groups.
• LGBTQ+ elected officials represented less than 0.3% of elected leaders nationwide.
• Twenty-three states operated under Republican trifectas, sixteen under Democratic trifectas, and eleven had divided government.
• Nineteen states will hold United States Senate elections in both 2026and 2028, creating unique opportunities to strengthen representation. 11 are republican trifecta’s, 5 are divided.

While a lot of the discussion and statements on this site are agreeable and able for most anyone to support, we need to ask if we support the added fringe that this group represents. The few words often dominate the intent and the purpose of the rest. They are specifically targeting inclusion of people and groups that hold different moral views than most conservatives in our county.

Concerns with “future ready” come from this website: futureready.org

This is the very program we know as “Social Emotional Learning.” This will track students’ data throughout their school years.

“A structure for digital learning visioning, planning, and implementation

At the heart of Future Ready Schools® (FRS) and the Interactive Planning Dashboard is the Future Ready Framework, a robust structure for digital learning visioning, planning, and implementation focused on student-centered learning.

The research-based framework emphasizes collaborative leadership and creating an innovative school culture. All content focuses on seven key areas (called gears), plus leadership, each of which is addressed during the comprehensive planning process. This framework keeps student learning at the heart of all decision-making.”

This website page: all4ed.org

UNLOCK THE POWER OF SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL LEARNING: FOSTERING STUDENT GROWTH AND WELL-BEING

This website page: all4ed.org/future-ready-schools

“Advancing Innovation and Equity in America’s Schools Future Ready Schools® is a nationwide network that empowers K–12 leaders to transform teaching and learning through innovation, equity, and student-centered strategies. Grounded in a research-based framework, FRS supports districts in creating inclusive, future-focused learning environments.”

And this website: dashboard.futureready.org/essa-guide/

“We recommend that districts set goals that are SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound). Each district’s goals are unique and are written to address one of the gaps identified through STEP 3 in the 4 Step Process.

“We have also been informed by more than a few citizens in Jim Reeder’s commissioner district that he does not follow the path of conservative values that is prevalent in Le Sueur County. While no one was willing to go on record and give any specific examples, we were asked by many not to give our support to Jim Reeder. Relying on those that reside in his district and are most familiar with him, coupled with the explanations above, we simply could not promote a vote for Jim Reeder.

As for Danny O’Keefe, like every commissioner elected before him, Danny is with little doubt, heavily influenced and pressured by the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC), an NGO whose purpose is to direct the functions and plans of all 87 counties in the State so that their goals and outcomes are in unison with agendas proposed from top down government bureaucrats. The machinations behind the AMC have created a consortium of revolutionaries within local government agencies to establish left leaning causes that grow government at the expense of the people and their rights.

These are our reasons to support Danny O’Keefe in his bid for re-election to the Le Sueur County Board of Commissioners. Should he get in, we ask all of you to help us in our efforts to encourage Danny to always vote to support the good of his constituents, the people that have made Le Sueur County what it is. The purpose of county government is to be of service to the people, not to change the communities they have created to fit the vision of an outsider’s fantasies , and certainly not to be managed as a profit making business, extorting money out of its citizens.

This is an independent expenditure prepared and paid for by We Are The Taxpayer, PO Box #62, Le Center, MN 56057.

It is not coordinated with, or approved by any candidate, nor is any candidate responsible for it.

NOTE: The implementation of a Comprehensive Land use Plan must follow the guidelines set forth in MN. Stat. § 394.232, Subd. 2, which states that “Notice must be given at the beginning of the community-based comprehensive planning process to … local citizens to actively participate in the development of the plan.”

Notice of the Land Use Plan was published on the County Website and published in the Le Sueur County News, to document the legal requirements of notification to the public. The use of a community survey, Open Forums, Open House event, and pop-up events, were arranged to fulfill the requirement of soliciting community engagement.

Recognizing that all protocols were followed in the process of drafting the Land Use plan, this critique of the process is to point out that our inquiries indicate that the vast majority of the citizens in Le Sueur County are still unaware of this very expensive undertaking which they are footing the bill for and which will direct the use of their private property, will increase their taxes, and will restrict many of their rights and freedoms. It also needs to be recognized that county officials seem to have purposely chosen to limit the broadcasting of this effort and its importance to the community. Engagement at public forums used the Delphi Technique, which was firmly implemented with strict adherence, to limit unsolicited concerns, conversations and questions, thus always guiding the discussion to produce the preplanned conclusions being sought.

Therefore the purpose of this paper is to question claims made throughout the draft of the plan that suggest broad public support from the citizens of Le Sueur County with determinations made in the draft of the plan with statements such as: “…22% of residents would choose…”; “…57% of survey respondents…”; “…survey respondents were most interested in…”; “…residents ranked economic development as the top issue…”; “…efforts prioritized by survey respondents…”; ”..top priorities were:…“; “was important for nearly 69%…”; “…survey respondents reported as most needed…”; “Top economic development efforts prioritized by…”;

Needless to say, the conclusions stated in the draft of the Land Use Plan are bogus at best, and factually deceptive. It would serve the public well if the Commissioners would take the time to reach out to a broader base of citizens if indeed this Comprehensive Plan is to be taken seriously as a benefit for all, rather than a sacking of community property for the prosperity and wealth of the County to fund societal change.

Download Survey Says

Gentlemen,

Below you will find a printable PDF of a 14 page PowerPoint presentation from MADO (Minnesota Association of Development Organizations) Titled:
“DevelopMN 2019 – Comprehensive Development Strategy for Greater Minnesota” PowerPoint Presentation PDF

I am sharing this with you as I thought it would be beneficial for you to know where people are sourcing some of their information from as they seek to make sense of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. One issue of repetitive concern for many are the projections for population growth. These are highly questionable. Unless of course, there is a strategy to make that happen!

This page of the PowerPoint [https://mnado.org/human-capital/] as copied below answers that question.

Make note of the first bullet point under ‘Opportunities.’ I emphasized the words in bold to make them stand out, as they sure shed a lot of light on the subject of projected population growth.

Human Capital
DevelopMN has identified four cornerstones for strong regions and communities, one of which includes Human Capital.

It is clear that prosperity in the 21st century will be driven by a combination of Human Capital and Innovation. In a world that is constantly shrinking, people with knowledge and skills are becoming ever more mobile and have multiple choices of where to live, work, and play. Growing, retaining and attracting talent, and then maximizing its potential, are critical for Greater Minnesota.

Opportunities for Human Capital:
• Population and workforce expansion through immigration
• Investment in talent retention and attraction
• Utilizing retirees knowledge and experience
• Marketing quality of life and economic opportunity
• Entrepreneur training
• Develop and implement college and career awareness programs

Many of the terms and phrases in these 14 pages mimic those in the Land Use Plan, which gives confirmation that we are “on the right page” so to speak. The majority of citizens in Le Sueur County like their small towns just the way they are, with low crime rates and a true sense of community. People are fearful of plans to turn their world into chaos and danger, as we can see is happening where populations have been forcibly increased by social engineers wanting to mix everyone up in the name of “equity.”

Anyone looking at the results with honesty, has to admit that a good majority of immigrants and ‘disadvantaged citizens’ are being used by the very planners relocating them with the empty promise that they will have a better life, or be able to live “The American Dream.” To the planners, people are nothing more than a number in the inventory of “Human Capital,” to be used to advance the cause of social engineers and local government officials. These people become trapped in an unfamiliar world that they will never be allowed to escape from. Oh yes, some will be employed at the new industrial facilities established for the benefit and prosperity of local government and the business owners that entered into PPPs (Public Private Partnerships), which coincidentally are heavily promoted in the Land Use Plan. Those employed will be payed a wage that is under the poverty threshold which will then qualify them for “affordable housing.” This in turn, will keep them locked into servitude to the government and their employer.

Those that are not employed will be stuck in an unhappy, unfair, and unfamiliar environment of nothingness. People who have nothing, no reason to dream, no possible escape, nothing to do, all day and every day, will end up creating problems for the taxpaying citizens that are forced to support the needs of their new community members. With that combination you most certainly will end up with conflict. People in this forced arrangement were never meant to get along with one another, there is no assimilation, no community, no common ground. It is a strategy to loosen the camaraderie and strength of local communities.

The county Health and Human Services Department seems to be expanding on a regular basis, especially for “mental health.” It seems the county government might be preparing for the very critical and anticipated future needs caused by crisis that they themselves are creating, all on the taxpayer’s dime of course.

I humbly ask that you five Commissioners choose wisely as you enter into the final stages of determination with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Do not allow yourselves to be used as “rubber-stamps” to “open-the- door-wide,” to the exploitation of every resident in Le Sueur County according to the outside “planners” that have no “skin-in-the-game” when it comes to life in OUR rural America. Should you cross the line and choose to stand with your constituents, I have no hesitancy in saying – “Those who call you friend, neighbor, and family member, are more apt to come to your aid, stand by side, and support you in the repercussions inflicted on you by the “Outside Planners” if you reject their “Utopian” plans, than the support you’d receive from them if you turn your backs on your constituents. The “Planners” will be moving on to their next assignment in another county to repeat the same script for another “Plan,” and you will be left to see the “comprehensive” deterioration of Le Sueur County and the fine quality of life that it now offers.

To tell the citizens that specifics will be ironed-out in the determination of ‘Ordinances’ is deceptive. The groundwork, the very foundation of the entire plan is in the wording of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Once “The Plan” is adopted, the ordinances will have to be written in accordance to the demands in ‘The Plan.’ Those words can be interpreted differently depending on who is asked to interpret them, and it will not always be you asked to do so. A perfect example of this, and one that you are all familiar with, is from May of 2024, when our County Attorney, our County Auditor, The County Attorney and Auditor from Stearns County, and a lawyer of legal counsel for the Minnesota Association of Townships, all read and interpreted a State Statute that would have allowed the citizens of Washington Township to return to In- Person Voting for the 2024 election. In the end, the taxpaying majority in Washington Township were unjustly barred from returning to In-Person Voting for that election, simply because a lawyer’s “opinion” in behalf of Washington Township, interpreted the MN Statute differently from the five authorities mentioned above. A County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan will not be written more definitively than a MN Statute.

Without a Comprehensive Plan the County will not be able to apply for many available grants will they? Those grants only serve to advance the cause of the Utopian Planners. They all come with specific mandates that must be met and adhered to. Page 14 of the MADO PowerPoint states: “MADO’s hope is that through this process partners can align work plans across state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, educational institutions and businesses.” It could not be any clearer than that. All cities are to be governed identically, according to the “planners” from NGOs, aided by the brainwashing and propaganda taught in our educational systems and forced upon employers. This will be with forced taxation and no representation.

Thank you for your time. I will be praying for you as you make decisions in behalf of your constituents.

Sincerely,
Marie Meyer

The written draft of the Le Sueur County Comprehensive Land Use Plan can be found here.

It is worth your consideration to question the “possible” interpretation of this written document. We are wary of the wording because “words mean things,” and we are aware of the actual plans that were drawn up long ago as documented below, that are precisely in direct relation to these plans being incorporated in our county government today.

To verify reason for our legitimate worries, I provide the following:
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON HUMAN SETTLEMENTS – HABITAT I, VANCOUVER, CANADA, 31 MAY-11 JUNE 1976

The following is being used to justify use of our tax dollars for government control of our land and community structure:

“UN-Habitat now promotes socially and environmentally sustainable towns and cities. It is the focal point for all urbanization and human settlement matters within the UN system. UN-Habitat envisions well-planned, well-governed, and efficient cities and other human settlements, with adequate housing, infrastructure, and universal access to employment and basic services such as water, energy, and sanitation.” (Emphasis added).

MAKE NOTE OF THE BOLD STATEMENT BELOW! Keep it in your thoughts. THIS is what we are concerned about. IT IS REAL, and it is being implemented in LE SUEUR COUNTY Minnesota, through the COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. The plan that our commissioners spent $200,000.00 of our tax money on. It is a plan to save the environment from us – you and me! Don’t believe it? Consider this – There have been a lot of outlandish and unimaginable changes taking place in communities surrounding us, right? Well, they are finally getting their focus on the conservative and quiet Le Sueur County. We need to realize that these changes will not happen overnight, but it will happen, and it will come about with the structure put in place by means of the “Comprehensive Land Use Plan,” and the adoption of it, by our County Commissioners.

This statement is our concern:

“This conference produced Agenda 21, the ultimate plan of action to save the world from human activity.” (Emphasis added).

That statement is found at azbackroads.com.

This paragraph is amazingly straightforward:

“Between 1976 and 1992 a new strategy for land use control was devised. It is subtle, sinister, and successful. “Encourage the principle of delegating policy-making to the lowest level of public authority consistent with effective action and a locally driven approach.” The reference to “public authority” here is not to elected city councils or county commissions. The reference is to newly constituted “stakeholder councils” or other bodies of “civil society” that consist primarily of professionals functioning as representatives of NGOs affiliated with national and international NGOs accredited by the United Nations. This strategy is becoming increasingly effective.” (Emphasis added).

They said it straight out folks, the “public authority” is not the elected officials that you voted into office on Election Day, the people that are now authorized to make decisions are the “appointed” persons sitting on the councils of the NGOs (non-governmental organizations). These are the very
same people that are included in the decision making for the Use of Our Land! Control of our local communities has been stripped from “our control,”

The Plans as relates to the “One Health” platform, reduces humans to no more importance than that of habitat:

“Implementation of the UN’s land use philosophy is well underway in America and is now being accelerated through the use of the “collaborative process” using stakeholder councils. The 1973 Endangered Species Act has been expanded administratively to now cover not only endangered species but the habitat that a listed species may wish to use — even though the habitat may be privately owned. This policy breathes life into the GBA recommendation to extend legal rights to biodiversity. It, in fact, clarifies “the principle that biodiversity is not available for uncontrolled human use.”

The legal status of biodiversity has been further elevated by the Vice President’s “Ecosystem Management Policy,” which places biodiversity protection at the same priority level as human health, and further instructs officials to consider human beings to be a “biological resource” in all ecosystem management activities.” (Emphasis added).

“Plants and animals are objects whose degree of protection depends on the value they represent for human beings. Although well-intentioned, this specifically anthropocentric view leads directly to the subordination of biological diversity, and to its sacrifice in spite of modern understanding of the advantages of conservation. We should accept biodiversity as a legal subject, and supply it with adequate rights. This could clarify the principle that biodiversity is not available for uncontrolled human use. Contrary to current custom, it would therefore become necessary to justify any interference with biodiversity, and to provide proof that human interests justify the damage caused to biodiversity.” (Emphasis added).

And, there is so much more:

Recommendation D.1

(a) Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means of…achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development whilst assuring that environmental impacts are considered.

(b) Land is a scarce resource whose management should be subject to public surveillance or control in the interest of the nation.

(d) Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over such land with a view to freely planning development of human settlements….

Recommendation D.2

(a) Agricultural land, particularly on the periphery of urban areas, is an important national resource; without public control land is prey to speculation and urban encroachment.

Recommendation D.4

(a) Public ownership of land cannot be an end in itself; it is justified in so far as it is exercised in favour of the common good rather than to protect the interests of the already privileged.

(b) Public ownership should be used to secure and control areas of urban expansion and protection; and to implement urban and rural land reform processes, and supply serviced land at price levels which can secure socially acceptable patterns of development.

Recommendation D.5

(b) Past patterns of ownership rights should be transformed to match the changing needs of society and be collectively beneficial.

(c)(v) Methods for the separation of land ownership rights from development rights, the latter to be entrusted to a public authority.

The official U.S. delegation that endorsed these recommendations includes familiar names. Carla A. Hills, then-Secretary of Housing and Urban Development became George Bush’s Chief trade negotiator. William K. Reilly, then-head of the Conservation Foundation, became Bush’s Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Among the NGOs (non-government organizations) present, were: the International Planned Parenthood Federation; World Federation of United Nations Associations; International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); World Association of World
Federalists; Friends of the Earth; National Audubon Society; National Parks and Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; and the Sierra Club.1

These ideas came to America in the form of the Federal Land Use Planning Act which failed twice in Congress during the 1970s. Federal regions were created and the principles of the UN land policy were implemented administratively to the maximum extent possible. NGOs were at work even then, lobbying for the implementation of UN land policy at the state and local levels. Both Florida and Oregon enacted state Comprehensive Planning Acts. Florida created state districts and multi-county agencies to govern land and water use. Most states, however, were slow to embrace the UN initiative toward centralized planning and land management.

By 1992, the UN had learned to tone down its language and strengthen its arguments The UN, working in collaboration with its incredible NGO structure, operating at the behest of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); and the World Resources Institute (WRI), made sure that the decade of the 1980s was awash with propaganda about the loss of biodiversity and the threat of global warming.

The foundation for the propaganda campaign may be found in three publications published jointly by the UN and its NGO collaborators: World Conservation Strategy, (UNEP, IUCN, WWF, 1980); Caring for the Earth, (UNEP, IUCN, WWF, 1991); and Global Biodiversity Strategy, (UNEP, IUCN, WRI, 1992). These documents, along with Our Common Future, the report of the 1987 Brundtland Commission (UN Commission on Environment and Development) set the stage for Earth Summit II, the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

Again – Read this statement:

This conference produced Agenda 21, the ultimate plan of action to save the world from human activity.

The document echoes the 1976 document on land use policy, though in somewhat muted terms. From Section II, Chapter 10 (page 84):

“Land is normally defined as a physical entity in terms of its topography and spatial nature; a broader integrative view also includes natural resources: the solid, minerals, water and biota that the land comprises. Expanding human requirements and economic activities are placing ever increasing pressures on land resources, creating competition and conflicts and resulting in suboptimal use of both land and land resources. It is now essential to resolve these conflicts and move towards more effective and efficient use of land and its natural resources. Opportunities to allocate land to different uses arise in the course of major settlement or development projects or in a sequential fashion as land becomes available on the market. This provides opportunities…to assign protected status for conservation of biological diversity or critical ecological services.”

Activities 10.6:

(c) Review the regulatory framework, including laws, regulations, and enforcement procedures, in order to identify improvements needed to support sustainable land use and management of land resources and restrict the transfer of productive arable land to other uses;

(e) Encourage the principle of delegating policy-making to the lowest level of public authority consistent with effective action and a locally driven approach.

Activities 10.7:

(a) Adopt planning and management systems that facilitate the integration of environmental components such as air, water, land, and other natural resources using landscape ecological planning… for example, an ecosystem or watershed;

I do hope that you are concerned about your family’s future and the future of America. Indeed if you are, you need to read up and speak up. The Le Sueur County Commissioners’ meetings are on the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Tuesday mornings @ 9:00 AM in the Commissioners’ Chambers at the Government Center (Court House). Read up on the above provided FACTUAL information and compare those plans to the County Land Use plan as provided in the link above. Then speak up. Do it before the commissioners adopt the Land Use Plan. They will be doing that very, very soon. They need to be convinced of the power they hold in their vote, and the devastating change that will come to the communities they live in.

Or…DON’T READ UP. DON’T SPEAK UP. DON’T GET INVOLVED. The choice is yours… Get Involved – OR – SIMPLY WATCH IT EVOLVE.

Private property rights are protected in America by the US. Constitution which recognizes that the right to life, liberty, and property, are given by GOD—not by “some men” to “other men.”

The right to own property is the basic foundation of freedom in America. Citizens are free to be self-reliant, govern themselves, engage in free market enterprise, and determine the best use of their land.

In countries ruled by tyranny, private ownership and control of property is never allowed—property and people are controlled by the government. It has been said that “either you own property, or you are property.”

Comprehensive Land Use Plans in counties and cities across the nation are violating private property rights by:

• Placing decisions for the use and control of physical land and resources under government control.
• Declaring the environment and habitat as entities with equal rights to that of humans, thus jeopardizing property rights for environmental concerns.
• Declaring that ownership of private property violates the ideology of “equity.” Reasoning that those who worked to secure property have an unfair advantage over those with no property.
• Declaring that decisions made by “expert planners,” NGOs, and government agencies for the use of private land, is superior to decisions of the private property owners’ who pay taxes on the land.
• Declaring that land should be used for economic activity for political gain by the government.

Land Use Planning today encompasses far more regulations and controls from past plans:

Increased “Affordable Housing” for low-income and no-income residents ● “workforce housing” for “human capital” employed by the government ● farming restrictions based on regulations of environmental concern ● tracking energy creation and limiting consumption ● strict tracking of industry operations ● modes of transportation ● taxes ● increased control of mineral extraction ● education curriculum ● today’s planning involves inventory & control of every aspect of our lives.

Le Sueur County is Currently Updating the “Comprehensive Land Use Plan”

It is imperative that citizens demand the language used in the draft of the written land use plan be open for review by the public, to ensure it is free of ambiguous language which could make it vulnerable to the interpretation of someone wishing to impose baseless regulations, restrictions, and requirements on private property rights now, and in the future. It also needs to be recognized that a Land Use Plan is a voluntary blue-print that does not need to be enacted. If the county commissioners choose to adopt the document as policy, it will then become a contractual agreement that can be upheld in a court of law. Any violations of the written land use can revoke ownership of private land. It is in the best interest of all, for the commissioners to use the plan as a blue print only, and not subject land owners to interpretations of NGOs, developers, stakeholders, and government agencies, that are hungry for control of private property.

93 % of the land in Le Sueur County is privately owned.

Everyone needs to be involved. This is about power and control of the government over property and people. What are you currently allowed to do on your property without getting permission from a local government agency? The matter will only get worse with the Land Use Plan, and without property rights, there is no freedom. WE NEED TO STOP BEING SILENT!

There have been many controversies on the Highway #99 Project through Le Center, MN, that are starting to fall into place. In the draft plans, the reconstruction of the highway through the city, leaves no access to the businesses and takes portions of land from some of the businesses for the construction of roundabouts. The businesses along this stretch of highway are predominantly connected to automotive services: car wash, gas stations, body shop, and detailing.

Guess what folks? In our current world of hysteria about Climate Change, the automobiles are the culprit! And don’t be fooled, this has deep connections to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan being updated in Le Sueur County as well. We’ll connect those dots in another communication lest this gets too confusing.

Here’s an eye-opening statement that led to the “Aha” moment connecting the peculiarities in the highway draft plans from MnDot- for this stretch of highway through Le Center, and the fact that most businesses effected are automotive businesses.

From this website: https://climate.state.mn.us/envisioning-cleaner-transportation-future we are told:

“Transportation is the number one source of carbon pollution in the United States, and became the single largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Minnesota in 2016.”

On this page: https://climate.state.mn.us/transportation we find remedies to the crisis created by automobiles:

“We learned that stakeholders want to see:
– transportation solutions that address and prioritize equity
– a more robust strategy for reducing vehicle miles traveled
– more support for non-motorized transportation options, including funding to support active transportation modes like biking and walking.”
(emphasis added)

Mm-hmm!

Stakeholders! Who are they? They are mentioned non-stop in the Comprehensive Land Use plans.

Equity? How does that fit into the conversation about repaving/reconstructing a highway?

Who wants to reduce vehicle miles traveled? Did they let you weigh in on that?

More funding for non-motorized transportation? Using our tax money to immobilize us!

Oh yeah! More taxation to support the imaginative climate crisis that the young Greta Thunberg warned us about when she flew across the ocean to educate us Americans, looked the camera in the eye, and stated “How Dare You!”

Another page: https://climate.state.mn.us/climate-action-framework-progress-report offers more remedies to the problem at hand, with the help of more tax money:

“Goal 1 – Clean Transportation
Connecting Minnesota through a safe, equitable, and sustainable transportation system that
serves all people of our state.

Progress:
– $1 billion investment in public transit. New rebates to make EVs and e-bikes more
accessible
– $80 million in federal funds for projects like EV chargers and bike paths.”

We, the taxpayers, are a never ending source of money for these people who believe it is their responsibility to protect the earth from us and our selfish, destructive ways.

Notice the desire for public transit? The “Corridor Alternative” draft plans provided for the Highway #99 Project, show a 10′ wide allowance for parking on the South side of the highway, on each side of the entrance to the County Fairgrounds. Might this be planned as a passenger drop-off for transit vehicles?

See alternative #2, at this site: https://hdr.jotform.com/251193410303948

They can surely walk to their destination from here, be it the fairgrounds or a business/residence in town. The concept of urban transport systems are not new to the
discussion of regional planners such as Region Nine Development Commission and Minnesota Valley Council of Governments.

Urban transport systems are also a staple in the planning of the United Nations document from the Earth Summit concerning transportation.

From Chapter 7 of that document- Human Settlements; Section 7.52:

– “…encourage development patterns that reduce transport demand.
– Adopt urban-transport programmes favouring high-occupancy public transport…
– Encourage non-motorized modes of transport by providing safe cycleways and footways in urban and suburban centres…”

If you search the MnDot website for greenhouse gases, you’ll find an abundance of information relative to plans they have for the benefit of Climate Change, which include reducing the number of vehicles on the road and encouraging travel by foot and bicycle instead. This would explain the six foot wide sidewalks along the highway on one side, and the 10 foot wide bicycle paths along the highway on the other side, in the draft plans for highway #99 through Le Center.

When questioning the six foot wide sidewalks, we are told this is a requirement of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), which permits two wheelchairs adequate room to meet and pass. They’ve been working on their plans for a long time and they’ve thought of everything, combing through every conceivable question and tacking a ‘non-questionable’ answer to each.

Another key player in the transportation system planned for our future is MADO, the Minnesota Association of Development Organizations. On their website, under the tab ‘DevelopMN’ we find ‘Human Capital.’ Click on that and you have the following encouraging words:

“Opportunities for Human Capital:
• Population and workforce expansion through immigration” (emphasis added).

Think on that for a moment! If indeed they are planning on mass immigration as a development strategy for our communities, the six foot wide sidewalks may be a necessity. In many 3rd world countries people are lucky to have a house, let alone a vehicle. They navigate by foot. We also need to pay attention to the words ‘Human Capital.’ To these people that are planning our future, we are nothing but capital, inventory, a tool to be used at their whim for their prosperity. And you must question “population…expansion.” Ah yes, the stacking of the deck so-to-speak in areas where they wish to change the economic, political and social make-
up of a community.

On this site: https://mnado.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/DevelopMN-1.pdf we have a booklet: “Comprehensive Development Strategy for Greater Minnesota.” On page 7 we find:

“Increase the percentage of small businesses who are owned by new Americans and people of color through technical training and lending.” (emphasis added)

Here they are talking about immigration and equity. Notice that we the taxpayers, the people whose money supports the system, will not be the ones receiving the technical training nor be beneficiaries of the lending, it will be new Americans. What about the current small business owners whose livelihoods are threatened with the proposed draft plans for the Highway #99 corridor through Le Center? No concern for them?

On page 10 of the MADO booklet, we hear about climate change again:

“In 2018 in the United States, fossil fuel combustion accounts for 80% of greenhouse gas emissions and 98% of carbon dioxide emissions. The Center for Biological Diversity estimates that 4.1 billion metric tons are added to the atmosphere each year.”

Transportation is covered on page 11. Their concern is not the businesses along the corridor, it is the efficiency of the highway for “truck travel time.” They did mention that the roundabouts would be fashioned for trucks to drive over, right? https://hdr.jotform.com/251193410303948

“Alternative 3:
– Compact roundabout
– Allows trucks and larger vehicles to drive over center island”

If you feel compelled to look into this further, check out the abundance of information on the many links offered at this MnDot website and here.

This is big and there is a lot that is hidden! We have to search for the agendas hidden in their many plans for our future, because nobody will ever come right out and tell us the truth. Unfortunately many of the powers that be don’t even realize what they are helping to transport down the pike and usher into action. They are simply hearing rosy outcomes of Utopian ideals and have been conditioned to ‘sign here’ and ‘vote yes,’ without the need to think. The thinking is left to the planners, the folks that have been ‘appointed’ into positions of authority, not the persons that have been elected by the people.

Welcome to “Regional Governance” where people are “appointed” to make decisions for you, at your expense, without your consent.

“ The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and Inflation.”

~ Vladimir Lenin ~

Public Private Partnerships (PPP or P3), are advocated as a way to fund desired government infrastructure projects in cities, with the financial help of private sector investors. This concept was created as a strategy for implementing sustainable development, wherein the government entity rewards the private business with tax-payer derived funds and/or amenities (tax breaks, incentives, the waiver of regulations, free tracts of land, or exclusive rights to future development), in return for
the business funding a portion of the project.

Most of today’s citizens view ‘infrastructure’ as the building and upkeep of roads and bridges, and shared community spaces such as parks and swimming pools. This is not the ‘infrastructure’ that the sustainable development planners have in mind. The decisions driving the infrastructure they seek are all based on economics and become controlled by the private business investors engaged in the project. Sustainable development infrastructure is designed as building blocks, the framework, for which cities become nothing more than work centers for the people that live within these so-called ‘human settlements.’

Through this arrangement of PPP, the cities ultimately lose their sovereignty to the investors who will control decisions of the operations within the city, and citizens lose their right to decide their future as they become a simple cog-in the-wheel, living in ‘workforce housing’ and working in the private sector industry.

In Le Sueur County, MN, the subject of “workforce housing” entered into conversations with the building of a 54-unit ‘workforce housing’ project in New Prague. New Prague City officials asked the Le Sueur County Commissioners for a 15-year tax abatement on the project, which was thankfully denied by the county, but granted by the City of New Prague and the New Prague School District. This is an example of Public Private Partnership in which the government entity (the city of New Prague, MN) chose the contractor to implement the housing project, then worked to provide the contractor favorable tax breaks, at a cost or disadvantage to the public. The tax levy and school district funding will be an additional burden upon the taxpayers as they will foot the bill for the lost tax revenues. Keep in mind that it was tax generated monies that were provided as an incentive to draw the business into the community in the first place. The citizen taxpayer is forced to provide the funding, yet is never given a vote as to how the money is spent.

The MHFA Workforce Housing Project Uses Tax Generated Money. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) provides grants and incentives for use in
‘workforce housing’ projects. These projects cater to residents who are of low income status and who will work in the created business industries of the PPP.

The following information is copied directly from the MHFA website. Note the biased DEI criteria for receiving benefits from this tax-funded state agency.

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

“We are committed to racial diversity, equity and inclusion in all of our work, from our hiring practices to our investments in new homes.

Minnesota Housing acknowledges that its offices are located on Dakota land. We recognize that local, state and federal housing policies have disadvantaged Indigenous people, Black Minnesotans and households of color for decades.

We listen to and incorporate the words of those who have faced housing instability and homelessness. We are expanding our work with developers of color and we strive to close the homeownership gap between white households and households of color. Minnesota Housing supports staff members with continuing
education to better serve Minnesota as antiracist public servants.”

As taxpayers, we are being forced to fund hand-outs to people according to their financial status and ‘race’ alone. This a blatant example of “redistribution of wealth,” which as defined by Wikipedia states:

“Redistribution of income and wealth is the transfer of income and wealth (including physical property) from some individuals to others through a social mechanism such as taxation, welfare, public services, land reform, monetary policies, confiscation ….”

Whether those on local boards of city councils and county governments truly understand the injustice and social impact of what they are being swayed into voting for or not, is questionable. The reality however, is that these unwarranted practices which are pushed for by NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations), according to the dictates of Global Governance Planners, are unjustly stripping the financial stability and property rights of citizens that have worked for what they have, in order to level the ‘social’ living standards of all, regardless of merit. This is nothing short of socialism and is most definitely a main focus of our concern and attention to taxation and Comprehensive Land Use Plans.

What happens when the ‘workforce housing’ is built, and there are not enough low income, racially disadvantaged people found in the city to reside in the housing? Forced migration to comply with the newly created compliance rules of ‘workforce housing?’ Catering to people of low income and racial minority status is the norm these days whenever tax generated public funds and grants are involved. It is also the norm to use public funds and tax generated grants to fund most every government project. For the working class that pays their own way, it is a lose-lose situation. And that is the goal of Global Governance. Eliminate the middle class.

“ The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and Inflation.”

~ Vladimir Lenin ~