Henry Lamb Columns in 2003

Contents
World Socialists call for World Government ...............................................................................4
A coalition of the willing .............................................................................................................6
Overdue disclosure ......................................................................................................................8
Get rid of the people! ................................................................................................................ 10
Cesspools of socialism .............................................................................................................. 12
Walking on thin ice ................................................................................................................... 14
Marching toward oblivion ......................................................................................................... 16
Killing us gently........................................................................................................................ 18
Let the U.N. die ......................................................................................................................... 20
The time for talk has passed ...................................................................................................... 22
Subsidizing the corporate green giant ........................................................................................ 25
Wildlands Project writ large ...................................................................................................... 27
Freedom rising .......................................................................................................................... 29
Who is in control? ..................................................................................................................... 31
Saddam’s gift to the world ........................................................................................................ 33
Kofi Annan’s Arrogance ........................................................................................................... 35
Re-ordering the New World Order - Part 1 ................................................................................ 37
Re-ordering the New World Order - Part 2 ................................................................................ 39
What’s next for the U.N. ........................................................................................................... 41
The war on terrorism ................................................................................................................. 43
No U.N. in Iraq’s future ............................................................................................................ 45
The rule of international law ..................................................................................................... 47
Another attack on private property ............................................................................................ 49
The real battle ahead ................................................................................................................. 51
The struggle for America’s soul ................................................................................................ 53
ECOSOC’s CSD seeks to control WEHAB ............................................................................... 55
What eco-nuts and religious nuts have in common .................................................................... 57
U.N. influence in Alabama ........................................................................................................ 59

1
Sustainable Development: the antithesis of freedom .................................................................. 61
We need a new crop of founders ............................................................................................... 63
Dancing with the devil .............................................................................................................. 65
Passing the gas test .................................................................................................................... 67
U.S.-U.N. struggle moves to ICC .............................................................................................. 69
And the pendulum swings ......................................................................................................... 71
The price of freedom ................................................................................................................. 73
Times still in “Ostrich” mode .................................................................................................... 75
Transforming American society ................................................................................................ 77
Greens beat the bushes .............................................................................................................. 79
Greens lie. What’s new? ........................................................................................................... 81
Congress let U.S. down ............................................................................................................. 83
Taxing thin air ........................................................................................................................... 85
Global warming: a lost cause..................................................................................................... 87
The Third Sector ....................................................................................................................... 89
The Third Sector in Action ........................................................................................................ 91
Enlightened by a blackout ......................................................................................................... 93
Green with envy ........................................................................................................................ 95
The cost of turning green........................................................................................................... 97
Keep the U.N. out of Iraq .......................................................................................................... 99
562 nations under God ............................................................................................................ 101
Bumpy road to global governance ........................................................................................... 103
Restructuring the U.N. ............................................................................................................ 105
Choosing America’s future...................................................................................................... 107
The real World Series.............................................................................................................. 109
The “Precautionary Principle” ................................................................................................. 111
The radical green god-squad.................................................................................................... 113
The case for wolves – in Central Park ..................................................................................... 115
Birds of a feather, flock together ............................................................................................. 117
Falling from Grace .................................................................................................................. 119
Terror in America – by proxy .................................................................................................. 122

2
Who owns “public” land?........................................................................................................ 124
U.N. says Yellowstone no longer “in danger” .......................................................................... 126
Stealing our children’s birthright ............................................................................................. 128
U.N.: Butt Out! ....................................................................................................................... 130
Out of the wilderness .............................................................................................................. 132
Jack and Jeannette’s pursuit of happiness ................................................................................ 140
Hope for the future .................................................................................................................. 142

3
Col20031103

World Socialists call for World Government

By Henry Lamb
Concluding its 22nd global congress in Sao Paulo, Brazil, last week, the Socialist International
issued its Declaration calling for implementation of “global governance,” in a program that
mirrors the recommendations of the U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance, published
in 1995.
The International Socialists call for: expanding the U.N. Security Council; creating a new
Economic Security Council; creating a new World Environmental Organization; and the
mechanisms necessary to enforce “Sustainable Development,” world-wide.
This document makes public the close union between the agenda of International Socialists and
the agenda for global governance developed by the United Nations. Previous efforts to keep the
“socialist” label away from the U.N., have now been abandoned, and both institutions are
publicly seeking total global governance through the United Nations.
Though the document does not mention the Bush administration by name, it decries obstacles to
the new world order, sought by the Socialists. Article Three of the Declaration says:

“Neoconservatives are attempting to ... dismantle all forms of global governance, to

minimise the role of the United Nations, to undermine multilateral institutions, to
promote unilateralism and the consecration of the market, and to impose the will of the
powerful to decide the future of mankind.”
The President of Socialist International, Antonio Guterres, former Socialist Prime Minister of
Portugal, said the “Bush administration was impeding efforts to establish a new world order,”
according to the Denver Post. (October 30, p. 21A)
Specifically, the Socialists want the new Economic Security Council to be a “Council for
Sustainable Development — that would coordinate sustainable development on a global scale...”
And, to implement the Kyoto Protocol.
Socialists want to consolidate the U.N. Environment Program, and all the existing environmental
treaties, under the enforcement authority of a new World Environment Organization, the same
function the Commission on Global Governance proposed for the outdated U.N. Trusteeship
Council.
This document also endorses: the U.N. Millennium Development goals adopted in 2000; the
U.N.’s Monterey Consensus, adopted in 2002; and the U.N.’s Plan for Sustainable Development,
adopted in Johannesburg in 2002. It calls for the elimination of agricultural subsidies in the U.S.,
Europe, and Japan, and free exportation by developing countries into these markets, and
international control of “...regulation, accountability and supervision of financial systems to

4
enhance the prospects for sustainable growth and development.”
The Socialist International links “exacerbated nationalism, ...and xenophobic attitudes,” with
terrorism, as “threats to peace,” which must be addressed only by an expanded U.N. Security
Council, with the authority and means “ to act to preserve and enforce peace,” which “must be
carried out in accordance with the decisions of the United Nations.”
“The [Socialist] International, therefore, believes that reform of the United Nations
cannot be delayed any longer and will continue to be strongly engaged in the process.
Achieving lasting peace and security requires that the United Nations Charter be updated
to meet today’s new challenges, and that the Security Council be reformed to make it
more representative, democratic and responsive.”
The “reform” called for by the U.N.’s Commission on Global Governance, and by the U.N.,
would expand the Security Council in number, whose members would serve rotating terms,
remove the “Permanent Member” status from the U.S., France, England, Germany, and China,
and would eliminate the veto power of any single nation.

The Socialists want the U.N. to place “greater emphasis on the provision of global public
services, especially with regard to sanitation, health care, child care facilities, education,
employment promotion and environmental protection.”
In a clear statement of support for the socialist model of economic organization, rather than the
capitalist model, the document says:
“The principle of public service cannot be sacrificed to the consecration of the market.
Tax systems should also be adapted to promote better public services and a new global
tax should be created to fund the global public goods.”

The “new global tax” endorsed by this statement is discussed at length throughout U.N. literature
and is a series of taxing proposals ranging from a tax on international currency transactions (the
Tobin Tax), to a tax on resource use, and use of the “global commons,” which includes the air,
space, the oceans, and the airwaves used for radio, television, and internet transmissions.
This global taxing authority was included in the first draft of the recommendations of the U.N.’s
High Level Panel on Financing Development, meeting in Monterey, Mexico, in 2001. It was
removed, at the insistence of the new U.S. delegates, appointed by the Bush administration. The
panel remains in place, however, to seek independent financing of U.N. operations.
Socialist International is the world’s largest political organization, according to its website,
working through more than 140 national organizations. Its largest affiliate in the United States is
the Democratic Socialists of America, which says it is “building progressive movements for
social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and
politics.”
The “social change” described here is the global governance agenda developed jointly, and now
publicly advanced by both the United Nations, and the Socialist International.

5
Col20030106

A coalition of the willing

By Henry Lamb
Among the momentous decisions George W. Bush must make in the next few weeks, is to make
good on his promise to “...lead a coalition of the willing...” into Iraq, or to acquiesce to idea that
only the U.N. can legitimize such an action.

Russian Defense Minister, Sergei Ivanov, says that “military action by the United States and its
allies against Iraq, without U.N. approval, [would be] illegitimate and unjustified.” This view is
shared by many U.N. member nations, and, sadly, some of the members of the Bush
administration.
The first responsibility of the Commander-in-chief is to protect and defend citizens of the United
States. In the case of Iraq, where weapons of mass destruction, and the demonstrated desire to
use them, are known to exist, Bush has articulated a “pre-emptive strike” doctrine of self-
defense.
Ironically, many of the voices that condemn Bush’s pre-emptive strike doctrine, embrace the
“precautionary principle” when it comes to environmental issues. More than 170 nations
embraced Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration, which says:
“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied
by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible
damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-
effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
The presence of weapons of mass destruction, in the hands of maniacal dictator, certainly
constitutes a “threat of serious or irreversible damage” to people and to the environment. If “full
scientific certainty” is not necessary to take “precautionary” action to protect the environment,
why are these same voices opposing “pre-emptive” action to protect the lives of humans?
The real question is, who has the authority to say what action, and when it should be taken? The
U.N. claims this authority, for both environmental and military questions.
President Bush has announced to the world that he would take whatever action necessary to
protect the United States and its allies. Under intense pressure from the international
community, and from the U.S. State Department, he waited for the U.N. Security Council to
adopt its resolution, while retaining the right to lead “a coalition of the willing,” with our without
U.N. approval.
Pressure continues to mount, from both the international community, and from anti-war activists
in the U.S., for Bush to not lead a coalition of the willing, but to wait for authorization by the
U.N. It is a matter of sovereignty.

6
Is the United States a sovereign nation? Or, is the United States a subject of global governance
administered by the U.N.?
We find no fault with diplomatic efforts to avoid war. Ultimate victory is to win, without
fighting. If diplomacy can achieve the objective, wonderful. For eleven years, diplomacy has
failed in Iraq. The time for decision, and action, must come; failure to decide and act is defeat.
The United States does not need the approval of the U.N. to exercise a pre-emptive doctrine to
protect its citizens. The U.S. does have the responsibility to prove that a real danger does exist,
but it would be tactically imprudent to reveal that proof before the danger has been eliminated.
For eight years, we watched the United States surrender its sovereignty to the United Nations in
decisions affecting the environment. The Clinton/Gore administration eagerly implemented
policies advanced by the United Nations. The Bush administration has said “no” to the Kyoto
Protocol, and to the International Criminal Court. The same voices that condemn Bush for these
courageous steps are now condemning him for preparing to lead “a coalition of the willing” into
Iraq - with or without U.N. approval.
The United States should not, indeed, cannot allow the United Nations to usurp its sovereignty
over either environmental or military decisions. To do so is nothing short of betrayal of the U.S.
Constitution.
No one wants to see America’s youth go off to war. If, however, the decision to take pre-
emptive action against Iraq becomes necessary, the decision must be made by the United States
Government, not by the Defense Minister of Russia, or the President France, or by the United
Nations.

Congress has authorized our Commander-in-chief to defend our nation. We expect President
Bush to lead a coalition of the willing, even if we are the only willing nation.

7
Col20030107

Overdue disclosure

By Henry Lamb
Environmental organizations swarm around U.N. meetings like flies in a barnyard. By listening
closely to the noise, words and phrases can be extracted from the buzzing: “transparency;” and
“new and adequate funding;” and “sustainable;” are among the most often-repeated terms.

Transparency is not a bad thing; it means that government procedures must be transparent -
clearly visible to anyone who cares to look. The time has come to apply “transparency” to
environmental organizations, and their dealings with government.
Let’s require every government agency that gives money to any non-government organization to
fully disclose on their web site, the amount and purpose of the award, and the name and address
of the recipient organization. To bring transparency to the organizations that suckle at several
federal teats, each agency should be required to also report all awards to the Bureau of Census
through the Federal Assistance Awards Data System.
The FAADS was supposed to bring transparency to grants made by the federal government. It
did not. It provides data in the aggregate, presented in a variety of ways, but it provides no
specific information about how much money a particular non-government organization received
from the federal government.

Remember the hours of endless debate about campaign reform, about full disclosure of soft
money and hard money to political candidates? It’s time to hear a similar Congressional debate
about full disclosure of hard-earned tax dollars given to environmental organizations.
The Environmental Conservation Organization has created a computer program that penetrates
the 20-million records of raw data accumulated by the FAADS since its beginning in the mid
1980s. We have found that the data reported through the FAADS is not complete.
The magnitude of the deficiency may be indicated from a preliminary analysis of grants made to
The Nature Conservancy during the period 1997 - 2001: FAADS reports $82.4 million. The
Office of Management and Budget, however, reports $46.6 million awarded to TNC during the
same period. Neither agency reported the $140 million that TNC received in FY 2000, from the
federal government, in contract fees and the sale of land to the government.
For the same period, FAADS reports only two grants totaling $509,250 to STAPPA/ALAPCO
(State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators). OMB reports $4.1 million
awarded during the same period.
These discrepancies have gone unnoticed for 20 years, because there has not been transparency
in the relations between environmental organizations and the federal government. It is time to
shine the light of transparency on both the agencies of government, and on non-government
organizations.

8
Some courageous Congressman should step forward and introduce a bill that will require every
agency of government to fully disclose every grant awarded to every non-government
organization, on the agency’s web site, within 10 days after the award. The information posted
should include the amount of the award, the purpose for which it was made, and the name,
address and federal tax identification number of the recipient.
The Bush administration has been working for 15 months on what it calls an “E-Grants system,”
that is supposed to bring some coherent uniformity to the reporting procedure. It is expected to
be in place by the end of 2003, but will apply only to future grants, and internal reporting. In the
interest of transparency and full disclosure, both hot-button buzz-words for environmental
organizations, grant awards to non-government organizations must be made public and easily
accessible.
Some organizations, STAPPA/ALAPCO for example, may be embarrassed if the public becomes
aware that its members’ salaries are paid largely by grants from the EPA, which also awards
about $1 million each year to the organization, whose staff consistently appears before the
Appropriations Committee to lobby for increased funding for the EPA.
Nevertheless, the public is entitled to know which organizations are on the federal dole, how
much money they are getting, and what they are supposed to be doing with it. Without this
information, there is no transparency. Certainly, no environmental organization could oppose
this legislation that enhances the transparency they clamor for at U.N. meetings. Nor could any
Congressman who demands full disclosure of campaign financing, oppose full disclosure of
financing of environmental organizations.
This proposed law is very simple. It would require very little time to consider, and even less
time to implement, since every agency already maintains a web site. Within a matter of weeks,
or a few months at most, full disclosure of federal grants to non-government organizations could
be a reality. It is simply a matter of Congressional will.

9
Col20030115

Get rid of the people!

By Henry Lamb
Florida’s Senator Bob Graham wasted no time launching another attempt to flood the families
who live in the now-infamous 8.5 Square-Mile-Area, at the edge of Florida’s Everglades. A
similar effort was quashed during the closing days of the 107th Congress. Now, before the new
members of Congress even find the restrooms, Graham has re-instituted his devious plan to force
several hundred families from their homes, ostensibly, to “protect the Everglades.”

In 1989, after vigorous debate, Congress instructed the Corps of Engineers to protect the people
in the 8.5 SMA, by building flood control structures. It never happened. Environmental
organizations wanted the people out, not protected. Their vision of the Wildlands Project did not
include human life in the area they thought should be a buffer zone around the core wilderness
area - as prescribed by the Wildlands Project.
Graham, who wants to be your president, would have you believe that it is just a coincidence that
UNESCO’s Seville Strategy for managing U.N. Biosphere Reserves, requires a buffer zone
around core wilderness areas, as does the U.N.’s Global Biodiversity Assessment. The
Everglades is one of 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves in the United States. It is also just a
coincidence that UNESCO requires World Heritage Sites which are declared to be “in danger,”
to be protected beyond the borders of the site. UNESCO has declared the Everglades to be a
World Heritage Site “in danger.”
There are two problems here: the end, and the means. The “end,” - flooding people out of their
homes - is definitely a problem. Environmentalists would have you believe that getting rid of the
people is essential to saving the Everglades.
Jan Jacobson, Director of the Everglades Institute, a scientist, and a long-time resident and
student of the Everglades, is among several scientists and engineers who can demonstrate that
the flooding plan so far, has done more harm than good to the Everglades.
The “means,” is another horror story. Rather than put the question to Congress in the form of a
substantive legislative proposal, so members can study, debate, and vote, Graham, once again, is
attempting to attach a rider to the Department of Interior appropriations bill, and get it adopted
by unanimous consent.
The language of the rider seeks to “clarify” the 1989 legislation, by saying it was the intent of
Congress to flood the area, when the clear language of the 1989 law, says to protect the people
from flooding. Moreover, he wants to sneak this language into an appropriations bill without
any discussion or debate. And this man wants to be our president?
Washington is awash with environmental organization lobbyists and spin doctors who are trying
to divert attention from the real issue, by demonizing those who disagree with them. They
dredge up the “anti-environment” label to pin on anyone who questions their wisdom, or has the

10
audacity to oppose them.
Senator James Inhofe, chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Richard
Pombo, chair of the House Resources Committee, already targets of the environmentalists’
demonization campaign, will likely be singled out for more attacks, if they disallow the devious
process Senator Graham is trying to pursue.
Graham’s effort to flood the landowners who live near the Everglades should be stopped. The
entire Everglades Restoration Plan should be put on hold, until there is a better plan that instills
some level of confidence that the plan will actually benefit the Everglades.
Advocates of the Wildlands Project contend that simply removing the people, will benefit the
Everglades. This same anti-human thinking is what shut off the water to the Klamath Basin
farmers; is shutting down logging across the country; and is forcing ranchers and miners off the
land.

For eight long years, environmentalists had their way, as Bill Clinton and Al Gore danced like
puppets at the end of a green string. Now, as Republicans begin to retrieve the pendulum from
the far left, and return some semblance of common sense to the environmental agenda, whining
and demonizing by the greens is being ratcheted up a few notches.
It is bad enough that for 13 years, green organizations have been able to prevent the Corps of
Engineers from complying with the 1989 Congressional instruction. It is unconscionable for
Senator Graham to now attempt to rewrite the law, without debate or recorded vote - to get rid of
the people - in order to appease the anti-human influence that apparently permeates Florida
politics.

11
Col20030117

Cesspools of socialism

By Henry Lamb
Across America, a lethal virus is infecting college campuses. It breeds in cesspools of socialist
philosophy. One manifestation is called STARC (Students Transforming and Resisting
Corporations).

STARC is an alliance of organizations, funded by the Youth Empowerment Center, which

produced activist protesters from 200 campuses for their anti-war demonstrations in Washington.
Their goal is to transform society into the utopian vision of Agenda 21 - a “sustainable” society -
in compliance with the U.N.’s Declaration of Human Rights, in which economic development,
environmental protection, and social equity are balanced in policies determined by consensus,
facilitated through what they call “participatory democratic action.”
Restructuring corporations is only slightly ahead of restructuring government on their priority
list.

Corporations, the offspring of capitalism, are thought to be the essence of evil, which cause all
the world’s major problems. Proctor & Gamble, McDonalds, WalMart, Dow Chemical, Smith-
Barney, Chevron and Shell Oil, and Occidental Petroleum are at the top of their “egregious 8"
list. A dozen more corporations are also targeted for “direct action,” as well. Corporations have
to be brought under the control of “the people,” according to STARC.
STARC believes that “goods and services should be distributed democratically;” and questions
“whether the benefits of our present mode of existence outweigh their detrimental effects on our
society, and on people and environments of all regions of the planet.”
This attack on corporations is not new. There have been numerous initiatives at the international
level to bring multi-country corporations under the regulatory authority of the United Nations.
Several U.S. Corporations have been attacked by radical extremists who don’t want McDonalds
to use white paper bags; or think Home Depot should sell only “green-label” lumber; or demand
that Staples sell recycled paper.
The STARC goals are much grander than these single extortion campaigns. Their goal is to
actually gain positions in the corporate decision-making process. One goal is to gain
representation on corporate boards, not by purchasing sufficient stock, but through coercion,
intimidation and “direct action,” that will stop only when representation is granted. More
extravagant proposals seek legislation that requires “community” representation on corporate
boards as a condition of legitimacy.

STARC ambitions go beyond corporations, all the way to governance. America’s system of
representative government, funded by corporations, must also be transformed. STARC says:

12
 “We believe in grassroots, democratic decision-making and a constant dialogue between
theory and practice, allowing every community to fashion solutions that meet their
specific and particular needs.”
The President’s Council on Sustainable Development put it this way:
“We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions; more rapid
change; and more sensible use of human, natural, and financial resources in achieving our
goals.”
Neither of these statements fully describe the “decision process” that is envisioned, but it is being
implemented in communities across the country. Nearly every community saw some form of
“visioning” council come into existence during the Clinton/Gore years. These councils consist
of professionals employed by non-government organizations, and bureaucrats employed by
agencies of government.

These councils conduct community meetings at which public input is said to be collected, and
shaped into consensus recommendations - that “fashion solutions that meet their specific and
particular needs.”
These meetings do no such thing. They provide the appearance of public approval for proposing
a set of pre-determined policy recommendations, consistent with Agenda 21 and the President’s
Council on Sustainable Development.
Ultimately, the recommendations require government control of virtually every aspect of human
life. Neighborhood councils, described by STARC as “grassroots democratic decision-making,”
is much like the hierarchy of soviets in the former Soviet Union. The difference being, that
instead of control being in the hands of the “Party,” control is vested in the approved, or
“accredited” non-government organization. Neighborhood councils are to respond to community
councils that are to respond to bioregional councils, that respond to the national council, which
sends delegates to the “People’s Assembly” that meets for two weeks prior to the opening of the
U.N. General Assembly.

Where are elected officials in this scenario? City councils, county commissions, state
legislatures, and even Congress, drift toward policy irrelevance, responsible only for imposing
the taxes that fund the policies developed through facilitated participatory democratic action.
This is the “new decision process” envisioned by the PCSD.
STARC is probably caught up in youthful zeal to save the world, with little understanding of the
magnitude of the philosophical shift they espouse. The funders of these initiatives are the
culprits, and they are safely out of sight, way behind the scenes. The future STARC is pursuing
is a socialist future, whether or not they realize it. America and the world deserve Freedom.

13
Col20030121

Walking on thin ice

By Henry Lamb
President Bush took a calculated risk when he went to the U.N. Security Council seeking support
to end the threat of Saddam Hussein’s use of weapons of mass destruction. He had to know that
engagement of the U.N. would mean delay after delay. He had to know that his political
opponents would use the time to mount a vigorous campaign to discredit him, and his objective.
The world-wide anti-war protests last weekend demonstrate just how quickly the anti-Bush
crowd can finance and mobilize demonstrations. They can only get more boisterous as time
passes. Rest assured the protests are not the spontaneous outpouring of ordinary citizens; they
are the carefully choreographed dance of the anti-capitalism, anti-America, anti-Bush, anti-
freedom folks, funded by huge foundations that have their own agenda.
STARC (Students Transforming And Resisting Corporations), organized students from 200
campuses to march on Washington to protest the war. Their money comes from the Youth
Empowerment Center. YEC’s money comes from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, and the
Surdna Foundation, and others. STARC is now recruiting college students to attend an eight-
week “activists” school this summer, to become more effective campus organizers for the
“broader student movement for social justice.”
Anti-war protesters only compound Bush’s problems. Russia, France, and China are already
talking publicly about giving Iraq more time, even before the January 27th report from the chief
inspectors. The Security Council is not about eliminating the threat posed by Saddam; it is about
delay and debate, debate and delay. Remember Rwanda? Hundreds of thousands of people died
while the U.N. debated and did nothing. Remember Bosnia? NATO acted while the U.N.
debated.

The U.N. will not, indeed, cannot, protect the United States. Nor should it.
Despite the whining of the anti-war, anti-America crowd, and despite the empty verbosity of
Russia, France, and China, President Bush, alone, has the sole responsibility of protecting the
citizens of the United States. By yielding to the cries for diplomacy from the international
community, and allowing the United Nations to re-enter the U.S.-Iraq controversy, Mr. Bush
chose a path toward an ever-thinning layer of ice.
Continuation on this path will be, in effect, yielding our sovereignty to the United Nations,
allowing an external political power to dictate our foreign policy - and our future. What’s worse,
Saddam will continue his cat-and-mouse games until the perfect moment of opportunity to inflict
maximum damage on the U.S. or its allies. Then, it will be too late. The whiners, and the so-
called international statesmen will be the first to criticize the U.S. for allowing the tragedy to
happen.
It is decision time.

14
Saddam responded to U.N. Resolution 1441 with a rehash of previous reports that all reviewers
condemn as a failure to comply. A cache of unreported missiles has been explained as an
“accounting error,” by Scott Ritter, former U.N. inspector and Saddam apologist. The 2,000-
pages of detailed information about development of nuclear weapons, found in the Scientist’s
home, produced only protests of invasion of privacy, and threats to sue the inspectors.
For 12 years, Saddam Hussein has played the U.N., and the U.S., like a fiddle, exporting his
propaganda, financial support for Palestinian terrorists, and who knows what else, to wherever it
will damage Americans.
More time for more inspections and more debate, simply forces the world to listen to more
screeching on Saddam’s fiddle.
Even while the U.N. has been practicing its delaying tactics, President Bush has been tightening
the noose around Saddam’s neck. Bush told the U.N. that its failure to act against Iraq would
relegate the institution to irrelevancy, along the same road on which the League of Nations
crashed.

Bush gave the U.N. its chance to step up to what it claims to be its responsibility - to keep peace
in the world. The U.N. prefers to keep the peace by appeasing Saddam, in hopes that he will not
invade his neighbors again, or use chemical weapons on his own citizens again.
The best hope for peace is to eliminate the threat presented by Saddam. Then the world will
know he will not invade Kuwait or Iran or any other nations. Nor will he fill the warheads in the
“accounting error,” with chemicals not declared in his report to the U.N., and launch them
toward Israel, or Saudi Arabia, or U.S. forces.
Regardless of his bluster, it is Saddam Hussein who is walking on thin ice; not President Bush.

15
Col20030128

Marching toward oblivion

By Henry Lamb
The League of Nations withered on the vine when the United States refused to join the world
government. It is time for the U.N. to follow its predecessor into oblivion. This will happen
when the United States finally recognizes that the U.N. has become the breeding ground of hate
for American values, and pulls the financial plug.
The most avid supporters of the U.N. must now take another, realistic, look at this institution.
The U.N. Commission on Human Rights has elected Libya as its chair. If that doesn’t frost your
apples, how about this: Iraq will chair the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. Next, we’ll hear
that Osama bin Laden has been named to head the U.N.’s anti-terror commission.
The nation that for 12 years, has thumbed its nose at U.N. demands to disarm, will now set the
agenda for U.N. disarmament talks. Libya, the nation near the top of every list of human rights
violators, will set the agenda for U.N. human rights programs.
The Human Rights Commission was prepared to elect Libya by acclamation, but the U.S.
insisted on a vote, to see where the chips fell. Thirty-three nations voted for Lybia; Canada and
Guatemala joined the U.S.’s “no” vote; and 17 European nations abstained. This vote speaks
volumes about the attitude of our so-called allies in Europe.

The European nations that condone this U.N. bureaucratic nonsense are among the same nations
that have refused to stand up to Saddam Hussein for the last 12 years. Not only are they
unwilling to take a stand now, they bad-mouth the United States, and its President, for not
submitting to the “international will.”
The anti-American attitude, so flagrantly displayed by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights,
and in the U.N. Security Council, permeates the entire United Nations organization. I’ve seen it
at U.N. meetings in Bonn, in Geneva, in Buenos Aires, in Kyoto, and in The Hague. At every
U.N. meeting I’ve ever attended, there is a constant drumbeat of anti-American sentiment.

Despite this anti-American attitude, the U.N. has the audacity to ask the United States for a $1.3
billion interest-free loan to refurbish its New York Headquarters. The only money that goes to
the U.N. should be to purchase the property, and send the U.N. packing.
There are two ways the U.S. can change this growing anti-American attitude. The shortest route,
would be to acquiesce to global governance, and submit to the international scheme to transform
the world into a socialist utopia, administered by the United Nations. The rest of the world
would love us - instantly. The U.S. would finally be under the control of the U.N.
The other way is to immediately withdraw from the U.N., lock, stock, and barrel. The howls and
screams would dominate the international media - and the liberal U.S. press - for a while. For a

16
short while. Individually, outside the U.N. stable, most nations would scramble to establish a
relationship with the U.S.

America’s strength and prosperity arises from the principles of freedom on which the nation was
founded. These same principles offer the same result to all nations that will embrace them. The
United States should stop apologizing for our success, and stop compromising the principles of
freedom in order to appease the international community. America should assert those
principles, in domestic policy, and most definitely, in international policy.
The United Nations has but one, overarching goal: to become the center of global governance
through which its socialist philosophy will impose “sustainable development” – the equitable
distribution of the earth’s resources. What the world needs is not sustainable development, but
sustainable freedom. U.S. withdrawal from the U.N. would be a major step in the right direction.
Capitalism cannot survive in a “sustainable” world, nor can individual freedom. Capitalism is
the source of evil, according to many U.N. supporters. Individual freedom is characterized as a
license to pollute, according to many U.N. supporters. National sovereignty is an obsolete idea
held only by xenophobes - according to many U.N. supporters.
Individual freedom, free markets, and national sovereignty are the bricks and mortar of the
greatest nation the world has ever known. The United Nations is working to replace these values
with government control of the economy, and the environment, by controlling every facet of
human behavior.
Every dime we give to the U.N. advances the cause of global governance. When we withdraw
our support, and stop paying their bills, the U.N. will fade into oblivion, just like the League of
Nations.

17
Col20030203

Killing us gently

By Henry Lamb
While some of us try to focus attention on how our national sovereignty is being usurped by the
United Nations, the strength of our sovereignty is being sapped at home, by an army that claims
to be protecting the environment.

National sovereignty is meaningless unless we have the power to exercise it. Our power comes
from our ability to produce the goods and services required to do what we believe has to be done.
Day by day, decision by decision, policy by policy, we are losing the ability to produce what we
need.
Our strength as a nation requires food, and fuel. Our ability to produce these essentials has
become less important than protecting a red-legged frog, or a sucker fish.
Food producers are being forced out of business. Klamath farmers may yet not survive the
lawsuits filed by environmental organizations to protect the sucker fish, long considered to be
worthless. Ranchers are systematically being moved off the range in order to preserve more
wilderness and protect weeds, wolves, and prairie dogs. And, it gets worse.

Consider the hamburger you buy at the supermarket. Typically, the red meat is imported,
because producers can buy frozen, boneless, red beef from other countries for about 30-cents per
pound. Red beef from American producers is much more expensive, because American ranchers
must pay for the environmental, labor, and safety requirements imposed over the years. Foreign
producers are rarely bothered by such requirements.
American beef processors buy red beef at the lowest possible price. Then by adding the white fat
trimmings from expensive American beef, and grinding it all together, the hamburger can be sold
as “American” beef. The consumer never knows that the hamburger on the grill is really quite
multi-cultural in origin.
Meat producers in America are vanishing. Farmers are vanishing for the same reasons. Food
producers in America are vanishing. A vital component of our sovereignty is being transferred
to foreign countries. We are becoming dependent upon other nations for our food supply, where
we have no control over the quality, or security against possible contamination by terrorists.
Increasingly, our energy comes from outside our borders. ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife
Refuge) represents the battleground between environmental protection and domestic energy self-
sufficiency. ANWR cannot supply all our energy needs, but had we tapped its reserves years
ago, when the proposal was defeated by the environmental lobby, today’s dependence on foreign
oil would be significantly reduced.
We have domestic energy resources, including nuclear power, which could free us from
dependence on other nations. Instead of using our own resources, environmental organizations,

18
through their incessant propaganda, lobbying, and support for like-minded politicians, are
sapping the strength out of our national sovereignty.

Even our military is not immune. Training has been curtailed to avoid disturbing turtles. Whales
may be inconvenienced by further development of sonar equipment. A locoweed may be
trampled by troops training to defend our nation from terrorists, so environmental organizations
file lawsuit after lawsuit, to further sap the strength of our sovereignty.
Environmentalists’ pressure to ban asbestos may have contributed to the Challenger disaster, and
to the collapse of the World Trade Center. The environmentalist-inspired ban on Freon may
have also contributed to the Columbia disaster.
Environmental organizations have become a legion of leeches, attached to every part of the body
politic which is our national sovereignty.
Congress has the power to pluck these leeches from our national body, if they are forced to do so
by the people whose vote put them into office. ANWR will surely come to another vote.
Environmental organizations will again sing their tired old song about “pristine wilderness,”
which in reality is frozen tundra. When Congress votes, it will not be about wildlife and
wilderness; it will be about the strength of our sovereignty.
Congress must also confront the issue of food production: either reduce the expensive
regulations required of American producers, or prohibit the import of food that is not produced in
compliance with those same requirements.
Congress must also exempt military operations from interference from environmental
organizations.
Failure to recognize and forcefully address these internal issues of national sovereignty, has
already reduced our strength and increased our vulnerability in a world that grows more
dangerous every day.
The “save the planet at all costs” mentality of the environmental movement is much like the
wrongheaded mentality of Lincoln’s physicians: while the leeches suck, they are killing us
gently.

19
Col20030210

Let the U.N. die

By Henry Lamb
For more than a half-century, the United States has invested untold billions of hard-earned
dollars in the United Nations. Once, there was a hope that the sprawling bureaucracy could be a
forum where nations hammer out solutions to the world’s problems, instead of resorting to war.
That hope became a fantasy many years ago. Between bureaucratic inertia, and political
posturing, the U.N. has become a bottomless pit, where good money chases bad. Since the
collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.N.’s highest priority appears to be to contain, constrain, and
ultimately, to control the United States.

Germany, aided by France and Russia, has been at the forefront of this effort for more than a
decade. Their current display of solidarity on Iraq, and NATO, is far more public than normal,
which suggests that they believe they now have the power to force the United States to conform
to their demands.
Willy Brandt, then-Chancellor of Germany, called an emergency meeting of the world’s socialist
leaders in 1991, when George Bush I stood up to Saddam Hussein. Out of this meeting came the
Commission on Global Governance, which produced a blueprint for creating world government.
That blueprint has now been substantially implemented, and the one-worlders believe they have
the power to force the U.S. to acquiesce to their will.
The Clinton administration supported the global governance agenda; the Bush administration has
tried valiantly to keep the U.S. out of the clutches of the one-worlders, while working within the
framework of the United Nations. The selection of Libya to head the Human Rights
Commission; the selection of Iraq to head the Disarmament talks; and now, France and
Germany’s determination to continue the U.N.’s 12-year “rush” to war, and their refusal to allow
NATO to plan for Turkey’s defense - should convince even Congressional Democrats that the
U.N. is a lost cause.

America’s role, and responsibility to the world, is neither to fund, nor to conform to the wishes
of the United Nations. The first responsibility of the American government is to protect U.S.
citizens, and to defend the U.S. Constitution. Acquiescence to the U.N.’ global governance
would subject U.S. citizens to policies imposed by unelected bureaucrats in foreign countries,
enforced by judges chosen by the very people who seek to control the United States.

It’s time to let the U.N. die.

Ironically, the U.N. could not have possibly reached this stage of global governance without the
financial and political support of the United States. If the United States were to stop funding this
monster, it would die of starvation. To be sure, the world’s socialists would close ranks, and try
to consolidate their global power. They could, and likely would, impose sanctions on the U.S.,
forcing a direct confrontation between capitalism and socialism. No contest.

20
Withdrawal from the U.N. is not withdrawal from the world, nor should it be. President Bush’s
“coalition of the willing” consists of at least 18 nations that have made a public commitment to
participate, with or without the U.N. Still, Senator Carl Levin, among others contend that action
against Iraq without U.N. approval is “unilateral” action. This idea that the U.N. must
legitimize U.S. foreign policy is to deny the concept of national sovereignty.
There are many people in America who have been taught that global governance, administered
by the U.N., is the next plateau in the evolution of governance, and that failure to acquiesce to
the inevitable is irresponsible. This idea is the result of a half-century of careful indoctrination
by UNESCO, the National Education Association, the U.N. Association, the World Federalist
Society, and a host of other one-world advocates. To those who subscribe to this point of view,
the U.S. Constitution is obsolete; national sovereignty is outdated, and individual freedom must
be suppressed for the greater collective good of society.
The decisions made by the United States government in the next days or weeks could well
determine the future of the United States for generations. If the United States bows to the will of
the U.N., America - the land of the free and the home of the brave - will be history. On the other
hand, if the U.S. exercises its national sovereignty and moral authority to protect its citizens, and
the U.S. Constitution, despite the objections of France, Germany, and Russia - we could see the
beginning of a new era of freedom in the United States, and throughout the world.

21
Col20030215

The time for talk has passed

By Henry Lamb
For 12 years, Saddam Hussein has demonstrated his contempt for the authority of the U.N., by
refusing to honor the agreements he made in order to stay in power after his defeat in Kuwait.
For 12 years, the United Nations has demonstrated its incompetence, by refusing to enforce even
one of the 17 resolutions it adopted to force Iraq to disarm.
On September 12, 2002, President Bush told the U.N. the United States considered Iraq to be a
dangerous threat to the United States, because Saddam had refused to disarm, as required by
U.N. resolutions. The President urged the U.N. to enforce its resolutions. He also said that if
the U.N. failed to act, the United States, along with a coalition of other willing nations, would
have to disarm Iraq, as a matter of self-defense.
For seven weeks, the United States engaged the U.N. Security Council in diplomatic efforts to
adopt, on November 8, another final, last-chance resolution (1441) to force Iraq to disarm fully,
completely, and quickly. As the U.S. military might assembled on I raq’s border, Saddam
welcomed the U.N. inspectors, produced a mountain of meaningless paper, and declared it was in
compliance with U.N. requirements because it had no weapons of mass destruction.
Three months of inspections prove only that Iraq has allowed the inspectors to look at various
sites; the inspections can prove neither the presence, nor absence of the stockpiles of weapons of
mass destruction that the U.N. knew were in the country in 1998. Saddam has refused to
produce evidence to support his claim that the weapons were destroyed.
Friday, February 14, should be the day history records as the day the United Nations began its
descent into oblivion. If there were ever any doubt that the U.N. has become nothing more than
a breeding ground for anti-American zeal, those doubts were washed away in Friday’s Security
Council meeting. If there were ever any doubt about the U.N.’s incompetence, they too, were
completely dispelled.
Despite the 12 years of non-compliance with 17 previous resolutions, France, Russia, Germany,
and the majority of the 15 Security Council members, see no harm in ignoring the “last-chance”
provision of the last resolution, and are demanding that the “serious consequences” specified in
resolution 1441 be defined as nothing more than continued inspections.
It is clear that U.N. resolutions are meaningless. Consequently, the U.N. Security Council is a
waste of time and money. The General Assembly achieved this same status years ago.
President Bush is about the make the most important decision of his presidency. He has told the
U.N., and the world, that if the U.N. fails to meet its responsibility and disarm Saddam, the
United States will.

22
While the wheels of diplomacy were turning, every anti-Bush, anti-American group in the world
mobilized to use the war as an excuse to condemn both the President, and America. The handful
of sincere people who object to disarming Iraq, for whatever reason, are not likely to be among
the thousands that are bussed from college campuses, and paid by environmental and social
organizations to carry placards and posters and make fools of themselves in front of TV cameras.
The spectacle at Friday’s Security Council meeting, and the weekend protests around the world
were carefully orchestrated to provide to a willing media, a picture of America standing alone
against the world.
Despite Friday’s theatrics at the U.N., and the media frenzy that followed, the fact remains that
the United States is a primary target of terrorists, as was so vividly demonstrated by the 9-11
attack. Saddam is known to have had tons and tons of weapons of mass destruction which have
not been destroyed, according to the evidence available to the U.N. inspectors.
Every day that passes, the possibility increases that these weapons will find the hands of people
who are eager to kill themselves in the effort to destroy Americans. Every dollar and every
moment wasted on the U.N., represents resources that cannot be used elsewhere to seek out
terrorists, or for more constructive purposes.

Pundits are quick to say that if Mr. Bush goes forward in Iraq without the U.N.’s support, he will
pay a political price. This price, however, is mere pocket change, compared to the price he will
pay if he fails to protect the United States from the danger he has defined; if he cowers before
the media-enlarged street-theater staged by the rent-a-riot specialists; or if he acquiesces to the
do-nothing United Nations.
The time for talking about Iraq has passed. It is a time for strong character and determined
leadership. Colin Powell should return to Washington to focus on North Korean issues. Our
U.N. Ambassador should be polite and engaged, as the Security Council applauds its Friday
victory over the United States, and continues to shuffle papers, pretending it is doing something
meaningful. Non-essential American employees should quietly depart vulnerable posts around
the world, and our military might should lock and load.
Iraq is a small, but dangerous, drip that contributes to the river of terrorism that is rising around
the world. The United States now knows that it cannot expect the United Nations to be an ally in
our battle to defeat it. We must reorder our strategies to work with nations who share our goals
and our values. We cannot afford to waste any more time or money on the U.N.
North Korea is a real and present danger. While the U.N. debates how best to ignore the report
of its International Atomic Energy Agency, the United States should move, with its allies in the
region, to create a strategy to remove the threat. While the diplomatic efforts unfold in North
Korea, Americans should be able to expect that every strategic target in North Korea is squarely
in the cross-hairs of our defense capability - should Kim Jung Il act irrationally.
Our war on Terrorism began when the first plane hit the World Trade Center. Victory will
require the best our military has to offer, but it will take more. Much more. Victory will not
come until the United States convinces the world that we want only freedom, peace and
prosperity for ourselves, and for every other nation. Those who claim that we only want the oil -
must be proven wrong. Those who teach and preach that we are infidels, must be proven wrong

23
by our appreciation of human life and love of freedom - even for those who are taught to hate us.
This war cannot be won by the United Nations. It can be won only by sharing the principles of
freedom with those who want to be free, and defending the free from those who seek to enslave.
The United States of America arose from those principles of freedom, and, even if we are totally
alone in the world, we must carry the torch of liberty to all who would be enlightened by it.

24
Col20030216

Subsidizing the corporate green giant

By Henry Lamb
With the national radar focused on Iraq, North Korea, and the U.N., much mischief-making is
occurring in Congress. The CARE Act of 2003 (S256), is a lengthy, complex law that seeks,
among its many objectives, to increase charitable giving.

Sections 106 and 107, if enacted, will have negative consequences that far outweigh the
perceived benefits. These sections authorize a 25 percent reduction in capital gains taxes to
people who sell their land or water rights to the government, or to an environmental organization
such as The Nature Conservancy.
What’s wrong with this?
Private property, and the use of the resources it contains, is the foundation of a free market
economy. The real estate market itself, is dynamic, providing jobs, and profits as property is
traded among willing buyers and sellers. Every parcel of land acquired by government, or
organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, diminishes the real estate market, reduces
consumer choice, and increases the upward pressure on prices in the remaining market.

Taxes produced by private property evaporate when it is transferred to government, and are
dramatically reduced, or eliminated, when transferred to so-called “conservancy” organizations.
Remaining property owners are forced to pay higher tax rates to make up for the taxes that are
forever lost when property is taken away from the private sector.
Organizations such as The Nature Conservancy do not need more corporate welfare, which this
bill provides, by giving them an advantage as a buyer that is not available to other bidders. The
Nature Conservancy pays no income taxes at all, as do other bidders in the private sector. The
Nature Conservancy’s income is directly enhanced by grants from government, ($147 million
between 1997 and 2001), and another $142 million in 2000 alone, from contracts, and the sale of
land to the government.

According to a recent report in Range magazine, The Nature Conservancy owns more than 90-
million acres of land around the world, about 12-million acres - a chunk the size of Switzerland -
of which is in the United States. Along with the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and two other
environmental organizations, The Nature Conservancy is listed as “executing agency,” or
“collaborating organization,” on more than $800 million in annual grants from the U.N.’s Global
Environment Facility. There is no justification for these subsidies.
Governments already own more than 40% of the total land area in America. The total additional
acreage owned by the more than 1200 “conservancy” organizations is not known. These
organizations, in “public/private” partnerships with government, are taking control of the
foundation of our free market economy. This objective is not expressed publicly by either

25
government, or by environmental organizations. Nevertheless, the expansion of public
ownership of land is the objective, and the transformation of our economic system is the
inevitable consequence. It is the objective set forth by the United Nations in 1976:
"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.... The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people
can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control
of land use is therefore indispensable...."
The CARE Act of 2003 subsidizes these giant green corporations in order to expedite the
removal of land from private individuals, and the “inefficiencies of the market.” Since socialism
is defined to be “public ownership of the sources of production,” every sale of land to the
government, or to an environmental organization acting as a surrogate government partner,
moves the nations closer to a socialist economy.
The government needs no more land. In fact, government should begin immediately to return its
land inventory to the private sector. Environmental organizations need no more corporate
welfare in the form of grants, or special subsidies. In fact, the land owned by these organizations
should be taxed at the same rate comparable private land is taxed.

Not all of the CARE Act of 2003 is bad. Sections 106 and 107 certainly are. These sections
should be removed. Every other law that gives welfare subsidies to these green corporate giants
should be repealed.
Terms such as open space, conservation, preservation, viewsheds, and the like, may sound warm
and fuzzy. The loss of free markets, private property, and individual freedom they require,
however, is cold and brutal.

26
Col20030225

Wildlands Project writ large

By Henry Lamb
When Earth First! co-founder Dave Foreman, first voiced his vision in 1990, of wolves and
grizzly bears roaming, unmolested by humans, through unbroken wilderness from Mexico to
Canada -- many people laughed. When Reed Noss first published his Wildlands Project in 1992,
calling for the conversions of “at least half” of the United States to “core wilderness areas,”
surrounded by buffer zones in which human activity was to be severely limited -- few people
even noticed.
When the U.S. Senate learned in 1994, that the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity
embraced this “Wildlands Project” concept, it chose to not ratify the treaty. But the
Clinton/Gore administration decided to pursue Dave Foreman’s dream anyway, and set out to
transform America’s land use policies through a multitude of new rules and regulations bundled
neatly into what it called its “Ecosystem Management Policy.”
Now, a New Jersey Congressman, Robert Andrews, has decided to write into law the very same
U.N. policies rejected by the Senate, and promoted by environmental extremists. His bill, the
National Forest Ecosystem Protection Act ( HR652), requires the Forest Service to designated
“core wilderness areas,” and surround them with “primitive areas” in which human activity is
severely limited.
The bill also requires the “permanent phase out of commercial grazing.

To achieve this transformation of the American landscape, the bill appropriates $100 million per
year for 13 years to acquire private property East of Denver. Additional millions are
appropriated to acquire private property and other land use rights West of Denver.
This bill leaves many questions unanswered:
1. Why is a New Jersey Congressman who sits on the Armed Forces Committee,
promoting this bill that can transform almost every state except New Jersey?

2. How many “core reserves” will be created?

3. How many acres will be designated as “primitive areas?”
4. How many acres of private property will be added to the federal land inventory?
5. What percentage of land must the government own in order to adequately protect the
environment?

These, and many other questions go unanswered because Bill Caruso, designated press
spokesman for Congressman Andrews, failed to return repeated phone calls to his office.

27
Congressman Andrews’ bill appears to be a direct response to Dave Foreman’s fantasy.
Foreman said in 1990, “Move out the people and cars. Reclaim the roads and plowed land.”
Section 8(d) of the bill says: “The Secretary shall begin closing unmapped roads, temporary
roads, and unimproved cherry-stemmed roads in a primitive area as soon as practicable....”

Foreman says: “Terminate commercial livestock grazing on the western public lands!”
Andrews’ bill says: “Any commercial grazing permitted, as of the date of the enactment of this
Act, in the primitive areas delineated under this section shall be phased out as provided in section
5.”
The Wildlands Project is no longer a laughing matter. Already, nine bills have been introduced
to expand wilderness in America. Nearly two dozen bills have been introduced which authorize
the government’s purchase of additional private property. The concept of “multiple use” of so-
called “public land” is being replaced with the reality of “no use” of public land. Logging,
grazing, mining - use of America’s resources - is being curtailed for the benefit of a turtle, or a
frog, or a weed.
The nine million acres of wilderness originally designated by the 1964 Wilderness Act, has
grown to hundreds of millions of acres of wilderness, including 47 U.N. “Biosphere Reserves.”
Governments already own more than 40% of the total land area in America. The Andrews bill
seeks to take even more land out of production.

The land, the source of our economic prosperity, is being locked up, out of reach of individuals
and industry, forcing our economic future to become dependent upon the very nations that
eagerly await America’s downfall.
Efforts to protect the environment by assigning the responsibility to government are simply
wrongheaded. The most degraded environments in the world are those for which the
government has primary management responsibility. The forest fires of recent years are further
evidence of government’s inability to manage the land it already owns.
Private owners are, by far, better stewards of the resources upon which their livelihood depends,
than is an agency of government, or an organization of zealots, or an international commission
meeting in Gland Switzerland.

Dave Foreman’s vision and Robert Andrews’ bill should be rejected. Free people create free
markets; neither can survive when the government owns the sources of production.

28
Col20030303

Freedom rising

By Henry Lamb
With all the anti-war protests filling TV screens across the country, it would be easy to conclude
that America, and the freedom it symbolizes, is a relic of the past; that a new, global, socialist
society is arising. Not so fast. Television news does not report the big picture.

Socialists in Europe, and in America, have made a major effort to grab power, especially since
the end of the cold war. The European Union has established its own currency, set up its
parliament, and is discussing the creation of its own army. In its wake, however, a resurgence of
freedom is evident throughout Europe.
Richard Miniter, formerly with the Wall Street Journal, and now a Senior Fellow with the Center
for the New Europe, details a growing trend toward capitalism and free markets. Socialist-
leaning governments have been defeated in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland and Denmark, since
2001. “Germany, Sweden, and Greece are the only center-left governments” that remain,
according to Miniter, and “the German social democrats are at their lowest levels of support in
the polls since 1933.”
Nine of the 15 EU members have center-right governments, and two of the currently socialist
governments are facing strong opposition from growing conservative movements. Eight of these
center-right governments signed an open letter in support of President Bush, giving French
President Jacques Chirac considerable heartburn.

Resistance to collectivist, socialist policies is emerging in America as well. For nearly three
decades, public policy in America has been dominated by collectivist, socialist philosophy
masquerading as environmentalism, multiculuralism, and social justice. With the exception of
the Reagan years, this philosophy has flourished, especially during the Clinton/Gore years.
The Republican victory in 2000 is an indication that Americans may have had enough big-
brother collectivism. The Republican victories in the 2002 elections are further evidence,
reversing the historic trend of losses for the incumbent party in mid-term elections. The most
compelling evidence, though, is outside the Beltway, in the states and towns across the country.
Kentucky has rejected repeated efforts to impose “Smart Growth” legislation. New Mexico,
Wyoming, and Montana are considering legislation to exert dominance over the federal
government’s land management policies. In Maine, a bill has been introduced to block efforts to
impose Kyoto-like emissions controls at the state level. And, in state after state, grassroots
organizations are sprouting to challenge collectivist policies at the city, county, and state levels
of government.
The Freedom 21 Campaign, launched four years ago by a coalition of national grassroots
organizations, has spawned a local Freedom 21 Santa Cruz organization to counter the effects of
the first Local Agenda 21 program in Santa Cruz, California. Affiliated groups - Take Back

29
Kentucky, Take Back Illinois Take Back Florida - are having remarkable success, and new
groups are forming in other states as rapidly as possible.

The environmental movement has grown rapidly since the 1970s. With the help of a willing
media, and funded by wealthy foundations and the federal government, environmental
organizations had their way with public policy: redefining “waters of the United States” to
include mud puddles on private property; passage of The Endangered Species Act; the National
Environmental Policy Act, and many other laws and regulations that faced very little public
opposition.
Those days are gone. No more “free ride” by simply labeling a bill “environmentally friendly.”
A new initiative to identify and regulate “invasive species,” similar to the Endangered Species
Act, is under way by environmental zealots. This time, the initiative will not go unchallenged.
Grassroots organizations across the country have been alerted, informed, and activated.
Communities that quickly embraced the “sustainable development” propaganda are beginning to
rethink their decisions, as they see the economic impact on local and state budgets. The town
of Monterey, Virginia recently voted to abolish a “Historic District” created in 1981, because of
the “arbitrary decisions” imposed by an “unneeded layer of government.” People in towns
across the country are resisting collectivist policies imposed by non-elected bureaucrats.
The global environmental agenda is showing signs of unraveling as well. The World Summit on
Sustainable Development was a flop, according to environmental organizations that participated.
A Freedom 21 Campaign event, headed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow,
organized local people in Johannesburg, South Africa to parade and protest the U.N. delegates
meeting in finery, eating lobster and caviar, while discussing the world’s poor.
According to Canadian press reports, Canada will be forced to withdraw from the Kyoto
Protocol because it simply cannot afford the economic impact that the treaty will require.
As the people in America, and around the world begin to realize, and feel the impact of the
collectivist, socialist policies that have been imposed upon them, they are stirring, and
responding, and resisting, and organizing to cast aside the chains of social bondage and
economic slavery.

Freedom is, indeed, rising!

30
Col20030305

Who is in control?

By Henry Lamb
To say that the country is coming apart at the seams may be an exaggeration, compared to the
race riots of the ‘60s or the anti-war demonstrations of the Vietnam era. Nevertheless, the
growing division between the left and the right has the potential to be as destructive as any era in
our history.
The division is not simply between the Democrats and Republicans, although this division gets
the most media attention. The current filibuster of the Estrada judicial nomination is a perfect
example: the Democrats are as stubborn as the jackass in their Party’s symbol.
The division is much deeper than party affiliation. On one side of the divide, are people who
believe that the people should control government; on the other side, are people who believe that
government should control the people. Both sides are populated with people from every political
party.
The U.S. Constitution specifically authorizes the federal government to exercise enumerated
powers, and all unspecified powers remain with the states, or with the people. This principle, set
forth in the Tenth Amendment, clearly limits the power of government, and places the ultimate
authority to limit governmental power in the hands of the people.

Judging by their actions, the political left are the folks who believe that government should
control the people; the political right believes that the people should control the government.
This difference in fundamental belief is the basis of all political conflict, regardless of party
affiliation.
Nowhere has the political left been more successful in ignoring the Tenth Amendment than in
shaping the nation’s land use management policy. Congress has the Constitutional responsibility
to manage federal lands. The reality is that the management policy has been shaped by the
judiciary, resulting from lawsuits filed by left-leaning environmental organizations. It was just
such a lawsuit that redefined “waters of the United States” to include virtually every mud puddle
in the country, on both federal land and on private property.
Now, through a maze of environmental regulations and government programs, governments at
every level not only dictate how private property may be used, but also what color a house may
be painted, the dimension and colors of business signs, and even which plants may be used for
landscaping. This power is not among those enumerated in the Constitution.
The Constitution quite clearly enumerates the purposes for, and conditions upon which the
federal government may own land. This limitation has been totally ignored, and now federal,
state and local governments own more than 40% of all the land. Moreover, nearly every
legislative body in the country is appropriating tax dollars to acquire even more land for
government’s growing land inventory.

31
The political left has been responsible for ignoring the Tenth Amendment, and forging policies
that require government to control people. The political right, until recently, has allowed this to
happen, with little opposition.
Now that the political right is organizing, and exerting its will, the other side is resorting to
tactics that most generously can be described as “the end justifies any means.” These “means”
range from the arson of ski resorts, and research labs, to the ludicrous filibuster of Estrada, to the
ridiculous propaganda claims that the earth will crash and burn unless we get rid of cattle
grazing, stop all logging, and abandon automobiles in favor of bicycles and mass transit.
Of even greater concern, is the notion advanced by the political left, that the United States must
get U.N. approval of its foreign policy. It’s not enough for the federal government to control its
citizens these people want the U.N. to control the federal government.
This division between the political left and right is not limited to the United States. Most of the
people in the world have never known life under a government that actually recognizes the
inalienable right of people to limit the power of government. Therefore, most of the world’s
people agree with the political left that the U.N. should control national governments, especially
the United States government.

This conflict between political ideologies is coming to a head, at both the national and
international levels. The political left is much better organized, and better funded, than is the
political right. But the right is finally realizing that fundamental principles of self-governance
are at stake. The determination spawned by this realization has overcome overwhelming odds in
the past, most notably, during the American Revolution.
The time has come for every American to look beyond party affiliation, and decide whether
government should control its people, or the people should control their government.

32
Col20030309

Saddam’s gift to the world

By Henry Lamb
Saddam Hussein’s greatest gift to the world may well be the collapse of the United Nations.
The impasse in the Security Council over what the words “serious consequences” mean in
resolution 1441 is highly visible evidence that the U.N., as the world’s peacekeeper, is totally
irrelevant.
In its preamble, the U.N. Charter says it was formed to “save succeeding generations from the
scourge of war.” The truth is that the U.N. has done more to prevent peace, than to prevent war.
In its entire history, the U.N. Security Council has voted to authorize military intervention only
three times: in Korea; in the 1991 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; and in the 2002 intervention in
Afghanistan - all at the request of the United States.
While hundreds of thousands of people were being hacked to death in Rwanda, the U.N. talked,
but did nothing. While ethnic cleansing was occurring in the Balkans, the U.N. talked, but did
nothing. The chronology of slaughter during the life of the U.N. is inescapable evidence of the
U.N.’s abject failure to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”
Saddam’s refusal to comply with 18 U.N. resolutions shines the spotlight of reality on the U.N.’s
irrelevance. This unintended gift from Saddam, allows us to get on with making the world a
safer place for all.
Since it is now abundantly clear that the world cannot look to the U.N., the United States has no
choice but to accept the role it has played since World War II. Like it or not, we are the world’s
policemen. It is time to stop wasting resources at the U.N., in hopes that it will be what it can
never become.
The attack on the World Trade Center has forever changed the foundation of U.S. foreign policy.
The U.N.’s spectacular failure forces the United States to look to the future from a new
perspective: national defense first, and advancement of U.S. national interests.
To achieve both of these objectives, friendly, cooperative relations with all nations that share
these objectives, is a must. After all, these are the same objectives that virtually every nation
pursues. More than 20 nations have signed on to support America’s efforts in Iraq, even without
U.N. support, because they realize that our goals advance their national interests and promote
their national defense.
France, Germany, Russia, and China choose not to support the U.S. effort because the
elimination of Saddam Hussein will not advance their national interests. So be it.

The United States cannot look to the U.N. to provide solutions to the rising North Korean
conflict, nor to the rising conflict with Iran. Using the same principle that has guided the Bush
administration in dealing with Iraq -- military power as the last resort -- the U.S. should exhaust

33
diplomatic efforts to help end the nuclear threat posed by both of these nations. At the end of the
day, the United States should be prepared to do whatever is necessary to prevent their anticipated
weapons of mass destruction from ever being used.
It will take, perhaps a decade, for the world to realize that we are entering a new, post-U.N. era.
The only way America can prove to the world that we are not the “great satan,” as taught by
Saddam and Osama is to demonstrate the principles of freedom at home and in our relationships
with the nations that want our help.
We cannot leave Afghanistan to fall victim to the next, most powerful war lord. We need to help
them discover the principles of freedom on which to build democratic institutions that ensure self
governance by the people. The Iraqis long to escape the iron fist of tyranny which has enslaved
them for generations. It is in our self-interest to help them.
Freedom, as America has demonstrated, is the best hope for peace and prosperity in the world.

The U.N. has never been about freedom. It has always been about amassing the power to control
world events. When government controls the people, whether the government is a Saddam, the
Taliban, or a world government, there is no freedom. Freedom can exist only when people
control their government through an orderly process which results in policies the people want,
administered by officials the people choose. Freedom requires a system that allows the people to
change their leaders, without bloodshed, whenever they wish.
President Bush believes that “Freedom is not America’s gift to the world; freedom is God’s gift
to humanity.” This is the principle that should guide our post-9/11, post-U.N. foreign policy.

34
Col20030310

Kofi Annan’s Arrogance

By Henry Lamb
On television screens around the world, Kofi Annan said: "The members of the Security Council
now face a great choice. If they fail to agree on a common position, and action is taken without
the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support of any such action will be
seriously impaired."
Mr. Annan, you’re dead wrong.
Military action by the United States is legitimized by the U.S. Congress, not by the U.N. Security
Council. On October 16, 2002, Congressional Resolution 114 became Public Law 107-243,
which authorized the President of the United States to:
“...use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq...”

Not another word is needed.

It is the U.N.’s 12-year failure to enforce 17 of its own resolutions that has allowed Iraq to
become a serious threat to the United States. Now that Iraq is a threat which the U.S. must
remove, Kofi Annan has the audacity to condemn the actions as “illegitimate.” This
pronouncement by Kofi Annan will make any action taken by the U.S., subject to the war crimes
provisions of the International Criminal Court, in the eyes of the United Nations.
Had the U.N. pushers had their way in recent years, the U.S. would be powerless against the
U.N.’s so-called global governance. In 1961, State Department Publication 7277 promoted the
U.N.’s proposal to disarm all national militaries and create instead, a global standing army under
the U.N.’s command.

In 1995, the Commission on Global Governance renewed this proposal, saying “What is needed
is demilitarization of international society,” and “A United Nations Volunteer Force should be
formed and be available for rapid deployment under the authority of the Security Council.”
U.N. pushers have long craved a global tax, to provide independent funding for its operations, to
be free from the shackles of member’s contributions. The Tobin Tax was actually introduced in
the U.S. Congress, and is supported by many main-stream organizations. If the U.N. had this
taxing authority, it could afford the standing army it desires.
Had the United States ratified the Kyoto Protocol when it was first proposed in 1997, the
bureaucracy would be just about strong enough by now, to have a measure of control over the
fossil fuel that could be imported by the U.S.
Had the United States ratified the International Criminal Court, military action outside the U.N.

35
would, in fact, subject the U.S. to “war crimes” as defined by the same countries that condemn as
illegitimate our right to self defense.

Fortunately, our leaders have rejected the urging of the U.N. pushers, and the United States is
still a sovereign nation. It is now extremely clear that the U.N.’s goal is to amass power superior
to the sovereignty of all nations. Kofi Annan’s remarks indicate that he believes the U.N. has
that power, if not in fact, by virtue of public support.
Once again, Congressman Ron Paul has introduced HR1146, the American Sovereignty
Restoration Act of 2003. This bill will withdraw the United States from the United Nations.
In view of the fiasco at the U.N. in recent weeks, every American should realize that further
participation in the United Nations is not just a waste of time and money it is a threat to the
sovereignty of our nation. Congress should take a long, hard look at what we get for our U.N.
investment, and find better ways to spend hard-earned tax dollars.

Kofi Annan is dead wrong in his condemnation of U.S. action against Iraq. France, Russia,
China, and many other countries, would like nothing better than to contain and control the
United States. They have no hope of doing it alone, and see the U.N. as their best hope of
putting a halter on this nation.
Should they succeed in forcing the United States to submit to the authority of the U.N., the
beacon of freedom in the world would be extinguished in a spiral of increasing oppression, from
which it may take centuries to escape.
Now is the time to say goodbye to the U.N. - and good riddance.

36
Col20030316

Re-ordering the New World Order - Part 1

By Henry Lamb
The threat Saddam Hussein poses to the United States is the only justification for his removal.
This fundamental issue has been ignored in the orchestrated anti-war hoopla that has blossomed
from the U.N. Security Council’s inaction, and media-hyped protests.

Removal of Saddam has become the most recent excuse to bash Bush and the United States.
A sign seen frequently in the media coverage of the anti-war protests reads: “Capitalism is the
cause of all the world’s problems.” These protests are organized by A.N.S.W.E.R., headed by
Ramsey Clark, and fed by misguided college students who work through STARC - Students
Transforming and Resisting Corporations.
A review of the organizations affiliated with these outfits reveals a disproportionate number with
words in their names such as “socialist,” “communist,” and “green.” These are the same people
who show up to protest meetings of the World Trade Organization, and the International
Monetary Fund, because they believe these institutions are controlled by capitalists, acting at the
behest of the United States.

They are simply using the Iraq conflict as an excuse to demonstrate their opposition to America,
and American values. The principled people who oppose a war with Iraq, who are drawn into
these demonstrations, become unwitting pawns of the anti-American crusade. This street theater
is the meat and potatoes of media-amplified propaganda, which upstages the drama unfolding on
the international diplomatic scene.
Why are France and Germany so adamantly opposed to removing Saddam? There is, of course,
the 30-year personal friendship between Chirac and Hussein, and the trade ties between Iraq and
France and Germany, which are certainly factors, but there is more going on here than meets the
eye. Removal of Saddam by the United States has become the issue on which a new, fledgling,
“superpower”, the European Union, has chosen to challenge the U.S, and become the counter-
balance to the American dominance in the world.
For half a century, U.S. power was held in check by the Soviet Union, during the cold war. Even
before the Berlin Wall came crashing down, European leaders were scrambling to create an
institution to fill the vacuum: the European Union. The EU traces its origin back to 1951, but did
not become a reality until the Maastricht Treaty, finalized in 1992. The EU vision is to
transform 15 European nations into a single economic, political, and military unit more powerful
than the United States.
Central to the EU vision, is the concept of “shared,” or “pooled” sovereignty. This concept
began to emerge more fully through the Commission on Global Governance report, Our Global
Neighborhood.

37
Most of the world is eager to “pool” sovereignty with the U.N., because this would increase their
political strength. How else could Cameroon, Angola, or Guinea, or France, Germany, or
Russia, for that matter, have any hope of influencing actions that the United States may take?
The impasse at the Security Council was not simply about Iraq, or the legitimacy of the threat
Saddam poses to the United States. It was about controlling the United States, and forcing it to
“pool” its sovereignty with the rest of the world. France and Germany, prime supporters in the
European Union movement, asserted their power, and forced the U.S. to decide, ultimately, what
the future of the world will be.
Had the U.S. backed down, and submitted to the will of the “international community,” the
United States would have effectively yielded its sovereignty to a higher, global, power. By
refusing to submit, the U.S. will be painted as a “rogue nation,” an “aggressor,” in defiance of
world opinion.
These days, and the decisions now unfolding, are far more important to the future of the world
than is readily apparent: the New World Order is being re-ordered.

The political fallout from the events surrounding Iraq could hang a “vacant” sign on the U.N.
Security Council, if not on the entire U.N. Both NATO and the EU are due for re-alignment,
while the U.S. forges a new foreign policy that will, indeed, influence the future of the world for
generations.
Our post-war, post-U.N. foreign policy must be guided by the same principles of freedom that
guided the development of the United States: free people and free markets. As these ideas take
root, they will re-order a new world.

38
Col20030319

Re-ordering the New World Order - Part 2

By Henry Lamb
March 17, 2003 is the day the New World Order began to unravel - for real. The New World
Order, as envisioned by most of the members of the United Nations, is based on the concept of
“pooled sovereignty,” from which a consensus of the members supersedes the authority of any
individual member nation.
When France, Russia, and China refused to support a Security Council resolution offered by the
United Kingdom, Spain, and the United States, to enforce the Council’s previous 17 resolutions
relating to Iraq, the concept of pooled sovereignty met a crucial test - and failed. Consequently,
the future of the Security Council, and of the United Nations, is unsure.
What now?
Global governance enthusiasts are calling for strengthening the U.N., along the lines
recommended by the Commission on Global Governance. As reported in the New York Times,
Jorge G. Castaneda, former foreign minister of Mexico, and Dmitri V. Trenin, deputy director of
the Carnegie Moscow Center, recommend elimination of the veto power of permanent members
of the Security Council. Andre Lewin, former French ambassador to India, and chairman of the
French United Nations Association, wants a standing army under the direct command of the
U.N. Secretary-General, and a global tax for independent funding of the U.N.
Had these recommendations been adopted in 1995, when first advanced by the Commission on
Global Governance, the United States would not be able defend itself against Iraq’s weapons of
mass destruction. Like Gulliver, the United States would be constrained by the very nations that
despise the values that have made America the most powerful nation ever.
President Bush demonstrated rather forcefully, that the U.S. is not willing to surrender its
sovereignty to a superior power, when he, with his staunchest allies, slammed shut the window
of diplomacy on the 18th Iraqi resolution on March 17.
What now?
The United States has launched a new initiative in the evolution of international relations. There
is no road map, but there are valid principles which promise a better future than the idea of
“pooled sovereignty.” The success the United States has experienced in its brief history is
irrefutable evidence that a free society is better than a society controlled by government. A
world of free, sovereign nations is better than a world in which nations are controlled by a world
government.

The United States has an opportunity to lead the world toward freedom, but the road is fraught
with danger. On the one hand, many nations will see the free world initiative to be America’s
excuse to conquer weaker nations, to build a global American empire. On the other hand, are the

39
twin dangers of corruption and abuse that are inherent in unchecked power.
The new, free world initiative has rejected the concept of pooled sovereignty in a world
government. It has embraced the idea of protecting its citizens from the use of weapons of mass
destruction, even if it means eliminating a government that threatens to use them. What remains
to be seen is how this awesome power will be used after the threat has been removed.
As President Bush and the United States Congress begin charting the course to the future, the
principles of freedom must guide them. When, as a matter of self defense, it becomes necessary
to involve the U.S. in the affairs of another nation, we can no longer just remove the immediate
threat, and then allow the next dictator to begin the process anew. Nor can we impose an
American system of governance.
Freedom must be earned by meeting the responsibilities that accompany it. America’s role is to
provide assistance when requested, and protection when needed, during the process. If the world
sees that this is America’s purpose and mission, it will begin to put the lie to the anti-American
propaganda that fuels terrorism today.

The road to a free world is long, unmapped, and lined with many enemies. Afghanistan is the
first test case. Iraq may well be another. How the United States conducts itself in the next
months and years will determine the future of the world for generations to come.
How the United States conducts itself will be determined by the people ordinary Americans send
to Washington. If we send to Washington an administration and Congress that values U.N.
control more than freedom and sovereignty, then the world will be subject to world government.
If we send to Washington more people who embrace the responsibilities of freedom, and are
willing to share its benefits, then perhaps the 21st century can, indeed, witness the evolution of a
free world.

40
Col20030326

What’s next for the U.N.?

By Henry Lamb
The first week of fighting has brought news reports from independent journalists that reveal the
true colors of the Iraqi regime. No one should be surprised that in Saddam’s world, POWs are
shot in the head; or that Iraqi soldiers would pretend to surrender in order to ambush Americans;
or by any of the other nasty tactics reported thus far.
U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan has shown his true colors; he chose to ignore these
atrocities, and instead, chose to condemn the explosions in a market place presumed, and
reported to be, U.S. missiles that may have gone astray, which may well have been Iraqi
missiles.
Wednesday, the U.N. Security Council showed its true colors by opening its doors to all
members who wished to make statements condemning the coalition action in Iraq. Only the
delegate from Kuwait spoke in favor of unseating Saddam. If anyone ever had any doubt that the
U.N. is an anti-American institution, that doubt should certainly now be removed.
Perhaps, finally, America is showing its true colors - red, white, and blue - by ignoring the U.N.,
and putting an end to Saddam’s dangerous reign of terror. What comes next at the U.N. will be
of historic importance.

Both Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac are insisting that the U.N., not the coalition forces, be in
charge of administering post-Saddam Iraq. The Bush administration is not rushing to embrace
this idea.
There are indications that the U.S. is willing to let the U.N. continue administering the “oil for
food” program, and, perhaps, deliver other humanitarian aid, but in the matter of organizing a
new government, the U.S. has its own ideas.
For Annan and Chirac, the issue is not the future of Iraq, but the future of the U.N. that is of
greatest concern. America has persuaded 47 nations to publicly join the coalition of the willing,
and with the non-public supporters, the coalition is nearly twice the size of the U.N.-backed
Desert Storm coalition. This coalition includes the majority of the European Union, and the
majority of NATO, leaving France and Germany, as the isolated nations.
Since both France and Germany must have the United Nations to exercise the anticipated power
of the European Union, the future administration of Iraq is of utmost importance to them. If the
United States ignores their demands, and creates an administrative mechanism outside the U.N.,
the relevance – and the future – of the U.N. and the European Union will be in question.

Despite the anti-American rhetoric that has, and will continue to spew forth from the Arab press,
and much of the liberal press in the U.S., the United States should not trust the U.N. with any
important mission. The U.N. has demonstrated its anti-American bias, its inefficiency, indeed,

41
its corruption in many areas, and its inability, or unwillingness, to enforce its own resolutions.
The United Nations’ vision of creating world peace through world law, judged by a world court,
enforced by a world army - has failed. It has failed because Americans are not willing to
surrender their freedom and sovereignty to a world government.
The conflict between national sovereignty and global government has been on a collision course
since the inception of the U.N. The two forces collided on March 17, when the United States
announced the end of discussions about Iraq. When allied forces moved into Iraq, without
formal U.N. approval, it proved only one thing: U.N. approval is meaningless.
The same nations that provided the money and the military power to drive Saddam out of Kuwait
are now driving him from power. The fact is that the U.N.’s approval of Desert Storm had
nothing to do with its success. The absence of U.N. approval has nothing to do with the success
of the current battle. In fact, had it not been for the U.N.’s involvement with Desert Storm,
which prevented the removal of Saddam 11 years ago this battle would not have been necessary.
It’s time to let the U.N. fade away. Some of the international organizations that now operate
under its auspices may, indeed, be important. If they are, they can earn their continued existence
by providing a real service to the nations that pay for their existence. More than 130 U.N.
agencies and organizations have become nothing more than self-perpetuating bureaucracies
working to justify their own existence.
Now is the time to support Congressman Ron Paul’s HR1146, a bill calling for the withdrawal of
the United States from the U.N. Now is the time for the United States to ignore the demands of
Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac, and help the Iraqi people discover the freedom that Saddam has
denied them. Now is the time for the United States to stand firmly on the principles of freedom,
and not in the shadow of the U.N.

42
Col20030329

The war on terrorism

By Henry Lamb
From both the left and the right, critics of the war in Iraq ask: “Who’s next, North Korea, Iran,
Syria?” The answer: perhaps. September 11 changed the world; the United States, and much of
the civilized world, declared war on terrorism. To the extent that any nation sponsors, facilitates,
or supports terrorism, that nation is a potential target.
Americans are just beginning to realize that the war on terrorism is not simply a matter of the
current color of the terror alert, and extra screening at the airport. The war on terrorism is a war,
complete with bombs and bullets.
The United States is confronted with a fundamental and historic choice: will the U.S. depend
upon the United Nations to defend its citizens, through the U.N.’s policy of collective,
comprehensive security, as France, Germany, Russia, and much of the rest of the world demand?
Or, will the United States meet its Constitutional responsibility to defend its own citizens?
President Bush made that decision as it relates to Iraq, spawning waves of protests from the
U.N., and from the professional protesters who have nothing better to do than fill the streets with
their anti-American theater.
Iraq is, in fact, just the beginning. If the war against terrorism is to be won, it will not be won by
the U.N., where Syria sits on the Security Council, and Lybia chairs the Human Rights
Commission, and Iraq heads the Disarmament Commission. Most of the nations that populate
the United Nations want nothing more than to see the United States brought to its knees, and
controlled by a world government.
If the war on terrorism is to be won, it will be won by a U.S.-led coalition of nations that
undertake the awesome task of removing the causes of terrorism. Those people who say that
America’s foreign policy is responsible for 9-11, and the hatred of America by the Arabs, are
simply wrong. While the U.S. has made many foreign policy mistakes, the root cause of the
hatred of America is ignorance - the absence of truthful information about American values.
The vast majority of the people who raise their fists against America in the streets of Arab
nations do so because they are fed a constant diet of state-controlled misinformation. They are
taught from birth to hate America, because we are “infidels,” because we want their oil, because
we use 25% of the world’s resources, because we are greedy capitalists, because we have
“stolen” their resources - and a complete menu of similar tripe.
News reports of the war in Iraq by the Arabian press, provide only a small taste of the daily
stream of lies fed to the people who are not allowed to see or hear the truth. They do not have a
free press which can present independent reports of events from which they can choose what to
believe. Most of these people are peasants. Iraq is a prime example of why: Saddam squanders
the nation’s wealth on palaces, and weaponry, while the people go hungry.

43
To win the war against terrorism, the people who hate us must have another source of
information about us. We must demonstrate that what they have been told is a lie. Coalition
forces in Iraq are doing just that. Saddam’s soldiers torture and execute Iraqi citizens for waving
at an American; coalition forces risk their own lives to treat wounded Iraqi citizens, and bring
them food and water. Eventually, these acts of kindness and humanity will speak much louder
than the hate-filled, state-controlled TV announcers.

The real war begins when Saddam and his henchmen are history. What replaces them will
determine whether we move toward victory in the war on terrorism, or simply postpone the
horror while a new butcher is bred.
The new government in Iraq must be built on the principles of freedom: representative
government; free-speech; free markets; human rights; property rights, personal, and national
responsibility. Critics are quick to say we have no right to impose our values upon any other
nation. Perhaps we do.
At the very least, we have the right to defend our nation from the threat of terrorist attacks from
the likes of Saddam, even if that means the removal of his entire regime. If, in the doing of it,
we provide the opportunity for Iraqi citizens to explore freedom, and build a system of
representative government that allows them to exercise their own ability and benefit from their
own efforts, then perhaps it is not only our right, but also our duty.

This is not colonialism, or empire-building, as critics are quick to charge. This is self-defense, in
the short term, and an investment in a prosperous peace for the long term. If a stable
representative government can be cultivated in Iraq, which can survive after America withdraws,
a major battle in the war against terrorism will have been won.

44
Col20030407

No U.N. in Iraq’s future

By Henry Lamb
France and Russia fought desperately to keep the U.S. from ousting Saddam Hussein. They
failed. Then, while the bombs were falling on Baghdad, they proposed a cease-fire before
Saddam was ousted. This trial balloon burst when President Bush announced that there would be
no solution that left Saddam in power.
Immediately, France and Russia joined hands to announce that the U.N. must be in charge of the
reconstruction of Iraq, to give the process “legitimacy.”
Get real; it is the U.S. that gives the U.N. legitimacy, not the other way around. The U.N.
resolution to oust Saddam from Kuwait in 1991 was meaningless without the “legitimacy” given
it by the United States military. The people in Iraq do not need the U.N.; they need the U.S.
France and Russia may not want the United States, and the rest of the world, to know the extent
and the terms of their past involvement with Iraq. With the U.N. in control, they may be able to
keep the world in the dark. With the U.S. in control, the truth will come out.
It’s already known that Russian-made night-vision equipment entered Iraq through Syria before
and during the battle. It was reported that Russian technicians were in Iraq just days before the
first bombs fell, teaching the Iraqis how to use the sophisticated electronic jamming devices
designed to confuse the U.S.’s smart bombs. These facts may be just the tip of the iceberg.
Russia may have much more to hide from the world.
An August 30, 2002 report in Radio Free Europe’s Crime and Corruption Watch, says
“...Emercom, the Russian government ministry which distributes emergency aid and which
signed a $270 million deal with Iraq under the U.N. oil-for-food program in July, have been
accused of giving Iraqi officials millions of dollars in bribes.”

Two days after this accusation, which Emercom denied, Russia signed a $40 billion “trade
cooperation” deal with Iraq. The article quotes an unnamed “western diplomat” saying:
"The Emercom deal, approved by the U.N. on 11 July, is twice the size of any other
under the oil-for-food program in the last three months. It was noticeably large. Iraq is
having a problem attracting people prepared to break the sanctions. When they find
someone who is willing, then they give them the biggest deal that they can."
The 30-year relationship between Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein is well known. These
two negotiated the deal for Iraq’s first attempt to build nuclear weapons, which Israel bombed in
1981. France, along with Russia, has been a primary supplier of Iraq’s weaponry. France has
supplied Iraq with Gazelle attack helicopters, 155mm howitzers, Exocet rockets, Roland air
defense missile systems, the Mirage F-1 jet fighters, and an array of small arms displayed on

45
FOX news in crates labeled “made in France.”
No wonder France and Russia are not eager for the U.S. to rummage through Saddam’s records.
This however is a small reason why the U.N. should not be in charge of rebuilding Iraq. The
likelihood of corruption is a much more important reason.
While incredible human rights atrocities were taking place in Zimbabwe a few years ago, and
white-owned farms were being invaded by government-organized locals, the United Nations
looked the other way. Kofi Annan described the situation as “extremely dangerous,” but failed
to condemn it, nor did he bring the situation to the U.N. Security Council for action.

It may be completely unrelated, but at the same time, Kofi Annan’s youngest son, Kojo, only 26
at the time, served on the board of Air Harbour Technologies (AHT), along with the nephew of
Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe. AHT was awarded an $800 million contract to build a new
airport at Harare in 1996. By 2000, the airport costs were estimated to be $6 billion.
The Zimbabwe newspaper that reported the details of this relationship also reported that “Kojo's
business activities have reportedly raised eyebrows after one of his clients in Nigeria, a
consultancy firm called Sutton Investments, won a six-million-British-pound contract to monitor
the U.N.'s oil-for-food programme in Iraq last year.” Of course, this too, may be completely
unrelated.
These few events do not begin to reveal the depth of corruption and cronyism that plague the
United Nations bureaucracies. The United States has provided the bulk of the money that has
been wasted so far; it is way past time to stop.

France and Russia want the U.N. to lead the post-war reconstruction, not only in hopes of
protecting themselves from discovery, but also to insure the U.N.’s future. The U.N. is the only
hope they, and the rest of the world have, to contain and control the United States.
The U.S. should keep its focus, ignore the U.N. advocates, and continue to do what needs to be
done in Iraq.

46
Col20030416

The rule of international law

By Henry Lamb
There is no virtue in the rule of law - unless that law is legitimized by the consent of the
governed. The people in Saddam’s Iraq lived under the rule of law, as did the people in Hitler’s
Germany. Only the consent of the governed can give legitimacy to the rule of law.

France, Germany, and Russia joined Kofi Annan in proclaiming that the world should be
governed by the rule of international law, under the administration of the United Nations. Under
international law, as devised and administered by the U.N., the people who are governed by it,
have no opportunity to express their consent, nor to hold the law makers accountable.
People who are governed express their consent through the representatives they elect and
empower to make laws. If they disapprove of the laws that are made, the people are free to elect
new representatives who can repeal the oppressive laws.
At the United Nations, laws are fashioned by faceless bureaucrats, and adopted by the consensus
of appointed delegates, who have little interest in, and no accountability to, the people who are
governed by their laws. The people who are governed have no recourse.

For example, the people who live near Yellowstone National Park are governed by international
law, to which they never had the opportunity to give their consent. The park is a U.N. Biosphere
Reserve, and a U.N. World Heritage site. The U.S. Senate ratified the World Heritage Treaty,
but had no debate, nor oversight of the Convention’s “Operational Guidelines.”
When UNESCO declared the park to be “in danger,” the designation triggered an “international
obligation” to protect the park, even beyond the park’s boundary. This “protection” resulted in
substantial losses to private citizens from “international law”, to which they did not consent.
Neither Congress, nor any state legislature has ever voted to approve any of the 47 U.N.
Biosphere Reserves in the United States. The management policy for the millions of acres
covered by these reserves is crafted by international committees of bureaucrats, none of whom is
elected. To comply with “international obligations,” the United States conforms its
management policy, and in some cases, its law, to accommodate the wishes of bureaucrats that
are completely unknown to the people who are governed by the policies.
This reality is but a hint of what is in store for those governed by the rule of international law.
Massive documents, such as the 1140-page Global Biodiversity Assessment, and the 300-page
Agenda 21, and the 410-page Our Global Neighborhood, all paint a picture of the international
law that is being devised to govern the world in the 21st century.

To make international law binding on all nations, the U.N. created the International Criminal
Court, which explicitly claims jurisdiction over all nations, even those that choose to not ratify
the court’s charter. The court was presented to the world as a way to prosecute “crimes against

47
humanity,” which were described as genocide, and “war crimes.”
No American voted for this international law. Bill Clinton signed the document, obligating the
United States to take no action contrary to the aims of the law. But in an unprecedented action,
President Bush withdrew the United State’s signature.
Kofi Annan has declared that military action in Iraq without U.N. approval is not legitimate,
opening the door to prosecution of U.S. leaders and military personnel who invaded Iraq. The
only thing that prevents the U.N. from exercising its imagined authority is the absence of a
standing army to enforce the International Criminal Court’s judgments.
The rule of international law is not legitimate, nor can it ever be under the system of lawmaking
established by the United Nations. Ronald Reagan withdrew the U.S. from UNESCO, but
George Bush is the only President that has stood so firmly against the United Nations. His action
has generated world-wide protests from professional demonstrators, U.N. bureaucrats, France,
Germany, Russia, China, and a host of other nations, most Democrats in Congress, and many
ordinary Americans who still think that the U.N. is the best hope for the future of the world.

George Bush is under growing pressure to reconcile the U.S. with the U.N., to get back into the
good graces of Jacques Chirac, and Kofi Annan, to quiet the shrill voices of anti-American
protests, and bring the United States back under the sanctity of the rule of international law.
Americans should not be governed by laws to which they have not expressed their consent
through their elected representatives. The United States should continue to stand firm against the
United Nations’ illegitimate “international law,” and instead, help Iraq, and other nations to learn
how to legitimize their own laws. There is no virtue in the rule of international law.

48
Col20030417

Another attack on private property

By Henry Lamb
No law has wreaked as much havoc on private property rights as the Endangered Species Act.
Radical environmental organizations have driven Congressional intent to new heights of
absurdity: a tractor was arrested in California for murdering a kangaroo rat, and the tractor’s
owner driven out of business. In Klamath Basin, 1400 farmers were deprived of their own water
for more than a year, to ensure that an “endangered” sucker fish didn’t scrape bottom while
swimming. The horror stories are endless, and each is another trophy in the showcases of the
radical environmentalists.

Now, they want more power. It’s not enough to label a bug as “endangered,” and thereby trigger
a host of severe governmental restrictions on land use. Now, they want even more power to
label weeds and bugs as “Invasive Species,” and are busy crafting another bureaucracy to
manage them.
Congressman Ehlers, R-MI, and Senator DeWine, R-OH, have teamed up to introduce in both
Houses, the National Invasive Species Council Act. President Bill Clinton got the ball rolling in
1999, with an Executive Order, which began the process of building a head of steam that is now
about to explode across the country. In preparation, the U.S. government registered the domain
name “invasivespecies.org” way back in 1999. The .com and .net version were also scooped up
in 1999, by organizations ready to turn up the heat on the public relations campaign to promote
the new bureaucracy.
To bring a little logic to the discussion, our organization set up invasivgov.org, and is beginning
to explain why the invasive species idea is ridiculous. Jim Beers, a biologist retired from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has developed a series of articles that explain why the National
Invasive Species Council Act is a horrible idea.
Beers attended a briefing recently by representatives of government agencies pushing the
invasive species agenda. His report reveals a level of arrogance we thought had departed
government with the last administration. It is clear that these federal agencies intend to build a
new bureaucracy around the management of invasive species, whether or not it is needed, or
wanted.
An invasive species is a plant or animal that is now somewhere it wasn’t when Columbus landed.
By designating a plant or animal as “invasive,” the federal government may claim jurisdiction
over the land where it occurs, and require management of the land as deemed appropriate by the
government. Is this ridiculous or what?
Anyone who knows anything about kudzu knows full well that a species brought to this country
by the government, can, indeed, be invasive. This stuff grows at the rate of a foot a day
sometimes, and can take over a hillside in a season. There are many other plants and animals

49
that are “invasive.” They have been around forever. The wind, birds, people, and animals, take
species from one place to another all the time. We certainly do not need another government
bureaucracy to monitor and manage these species.
Farmers, ranchers, and other land owners have dealt with the problem of “invasive” species as
long as there have been farmers and ranchers and land owners and users. They were doing pretty
well managing these species until the government got in the way, with their land-management
policies. Another bureaucracy will only exacerbate the problem.
If the federal government were required to demonstrate the chapter and verse of the U.S.
Constitution that empowers their actions, the federal government would have to get out of the
land management business. I can’t find “invasive species,” anywhere among the enumerated
powers set forth in the Constitution. I don’t think “endangered” species is there either. I
couldn’t even find the word “wetland.”
Environmental extremists never miss an opportunity to bash the Bush White House and the
Republican Congress for trying to undo all the wondrous work of the Clinton/Gore era. That’s
simply a smoke screen. The invasive species initiative is growing in a Republican
administration, and two Republicans introduced the bills in Congress.

An invasive species bureaucracy would deliver bi-partisan grief. All land owners, land users,
and all tax payers would be unnecessarily burdened, regardless of political affiliation. The
invasive species bureaucracy is a bad idea that should be flushed and forgotten.

50
Col20030429

The real battle ahead

By Henry Lamb
Now that the smoke is clearing from the skies over Baghdad, the real work begins: helping the
people form a government, and preventing the United Nations from ruining it. Both tasks are
extremely difficult; success, or failure, will have profound influence on several generations.

Most Iraqis, but not all, simply want to get on with their lives, without the fear of government
throwing them into prison, or worse, at the whim of their leaders. A significant number of
religious leaders want to control the government precisely so they can throw into prison, or
worse, those who fail to conform to Islamic law. There are also ethnic, economic, and political
divisions among the newly-freed people. Bringing these divergent forces together into a
government is a herculean task. It is a task for the United States, not for the United Nations.
The U.N. suffered a major blow when the United States, along with 65 other nations, undertook
the task of removing Saddam Hussein, over the objections of the U.N., France, Russia, Germany,
and the international professional protesters. The U.N. is now, perhaps, in a life-or-death
struggle, trying to regain its legitimacy by inserting itself into the reconstruction of Iraq. It
cannot do so without the acquiescence of the United States.
In Congress, and across the nation, there are voices urging the President to involve the U.N., to
“mend fences,” and to make gestures to smooth the ruffled tail-feathers of our former allies. The
President should resist this pressure, and leave the U.N. twiddling its thumbs.

The world witnessed the utter ineffectiveness of the U.N. when it watched the Security Council
argue for 12 years about Saddam Hussein. Now, we are discovering why the French and
Russians didn’t want military action that would upset their financial arrangements with the
dictator. We are discovering why Kofi Annan didn’t want to disturb the enormously profitable
“oil for food” program that he ran with virtually no external accountability.
Were there no other reason to abandon the U.N., this episode with Iraq would be ample
justification. But there’s more. Much, much, more.
There are nearly 130 agencies and organizations operating within the U.N. system. Each
oversees programs that require vast sums of money and massive bureaucracies. These programs
are all strategic components of the plan to achieve global governance, as described in Our Global
Neighborhood, the report of the Commission on Global Governance. These programs operate
outside the spotlight of international media. There is little doubt that they all stink, with a foul
smell, so rank that it would make Kofi’s “oil for food” irregularities smell like roses.
The Framework Convention on Climate Change is but one of these 130 U.N. agencies. The
back-scratching between U.N. officials and environmental organizations is so far beyond
disgusting that it could approach criminal - if anyone were looking. We tracked five
environmental organizations for two years, who were listed as “executing agency,” or

51
“collaborating organization,” on grants totaling $792,705,000, in 1998, and more than $800
million in 1999. The grants came from the U.N.’s Global Environment Facility. If you have a
strong stomach, examine some of the projects funded, in part, by your money.
The U.N. bureaucracy is so far removed from accountability that few Americans have any idea at
all what the massive institution is doing, let alone how effectively or efficiently it is operating.
Congress has little knowledge of, or interest in these far-flung wealth centers. Now is the ideal
time to wean the U.N. from our treasury.
If the U.N. is allowed to stick its nose into Iraq, the old buddy-system will flourish. To be a
buddy of the U.N., do what the U.N. wants done, and the U.N. will throw a little money your
way. Sound familiar? Who gets the goodies in socialist societies, or in societies run by
dictators? Of course, it’s the people who do what the government says to do.
The U.N. may be a more benevolent dictator than was Saddam; less violent, perhaps, but no less
corrupt. The U.S. has an opportunity to help the Iraqi people discover representative self-
governance. With the help of Iraqi nationals, and other enlightened and courageous individuals,
the Iraqi people can say “no” to the religious fundamentalists, and to the U.N.
With help from the U.S., Iraq can become a beacon of freedom for the entire region. The United
Nations cannot withstand this powerful light.

52
Col20030502

The struggle for America’s soul

By Henry Lamb
Tom Daschle’s disarming demeanor in front of a TV camera presents the image of a patriot,
struggling to save America from the clutches of right-wing ideologues hell-bent on overtaking
the judiciary - and the nation. He has no problem distorting the clear instruction of the
Constitution by refusing to allow an up-or-down vote on the President’s nominations for the
federal judiciary.

The ongoing battle over judicial appointments is the most visible element of the much deeper
and broader struggle for the very soul of America.
Tom Daschle represents a segment of the population that has a vision of America’s future that is
dramatically different from the vision advanced by the Bush administration. Daschle – the
temporary leader of the deposed Democratic Party – is struggling mightily to regain the
dominance enjoyed during the Clinton/Gore era. Bush – the temporary leader of the now-
dominant Republican Party – is struggling just as hard to retain his party’s dominance, at least
through another four-year term. America’s future is bigger, and more important, than any
individual. But it is through individuals, and their political parties, that the very soul of our
nation is revealed.
There is no doubt that our nation was founded upon the principles of freedom, set forth in our
founding documents. There is no doubt that for the first century, those principles guided our
nation’s policies. There is no doubt that during the 20th century, those principles became fuzzy,
and began to erode, as new principles of self-governance emerged.

The struggle for America’s soul is not simply between the Democrats and Republicans. It goes
much deeper. At the very core of the conflict, the struggle is between capitalism and
collectivism. There are endless shades of variation between these two extremes, but at the core,
the conflict is between capitalism and collectivism.
It is a short distance between speeches delivered by Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy,
and some of the Democratic presidential candidates, to the policies advanced by the Progressive
Caucus, or the Democratic Socialists of America, or, for that matter, the World Socialist Web
Site, or the International Socialist Organization. All these policies are consolidated in Agenda
21, and in the Commission on Global Government’s report, Our Global Neighborhood.
Democrats do not call themselves socialists, and, indeed, some are not. Even a casual reading,
however, of the policies and proposals advanced by the socialists of the world, reveals that the
policies advanced by the Democrats are hand-in-glove with the socialists. Consider Hillary’s
universal health care fiasco, Kennedy’s cradle-to-grave, state-run education proposals,
Gephardt’s government-mandated health-care-for-tax-break proposal, and all the government-
controlled land use policies. The more one reads the global socialist agenda, the easier it is to
see how completely this philosophy has permeated the Democratic Party in the United States.

53
Many people who feel pangs of social responsibility, or a genuine desire to “protect” the
environment, tend to identify with the rhetoric of the Democratic Party, without really
considering all the consequences that accompany government control. When government does
control completely – which is the goal of socialism – it’s too late for people to change their
minds.
Were it not for the wisdom of our founders, who fashioned the Electoral College Bush would not
be in the White House. Hillary Clinton was one of the first to call for the abolition of the
Electoral College, which would transform America into a democracy, instead of the republic
which our founders constructed.
Socialists love to use the word “democracy” to describe their system of governance, because it
suggests that the people have a say in policy development. Truth is, however, that in a socialist
democracy, the only people who have a say in policy development are those people that the
socialist leaders choose to have a say.
So it is with the “collaborative decision process,” instituted by Clinton’s President’s Council on
Sustainable Development, and still used throughout government agencies to “build consensus”
among pre-selected people to endorse pre-determined policy goals.

Americans who don’t want this nation to fall victim to socialist policies and procedures, are
typically referred to as right-wing extremists, greedy capitalists, anti-environmental polluters,
and most recently, as war-mongers. These are the people who are constantly the targets of the
Democrats’ verbal assaults. These are the folks who rejected Al Gore, and unseated Dick
Gephardt and Tom Daschle from their Congressional majority leadership positions.
Americans who don’t want this nation to fall victim to socialist policies and procedures are
rising, organizing, strategizing, and mobilizing to win the struggle for America’s soul.

54
Col20030511

ECOSOC’s CSD seeks to control WEHAB

By Henry Lamb
If you know what this headline means, you are likely to be part of the problem. This headline is
written in “Acronymese” with a U.N. dialect, the lingo of leftists who live on, and for, the United
Nations. Translation: the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council’s Commission on Sustainable
Development seeks to control Water, Energy, Health, Agriculture, and Biodiversity.
While the media spotlight is focused on the Security Council’s debate about rebuilding Iraq, the
rest of the U.N. bureaucracy lumbers along toward its published goal of ruling the world. The
Commission on Sustainable Development concluded two weeks of meetings in New York, on
May 9. It was the 11th annual session of this U.N. body, created as a result of the 1992 U.N.
Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janerio. The purpose of the
Commission is to implement Agenda 21.
For 11 years, this collection of delegates has been meeting in exotic places around the world, at
tax-payers’ expense, egged-on by thousands of representatives of NGOs (non-government
organizations), again, largely at taxpayers’ expense, expressly for the purpose of figuring out
how to control the lives of everyone on earth. They know how they want to do it, and they are
making great strides toward achieving their goal.
Think about it. If this commission can control water, energy, health, agriculture, and
biodiversity, they control the people who rely on these resources. Can they actually control these
resources? They’re trying. Here are some of their efforts to control water.
Energy is still up for grabs because the U.N. Climate Change Treaty calls only for voluntary
action, while the legally-binding Kyoto Protocol has been rejected by the Bush administration.
The World Health Organization is in place with 3500 employees stationed around the world.
The U.N.’s Food and Agricultural Organization has 3700 employees stationed around the world.
And the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity is up and running, with more than 400
Biosphere Reserves around the world.
These are only a few of the key organizations and agencies of the U.N., which coordinate their
work to achieve the objectives set forth in Agenda 21, which is the “Action Plan” to achieve
global governance, as described by the Commission on Global Governance’s report, Our Global
Neighborhood.
On the final day of the CSD meeting in New York, Eric Frumin, representing the textile unions
in the United States, but speaking for Global Unions, praised the delegates for amending the
Action Plan to more fully integrate the body of issues relating to “basic security,” which is also a
goal of the U.N.’s International Labor Organization.

55
For those unfamiliar with U.N. doublespeak, “basic security,” describes the evolving definition
of the word “security” as it appears in the U.N. Charter. Originally, “security” meant defensive
security for member nations. The new definition means “...safety from chronic threats such as
hunger, disease, and repression, as well as protection from sudden and harmful disruptions in the
patterns of daily life.” Frumin said that the changes in the Action Plan would provide a
“Workplace Assessment” program to assure that this new brand of “security” would be
integrated into the Commissions’ WEHAB priorities.
Sustainable development, as defined in Agenda 21, is defacto socialism. Sustainable
development requires government to regulate virtually all human activity in order to achieve
what government determines to be “equitable” and “sustainable” use of the planet’s resources.
Freedom cannot survive sustainable development. Free markets cannot exist under a
“sustainable” regime. Sustainable development, defined and implemented under a system of
global governance, results in the U.N. deciding to what extent individual nations may exert what
remains of their national sovereignty.
Skirmishes with the U.N., such as the recent impasse in the Security Council, withdrawal from
the Kyoto Protocol, and the removal of the United States’ signature from the International
Criminal Court, are small steps in the right direction. It is foolish, then, to turn around and rejoin
UNESCO, turn again to the Security Council for U.N. involvement in Iraq, and to continue to
send delegates and money to the CSD, ECOSOC, UNEP, UNDP, and the hundreds of other U.N.
agencies and organizations that continue to plot the downfall of American values.

Congress will not seriously consider Ron Paul’s HR 1146, a bill to withdraw from the U.N., until
the American people realize that every day we continue to prop up the U.N. brings us closer to
global governance, and demand that their elected officials get behind the bill and get us out of
the United Nations.

56
Col20030513

What eco-nuts and religious nuts have in common

By Henry Lamb
You would think that Muslims everywhere would be horribly embarrassed that, in the name of
their religion, a handful of criminals are running around the world slaughtering innocent
civilians. Why is the Muslim world not rising up in a single voice to condemn these killings, and
demand that the criminals stop, or at the very least, stop defiling the name of the Muslim
religion?

Suppose there were a band of Christian criminals, running around the world targeting Muslims
with car bombs, and fully-loaded airplanes, demanding that the non-Christian-infidels vacate the
planet. I can’t imagine that the rest of the Christian world would be as quiet as is the Muslim
world. I can’t imagine that the leaders of the Christian world would look the other way, or send
money to the families of the Christian-criminals whose sons and daughters died while
committing murder. I can’t imagine that the Christian community would allow a band of hate-
filled, low-life criminals to paint for the world, the bloody picture of what their religion actually
is.
Silence from the Muslim world is nothing less than approval of the criminal’s actions.
Sure, there have been a few Muslim leaders who condemn the terrorists’ actions. But there has
been no organized, determined effort to put an end to the senseless slaughter by the Muslim
religion. Muslims could stop the foolishness, if they chose to do so. Someone knows where
Osama bin Laden is. Someone knows where every terrorist cell is located. Every terrorist has a
family, friends, a source of money. Every Muslim terrorist - since they act in the name of the
Muslim religion - is affiliated with a Muslim spiritual leader. Why is the Muslim community not
tightening the noose around the necks of these criminals?

Come to think of it, why is the mainstream environmental community not tightening the noose
around the necks of the domestic terrorists who perpetrate their crimes in the name of the
environment? The Earth Liberation Front, and their sister organization, the Animal Liberation
Front, are cut from the same hate-filled, low-life criminal cloth as the Muslim terrorists.
Someone knows who burned the ski lodge in Vail, Colorado. Someone knows the people who
committed every act of eco-terrorism in this country. The mainstream environmental community
could put an end to this foolishness, if they chose to do so. Why are they so silent? Why do they
look the other way?
Terrorism - the senseless slaughter of innocent life and the destruction of another’s property - is
terrorism, whether committed by a religious nut, or an environmental nut. Both types of nuts
have one thing in common: they are either too arrogant, or ignorant, to understand the first
principle of civilized behavior. The principle is simply this: any right that I claim for myself, I
must freely grant to all others.
If Osama claims the right to embrace the religion he chooses, he must be willing to grant that

57
same right to all others. Of course, he has not yet discovered that this principle is the basis of
civilized behavior, and, therefore, his behavior is far from civilized. Osama is not alone in his
failure to discover this principle. It is far too simple, too profound, for bomb-wielding, molatov-
cocktail-tossing criminals to notice or care about.

It is a principle that has escaped the notice of many people who claim the right to choose how
they wish to live, but then insist that everyone else live as they dictate, denying to everyone else
the right they claim for themselves. The nuts that congregate under the ELF/ALF tree, have
every right to choose not to drive SUVs. To inflict terror on those who make a different choice,
is at once, the height of arrogance, and the depth of ignorance.
Muslims who choose to embrace Islam have every right to do so. To refuse to grant to all others
the same right to choose – even if their choice is different – may be the result of arrogance or
ignorance, but it is certainly uncivilized.
If the Muslim world fails to rise above the image that Osama bin Laden, and his fellow criminals
are painting, the rest of the world will eventually lose the great Muslim heritage. The rest of the
world will continue to blunder its way toward civilization, leaving the eco-nuts and the religious-
nuts to pretend they are martyrs in their backward-looking dreamworld.

The civilized world is eager to move forward, to find ways to cooperate, to expand friendship
and commerce, to broaden educational horizons for everyone, and to elevate prosperity for every
person on earth, to help all people everywhere know the individual freedom that the Creator
intended for all creatures on this earth – even humans.
The eco-nuts and the religious nuts are trying to stop the unstoppable flow of civilized progress.
Both Islam, and environmentalism need to remove the obstacles to progress, by cleaning the nuts
from their midst.

58
Col20030520

U.N. influence in Alabama

By Henry Lamb
Only a handful of the people who gathered at the Birmingham Hilton on April 8, 2003 knew that
the objective of the meeting was to implement U.N. policy in Alabama. Most people in
attendance thought the meeting was to solicit comments about a “forest management plan” being
developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The comment period is open until July, at
which time the plan will go into effect to standardize “ecosystem management” in all National
Forests in Alabama.
“Yes,” answered Rick Morgan, spokesman for the government, when asked if the plan provided
for core wilderness areas, surrounded by buffer zones. The plan fulfills the criteria of Article 4
of UNESCO’s Statutory Framework for U.N. Biosphere Reserves. Most of Alabama has
already been gobbled up by the Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve, one of 47 U.N.
Biosphere Reserves designated in the U.S., with no debate, discussion, or vote by any state
legislature, or the U.S. Congress.
A major function of all U.N. Biosphere Reserves is to continually expand the core wilderness
areas and connecting corridors of wilderness, pushing ever-outward the buffer zones, and
surrounding the entire area with an ever-expanding “zone of cooperation.” The Southern
Appalachian Reserve began with the designation of the 517,000-acre Great Smoky Mountains
National Park as a U.N. Biosphere Reserve. State Department maps now show the Reserve to
include an area that stretches from Birmingham to Roanoke, and from Nashville, to Asheville.
Who wants all this land managed according to policies decided by UNESCO?

Morgan was asked: if all the comments received from the people were negative, opposing the
management plan, would the plan be abandoned? His answer: “No, the comments will be taken
and duly noted.”
This management plan is required by the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity. Why is this
plan being implemented in Alabama, and throughout the United States, when the U.S. Senate did
not ratify the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity?
The Clinton/Gore administration expected the treaty to be ratified, with little or no opposition.
They were shocked when it failed, and decided to implement its provisions anyway, through its
administrative policy of “Ecosystem Management.”
The people who insist that the U.N. has no control over our land use policies, including those in
Congress, either don’t know, or don’t want others to know, how the system works.

The Convention on Biological Diversity was first proposed in 1981 by the International Union
for the Conservation of Nature. The IUCN is an NGO (non-government organization) in
Switzerland whose membership includes more than 60 major U.S. environmental organizations,

59
and seven departments of the federal government.
The bureaucrats from these seven federal agencies, and the leaders of the environmental
organizations, worked together through the IUCN to develop the draft treaty, which was then
presented to the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, where it
was adopted in 1992. Once adopted by the U.N. these same environmental organizations, and
federal agencies, lobby for ratification. The federal agencies then implement the treaties which
they helped draft. And, these same agencies, award federal grants to the NGOs to help
implement the treaties. Almost all U.S. environmental policy since the early 1970s has followed
this same route.
The Nature Conservancy has been an initiator of at least the last four U.N. Biosphere Reserves
nominated in the U.S., and a primary promoter of Biosphere expansion everywhere. At the
Birmingham meeting, Rick Morgan was asked if his agency was in partnership with The Nature
Conservancy. His reply: “We are mutually supportive, we attend their meetings and they attend
ours.”
The Nature Conservancy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are members of the IUCN.
Both organizations worked on the development of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and
both organizations are working together to implement the management provisions required by
the treaty, even though the treaty was not ratified.

The long-term aim of the Convention on Biological Diversity is to convert at least half of the
land area to “core wilderness” areas, connected by corridors of wilderness, all of which is off
limits to human activity. Wilderness areas are to be surrounded by buffer zones, in which human
activity is strictly limited by government, and managed for “conservation objectives.” People
are gradually being moved into “sustainable communities,” which are designed to achieve
economic and environmental equity.
The meeting in Birmingham was to satisfy the requirement to provide for public input to a plan,
the outcome of which was decided years ago. The people were told that the plan affected only
the National Forests in Alabama. Truth is, that the plan affects all land in and near the National
Forests. The federal government uses the Endangered Species Act, the Invasive Species
Initiative, wetland policies, viewsheds, smart growth, and a host of other policies, to restrict land
use on private property to the point that the land will ultimately fall into the hands of the
government, or an environmental organization such as The Nature Conservancy.
Alabama is not alone. Virtually every state and every community has been targeted to undergo a
similar transformation into what Science magazine described in 1993 as "the transformation of
America to an archipelago of human inhabited islands surrounded by natural areas (p.1868)."

The transformation of America was designed by the IUCN in Switzerland, adopted by the United
Nations, and is being systematically implemented in Alabama, and in every state, by bureaucrats
and environmentalists who have no accountability at the ballot box. Elected officials, who are
accountable at the ballot box, are allowing the transformation to go forward. They should be
held accountable.

60
Col20030526

Sustainable Development: the antithesis of freedom

By Henry Lamb
The term “sustainable development” has flooded both the media, and public policy since it was
introduced to the world in 1987, by the U.N.’s World Commission on Environment and
Development. At the time, the term was defined to mean:

"...to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs,"
Policy makers, and wannabe policy makers, struggle to interpret this meaningless definition.
Nevertheless, there are currently more than 50 bills working their way through Congress, to
implement some facet of “sustainable development.” Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) has introduced a
Constitutional Amendment to guarantee all citizens “the right to a...sustainable environment.”
Stephen Viederman, president of the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation, writes in his article,
‘Knowledge for Sustainable Development:’ “It is not so much about what is, but what should
be.” The question arises: according to whose vision? Viederman continues to offer perhaps the
most succinct and honest interpretation: “sustainability is a community's control of capital, in all
of its forms - natural, human, human-created, social, and cultural....”
This interpretation begs for a definition of “community.” If community means the collection of
individuals who have chosen to invest their capital in a particular place where they live, then we
have had “sustainable development” since long before the term was ever coined. This, then,
cannot be what Viederman means by community. “Community control” must mean something
else.
(Note the similarity of this idea to Webster’s definition of socialism: “The system of
ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by the community
rather than by private individuals...”).
The definition of “community control” is discussed extensively in Chapter 8 of Agenda 21. In
particular, 8.3 says: “The overall objective is to improve or restructure the decision-making
process....” This recommendation was amplified in the U.S. by the President’s Council on
Sustainable Development declaration that: “We need a new collaborative decision process ....”
Through the PCSD during the 1990s, the federal government transformed the policy decision
process into the “collaborative” process used throughout the U.N., and now, throughout all
federal agencies and in most communities.
Before the “sustainable development” enlightenment, any citizen could request any elected
official, or any elected government body, to consider any policy recommendation or initiative, at
any public meeting. Before any government body, or government agency, implemented a new
law or policy, every citizen had the right to speak his piece in favor, or in opposition to every

61
proposal. Finally, the elected officials vote, in public, to adopt or reject each proposal. This is an
untidy, inefficient, slow, and cumbersome process. It is participatory democracy, in which the
governed express their desires, and through which the governed hold their representatives
directly accountable.

The enlightened process speeds things up, and shields elected officials from accountability. It is,
indeed, an ingenious win/win design for the advocates of change, and for the elected officials.
The enlightened process avoids the unruly public, and focuses on “stakeholders” to participate in
the decision process. The initiators of the proposal decide who the stakeholders are, and choose
those who are inclined to support the particular proposal to serve on some kind of “visioning” or
“stakeholder” council. Note the similarity to the U.N. procedure that allows only NGOs (non-
government organizations) that have been “accredited” by the U.N. to participate in their
meetings.
These “selected” councils typically consist of government employees and NGO professionals,
and are often in place and functioning, long before the public is even aware of their existence or
purpose. When they are presented to the community, their work has been mostly completed,
they are often presented with great media fanfare, for some grand and glorious purpose, and they
often employ a few local dignitaries to provide the “day-glo” necessary to achieve credibility.
In recent years, organizations such as Alabama’s Alliance for Citizens Rights, or Freedom 21
Santa Cruz, and many others, have learned what these selected councils are about, and have
demanded a seat at the table. Typically, while publicly welcoming their input, dissenters are
often ridiculed, circumvented, and ignored in the development of policy proposals whose
objectives were determined long before the first meeting was ever held.
Policy proposals developed through this process, presented in the press as a wonderful road map
to a sustainable future, are rarely challenged by elected officials, who don’t want to be seen as
bucking the trend toward sustainable development. Consequently, elected officials are bypassed,
and power is conveyed to the various selected councils, which, effectively, control and operate
the public policies of the community.
This is what Viederman means when he says “community control.” This is the transformation
that is taking place in communities all across the country, and the world. This is what Al Gore
meant when he said in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance, that sustainable development will
require a “wrenching transformation” of society. The transformation is from a free society, to a
controlled society.

62
Col20030601

We need a new crop of founders

By Henry Lamb
The United Nations says:

"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.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...." (U.N.
Conference on Human Habitats, Vancouver, 1976).
Any American who fails to find this declaration disgusting, should spend some time reviewing
this nation’s founding documents. One of the primary functions of government, originally, was
to protect the property of private citizens - including land. Thomas Jefferson promised, in his 5th
State of the Nation address in 1806, to:
“...exert my best endeavors to administer faithfully the executive department, and will
zealously cooperate with you in every measure which may tend to secure the liberty,
property, and personal safety of our fellow citizens....”

No more. Now, the executive branch, the legislative branch, and even state governments,
consider land, and the resources it contains, to be subject to government control, while the duty
and privilege of paying taxes remains with the deed holder.
The people who agree with Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and the other founders of this nation,
will be outraged, should they read HB 422, introduced into the Illinois State Legislature. The
author of this bill has no intention of securing the “liberty, property, and personal safety” of his
fellow citizens. It’s also pretty certain that the author has no understanding of the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says “...nor shall private property be taken for public
use without just compensation.”
HB 422 - An Act Concerning Wetlands - begins with the assumption that “wetlands” are public
property, with no hint of an obligation to compensate the owners, whose use is categorically
denied - unless the state issues a permit.

According to our founders, if the state (government) takes land from an individual, the state
owes the individual compensation. According to HB 422, the individual is denied use of land the
state says is a wetland, and to gain the privilege of using his own land, the owner must “mitigate”
- that is, pay the state - up to five times more than the value of the land he wishes to use.
If the Constitutional principles of freedom were applied, it would be the other way around. The
state would say: “Sir, we don’t want you to use this land, because it will benefit the public if left
in its natural condition. Therefore, we are going to give you an equal quantity of land elsewhere
for your use, or the equivalent value in cash.”

63
Environmental organizations have countered this argument with the asinine, but catchy slogan,
“compensation to the landowner is paying the polluter to pollute.” Should a landowner’s use of
his own land damage a neighbor, or “pollute,” there are ample legal remedies on the books. This
argument, in no way, reduces the state’s obligation to compensate the owner of property taken by
the state.
Another cutesy argument is that “the land has not been taken, only the use of it.” Those who
advance this stupid argument would surely be willing to give up the keys to their car, while being
forced to continue making the payments, insurance, and tag fees.
This horrible law authorizes “compliance cops,” state employees who are free to tromp on
private property to see if land owners are in compliance. It provides an appeal process – to the
same agency that issues permits, and it places the burden of proof on the landowner if the
landowner chooses to take the state to court over its decision. It also provides up to $10,000 per
day in fines for anyone found in violation.
Illinois is not unique in this theft of private property. The federal government and virtually every
state, have even worse laws on the books. The fact is that the U.N.’s 1976 declaration, “Public
control of land use is therefore indispensable....” has replaced the principles of freedom
guaranteed by our Constitution, and it has been done by government employees and
environmental organizations, with the consent, or indifference, of our elected officials.

There can be no freedom without private property; there is no such thing as private property, the
use of which is controlled by government. This policy transforms the meaning of the word
“owner,” to “tenant.”
The people in Illinois can still reject this atrocious legislative strait-jacket, by insisting that the
bill be defeated. The rest of the country has a much more difficult task; undoing what the radical
land-use-control advocates have done over the last two decades.
We need a whole new crop of founders.

64
Col20030603

Dancing with the devil

By Henry Lamb
On June 16, Argentine lawyer, Luis Moreno Ocampo, will be sworn in as the first prosecutor of
the International Criminal Court. There should be plenty of grist for his mill.
Assuming the Hussein family is still alive, surely Ocampo will want to target Saddam, who is
responsible for lining up thousands of Kuwaiti citizens, and executing them in mass graves.
Eye-witnesses and truckloads of recently unearthed forensic evidence stand ready to testify. The
Hussein sons, whose “crimes against humanity” are legendary among the survivors, are also
eager to tell their stories. Surely, these people will top Ocampo’s list of targets.
But no. The first target is most likely to be Tony Blair.
The Athens Bar Association has announced that it will file a complaint against Tony Blair for his
part in the war in Iraq, which, according to the Greek lawyers, violated the United Nations
Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Convention, and the International Criminal Court's
statute. George Bush is not named in the complaint because, say the attorneys, the U.S. is not a
signatory to the ICC statute.

The ICC statute specifically claims jurisdiction over states that are not parties to the statute, so
the real reason that Bush has been omitted from the complaint is likely motivated by other
factors. (Why am I seeing images of Clint Eastwood saying, “...go ahead make my day?”)
The ICC, and the United Nations, for that matter, are little more than institutions through which
anti-American sentiment can be amplified by those who hate us. It is unconscionable to ignore
the heinous crimes of the Hussein family, and target Bush stand-in, Tony Blair, for prosecution.
Since Bush and Blair made their fateful decision to forget the U.N., and do what had to be done
in Iraq, other world leaders have been scurrying around to find their proper place in the hierarchy
of international influence. France, Russia, and Germany, have made the appropriate noises to
appease their constituents, while at the same time, making gestures toward Washington to avoid
total isolation.
President Bush has been dancing with the devil as he tries to pursue his vision of a free world,
while avoiding further rejection of long-time allies. It is a precarious dance. Other nations
should be involved in rebuilding Iraq. Other nations must be involved in, and committed to,
ending terrorism. The question President Bush has not yet found the answer to, is whether or not
the United Nations, and its affiliated agencies and organizations – such as the International
Criminal Court – are a help, or a hindrance.

It should be pretty clear by now, that nothing about the U.N. supports George Bush’s vision of a
free world. Just the opposite is true; the U.N. is working diligently to wrest away from the U.S.,
its power and ability to influence the world, so the U.N. can implement its vision of global

65
governance.
Political reality, however, keeps the President at the dance. Bush-bashing democrats, who still
refer to the 66-nation Iraq coalition as “unilateral” action, are eager to brand Bush as an
isolationist cowboy. International socialists, who despise the export of capitalism, are eager to
find any excuse to demean, and destroy the President.
The devil’s dance may be a political necessity, but it only delays the inevitable. At some point in
time, the United States must accept its role in the world, as the beacon of freedom, and realize
that if it is to continue to shine, it must also illuminate the path to freedom for other nations as
well. The U.N.’s goal is to limit freedom, through the constraints it imposes upon the people of
the world, in what it calls global governance.
We need not invade every nation that disagrees with us, but we can no longer sit idly by and
watch the Islamic fanatics continue to teach generation after generation, that their highest calling
in life is to blow themselves up while murdering an American.
To win the war on terror, and the respect of the world, we need to find ways to share the freedom
we have enjoyed. People who are free to learn, and free to earn their own way in this world,
make sorry recruits for militant dictators.
Freedom and tyranny cannot long co-exist; one will consume the other. Freedom will ultimately
consume tyranny, not with bombs and bullets, but with better ideas and better opportunities for
all people to realize their individual potential. This is America’s challenge for the 21st century,
and it cannot be advanced by dancing with the devil.

66
Col20030609

Passing the gas test

By Henry Lamb
Here’s a two-part, third-grade economics test that environmental extremists can’t pass.

Part 1: There are three kinds of drinks, Pepsi, Coke, and Royal Crown Cola. Government
outlaws the sale of Pepsi and Coke. Will the price of R. C. Cola (a) increase; (b)
decrease; (c) stay the same?
Part 2: When government prohibits increased production of R. C. Cola, will the price (a)
increase; (b) decrease; (c) stay the same?
Repeatedly, environmental extremists, many of whom are in Congress, fail this test.

In reality, electricity is the commodity, produced by coal, nuclear power, and natural gas.
Government, to appease the environmental extremists, has nearly outlawed coal and nuclear
power to produce electricity. Did the price of natural gas (a) increase; (b) decrease; (c) stay the
same?
Part 2: Government, to appease the environmental extremists, has blocked increased production
of natural gas. Has the price of natural gas (a) increased; (b) decreased; (c) stayed the same?
Natural gas prices have increased as much as 700 percent over the last three years. Surprise,
surprise!

The sad truth is that environmental extremists, and some in Congress, don’t care. Whatever the
economic consequences of their actions, they cannot be as bad as disturbing a rattlesnake
slithering across a barren wilderness. Or, heaven forbid, having to look at an oil well, despoiling
a viewshed.
The idiotic notion of rewilding the world to the conditions that existed before Columbus sailed
the ocean blue, reached its zenith during the Clinton/Gore years, when environmental extremists
virtually ran the executive branch of government. Executives from environmental organizations
went to work heading the various government agencies, which then handed out federal grants to
their organizations to promote their rewilding policies. And, they were very good at it.
Madison Avenue P/R firms produced brilliant campaigns to scare the wits out of ordinary
people, and then paint a beautiful picture of the “Last Great Places” that must be “saved” for
future generations. Millions of people lined up to send checks to the Nature Conservancy, and to
vote for new taxes to buy up the private property that greedy developers were destroying.
They failed to say, however, that the Last Great Places they were saving were for rich
contributors and board members. They didn’t put in their slick brochures that they were drilling
for oil on their land, and beneath adjacent land belonging to someone else, while lobbying to
prevent others from drilling. While they were trying to prevent others from driving SUV’s, they

67
failed to advertise that they were using donated SUVs to drive across public land to survey where
“No Trespassing” signs should be erected for others. Green extremism is now being exposed.

The price of natural gas has skyrocketed, as has the price of everything in which natural gas is an
ingredient. The price of everything that is affected by this “return-to-the-wilderness” thinking
has risen. Consequently, economic growth has slowed to a crawl, and continues to teeter on the
brink of stagnation, or recession.
Environmental extremists, and some in Congress, are quick to blame the Republicans, and refuse
to recognize that it is their insistence that we stop drilling, stop logging, stop ranching, stop
urban sprawl – that is the root cause of our economic woes. But then these are the same people
who can’t pass the third grade economics gas test.
These are the same people who lash out against any attempt to expand use of our natural
resources. About a thousand of these people assembled at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in
Washington recently, to cheer a list of strident speakers who vowed to unseat the Bush
administration in 2004, some calling it the worst administration in history.

They want more of the policies that caused a 700 percent increase in the price of natural gas.
They want to lock up more land for rattlesnakes (and their own oil wells, and estates for their
board members). They want more factories to close, more jobs to be exported, and more
viewsheds to be protected.
Let’s give them another test. Will these lock-up-the-resources policies cause economic growth
to (a) increase; (b) decrease; (c) stay the same?
They don’t care. They have grown accustomed to government buying their R. C. Colas for them.

68
Col20030619

U.S.-U.N. struggle moves to ICC

By Henry Lamb
The media spotlight has dimmed on the conflict between the United States and the United
Nations Security Council. The conflict has now moved behind the scenes, and spread to the
International Criminal Court, created in Rome in 1998.

In an unprecedented action, President Bush withdrew the U.S. signature from the Rome Statute
in May, 2002. The European Union, joined by the United Nations Association, and the World
Federalist Association, launched scathing criticism. When the court officially came into
existence on July 1, 2002, the U.S. vetoed a U.N. resolution to extend peacekeeping operations
in Bosnia, because it did not contain a guarantee that U.S. forces would be exempt from
prosecution by the International Criminal Court.
Panic quickly spread across the international community at the thought of U.S. withdrawal from
U.N. peacekeeping operations, and the diplomats quickly discovered a way to interpret Article
98 of the statute, which would provide a one-year exemption for the U.S. from ICC jurisdiction.
As that one-year exemption approaches expiration, the U.S. State Department has been busy
negotiating new exemption agreements with individual nations that are a party to the ICC statute.
As of June 16, there were 38 such agreements, and again, the EU, and the U.N. supporters in the
U.S. are furious.
The U.S. position respects the right of other nations to participate in the ICC, but expects other
nations to respect the U.S. right not to participate. That respect is demonstrated when a nation
agrees to not allow U.S. citizens to be subject to the ICC while in their country. Nations that are
unwilling to sign this agreement are subject to the withdrawal of U.S. bases, civilian employees,
and financial aid.
The EU, which has adopted a strong position of support for the ICC, calls the Article 98
agreements heavy-handed bullying tactics. At the same time, the EU has issued threats to ten
applicant nations that their future membership in the EU could be in jeopardy if they sign an
Article 98 agreement with the U.S. The EU has declared that these agreements are “inconsistent
with ICC states parties' obligations…."
The battle over the ICC is, perhaps, the sharpest example of the contest between U.S.
sovereignty and global governance. Without U.S. support and participation, the court’s
relevance is seriously jeopardized. Should the U.S. fall victim to the court’s jurisdiction, U.S.
sovereignty will fade into history.
The contest will be won or lost in the United States. Were Al Gore in the White House, U.S.
sovereignty would already be fading into history. The Clinton-Gore administration, after
refusing to vote for the final draft of the Rome Statute in 1998, signed the document just hours
before the deadline, on December 31, 2000. Powerful organizations in the United States have

69
mobilized to support U.S. participation in the ICC.
The World Federalist Association has created a coalition to lobby Congress and mount a
propaganda campaign. Another coalition, called USA for ICC has also launched a massive,
well-funded campaign in support of U.S. participation in the court.
It is not surprising that these organizations have targeted President Bush, and all Republicans for
that matter, for replacement in 2004. The ICC, and U.S. involvement in the United Nations, is
not simply a partisan issue. Many Republicans support the ICC, and the United Nations, and
there are Democrats who adamantly oppose U.S. involvement in either. The contest is between
conflicting philosophies, not between political parties.
Those who support U.S. involvement in the ICC, and the U.N., support a socialist philosophy
that holds that the power of government is omnipotent, and thus, may, or may not, grant rights to
citizens.

Those who oppose U.S. involvement in these institutions, tend to believe that government is not
omnipotent, but is empowered only by the consent of the governed. They realize that the
policies of the ICC and the U.N. are formulated way beyond their consent, and beyond any
accountability to the governed.
This contest cannot be allowed to dally until another Clinton-Gore-type administration moves
into the White House. Those who value U.S. sovereignty, and the freedom it guarantees, should
insist that Congress adopt the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (HR1146), which
removes the U.S. from the U.N.
The time has come for the U.S. to make a clean break with the socialist-dominated global
governance regime that seeks to define the U.S. role in the world community. The United States
should define its own role in the world, based on the principles of freedom set forth in the U.S.
Constitution. Anything less is acquiescence to the enemies of freedom.

70
Col20030624

And the pendulum swings

By Henry Lamb
It appears that the political pendulum may have reached its extreme-left maximum during the
Clinton-Gore era, which was administered primarily by environmental extremists. The
consequences of far-left policies are now being felt by a sufficient number of people to allow
politicians to begin correcting some of the wrongs imposed upon the people.
The catastrophic fires that have ravaged millions of acres in recent years are the direct result of
the left-wing notion that “natural wilderness” is superior to human-managed forests.
The soaring property tax bills that are plaguing landowners are the direct result of the left-wing
notion that the government must buy up private property - leaving an ever-decreasing number of
people to support ever-increasing local budgets.
The collapse of the domestic timber and ranching industries is the direct result of the left-wing
notion that trees are sacred and grazing is a sin against the earth.

The incredibly stupid policies that have emerged to “protect” the environment come from the
same left-wing political machine. Consider this example. Michael McCormick saw a six-foot
alligator waddling toward a woman with two small children, not far from where an alligator
dragged a 12-year-old boy to his death a week earlier. Michael lassoed the gator, tied him to a
pole, and called the police. The police arrived, turned the gator loose, and called the state
wildlife officials. Before trying to recapture the gator, the wildlife officials gave Michael a $180
ticket for “possession of an alligator.”
After a few days of public outcry, the state officials rescinded the fine, and left Michael with a
“warning.” There is growing evidence that the public is growing weary of this stupidity.
Eventually, common sense prevails, and truth penetrates the most elaborate fiction.

A sure sign that the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way, is the volume and acidity of
the left-wing extremists, as even the most baby-steps are taken in a new direction. The Healthy
Forest Initiative, for example, would allow limited logging in a few areas where it was outlawed
during the Clinton years. The response from extreme greens would have you believe that
President Bush is destroying 30 years of environmental legislation.
The people whose homes have been destroyed by needless forest fires, are no longer impressed
with green rhetoric; they want the forests thinned, and managed wisely. Other Americans, who
watch those homes burn nightly on television, are also having second thoughts about the wisdom
of restoring the environment to its “natural,” pre-Columbian condition. As more and more
scientists produce evidence that the changing climate is not the result of driving SUVs, more and
more people are questioning the veracity of the environmental hysteria produced by the left-wing
extremists.

71
The pendulum is, indeed, beginning to swing, but very, very slowly. Congress is still full of
people caught up in the fiction that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is too “precious” to
allow an oil rig. People - including the Congressmen - have been sold a bill of goods through
slick, Madison Avenue propaganda. The only effect of retrieving the billions of barrels of
Alaska crude would be a reduction in our dependency of foreign oil. Drilling in Alaska would
have zero impact on the environment, the oil rigs would only be seen by the tiniest handful of
brave souls who ever venture into the frozen tundra.
People are beginning to discover that the “Smart Growth,” touted by the Clinton-Gore crowd,
and widely promoted by the Sierra Club, and other left-wing extremists, is really a strait-jacket,
that doesn’t fit very well on free people. Who would have believed that “Smart Growth” would
require the removal of barber poles in Naples, Florida? Who would have believed that “Smart
Growth” would prevent descendants of slaves from building a home on their own land in South
Carolina? The consequences of these policies are beginning to be felt, and people are beginning
to resist.
The more we resist, the louder the extremists scream. But the louder they scream, and the more
strident their rhetoric, the more they fray their veil of fiction.
The needs of people, scientific fact, and common sense should guide public policy, constructed
on the principles of freedom set forth in our Constitution. From time to time, the political
pendulum forces us to stray from this proven path. Fortunately, free people can force the
pendulum to reverse itself, when it swings too far in either direction. Perhaps we are escaping
from the clutches of left-wing extremism, as the political pendulum begins to swing in the right
direction.

72
Col20030625

The price of freedom

By Henry Lamb
One by one, 56 men walked to the table and each one deliberately affixed his signature. Each
man considered the consequences of his action. The best any of them could hope for, was a
bloody war; the worst - a hanging tree.

Nevertheless, these courageous souls decided that war, even death, was better than living under
the oppression of an uncontrollable government. Since that fateful day in 1776, Americans have
had to make the same decision, over and over again. Neither the certainty of war, nor the threat
of death, has prevented brave Americans from rising to meet every challenge to our freedom.
Threats to our freedom never end, they just change form.
Our freedom, as individuals, and as a nation, is now facing threats from within, and from outside
our country. Whether or not freedom continues to prevail is not a question of the bravery of our
citizens. The question is whether or not freedom is worth the price.

The men who signed the Declaration of Independence were prepared to give up their fortunes,
their property, and even their life. Indeed, all of the paid a heavy price for the freedom we enjoy.
Whether or not our children and grandchildren enjoy these freedoms will be determined by the
price we are willing to pay today.
Are we willing to give up the time required to learn why and how “Smart Growth” and
“Sustainable Development” erode our individual freedom? Are we willing to give up the time
required to get acquainted with the elected officials who can reverse these policies?
Thomas Nelson, Jr. saw his home taken by the British for its military headquarters. He told
General Washington to attack, and saw his home destroyed. He died in poverty.
Are we willing to give up $50 or $100 to support the organizations who daily fight for our
freedom?
Are we willing to expend the effort required to unravel the complex issues surrounding the
conflict between national sovereignty and global governance? Or will we be content to make our
judgments based on the sound-bites and editorials from our favorite news sources.

Should the United States rejoin UNESCO? Why? What are the consequences of rejoining, and
not rejoining?
The price of freedom begins with the time required to gain an understanding of the threats that
confront us. The price increases with actions necessary to quash the threat. None of us is likely
to see our home confiscated by an invading force. But daily, people are seeing their property
confiscated by the federal government to protect a bug, or a swamp, or a scenic “viewshed.”

73
Very few people have yet discovered that the philosophy and the policies that cause this new
form of confiscation – this threat to freedom – arise from the United Nations. Far too few people
have paid the price in time to learn the source of the threats, and have not even begun to pay the
price of countering the threats. Rather than pay the price by investing the time to examine the
evidence, far too many people are willing to simply rely on the word of a politician or a news
caster who dismisses the charge as “black helicopter” rhetoric.

Sadly, far too many people have been convinced that protecting a bug, or a swamp, or a scenic
“viewshed,” is more important than individual freedom. This is the first step toward believing
that global governance is more important that national sovereignty. Global governance is a
system in which there can be no national sovereignty, nor can there be individual freedom.
Those original signers of the Declaration of Independence did their part. Those who fought in
every war since did their part. The challenge of defending and preserving our freedom now falls
upon our shoulders. The threat no longer comes from other nations with imperial ambitions.
Our freedom is threatened by terrorists, obviously, which the government is fighting with bombs
and bullets.
The more sinister, and perhaps, more serious threat, comes from those who advance a collectivist
philosophy that slowly, incrementally, erodes our freedom and wraps the tentacles of an
uncontrollable government around us. This threat to our freedom is as real, if not as visible, as
was the threat posed to those original signers by the British. It is now our turn to stand, and pay
the price of freedom, for ourselves, and for our posterity.

74
Col20030622

Times still in “Ostrich” mode

By Henry Lamb
The New York Times has taken a beating lately. Executive editor, Howell Raines, and managing
editor, Gerald Boyd, were forced to resign because both kept their heads buried in the sand while
Jason Blair churned out dozens of fictitious articles.

The head-in-the-sand syndrome must be endemic among the editors at the Times. Their June 20
editorial, “Censorship on Global Warming,” charges the Bush administration with “ostrichlike”
behavior, because it will not allow Clinton-bureaucrats still in the EPA, to continue dishing out
the U.N.’s hype and hysteria about global warming.
“Gone,” says the Times, “ is any mention that the 1990's are likely to have been the warmest
decade in the last thousand years...,” a phrase often repeated by the Clinton administration.
Even if this statement were true, it would simply mean that global warming was more severe a
thousand years ago than it was during the 1990s. It must have been caused by those whale-oil-
guzzling lamps; it couldn’t have been SUVs.
If the Times editors could get their heads out of the sand long enough to read the magnificent
work of Dr. Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics, they too could know that the global temperature was, indeed, substantially warmer
during the 12th and 13th centuries than it was during the 20th century. Science calls the period the
“Medieval Climate Optimum,” when “more than 50 vineyards,” thrived in England.
Then came the “Little Ice Age,” from about 1550 to 1700, when England, Europe and the
northern hemisphere suffered famine and bitter cold – and no vineyards.
The first thermometer readings date back to 1659 in England. These readings reveal a slow,
steady increase of .08 degrees C over a 300 year period, 200 years before the use of fossil fuel
and the industrial revolution.
The Times editors apparently didn’t hear Dr. John Christy tell a Congressional committee on
May 28, that “the 19 hottest summers of the past 108 years occurred prior to 1955. In the
Midwest, of the 10 worst heat waves, only two have occurred since 1970, and they placed 7th and
8th.” He also reported that “in the year 2000 in the 48 conterminous states, the U.S. experienced
the coldest combined November and December in 106 years.”
John Christy is Professor of Atmospheric Science, and Director of the Earth System Science
Center, at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and is also Alabama's State Climatologist
and recently served as a Lead Author of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
It is not the Bush administration that has its head in the sand. The Bush administration requires
real science, and applies common sense, to the formulation of environmental policy. These

75
qualities are absent from the extremists’ hype echoed by the New York Times.
Canada too, is taking another look at the premature ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, a U.N.
treaty that would give to an international body the power to control the use of fossil fuel. In a
letter to Paul Martin, expected to be Canada’s next Prime Minister, 46 scientists and climate
experts, said that the “Kyoto [Protocol] was not justified from a scientific perspective,” and that
"Many climate science experts from Canada and around the world...strongly disagree with the
scientific rationale for the Kyoto Accord."
The New York Times, and environmental extremists, ignore the mounting evidence that human
activity has little, if anything, to do with the cycles of climate change that have occurred since
the beginning of time.
It is an irrefutable fact that there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today than was
present 100 years ago. Environmental extremists want carbon dioxide “controlled” as a
pollutant, under the authority of the Clean Air Act. As Dr. Christy testified, and all scientists
know, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is as essential for plant life as oxygen is for human
life.
A recent study by NASA and the Department of energy revealed that in the last two decades,
vegetation on the planet has expanded by 6 percent. Dr. Sherwood B. Idso, President of the
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, in Tempe, Arizona, has specialized
in measuring the effect of elevated carbon dioxide on plant growth. NASA’s findings simply
confirm what his studies have shown for years.
The New York Times continues to destroy its credibility by “censoring” the work of scientists
who poke holes in their global warming hype, while bashing Bush for recognizing, and acting on
- the truth.

76
Col20030701

Transforming American society

By Henry Lamb
The Pilgrim family in Alaska is not the only instance of the federal government forcing people
off their land. Donald Scott was awakened in the middle of the night, by someone breaking
through his front door. He grabbed his gun and started down the stairs, when he was shot dead
by federal agents. Bob Learzaf was taking a bath, when the feds stormed through his front door.
They handcuffed him, put him in leg-irons, and hauled him to jail.

The “crime” all these people have in common, is the ownership of land, coveted by the federal
government. For every victim whose story reaches the national media, there are thousands of
other victims who are harassed, coerced, or regulated to the point that they have neither the
funds, nor the will to fight.
In the examples above, the landowners were “inholders,” which means that their land is
surrounded by so-called “public land.” In each instance, the land was privately owned before the
Park was designated. The Clinton-Gore administration undertook an intensive program to rid the
world of these pesky inholders, and consolidate all the land into the hands of the federal
government.
The federal land grab is not limited to inholders. Ranchers are being systematically removed
from federal lands throughout the west. Entire communities that arose to support logging in the
Northwest, are vanishing. In Florida, an entire community in Collier County is facing eviction,
caused by impossible flood insurance fees dictated by FEMA. This is only the latest in a series
of regulatory maneuvers to force the people out of an area the federal government wants to return
to its “natural wilderness” condition.
We are witnessing the “wrenching transformation” of society that Al Gore said would be
necessary to save the planet. The planet can only be saved, according to Mr. Gore and his
crowd, if the government controls the use of all resources. Resources are the product of land,
and therefore, control of land use results in the control of all resources.
The government, prodded by environmental organizations, has been extremely creative in
developing excuses to control land use. The wetlands policy, and the attendant environmental
propaganda, turned mosquito-infested mud-puddles, and snake-infested swamps into precious
aquifer-recharge areas that could not be altered, without penalty, by private landowners.
The Endangered Species Act has now allowed the listing of more than a thousand obscure weeds
and bugs that must have hundreds of thousands of acres designated as “critical habitat” that
cannot be altered, without penalty, by private landowners. Viewsheds, Heritage areas,
wilderness, corridors, buffer zones, archeological sites, and a maze of other designations now
prohibit the use of private property from one end of the country to the other. Land use control
does not stop at the city limits.

77
In the past, urban dwellers have paid little attention to the “rural cleansing” that has been taking
place across the countryside. With the emergence of “sustainable communities,” land use in
urban areas is also increasingly controlled by government. Behind the mask of “economic
development areas,” government has discovered that it can condemn, and take private property
from one individual, and sell it, at a profit, to another individual who wants to use it for a
purpose that promises more tax revenue.

Other urbanites are discovering that state-required local planning controls the use of their private
property. Land held for years in hopes that development would appreciate the value into a
retirement nest-egg, can be devalued instantly by a line on a zoning map, drawn by an uncaring
bureaucrat, to conform to a vision hatched by a “sustainable community” consultant.
A free society cannot exist where government controls the use of land and its resources.
Nevertheless, governments, pushed by environmental extremist organizations, continue to buy
private property at an unprecedented rate, and to issue new regulations to control the land they
cannot yet afford.
People in rural areas have been fighting for years. Their screams of protest have been drowned
out by the steady stream of propaganda about the wisdom of “protecting” the land for future
generations.
Things are changing. City dwellers are now beginning to feel the effects of too much
government control, and they are organizing to resist it. They are discovering their country
cousins, and joining forces to strengthen the groundswell of respect and appreciation of the
principles on which this nation was founded. Chief among those principles is sacredness of
private property.
Politicians who continue to ignore the individual’s right to own, and control the use of his own
property, paint a target on their back. A rapidly growing, enlightened, determined electorate is
looking for those targets, and every opportunity to remove them.
Bob Learzaf, Donald Scott, the Pilgrims, and countless others, have already paid the price of
government greed. It’s time for an enraged electorate to turn the tables on land-hungry
bureaucrats and politicians, and transform them into victims – of unemployment.

78
Col20030706

Greens beat the bushes

By Henry Lamb
A handful of the largest environmental organizations have increased their revenue by more than
one-third, since the 2000 election, expressly for the purpose of beating George Bush in the 2004
election. The League of Conservation Voters doubled its revenue between 1999 and 2001, while
the Sierra club tripled its revenue, according to IRS records. LVC president, Deb Callahan, says
the 2004 election will be the most important election in the history of the green movement.

Leaders of these same environmental organizations virtually ran the Clinton-Gore

administration. A few of the more conspicuous:

* LCV president, Bruce Babbitt, who was Secretary of the Department of Interior;

* Wilderness Society contributed Alice Rivlin, Budget Director, and George

Frampton, chief of the Fish and Wildlife Service;
* World Wildlife Fund provided Thomas E. Lovejoy, a “scientific advisor” to the
Department of Interior;
* World Resources Institute offered three people: Gustave Speth, who served on
the transition team, and then moved to the U.N. Development Program, as well as Rafe
Pomerance and Jessica Tuchman Mathews, both of whom became Deputy Secretaries of
State;

* Sierra Club’s Legislative Director, David Gardiner, joined the planning

department at the EPA;
* National Audubon Society’s Brooks Yeager was a policy analyst for
Department of Interior;
* Natural Resources Defense Council’s John Leshy was Solicitor of the
Department of Interior.

Once inside the government, these people hired other environmental organization leaders to fill
middle-management, and field positions throughout the various agencies. These middle-
management types are protected by civil service rules, and many are still at work inside the Bush
administration.

No wonder the Clinton-Gore administration advanced the extreme green agenda. No wonder the
green extremists are so desperate to get rid of George Bush, who disrupted their use of the

79
government to advance their extreme agenda.
Now, these same environmental organizations have the audacity to charge the Bush
administration of being “in the pocket” of corporate polluters, when it is they who polluted the
government for eight years.
The green extremists are desperate. They are using their new money to organize at the local
level in key states, such as Florida and New Mexico. They will not rely simply on TV ads they
are arranging community workshops, and get-out-the-vote programs. Winning is the goal, and
any means to that end is acceptable.
Propaganda is still their most potent weapon. When the Bush administration edited an EPA
report to remove references to global warming predictions developed during the Clinton-Gore
era, the greens cried “censorship,” and newspapers across the country amplified their charge.
The predictions were omitted because, since they were developed, they have been subsequently
disavowed by scientists around the world, as fatally flawed numbers that bear no resemblance to
reality.

In their propaganda, however, these same environmental organizations censor the scientific data
that disproves the catastrophic claims they continue to make. Even as the fires continue to
destroy the forests that their anti-logging policies were said to protect, the greens ignore
scientific facts, and the truth, in order to point the finger of blame at Bush, claiming that his goal
is to reward loggers with profits from public lands.
These people are dangerous. Their goal is control. They have successfully used the environment
as an excuse to impose all kinds of regulations to bring society under the control of central
government authority – which they expect to implement once more, after Bush is defeated.
They will stop at nothing.
These green extremist organizations are fueled by dozens of huge, left-leaning foundations, by
federal grants, and by misguided individuals who continue to believe their propaganda.
Opponents of their government-enforced worship-the-earth policies are at a disadvantage,
because they have no giant foundations to provide funding, and they disdain federal grants.
While the Ford Foundation, and the Pew Charitable Trusts are only two of dozens of foundations
that fund green extremists, the tiny Paragon Foundation is almost alone in its efforts to encourage
property rights and resource use organizations.
The 2004 elections may well be the most important in the history of the green movement. If they
are successful in recapturing the government, a renewal of the Clinton-Gore surrender to global
governance will surely follow, as will the continuation of laws and regulations that abolish
private property rights, and the continuation of ever-tightening government control over every
facet of human life.

80
Col20030712

Greens lie. What’s new?

By Henry Lamb
Anyone who reads green propaganda for more than a week or two, will discover that the
common denominator throughout the literature is misinformation, deliberate, and often
outrageous, misinformation.

Among many examples of this propensity to misinform, is the current campaign to ignore law
that guarantees access through established rights of way on land now owned by the federal
government. This law was enacted in 1866 to encourage development of the West. Known as
RS2477 (Revised Statute), the law says:
“the right of way for the construction of highways across public lands not otherwise
reserved for public purposes [as of 1866] is hereby granted.”
The Highway Robbery Coalition claims that the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976
(FLPMA) repealed the RS2477 law. Every law relating to federal land since 1866 has honored,
or “grandfathered” this RS2477 provision, including FLPMA, which says:
"Nothing in this Act, or in any amendment to this Act, shall be construed as terminating
any valid lease, permit, patent, right-of-way or authorization existing on the date of
approval of this Act." Sec. 701(a).
"All actions by the Secretary concerned under this Act shall be subject to valid existing
rights ." Sec. 701(h).
"Nothing in this title (43 United States Code Sects. 1701-1784, where FLPMA is found)
shall have the effect of terminating any right-of-way or right-of-use heretofore issued,
granted or permitted." Sect. 509(a).
This language cannot be construed as “repealing” RS2477.
Earthjustice, a member of the coalition, says:
“...the Bush Administration revived a 137-year-old loophole - known as R.S. 2477 - to
allow special interests to convert old livestock trails, footpaths, even streambeds on our
public lands into paved highways.”

Much to the chagrin of Clinton-holdovers still in the government, President Bush has instructed
agencies to honor the law that the green-filled, Clinton-Gore administration, systematically
ignored.

These, often rough and crude rights of way, are essential to people who live throughout the West.
The Pilgrim Family in Alaska, and countless other inholders who own private land now

81
surrounded by federal land, must rely on these RS2477 rights of way to access their property.
These rights of way often serve as fire breaks or access routes to firefighters. They are also used
by loggers and recreationists. And therein lie the rub.
Greens consider loggers, recreationists, and even firefighters to be an abomination on federal
lands. The presence of these rights of way prevent the designation of “wilderness,” which would
prohibit the presence of the abominable logger, recreationist, or firefighter. Therefore, they have
undertaken a massive campaign to misinform the public and pressure Congress to strip access to
public land - because, in their infinite wisdom, they have determined that the public has no
business on public land.
These same green organizations wear many hats, all of which are working to implement the
Wildlands project. People who live East of the Mississippi River, who know very little about
RS2477, should learn all they can about the Wildlands Project. It is being implemented in
virtually every state, driving people off public land, and private land near, wilderness areas.
Private land is being purchased by government as rapidly as government can drain tax revenue to
fund their acquisition projects.
Land not yet acquired by government is being zoned, condemned, or otherwise restricted out of
productive use. The ultimate goal is to force people into sustainable communities, and return the
land to the pristine condition that existed before Columbus arrived.

This land control, so the greens say, is necessary to protect the planet from degradation by
greedy individuals and profit-hungry corporations. A barely functional web page of one batch
of hogwash refers to a “property-rights-supremacist group” in its efforts to discredit those who
want to honor the law and maintain RS2477 rights of way.
The RS2477 controversy is heating up in Congress. Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) has introduced a
bill to settle the issue. While the greens call the bill “balanced,” it really puts all the eggs in the
government’s basket. Greens need to realize that public lands belong to the public, not to them.
The public includes loggers, recreationists, ranchers, miners and even firefighters. RS2477
rights of way are essential – if the public is to have access to, and use of, the land it owns.

82
Col20030723

Congress let U.S. down

By Henry Lamb
Congress had two opportunities recently to uphold U.S. sovereignty, save billions of tax dollars,
and to take the leadership in advancing the principles of freedom throughout the world.
Congress failed.
On July 15, Congress had the opportunity to stop all funding to the United Nations. The vote
failed 74 to 350.
On July 22, Congress had the opportunity to block the funds required to rejoin UNESCO. The
vote failed 145 to 279.

A telephone survey of selected Congressmen who voted to continue funding the U.N., revealed a
frightening lack of knowledge and understanding of the United Nations, its agenda, and even its
procedures.
A California Congressman said that people who are afraid of the U.N. “see blue helmets behind
every tree and black helicopters everywhere.”
A spokesman for another Congressman said that his boss is a “big believer” in international
organizations, especially the U.N., “to assist in our war against terrorism.” When asked why that
attitude persisted in the face of the U.N. Security Council’s refusal to support the U.S. action in
Iraq, he said simply that his boss believed that the countries that opposed us “must have had
good reason.”

Those U.N. supporters who participated in the survey, were all opposed to elimination of the
veto in the U.N. Security Council; global taxation; and the International Criminal Court -
declared goals of the U.N. Despite this reality, all still supported U.S. participation in the U.N.
To one degree or another, all participants believed that the idea of global governance was a pipe
dream created by conspiracy freaks. None had read Our Global Neighborhood, the 1995 report
of the Commission on Global Governance. Some had never heard of it.
On rejoining UNESCO, one Congressman said that restrictions had been placed on our rejoining,
which would trigger withdrawal “if they started doing what they once did.”

“Our membership in UNESCO is another avenue for us to exert our influence,” said one
spokesman. I asked if there were any concern about UNESCO or the U.N. exerting influence on
the U.S. that would result in forcing us to conform our laws to their dictates. “Absolutely not,”
was the reply. “What do you say then, about our land management policies within U.N.
Biosphere Reserves being established by committees of UNESCO?” I asked. His reply: “I don’t
know about Biosphere Reserves.”

83
No wonder the votes on the U.N. and UNESCO were so one-sided. Our Congressmen simply do
not know very much about the United Nations, and they don’t have time or inclination to learn.
Sadly, they know far more than the general population.
The U.N. is an obstacle to U.S. influence in the world, not an aid. The U.S. should stop all
funding to the U.N. Those international agencies and organizations that provide useful
functions toward the advancement of freedom should be continued – outside the administrative
control and corruption of the U.N.
The prevailing attitude in Congress, as reflected by these recent votes, may well condemn future
generations to live in a world where freedom is a relic of history. The United States is the only
hope for developing nations to ever know the benefits of freedom. If our Congress lacks the
knowledge, or the backbone, to resist the international socialist construct called “global
governance,” not only will freedom be denied to the rest of the world, it will continue to
evaporate from the United States.
The last time there was a vote in Congress to withdraw from the U.N., the bill drew only 62
votes. The 74 affirmative votes cast this time, represents some progress, but very little progress.
During the next year, candidates in every state will be asking for support. One of the questions
that should be put to every candidate for every office should be “Will you support withdrawal
from the U.N.?” The question should be put to state and local candidates because these are the
people who “grow up” to become Congressmen. We should get them started on the right track.
Not all the blame can be laid at the feet of Congress. After all, if our government is “of the
people,” the people have a responsibility to see that their representatives reflect their values,
attitudes and beliefs. This requires effort on the part of the people, contacting candidates and
officials, perhaps even working in campaigns. With the election season just cranking up, the
people have another opportunity to elect representatives who will choose freedom, rather than
global governance under the rule of the United Nations.

84
Col20030724

Taxing thin air

By Henry Lamb
Fifty years ago, the Dooly family secured a “special use permit” from the U.S. Forest service,
and built a cabin on federal land in the Cherokee National Forest, in Polk County, Tennessee.
The price of the special use permit is set at five percent of the appraised value, adjusted annually
for inflation.
Every year the Doolys and 65 other special use permit holders in the county, paid their permit
fees, and their county taxes, levied on the value of the cabin. The Doolys’ cabin was appraised
at $38,700 in 1999, and by 2003, the value had increased to $56,400. But for the first time ever,
$164,000 was added to the appraisal for the value of “Leasehold.” The total appraisal is
$220,400.
The federal government pays the county Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) for every acre of
federal land in the county. Moreover, one-fourth of the permit fee goes to the county. The cabin
owner pays taxes on the value of the cabin, and now, the county is trying to collect additional
taxes on what it calls “leasehold.”
County tax assessor, Randy Yates, says they had to do something. “The cabins were selling for
prices much higher than we had them appraised. Eight sales have been recorded since the last
valuation, five years ago, and we had to adjust the valuation.”
It appears that all the properties that are accessible by road had $164,000 added to the value of
the cabin. Properties that are accessible only by boat, had $80,000 added to the value of the
cabin.
Permit holders argue that the county cannot tax land that is owned by the federal government.
Tennessee law (T.C.A. Section 67-5-203) specifically exempts from taxation, land owned by the
federal government. Yates says they are not taxing the land, but the “leasehold.”
Permit holders argue that they have no lease they have a highly restricted permit, which must be
renewed every ten years, and which may be cancelled by the Forest Service at any time. When a
permit is cancelled, the cabin must be removed or destroyed, and the site returned to its pre-
construction condition. The permits have no marketable value; they cannot be transferred.
Cabins may be sold, but not the permit. A purchaser must negotiate a new permit in his own
name. Therefore the permit has zero value and cannot be used as a basis for the increased
appraisal.
Arguments by the permit holder have been rejected by the local Tax Equalization Board, and
now appeals are being prepared for the State Board of Equalization. Yates is convinced that the
state will uphold his decision to tax what he calls “leasehold.”

Chuck Cushman, of the American Land Rights Association, whose members include more than

85
3,000 similar permit holders throughout the country, says that the tax appraiser is “confused”
about what he is trying to tax. Cushman says that a few counties have tried to apply what they
call a “Possessory Interest Tax,” but no county has attempted to apply valuation based on
“leasehold,” of permitted property on federal land.

Typically, the cabins occupy less than a quarter-acre of land. Permit holders are not allowed to
disturb land adjacent to the cabin, or in any way, use the adjacent land. The Polk County permit
holders are challenging the basis on which the $164,000 or $80,000 figure was arbitrarily applied
to each cabin.
“Oh, it will go to court,” Yates says. “This will set a precedent.” Indeed it will.
Counties receive nearly nothing in PILT payments, as little as seventy cents per acre. Often, the
PILT payments are late, very late, because of budget constraints. Counties that have large areas
of federal land will be watching the Polk County situation with bated breath. Should the courts
uphold Yates’ idea of taxing “leasehold,” where there is no lease, on land that belongs to the
federal government other counties around the country will be clamoring to invent new ways to
tax the use of federal land.
The Forest Service has its head in the sand. They want to stay out of the fray. If the county is
successful, and a trend develops across the land, pressure to increase PILT payments will
decrease.
Ironically, the U.S. Forest Service is nearing the end of the comment period for CUFFA - the
Cabin Users Fee Fairness Act of 2000. This law will tighten the reins on how user fees may be
applied, and could affect the outcome of the dispute in Polk County.
Polk County Permit holders are irate. On the one hand, the federal government is systematically
tightening the restrictions on these permits, or failing to renew them, and on the other hand, the
county is forcing the tax, and indirectly, the permit fee, completely out of reach of the users.

This battle is just beginning. It is a brand new way to drive people off so-called “public” land.

86
Col20030728

Global warming: a lost cause

By Henry Lamb
Senators John McCain and Kyoto-Joe Lieberman are pushing an amendment to the President’s
energy bill which is designed more to provide ammunition for Kyoto-Joe’s presidential bid than
to alter global temperature.

Senator McCain is helping, as is the Environmental Defense Fund. According to the LA Times,
The Environmental Defense Fund is sponsoring a series of print and TV ads aimed at “putting
the heat on Congress.” EDF has taken more than $1.7 million in grants from the EPA and the
Department of Energy in the last few years, both are agencies whose budget, staff, and power
would swell significantly were Kyoto-Joe’s amendment to be adopted.
In the TV ad, Senator McCain is pictured saying something to the effect that “the science is with
us.” Ha! The science has never supported the exaggerated claims of the global-warming scare-
mongers. The very first U.N. assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
was severely edited by the policy makers, to omit comments by skeptical scientists.
As research has mounted since that first U.N. assessment report, the gap between science, and
the claims of the global-warming industry, has widened dramatically. More than 19,000
scientists from around the world have now signed a statement that rejects the scare-mongers
global warming claims.
The amendment to be offered by Kyoto-Joe and John McCain would create a mini-Kyoto in the
United States. It would establish an incredibly complex emissions trading scheme that would
have the effect of rationing energy. It would also appropriate a ton of money to be used as grants
to organizations such as the EDF. No wonder EDF is buying ads to promote passage of the
amendment. They would never admit that the money to buy the ads ultimately came from the
public trough.
The EDF web site offers what it calls “Myth vs. Fact” on global warming. What they call
“Myth” is often “Fact,” and what they call “Fact,” is little more than scare-mongering
propaganda. For example, the site says: “...and the scientific consensus is that in all likelihood
the 1990's - the warmest decade in recorded history - were warmer than any decade in the last
thousand years.”
Dr. John Christy’s research dumps tons of ice on this hyperbole. He told a Congressional
Hearing in May, 2003, that, “In my region of Alabama, the 19 hottest summers of the past 108
years occurred prior to 1955. In the Midwest, of the 10 worst heat waves, only two have occurred
since 1970, and they placed 7th and 8th.”
Even the EDF, as do all scientists, recognizes that the global temperature was significantly
warmer a thousand years ago than it is today. Global warming fanatics don’t like to
acknowledge that when the planet was much warmer a thousand years ago, it was not the result

87
of people driving SUVs or burning coal in electricity generation plants. They don’t want you to
think about the period that science calls the Medieval Global Optimum.

Both Senators agree that the amendment has little chance of passage in a Republican-dominated
Congress. Why, then, the big push? As Marlo Lewis, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute put
it in his brilliant analysis back in January, Lieberman is setting up a political issue that he can
exploit during his presidential campaign: Kyoto-Joe is for saving the planet, while the big bad
Bush is for destroying the planet so his oil-loving cronies can get rich.
McCain’s motivation, as is often the case, is more mysterious. In the past, he has voted against
similar measures. In the last Congress, he actually co-authored an op-ed piece with Senator Kyl,
in the East Valley Tribune, which blasted efforts to mandate tax-credits for “alternative fuel” use.
It was also John McCain who promoted the election reform bill which would outlaw third-party
ads, such as the current EDF campaign, but only 60 days before an election.

Science has thoroughly trashed the notion that human activity actually causes global warming.
The die-hard beneficiaries of the global warming industry ignore and ridicule the science that
negates their claims. It is high time that the American public realizes that the global warming
scare-mongers who feed from the federal trough, care only about keeping their coffers full,
regardless of the price everyone else has to pay.

88
Col20030805

The Third Sector

By Henry Lamb
A new mechanism of governance is emerging. Georgetown University calls it “The Third
Sector.” The United Nations calls it “Civil Society.” The President’s Council on Sustainable
Development calls it “...a new, collaborative decision process.” Whatever it’s called, it is a
process to formulate public policy by non-elected individuals, unencumbered by the legislative
process.

The process was developed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and the
United Nations. As the IUCN developed its land management policy proposals, a network of
“civil society” organizations, called BIONET, was created to promote the policy proposal and to
lobby U.N. delegates. As the IUCN developed its climate change policy proposals, a network of
“civil society organizations, called Climate Action Network was created to promote the policy
proposals and to lobby U.N. delegates.
The same process created the Women’s Environment and Development Organization; the
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives; the International Action Network on
Small Arms, and many other “networks” of special interest groups, largely funded by the U.N.
and sympathetic governments.
The process has been incredibly successful at the international level. It is rapidly becoming
equally successful in the United States.

In 1995, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, a “network” of special interest groups, banded
together to urge UNESCO to declare Yellowstone National Park a World Heritage Site “In
Danger.” The designation required a willing Clinton-Gore administration to impose additional
land use restrictions on private property beyond the park’s boundary. Neither local state, nor
federal elected officials had any say in the matter.
Throughout the 1990s, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development spawned hundreds
of these “networks” to focus on specific issues, such as the Sierra Club’s “Smart Growth”
programs, and to work at the local and regional levels to generate visions of smart growth for
nearly every community.
These special interest groups are often called “visioning” councils, or “stakeholder,” or
“watershed” councils. They are designed to appear to be representative of the affected
community. Most often, however, they consist of individuals who are government employees or
executives or staff of special interest groups, with only a token number of carefully selected
elected officials and business leaders.
The process of consensus building to achieve “collaborative” decision making has been refined
to an art. In a given community, the appropriate council is chosen and begins meeting to discuss
the future of the community. When the council is fully formed, and a couple of “day-glow” big-

89
wheels have been recruited, a public announcement explains how the wonderful “citizens’”
vision will unfold.

At the public meetings, a paid facilitator leads the group to choose from several options in
several categories - transportation, zoning, education, economic development - until a final set of
proposals is developed, which is then presented to the governing body for adoption and
implementation. Rarely do the elected officials have the necessary information, or the political
will, to oppose this vision developed by the “citizens” of the community.
In reality, it is not a vision of the citizens of the community. Ordinary citizens are rarely even
notified of the meetings. When they do show up to ask questions, they are often ridiculed,
marginalized, and dismissed. When complete, virtually every one of these plans contains the
elements recommended in Agenda 21, and by the President’s Council on Sustainable
Development.
Councils created to represent trans-boundary jurisdictions have even less input by ordinary
citizens or elected officials. When a multi-jurisdictional plan is developed, and presented to the
various jurisdictions, they either adopt it, or risk political ridicule, and even the loss of federal
funds.

These special interest groups - The Third Sector - are deeply embedded in the policy-making
process. The American Planning Association was funded by the government to produce model
legislation for state governments. The Center for Civic Education has the exclusive authority to
write the Civics curriculum for federally funded public schools. The Nature Conservancy, and
similar groups are used by government to buy private property, which is then resold to the
government for a profit.
This new mechanism of governance has become so prevalent that Georgetown University has
developed a special Ph. D. program to train special interest organization leaders to be even more
effective. The great danger in this emerging new system of governance is the absence of
accountability. If citizens don’t like the policies developed by these special interest groups, who
do they un-elect?

90
Col20030812

The Third Sector in Action

By Henry Lamb
“Scary,” was the consensus response to last week’s article, “The Third Sector.” A classic
example of how the Third Sector works is now unfolding around the President’s “Faith Based
Initiative.”

The initiative, which will allow federal funds to be used by faith-based organizations, has been
hijacked by the Third Sector, to further eliminate privately owned land. The Senate version of
the proposed legislation (S-476), contains a provision that grants to the seller of private land a
25% discount in capital gains tax, providing that the land is sold to the government, or to a Third
Sector organization such as The Nature Conservancy. The seller gets no discount should the
land be sold to a church, or to a church school, or to anyone else. The discount also applies to
conservation easements and water rights.
The House version (HR-7), sponsored by Rep. Roy Blunt, deliberately excludes this provision,
and the Third Sector is pulling out all the stops to get the provision included in the House version
as well.
The Land Trust Alliance, all of whose members stand to benefit from the discount provision,
have scheduled a major rally in October to prepare to exert maximum political pressure on
Congress. Look at who is sponsoring the event with donations in excess of $25,000: The Nature
Conservancy; Trust for Public Land; U.S. Department of Defense.

These folks gave more than $10,000: EPA - Office of Oceans, Wetlands and Watersheds; Dept
of Commerce; NOAA Coastal Services Center; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Division of Realty.
These folks gave less than $10,000: USDA Forest Service; American Land Conservancy;
National Park Service; Environmental Defense; and the Humane Society of the United States.
The Third Sector is being funded, to a large extent, by your tax dollars. The Nature Conservancy
in particular, has mastered the art of extracting tax dollars en route to becoming a $3 billion
industry. (More on The Nature Conservancy here).

It is, indeed, frightening that these organizations have so effectively taken over the policy-
making process; it is unconscionable for the federal government to use tax dollars to support
them.

Not only should this Third Sector favoritism be stripped from the Senate Bill, all federal grants
to these parasitic organizations should come to a screeching halt.
The faith based initiative President Bush described, envisioned church-related programs that
provide food, clothing, and shelter to the needy. There was no discussion about The Nature

91
Conservancy and other Third Sector organizations, or the government, buying up private
property.

The federal government already owns about one-third of the total land area, much of which is
destroyed by fire each year, because these same Third Sector organizations have insisted on
management policies that prevent human use of these so-called “public” resources.
These are the same organizations whose executives and staff members flocked to the
Clinton/Gore administration, to dominate the policy-making and grant-giving positions in federal
agencies. These are the same organizations that now scream like stuck pigs every time the Bush
administration attempts to undo the radical policies imposed by the Third Sector.
Bush’s healthy forest initiative is described as “gutting national forests to enrich greedy loggers.”

Bush’s initiative to use limited public land for energy exploration is described as “destroying the
environment to enrich the greedy oil industry.” Bush’s effort to honor pre-existing rights of way
on public land (as required by law) is described as “opening wilderness to concrete highways to
enrich greedy developers.”
The Third Sector has become the dominant influence in public policy development, and it has
learned how to fund its operations from the public trough. Congress controls the faucet from
which the funds flow. Congress will not shut off the faucet unless forced to do so by irate voters.
Shutting off the flow of federal funds to the Third Sector will not completely stop their
movement, but it will put a serious kink in their come-a-long. While Congressmen are visiting
the districts during the August recess is an excellent time to tell them to stop buying private
lands, and to stop favoring, and funding these Third Sector organizations.

92
Col20030817-

Enlightened by a blackout

By Henry Lamb
Everyone agrees that we must do something to make sure that a recurrence of the multi-state
blackout never happens again. That’s where the agreement stops.
The finger-pointing, and the political blame-gaming that fill endless hours of TV time, only
shields the magnitude of a fundamental choice that reality is thrusting upon us. We must now
choose to apply the remedy prescribed by the Third Sector, or we must choose to let a free
market meet the demands of a free society.
The recent blackout occurred because the free market has failed to meet market demands. The
free market has failed to meet the demand because it has been blocked by the Third Sector. The
blackout is only one symptom of the side effects of the Third Sector medicine. The forest fires
that annually destroy the nation’s un-managed forests; the rapidly-rising property tax rates
caused by the massive transfer of private property to “conservancy” and government ownership;
the sagging economy caused by the systematic elimination of natural resource production
industries; the job-losses caused by the export of the manufacturing sector; exploding budget
demands caused by unrestricted inflow of illegal aliens – all are effects resulting from the Third
Sector agenda.
The Third Sector – that highly organized, well funded network of non-government special-
interest organizations – says that the nation should solve the blackout problem by taking a double
dose of the same medicine that caused the present illness: phase out fossil fuels and hydro-
electric dams that hinder fish runs, and instead, rely on windmills (except, of course, those
proposed near the Kennedy compound, off Cape Cod), phase out SUVs (except, of course, those
given to The Nature Conservancy by General Motors), and to “conserve,” as prescribed by the
U.N.’s Maurice Strong, by eliminating single-family houses, air conditioning, and convenience
foods, (except, of course, for those Third Sector executives who occupy multi-million dollar
facilities in Washington and New York).
The Third Sector has effectively prevented the expansion of energy production since the mid-
1970s. An explosion of regulations and law suits have so cluttered the market that it is no longer
a free market; it is a managed market.
This is the objective of the Third Sector agenda: a managed market serving a managed society, to
ensure that economic development is harnessed so as not to harm the environment, while
providing equitable access to the earth’s resources for all people. This is the meaning of
“sustainable development.” This is what Agenda 21 is designed to produce. This is the future,
should this nation choose to apply the remedy proposed by the Third Sector.
Fifty-million Americans got a taste of “equitable access to the earth’s resources” when they had
to find ways to survive a day without electricity. Much of the world has no electricity at all.

93
The objective of a free market is to provide electricity to all who need or want it, and to create
private prosperity in the process. The Third Sector hates private wealth (except, of course, their
own) in the hands of greedy capitalists.
The Third Sector is convinced that if a free market is allowed to meet the demands of a free
society, the environment will be plundered, and the planet will turn to toast. Therefore,
government, guided by the Third Sector, must manage the market, the planet, and the people.
The recent blackout is, indeed, a wake-up call, not for the President, but for the urban dwellers
who send their contributions to The Nature Conservancy, and believe that if the Sierra Club is
for it, it must be good. These are the Third Sector people who caused your blackout, who want
government to force you to share your prosperity with people who are not free to create their
own.
This nation must decide. Soon.

We should reject the Third Sector prescription. We should immediately open the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, and other “public” and private land, to secure the oil and gas and coal that can
provide the energy we need until a free market can develop a better alternative.
We should immediately stop funding these Third Sector organizations, and vote their
representatives out of office at every level of government. As a nation, we have acquiesced to
their demands for more than a generation. The fires burning in the West, the outflow of jobs to
developing nations, and now, the reality of an inadequate energy supply, is our reward.
The blackout should be the beginning of our enlightenment.

94
Col20030821

Green with envy

By Henry Lamb
Florida is near the top of the list of states lining up to follow California into economic chaos.
The contest to lead the green parade has ignored the rights of people, the principles of freedom,
and often, plain old common sense. Here is a typical letter received this week:

Building and Zoning has just charged me with failing to get building permits for a screen
porch. I feel like my Constitutional Rights are being violated. They enforce building and
zoning with denial of electric utilities until the owner meets their specs. I am in Florida
can you point me in the right direction or give me some good advice? - Joe V.
Joe doesn’t realize that Florida, like California, has crossed the threshold from an American
state, to a Third Sector state, enroute to becoming a full-fledged socialist state.
Until 1976, when the Florida legislature adopted its first state-wide comprehensive planning act
– despite the strong opposition of a coalition of county governments - county commissioners
determined if, and when building permits were required. Local citizens could hold their elected
commissioners accountable at the ballot box, if local codes became too stringent. This is the
only power that the people have over government.
Since 1976, the state has made county commissioners nearly irrelevant; county codes must
conform to state requirements. And, if the state gets federal money, the state must conform to
federal requirements. No longer does it matter very much who, or which party, holds the
position of county commissioner in Florida, California, and several other transitional states.
Their hands are tied by state and federal laws and regulations.
Public policy, including local building and zoning codes, are no long the prerogative of local
elected officials. Non-government organizations, such as the American Planning Association,
working in concert with local NGOs, such as 1000 Friends of Florida, Conservancy of Southwest
Florida, the Florida Wildlife Federation, and dozens of others, formulate public policy through
various “stakeholder” councils, which are then rubber-stamped by local, state, and even federal
legislators, and poor Joe has no idea why he has to have a permit to put a screen porch on his
house.
It will get much worse, before it gets better. The APA’s model legislation for states offers such
detailed requirements that property owners can use only state-approved plants for landscaping,
state-approved colors – inside and out – for decorating, and only state-approved “green-label”
materials for building.
Moreover, their model legislation includes the concept of “amortized compliance.” This is a
scheme in which the owner’s right to occupy his home is extinguished over a specified period of
time, if the owner’s property remains in non-compliance with the stringent regulations set forth
in the APA’s model legislation.

95
Florida has also cluttered its Constitution with extensive ballot-initiative amendments that
impose constitutional expenditures – such as the $300 million per year that must be spent to
acquire more and more private property for the state. This, of course, reduces the number of tax
payers, and increases the tax burden on the remaining land owners.

These initiatives at the state and county level are the result of Third Sector organizations that
pour money into advertising and promotion of their objectives, which force elected officials to
do their bidding.
California led the way, Florida and Oregon have been dutifully following the California lead.
California has driven away many individuals and businesses that can no longer afford the level
of politically correct shades of green demanded by the Third Sector. The inevitable
consequences of this political philosophy are the constantly rising budget demands, and the
constantly diminishing ability of citizens to pay.
The chaotic spectacle now unfolding in California could well be a preview of future events in
Florida, Oregon, and many of the other states that have fallen victim to the demands of the Third
Sector.
I was in Florida in 1976 when the Comprehensive Planning Act was passed. I immediately put
my home up for sale, and quickly found another state where people still respect the principles of
freedom and the U.S. Constitution.
My advice to Joe, and to all who write similar letters, is to join a local property rights
organization that is affiliated with a national organization so we can mount as much political
pressure as may be necessary to counter the policies of the Third Sector. Politicians ignore
individuals, but if enough individuals join together, sing the same song in a loud voice, and
march proudly – and intelligently – to the ballot box at every election, we can restore the
principles of freedom, and reclaim every state for America.

96
Col20030825

The cost of turning green

By Henry Lamb
In an August 17 editorial, the New York Times chastised President Bush for not pushing the $8
billion Everglades Restoration Program. The editorial stated that “Despite opposition from the
sugar barons and the developers, Congress stipulated that restoration was to be the plan's
overriding purpose, and that nature, not commerce, would have first claim on the water.”
An op-ed by Louis Uchitelle, in the same edition, began this way: “Manufacturing is slowly
disappearing in the United States.” Uchitelle went on to report that more than half the
manufactured goods purchased by Americans are imported; up from 31% in 1987.
Manufacturing jobs have fallen from 30% of the work force in 1960 to only 11% now. The trade
deficit continues to soar, because we are buying far more goods from foreign sources than we are
selling abroad. Jobs are becoming our primary export.
To the New York Times, the jobs provided by “sugar barons” and “developers” are not as
important as getting water to the snakes and alligators in the Everglades. Getting water to the
five million people in southern Florida, while protecting private landowners from flooding, is not
as important as restoring the Everglades to its “pristine” pre-development condition.
As long as this attitude prevails, the economy will continue to decline, and America will achieve
the sustainable development goal of “equity” with third-world countries.
The Everglades Restoration Program is only one small part of a massive program launched by
radical environmentalist to restore “at least half” of the total land area in America to core
wilderness areas, off limits to humans. In every corner of the country, environmentalists are
pushing programs that value nature over commerce – and the needs of humans.
The manufacturing sector of our economy is dying because the raw material for processing is no
longer available in America. Our children have been taught that cutting a tree is sinful, and that
mining ore from the ground is akin to rape.
Environmentalists have had their way in public policy, with much help from such media giants
as the New York Times. They must now step up and accept the responsibility for the
consequences of their actions.
The tragic fires that destroy far more forests and wildlife than the “greedy” loggers are the direct
result of the “save-the-old-growth” garbage spouted by environmentalists. The rising costs of
energy, as well as the increasing unreliability, are the direct result of environmental policies that
block the use of domestic oil, gas, and coal. The skyrocketing property tax rates are the direct
result of the environmental agenda that demands government ownership of all remaining open
space. The staggering escalation of housing costs is the direct result of environmental policies
that limit the availability of building sites.

97
It’s interesting – and often disgusting – to listen to environmentalists squirm when they are
confronted with taking responsibility for the mess they have caused. Their first line of defense
is to attack President Bush for catering to his (and their) timber and oil industry buddies. Then
they attack right-wing extremists for not pouring in the billions of dollars necessary to subsidize
the “alternative” energy – which, they say, would create a bunch of new jobs.
While they squirm and try to divert blame, the forests burn, the wood products industry shrinks,
oil prices and imports increase, ranchers go belly-up, and farmers find that they cannot compete
with foreign producers in countries where there are no environmental and social regulations.
It’s bad enough that our jobs are flowing to other countries, and that our economy is suffering,
but what is even worse, is that our dependence upon foreign countries is mounting. We have
already become dependent upon foreign sources for our energy, for no reason other than to
accommodate the misguided vision of environmental extremists – and the New York Times –
that restoring nature is more important than commerce, or the needs of humans.
Environmental extremists, and media giants, often demean “sugar barons” and add a hyphenated
“greedy” in front of words such as developers, loggers, ranchers, to suggest that these people are
out to destroy the environment, just to make a profit.

These developers, loggers, ranchers, farmers, and manufacturers are the people who built
America; it certainly was not the Sierra Club or The Nature Conservancy. These are the
organizations, along with their other Third Sector cronies, that are hell-bent to destroy America.
Until ordinary people realize that much of their economic grief is caused by the unrealistic
visions of environmental extremists, we can expect the economy to further deteriorate, along
with the freedom that was once the beacon of this great nation.

98
Col2030831

Keep the U.N. out of Iraq

By Henry Lamb
When a soldier dies by the hand of an enemy of the United States, it is a tragedy. Since
President Bush declared war on terrorism, about 300 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Each death, indeed, is tragic, especially for the families and friends of those who
died.
On September 11, 2001, nearly 3,000 innocent civilians died, by the hands of an enemy of the
United States. Their deaths are no less tragic. The enemy that caused these deaths must be
vanquished. Weakness or indecision in our response will only encourage more attacks in this
country. We must find the enemy, and destroy it. This is a war unlike any we’ve faced. It will
be expensive in dollars, and in lives. It cannot be won quickly, but it is a war we cannot afford to
lose.
The enemy is now preparing to celebrate the attack on the U.S. by honoring their “Magnificent
19.” The enemy is continuing its war against the United States, by trying to destabilize Iraq, and
by continuing to kill U.S. soldiers. They believe that the daily reports of bombings and body
bags will undermine American resolve and leave Iraq to become the new home for the world’s
terrorists.
Their strategy appears to be working, at least among Democrats. Presidential hopefuls never
miss an opportunity to use terms such as “quagmire,” and often throw in references to Viet Nam.
Front-runner, Howard Dean, would do exactly what the terrorists want; abandon the effort, and
leave Iraq to spawn new terrorist attacks around the world.

John Kerry, on the other hand, says victory in Iraq is imperative, but only he knows how to
achieve it: his strategy is to turn to the U.N.
Kerry’s solution is only slightly less ludicrous than Dean’s. There should be international
cooperation in Iraq, because terrorism affects every nation. The U.N., however, is not the
instrument of international cooperation.
France, Germany, and Russia are withholding support, demanding that the U.N. be put in charge
of rebuilding Iraq. Their position has nothing to do with getting Iraq rebuilt, it has everything to
do with saving the U.N. None of these nations has the strength, individually, to counter U.S.
initiatives, be they economic, military, or political. It is only through the U.N. that they can hope
to combine their power to counter U.S. interests.
Were the U.S. to acquiesce to Kerry’s wishes, and turn over control of Iraq to the U.N., the
United States would still be expected to supply most of the money, and most of the security.
The only thing to be gained by yielding to the U.N. would be to restore a degree of relevance to
the U.N. The “gain” would accrue to the U.N., and to its dependent nations, not to the U.S.

99
Neither the U.S. nor Iraq would “gain” from U.N. control of the rebuilding operation; both
would lose substantially were the U.N. given control over security. Rewind Blackhawk Down,
and take another look at U.N. security, as U.S. soldiers are dragged through the streets of
Somalia.

Led by France, Germany and Russia, the U.N. wanted nothing to do with confronting terrorism
in Iraq. Neither did the U.S., when Democrats controlled the government. The attack on
American soil changed all that. The administration and Congress did what it had to do; declare
war on terrorism. That war has taken our soldiers to Afghanistan, and to Iraq – so far. More
soldiers will die, and more money will be required.
There will be set-backs. The terrorists will not throw down their weapons and quit. They will
continue to do what they have done in Israel – for years. They will do it in Afghanistan, in Iraq,
in Saudi Arabia, in Indonesia, and in the United States, until the United States hunts them down
and sends them to their final reward.
Terrorist strength grows in direct correlation with a lessening resolve by the American people.
Conversely, the more determined we are to do whatever it takes to rid the world of terrorism, the
sooner our streets, our homes, our work-places, our subways and airplanes will return to a level
of security we once took for granted.
This is a task for the United States, not the U.N. As France, Germany, Russia, and other nations
continue to play international politics, as they did before Iraq, rather than roll up their sleeves
and help rid the world of terrorism, Americans can see precisely why we should stop flushing
dollars and wasting time through this obsolete, irrelevant institution.

100
Col20030902

562 nations under God

By Henry Lamb
Who would deny that Indians were treated badly by the first settlers in this country? The era of
black slavery is an embarrassment to our “enlightened” society. Irish immigrants were singled
out for mistreatment, as were people from Poland. Jews were horribly mistreated. So were the
Mormons.
Should each of these groups be given a sovereign land within the United States, and allowed to
govern as they choose, free from taxes paid by others, and free to engage in activities denied to
others?
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, enacted in 1988, discriminates on the basis of race, against
all non-Indians. Neither Jews, the Irish, Poles, nor Mormons can open a gambling casino on
their own land. Is this equal protection under the law?
This is just another example of how the principles of freedom on which this nation was founded
have been eroded. The United States, as our pledge declares, is “...one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

But, is it?
America flourished from the philosophy “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses
yearning to breathe free...” as our Statue of Liberty welcomes newcomers. The newcomers came
to become Americans.
No more. Far too many newcomers come to transform America into a nation our founders could
not even imagine. Even though citizenship requires renouncing allegiance to any and all foreign
powers, and to affirm an oath to support the Constitution and the laws of the United States, there
are organized efforts to ignore both the Constitution and the Laws of the United States, to secure
benefits for racial or religious groups.
Special treatment for Indians is no worse than special treatment for Blacks, for Jews, for Irish,
for Poles, or for Hispanics. Special treatment, because of race, religion or ethnicity, is wrong.
Americans are defined, not by color, religion, or ethnicity, but by belief in, and dedication to, the
principles of freedom, as defined in our founding documents. As a nation, we seem to have
forgotten this fundamental principle.
America is teeming with newcomers who demand multi-lingual ballots, school texts, and even
multi-lingual instructions to assemble consumer products. America is an English-speaking
nation, and those who want U.S. citizenship should be required to learn English. The southwest
is overrun with newcomers, many of whom care not about U.S. citizenship, but about exploiting
U.S. markets. There is a growing effort to reclaim much of the southwest for Mexico. During

101
the 1990s, immigration grew by 11.3 million, dominated by Spanish-speaking Latin Americans.
This does not include the illegal aliens, whose numbers can only be estimated.

America has been brought to the brink of disaster by appeasing the “multiculturalism” crowd.
Those groups which demand special treatment, whether Black, Indian, Asian, Hispanic, Islamic,
or whatever, ignore our national motto: e pluribus unum -- out of many, one -- and are striving to
divide the one, into many.
Martin Luther King’s dream has not yet been realized: that time when people are judged, not by
the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Now, however, it seems that
government, and special interest groups, value skin color far more than character. Why else
would Indians be given sovereign nations, and Blacks given “extra points” for college admission,
and Hispanics given all sorts of special privileges not available to other groups of Americans?
The first step to becoming an American should be to know and understand what it means to be
an American. Then, the declaration of allegiance should be demonstrated, not just spoken.
Politicians who pursue votes with promises to one group, at the expense of others, are not fit for
office, and should be replaced by candidates who, themselves, have demonstrated their
allegiance to the principles of freedom that define this great nation.

To be an American is a privilege beyond describable value. With citizenship comes the

responsibility to protect and defend its value. Its value arises from the freedom it guarantees. If
we, who enjoy the value of our citizenship, allow self-serving politicians and special-interest
groups to chip away at the foundations of our freedom, and continue to ignore and erode the
principles which provide our freedom, we will become a nation no better than those the
newcomers are trying to escape.

102
Col20030915

Bumpy road to global governance

By Henry Lamb

It’s been a bad week for the one-worlders: the WTO trade talks collapsed in Cancun; Sweden
rejected the Euro; and the U.N. Security Council is, once again, headed toward a stalemate over
Iraq.
Good news all-around.
The trade talks in Cancun came unglued over a dispute between the poor countries and the rich
countries. The poor countries built a coalition that demanded that the rich countries end
agricultural subsidies, and pay substantial “compensation” for damages these subsidies have
caused.

The rich countries focused on equalizing the regulations governing investment and production.
The poor countries were not interested, because, according to the New York Times, “they feared
the new rules would be too intrusive, and limit a country's freedom to regulate the environment,
or workers' rights in the face of international trade laws protecting foreign investors.”
American farmers are required to abide by extensive environmental, labor, and other “social”
regulations which do not apply to the poor countries. Consequently, agricultural products can be
produced in poor countries at a fraction of American production costs. Poor countries do not
want these regulations incorporated into international trade agreements. Even with the subsidies,
American farmers cannot compete on a level playing field with producers in poor countries.
What’s worse for the American consumer, the quality of imported foods is suspect. Beef, for
example, is imported at a fraction of the cost of American beef, and there is no way of knowing
where, or under what conditions the beef was produced. Imported beef can be mixed with
American beef, and sold as American beef.
Unregulated agricultural products have flooded the American market since NAFTA, with
devastating impact on American producers. Poor countries have benefitted dramatically from
the U.S. trade policy, while the American economy has been forced to endure a trade deficit that
could reach $500 billion this year alone. Consumers have bought less expensive products at the
retail end of the chain, but the real cost is in the nearly 11-million jobs that have been lost, as
more and more U.S. companies move to poor countries where regulations are lax, and labor costs
are extremely low.
Americans cannot forever have high regulatory and labor standards, and the low-cost products
produced elsewhere, without those regulatory and labor standards. Sooner or later, the market
will equalize, with American technology moving elsewhere, leaving American consumers to
draw their pay from activities that provide for only the lowest-cost products. This is the process

103
by which wealth is redistributed – and it is being redistributed with each passing year.
Radical green professional protesters oppose the WTO because they see it as a U.S.-led
mechanism to spread capitalism. Free-market advocates oppose the WTO because they see it as
a collectivist mechanism to manage trade. Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade
representative, may have the best solution. He says this administration is prepared to move
forward with bi-lateral trade agreements, outside the WTO.
Free trade should be between a willing seller and a willing buyer, without the need for approval
of a third party, or a bunch of radical green protesters.
This administration has already demonstrated its willingness to move forward in Iraq, without
the approval of the U.N. Current efforts to secure a U.N. resolution calling for greater
international participation are more for the benefit of other nations, than for the U.S. Arab, and
other nations need the cover of U.N. approval for the benefit of their anti-U.S. neighbors.
France, Germany, and Russia are, once again, erecting obstacles for no reason other than to
demonstrate their imagined importance, and to try again, to put the U.N. in charge of the world.
So far, the U.S. has indicated that it is willing to play the game – up to a certain point.
France, Germany, and the European Union had another slap in the face when Sweden
overwhelmingly rejected the Euro as its currency. Among the reasons cited for rejecting the EU
currency, was France’s unwillingness to abide by the EU rules on deficits, which France insisted
be included in the membership rules. France appears to be insisting on what others should do,
but refusing to do what it expects others to do.
Perhaps the U.S. has finally realized that its first obligation is to Americans, not to France, the
U.N., the WTO, or to the loud-mouth radical greens.

104
Col20030920

Restructuring the U.N.

By Henry Lamb
Kofi Annan is fidgety about the future of the U.N., as well he should be. His plan to restructure
the Security Council and the General Assembly reflects the fading dream of the Commission on
Global Governance, rather than the reality of a hungry, troubled world.

The world changed on 9-11. No longer can the world tilt at the windmills of a fantasized “global
village.” No longer can visions of “sustainable development” be justified in a world where
“sustainable freedom” is the only possible solution to the economic and power vacuum that
foments acts of terrorism.
It was unprecedented freedom, exercised by individuals that created the United States, which
now, is the supreme economic and military power in the world. To voluntarily yield this power
to the U.N., as France, Germany, Russia, and other nations want, would condemn the entire
world to a system of governance in which individual freedom would be the measured reward for
compliance with government’s dictates.
There is a better way.

Nations can, and, ultimately, must, learn to live as neighbors, free from the web of “international
laws” that dictate which activities are “sustainable” and which are xenophobic and unacceptable.
Nation-to-nation relationships, just like neighbor-to-neighbor relationships, should be fashioned
voluntarily, driven by mutual benefit. For the first time in a century, the United States may be
exploring this possibility.
While many people on both sides of the Atlantic are clamoring for the U.S. to transfer Iraq to the
U.N., the Bush administration is asking, “why?” The United States would still have to supply
the majority of the money, and the military power, to ensure that Iraq did not fall into the hands
of another Saddam, while allowing the U.N. to structure the new government to fit its vision for
the future.

The Bush administration is inviting other nations to help the struggling nation to create its own
future, based on the principles of freedom, rather than on the demands of another dictator, or in
the mold of global socialism, dictated by France, Germany, Russia, and Kofi Annan. If these
nations choose to be selfish neighbors, and withhold their help when it is needed, so be it. As in
every neighborhood, what goes around comes around.

It will surely cost America more in the short term, if other major nations choose not to help. The
long-term reward, however, could well be the model for transforming the world into a global
neighborhood of free nations, rather than a global village under the control of unelected,
unaccountable administrators who answer to the U.N.

105
The world is, indeed, again in the throes of determining its future. The vision held by globalists
– from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Roosevelt – of a future world, under an all-powerful United
Nations Institution, has failed. It is time for a new vision.
The United Nations should be restructured. The U.N. building in New York could be far more
beneficial if converted into low-rent housing for the homeless. The U.N. headquarters in
Geneva, the Palaise de nations, could easily house those international organizations that provide
useful services, such as standardized postal and communications specifications. Most of the
U.N. organizations and agencies should be de-funded, and forced to earn their existence in a free
market place - or die.
The United States is the leader of the world. As such, it can conquer, control, and exploit Iraq, if
it chooses, or it can help Iraq form its own government control its own resources, and its own
destiny. Ultimately, every nation must realize this vision, free from dictators, and international
administrators. Freedom, individual freedom, secured by private property rights, and a
government limited by the consent of the governed, is the new vision for the world.
This is the vision that empowered the United States. It is a vision that has been clouded in recent
decades, by resurgent dreams of global governance. The United States is teetering on the brink
of either falling, irretrievably, into the abyss of global socialism, or rising above the clouds, and
launching another experiment in freedom - leading the world to a global neighborhood of free,
sovereign nations.
Iraq is, or can be, the model. If the Bush administration yields to domestic and international
pressure to turn over Iraq to the U.N., the U.S. will begin its descent into oblivion. If, however,
the Bush administration stands firm in Iraq, with the support of the American people, then,
perhaps, the Iraqi people can begin to discover the powerful benefits of freedom, and become a
beacon of leadership for other nations in the region.

106
Col20031001

Choosing America’s future

By Henry Lamb
America’s economic and military strength depends upon the availability of an abundant supply
of affordable energy. In recent years, there has been a coordinated effort to reduce the
availability and increase the price of energy, in America, and around the world. The reason
advanced by the anti-energy advocates, is “to protect the environment.” Surprisingly, these
people have been able to convince masses of people that their vision of a “protected
environment” is more important than the prosperity and security that America offers.
Anti-energy advocates claim that we can have a protected environment, and maintain our
economic and military strength by eliminating the use of fossil fuel and nuclear energy, and
shifting to solar, wind, and hydrogen fuel technology. The marketplace knows better, so these
anti-energy advocates lobby tirelessly to persuade Congress to force the reduction, and speedy
elimination, of the use of fossil and nuclear energy sources. Scary scenarios and junk science are
the preferred tools of the anti-energy crowd.
Alternative energy sources should be used, where feasible, but never forced by government into
the marketplace. The marketplace – free of governmental interference – is the best provider of
abundant, affordable energy. There is at least a 250-year supply of coal, and, by some estimates,
a 100-year supply of oil and gas, readily available in the United States. Were government to get
out of the way, nuclear energy could further extend the supply of available, affordable energy.
But no. Government, driven by an extremely well-funded, well-coordinated, environmental
lobbying machine, continues to ignore the obvious benefits of abundant, affordable energy, and
embraces instead, policies that often defy logic.
For example, which is more important to America: enough domestic energy to supply New York
City for, perhaps, a decade, or keeping nearly two million acres of Wyoming free from human
impact? The Clinton-Gore administration chose the Wyoming wilderness when it closed the
coal fields by designating the Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
Which is more important to America: enough domestic energy to avoid sending nearly $500
billion to foreign countries, and creating more than two million jobs, or keeping Alaska’s North
slope free from human impact?
Anti-energy advocates have latched onto the “open space, free from human impact,” vision to
prevent all kinds of resource development. They have convinced a majority in the Senate, and
many people elsewhere, that wilderness is a higher value for America, than an abundant supply
of affordable energy, and all other uses of our natural resources.
The Wildlands Project is moving more rapidly than anyone expected, thanks to ten years of
support by the federal government. A series of maps indicate the progress, and the ambition, of
the people who fully intend to return at least half of the United States to core wilderness, free

107
from human impact.
Again, which is more important to America: keeping humans off half the land, to ensure that
animals have room to roam, or using the energy and other natural resources on this land, to
ensure that America retains its economic and military strength?
Far too much of America’s natural resource treasure has already been locked up by wilderness
and monument designations, and has been taken away from the American people forever. This
is a victory for those who value the serenity of a pristine desert more than a prosperous economy.
The people who are out of work, those whose jobs have departed to China, India, Mexico –
where there is no effective green lobbying machine preventing resource use – might want to
reconsider the value they place on wilderness, and so-called environmental protection.

It is true that in the past, resource providers have not always been sensitive to environmental
damage. Those days are long gone, thanks, in part, to the early days of the environmental
movement. With modern technology, and environmental sensitivity, domestic oil, coal, and
nuclear energy are readily available, with little or no damage to the environment.
There is no justification for depriving the American people of the benefits of abundant,
affordable energy - to satisfy the misguided values system of those who believe that animals are
more important than humans. America cannot maintain its economic and military strength by
continuing to put its natural resources off-limits to human use. It’s a simple choice that each
person will make, when they decide which candidates to send to Washington.

108
Col20031008

The real World Series

By Henry Lamb
For sports fans, October is a feast: football season is well underway; basketball season is just
getting started; and the World Series is only days away – with the Cubbies still in the hunt. But
the real World Series is a year away. The teams are known, but ill-defined. The first elimination
round begins in January, 2004, in Washington D.C., Iowa, and New Hampshire. Champagne
will flow for some teams; defeat will agonize others. The last contest in the real World Series
will take place November 2, 2004, in every village, town, city, and state across the nation.
There is no trophy for the winner, only trouble. A world of trouble. The winner of the
presidential election in 2004 will have the weight of the world for his reward. Like it or not, the
United States of America leads the world. The President of the United States charts the course
the rest of the world will follow.
The course President Bush has charted is different from his predecessor’s. Whether he is able to
continue on this new course will be decided by the real World Series on November 2, 2004.
Ultimately, the American people, by the votes they cast, will decide which direction the world
pursues in the future.
Sadly, the hoopla surrounding the real World Series rarely discusses the goals, or the relative
benefits of the alternative courses available to the world. Instead, voters are fed a steady diet of
petty, personal attacks. Voters need to be hearing, and evaluating what really is at stake in the
real World Series.
What is at stake is the system of self governance guided by the principles of freedom set forth in
our founding documents. Never before have these principles been so clearly defined, or so
effectively proven, than through the experiment launched by the United States Constitution.
These principles of freedom – individual freedom, free markets, private property rights, and
government limited by the consent of the governed – are under attack by a community of
European nations that champion the principles of socialism – limited freedom, managed markets,
state control of the sources and means of production, and absolute government power.
The European Union, in particular, and most of the rest of the world, want the United Nations to
be that absolute government power which defines, imposes, and enforces the principles of
socialism on the world – including the United States of America.
President Bush’s predecessor embraced this world view, by promoting the U.N.’s Kyoto
Protocol, by implementing the un-ratified U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity, and by
embracing and implementing the U.N.’s Agenda 21.
President Bush said “no” to the Kyoto Protocol, and has slowly begun to undo some of the
damage done by the un-ratified U.N. treaty, and by Agenda 21.

109
When President Bush accepted his responsibility to go to war against terrorism, he invited the
world to join the battle. Most of the world – and Bush opponents – want the war to be waged by
the United Nations, not by the United States.
This desire to put the U.N. in control has nothing to do with winning the war on terrorism. It has
everything to do with establishing the U.N. as the world’s absolute governing authority –
including authority over the United States.
The winner of the real World Series in 2004 will either continue to resist this pressure to make
the U.N. a global governing authority, or again embrace the vision of a system of global
socialism under U.N. direction.
Voters have a year to choose which team they will support in the real World Series.
Campaigners will not likely carry signs that read “Support world Government,” or “Socialism for
the whole world.” But when candidates say “We must get the support of the U.N.,” or bash
President Bush for not yielding to the U.N., they are saying the same thing.
The United States leads the world only because the principles of freedom on which it is founded
– are valid principles for self governance. The United States should not try to impose these
principles on any other nations, unless, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States is forced to
eliminate a government that is a threat to the U.S. In such cases, it would be ludicrous to use
U.S. military and economic resources, and then allow the U.N. to install its system of U.N.-
compliant national governance.
Whoever wins the real World Series will lead the world toward freedom, or socialism. American
voters will decide.

110
Col20031013

The “Precautionary Principle”

By Henry Lamb
The Precautionary Principle was adopted by more than 170 nations at the 1992 U.N. Conference
on Environment and Development, in Rio de Janeiro. It says, simply, that:
“Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty
shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation.”
For a decade, this principle has been used to justify environmental policy, that could not be
justified by scientific evidence. The entire global warming debate, and subsequent policy
proposals, have been advanced on the strength of this principle, even in the face of growing
scientific evidence that there is no threat of “serious or irreversible ” global warming resulting
from human activity.
Many of the same people who invoke this principle to advance environmental policies, reject the
principle when it comes to “serious or irreversible damage” that could result from terrorists’
activities. Iraq is a perfect example.

Prior to the U.S. liberation of Iraq, The U.S. intelligence community, and the military, concurred
with the intelligence networks of dozens of other nations, and of the United Nations, and agreed
that:
1. Iraq possessed, and had used on its own people, weapons of mass destruction;
2. Iraq presented no evidence that these weapons had been destroyed;
3. Iraq had hosted known terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda;
4. Iraq allowed terrorists to train within its borders;
5. Iraq supported terrorism by making substantial grants to families of suicide bombers;

Despite the absence of “full scientific certainty,” the “threat of serious or irreversible damage” to
the United States, and other countries, was clearly present.
In the face of this threat, suppose the President had done nothing, and the U.S., or an ally had
been attacked with biological or chemical weapons. His critics would now be screaming for his
impeachment for not heeding the obvious warnings.
Some of his most vocal critics had access to the same intelligence data on which the President
based his decision to act. At the time, they agreed with the President. Now, it is more
convenient to claim that the President “exaggerated” or “manipulated” the data. These are,
perhaps, the most seriously irresponsible claims that anyone could possibly make.

111
The intelligence data may not have met the standard of “full scientific certainty;” intelligence
data rarely does. The data was more than sufficient to justify the action taken by the United
States.
People who point to the absence of barrels of bio-chemical weapons to support the argument that
the President manufactured the claim, should be far more concerned about where those weapons
are now, especially since no evidence of their destruction has been found. It is far more likely
that those weapons were transported to neighboring countries, or are well-hidden in caves or
underground, than that they never existed at all.
It most also be noted that some of the critics who claim that the President “manipulated” the
data, have no problem at all accepting the grossly manipulated and misrepresented data regarding
climate change, or the so-called “endangered” spotted owl, or salmon, or DDT, or asbestos, or
MTBE, or any of the hundreds of other “sky-is-falling” environmental threats to society.
Now that it is known that neither the spotted owl, nor salmon is, or was, endangered, and that
both DDT and asbestos produce far more benefits than harm to society, and that MTBE should
never have been required in fuels – why are the critics of “manipulated” data not screaming?
The answer, of course, is political advantage. To some politicians, nothing is more important
than political advantage. It doesn’t matter that hundreds of thousands of people have been
adversely affected by environmental policies based on “manipulated” data, with little or no
benefit to society. It doesn’t even matter that their continued bad-mouthing of our presence in
Iraq is emboldening those who exist only to kill Americans. What matters to them is political
advantage.
The best precaution is to see that none of these principals gain political advantage.

112
Col20031022

The radical green god-squad

By Henry Lamb
When the radical greens began distributing bumper stickers that read “No moo in ‘92,” and
“Cattle free by “93,” most people just laughed, unable to comprehend the idea of completely
eliminating ranching in the American West. Radical greens, however, are dedicated to the
proposition that:
“A radical notion may become rational, and then, over time, reasonable and realistic — if
you work your butt off.”
This is the slogan that heads Andy Kerr’s web site. Kerr heads the National Public Lands
Grazing Campaign, a coalition of radical green groups that have been working their butts off,
over the last decade, to make the radical notion of a cattle-free-West a reality.
A handful of radical Congressmen have now introduced legislation, which, if adopted, would be
the final blow to the troubled ranching industry. Their plan requires taxpayers to cough up more
than $3 billion to buy grazing rights from ranchers.
In the West, ranchers pay the federal government for the privilege of grazing their cattle on
federal land. To make the land usable, ranchers have to build fences, install wells and miles of
pipelines to provide water for livestock, and for wildlife. Under the best of circumstances,
ranchers work their butts off to scratch a meager living from the land.
Circumstances over the last decade have been far from best. Aside from the problems caused by
the lack of rain, radical greens have worked their butts off to impose layer after layer of
additional hardships. After ranchers and other residents worked for a century to rid the range of
predator wolves, the radical greens convinced Congress that wolves should be reintroduced, at a
cost of as much as $225,000 per wolf.
Moreover, the proposed legislation lists 15 different federal programs promoted by the radical
greens that impose land use restrictions which have incrementally tightened the noose around the
ranching industry. Then comes a trade policy that welcomes imported beef, which is raised in
countries where no similar restrictions – or costs – exist.

Despite these far-from-best-circumstances, 82% of the 870 public land ranchers in Arizona, do
not support this buy-out scheme, according to a survey taken by Kerr’s organization. Still, the
radical greens persist.

These self-appointed protectors of the public domain presume to think they know how to manage
the land better than the people who earn their living from it. Their radical vision is to remove the
people, and return the land to the rattlesnakes, lizards – and wolves.
These self-appointed protectors of the earth have been so successful, they have developed a god-

113
complex, and act as if they and they alone, know how to manage nature as it should be managed.
They have convinced themselves, and a few Congressmen, that people who disagree with their
view, are an intrusion into nature, rather than an integral part of it. Development is a blight on
nature, rather than a modification to the environment which makes life better.
Radical greens have no problem accepting as “natural” the slaughter of a person by a grizzly bear
but stamp a “criminal” label on a person who kills a grizzly that threatens his life or property. In
nature’s scheme of things, a human has as much right to modify his environment, defend his life
and territory, and secure food, as any other species. Like every other species, humans have the
inherent right to use every ounce of energy and intellect available to achieve their goals.
The self-appointed radical green god-squad, considers human achievement to be unnatural, and
seeks to cage and control all human activity to ensure that their vision of how the world ought to
be is forced – by law – on those who disagree.

The proposed law to buy out ranchers is just another step toward the radical green goal of total
people control. Their success in the West is dependent upon the indifference of the people in the
East. The same radical green agenda, however, is now beginning to tighten around towns and
cities in the East, in the form of “Smart Growth,” and “Sustainable Development.”
A government that acquires the power to control its citizens, rather than to be controlled by its
citizens is no longer a government defined by the U.S. Constitution. This is the “wrenching
transformation” now underway – driven by the self-appointed radical green god-squad.

114
Col20031029

The case for wolves – in Central Park

By Henry Lamb
After years of intense study, a western-based environmental equity organization is advancing a
bold new proposal to reintroduce wolves into New York’s Central Park. “There’s no reason why
New Yorkers should not enjoy these magnificent creatures; after all, if there is to be
environmental equity, we should do all we can to spread the joy wolves bring to the people who
are most deprived,” said a spokesman for the group.

According to a recent study, the benefits of wolf reintroduction into the park far outweigh the
negatives. “About the only negative we could come up with, is that the wolves would have to be
taken from the West, which means that wildlife officials would have to find new ways to
decimate the cattle and sheep these wolves would no longer be able to slaughter,” the spokesman
said.
On the plus side, Wolves in Central Park would have no cattle to eat, so they would be very
effective in controlling the dog and cat populations. In no time at all, the city could repeal its
“scooper-pooper” laws. Even though it is widely known that wolves never attack humans, and
never stray from their assigned wilderness area, there would likely be a noticeable decrease in
other nocturnal predators in the area. Drug dealers, prostitutes, muggers and the like, could find
the wolves to be a challenge.
Preposterous? This idea is no more preposterous than the proposal advanced by a New Jersey
couple in 1987, to convert the Great Plains into a “Buffalo Commons.” It is no more
preposterous than the New York Times recent renewal of the “Buffalo Commons” proposal. It is
no more preposterous than a raft of radical environmental proposals developed by the eastern
elite and imposed on their western neighbors.

Because most of the land in the West is owned by the federal government, supposedly for “all
the people,” radical green organizations have claimed the right to speak for “all the people” and
dictate how the land should be used.
Wolf reintroduction into many western states, forced by radical green organizations, has caused
great pain and hardship to people who have to contend with the reality of the wolf myths. But
wolves are only a small part of the mounting pressure on people who live in the West. The
radical eastern green elite don’t want people to live in the rural West; they believe this land
should be returned to its wilderness condition, for the benefit of “biodiversity.”
Their public relations campaigns and political lobbying efforts have been enormously successful,
even though their claims of eminent disaster from biological degradation are based primarily on
half-truths and outright lies.
The people in New York City should decide how their parks are used – not an environmental
equity group in the West. The people who live in Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado should

115
decide how their land is used, not radical green groups in New York or Washington, D.C.
The people in each state, and each county, and each community should decide, through their
locally elected officials, how to use their own land and resources. Therein lies the rub: most of
the land in western states is not owned by the people who live there. It is owned by the federal
government.
Now for a proposal that will make the radical green elite cringe: return the land in each western
state to the people who live in those states. The people who live in New York or Boston have no
more right to dictate how Arizona land should be used, than the people who live in Yeso, New
Mexico have a right to dictate how Central Park should be used.
The land and resources in each state should be controlled by each state; the federal government
should get out of the land management business. Period.
This is not a new proposal, of course. Western folks have been crying foul for years, with little
interest or attention paid by people who live on the eastern side of the Mississippi. Eastern folks
need to wake up and realize that if the federal government can control the use of land in the
West, it can surely control the use of land in the East as well. And it’s only a matter of time
before the know-it-all do-gooder elites’ plans for biological preservation begin to push the
people in the East as they have pushed the people in the West.
Perhaps the best way to get the attention of the apathetic easterners is to put a few wolves in
Central Park, and let them see, up close and personal, what magnificent creatures they are.

116
Col20031104

Birds of a feather, flock together

By Henry Lamb
When bad news from Baghdad arrives, the Dems descend like buzzards flocking to road-kill.
Bush-bashing becomes a feeding frenzy, criticizing everything from the “shooting gallery”
environment to “Viet Nam-like quagmire.”

Interestingly, however, when really good reporters zero in, asking what the Dems would do
differently, they tend to scatter, sort of like buzzards on a highway do when challenged by an
oncoming car. The only alternative offered by any of them, is to turn the mess over to the U.N.
Bill Clinton wants to put NATO in charge of security in Iraq, under the authority of the U.N.
Is it just a coincidence that this is precisely what the Socialist International wants to do?
Democrats seem to have forgotten why the world was plunged into a decades-long cold war after
World War II: Americans – including Democrats – were unwilling to allow Communism to
enforce its brand of societal organization on the world. Now, Democrats are promoting the
enforcement of Socialism on the world, through the United Nations.
The difference between Socialism and Communism is about the same as the difference between
global governance and global government. This difference is tactical, not philosophical. This
difference is much like the difference between date-rape, and rape. One begins with seduction;
both end in violence.
At its 22nd International Congress in Brazil, the Socialist International issued a Declaration which
identifies “exacerbated nationalism” and “xenophobic attitudes” as threats to peace. These
threats must be overcome, they say, by assigning the security of the world to the United Nations.
What socialists call “exacerbated nationalism” and “xenophobic attitudes” is actually, the belief
that the American system of self-governance is superior to any other system yet devised.

George Bush remembers why we fought the cold war, and he is unwilling to surrender our
sovereignty to the U.N., even if he is condemned by the worlds’ socialists. Nor is he willing to
place the security of the United States in the hands of 190 nations, most of which want nothing
more than to redistribute our wealth and control our power.
This makes George Bush an obstacle to the published goals of the Socialist International,
according to its president, Antonio Guterres, former Socialist Prime Minister of Portugal.
Guterres says, “The Bush administration [is] impeding efforts to establish a new world order.”
Apparently, George Bush’s xenophobic attitude is exacerbating nationalism.
The Democrats want the same thing the Socialist International wants – to get rid of George Bush.
The Bush administration, along with the mainstream of the Republican Party, and the remnant of
the old Democrats - the few Zell Millers that remain – are the only hope America has of

117
preventing the new world order – the global governance – described so vividly by the Socialist
International Declaration, and the U.N.’s Millennium Declaration.

The Socialist International claims to be the largest political organization in the world, with more
than 150 organizations participating in this recent gathering. Their avowed goal is to create
world government under the authority of the United Nations – which, of course, is controlled by
socialists.
When the Berlin Wall fell, and America celebrated the cold war victory over Communism, few
people realized that our enemy had not lost the war. They did not realize that the enemy had
simply changed tactics, and had already seduced many Americans into supporting its new,
kinder, gentler war plan, disguised as “sustainable development,” defined by Agenda 21, and
sold as the answer to their manufactured image of global environmental degradation – all to be
administered by a “reformed” U.N.
Bad news from Iraq must never be misinterpreted as anything less than another critical battle to
defend this great nation, and the principles of freedom written in the blood of America’s youth
from Bunker Hill to the Battle of Bulge, and now in the streets of Baghdad.
We can no more turn over Iraq to the U.N. than to the terrorists. The principles of freedom are at
stake. If America is to retain its brand of freedom, endowed by God, then it cannot acquiesce to
the U.N.’s brand of freedom, which is granted by an omnipotent socialist global government.
For America to keep its God-given freedom, we must defend it to the death, from all threats,
whether from terrorists, or from global socialism, or from a bunch of Bush-bashing buzzards.

118
Col20031108

Falling from Grace

By Henry Lamb
It might have been that day in 1959, when 13-year old Bill Murray stood up in class and
announced that he would not recite the Lord’s Prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. Normally, in
most every school in the country in 1959, such a stunt would have been rewarded with a
paddling at school, and whipping at home. Bill Murray was not a normal kid. How could he be
normal; his mother was Madalyn Murray O’Hair.

It could have been June 17, 1963, the day the Supreme Court decided O’Hair’s lawsuit, Murray
v. Curlett. That’s the day prayer in public schools became “unconstitutional.” It probably
actually started long before either of these two events, but since these events, American has been
spiraling in a free-fall from Grace.
On Mother’s day in 1980, Bill Murray renounced his mother’s atheism, and became a Christian.
He later wrote: "In the three decades since this landmark case, the nation has lost its moral
center. Violent crime has increased from 16.1 to 75.8 incidents per 10,000 population. Juvenile
violent crime arrest rates have increased from 13.7 to 40 per 10,000 population. Teen pregnancy
has almost tripled from 15.3 to 43.5 per 1,000 teenage girls. Almost half of these pregnancies
end in abortion. For a startling 28 percent of all live births in America today, the mothers are
unwed. The teenage suicide rate has increased 400 percent since 1963."
Michael Newdow, another atheist, did not want his daughter to be exposed to the Pledge of
Allegiance because of the words “under God.” The Ninth District Federal Court ruled
“unconstitutional,” the 1954 law which inserted the phrase into the Pledge.

How can a law be constitutional for nearly 50 years, and then, suddenly, become
unconstitutional? Neither the Constitution, nor the law changed. But something did.
Judge Roy Moore, a devout Christian, was elected Chief Justice of Alabama by an
overwhelming majority of his constituents, largely because of his defense of the Ten
Commandments in his lower courts. As custodian of the Justice building, he chose to install a
granite sculpture of the Ten Commandments, and other significant writings on which our system
of law is founded.
But no. Again, anti-God forces went to Federal Court where the monument was found to be
“unconstitutional.”
Since 1935, a sculpture of the Ten Commandments has guarded the East entrance to the Supreme
Court Building. Is this building now “unconstitutional?” Congress, as well as the Supreme
Court, begins each session with a prayer to God. Is this practice now “unconstitutional?”
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
expression thereof....”

119
This nation is in the throes of deciding whether we are, in fact, one nation under God. Until
1963, we were one nation under God. We certainly were not a nation of one religion under God.
We were a nation that recognized the existence of God, man’s dependence upon God, and man’s
individual freedom to recognize, define, and worship God – or not.

The spate of court decisions since 1963 reflect, not a change in the Constitution, nor in the laws
that authorize the words “under God,” in our Pledge, and “In God We Trust,” on our currency,
but a change in our attitude about, understanding of, and belief in God.
Our founders recognized that God is much more than any particular doctrine or religion, and that
man’s individual sovereignty is endowed by God; that no government has the right to dictate the
particulars of any man’s relationship to his God.
The federal government cannot force any particular doctrine or religion on anyone. Nor can it
prohibit the free expression of any particular doctrine or religion by anyone – unless the people
allow it to do so.
School prayer, and the Pledge of Allegiance, should be the business of the parents of the local
school children; not the Supreme Court. How Judge Moore decides to furnish the building he
was elected to be responsible for, is a matter for the people of Alabama; not the Supreme Court.
These, and several other recent Supreme Court decisions, go well beyond the plain language of
the Constitution. By these decisions, The Supreme Court is changing the Constitution to
guarantee freedom “from” religion, rather than the “free expression thereof.” In so doing, they
are driving our society away from the knowledge of God. God is not diminished by these
decisions; America is diminished by the absence of knowledge of God.
God is not affected by decisions of the United States Supreme Court. As different as all the great
religions of the world may be, they all come together on this basic belief: God is that force which
causes all life to be. God is personalized in the hearts and minds of all who acknowledge that
life is a gift from an external power. Worship is an attempt to demonstrate appreciation for that
gift, and it is expressed differently by individuals and cultures around the world. Over time,
patterns of worship have evolved that are differentiated as “religions” with labels such as
Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and countless others.

In America, Christianity has long been the dominant religion. Although there are hundreds of
different doctrines within the Christian religion, all share a few common elements. Among these
is the belief that each person is a sovereign being, that man is the crowning jewel of God’s
creation and has dominion over the earth.
This belief is no longer acceptable to a growing number of people.
In every religion, and particularly within Christianity, man’s perception of God changes over
time. As sovereign beings, men have no problem redefining the God they worship, casting off
old beliefs, and adding new ones. God is changeless – the force that causes all life to be, is also
the force that governs the continuation of life. Regardless of what man perceives God to be, or
how God may be described, or what rituals may be devised, or what laws may be constructed in
the name of God, God continues changeless.

120
The belief that man is a sovereign being, who has dominion over the earth, is in direct conflict,
and, indeed, is incompatible with another belief system that has swept the world over the last
half-century. This belief system has evolved over time, but has not yet achieved the status of a
recognized religion. This belief system sees man to be but a part of a much bigger whole, with
no special value or status; not a sovereign being, but a subject of a single sovereign government
that has dominion over all men, and the earth.

In order for this new belief system to prevail, Christianity has to be abolished, or transformed.
Supreme Court decisions that ban recognition of God in public life, have the effect of abolishing
Christianity in public life, and discrediting Christianity in private life. These Supreme Court
decisions are driven by organizations such as American Atheists, the group founded by Madalyn
Murray O’Hair in 1963, the American Civil Liberties Union, and many others.
Transformation of the Christian Church is driven by organizations such as the National Religious
Partnership for the Environment, the Earth Charter Campaign, and a host of other organizations
around the world. While there are hundreds of different doctrines within this new, emerging,
yet-unnamed religion, there are a few fundamental, common elements by which it is being
defined:

All species of life are of equal intrinsic value;

Human activity must be managed for the common good;
Authority for managing human activity must be universal;
At the heart of this new, emerging religion, is the gaia hypothesis, the belief that the earth itself
is the giver of life, not created by an external God. In this belief system, God is extraneous, a
distraction, an obstacle to be overcome, either by re-education, ridicule, or Supreme Court
decision. To fit this new hypothesis, man’s role has to be redefined.
Dr. Robert Muller has articulated this new role for humans most effectively. Muller, Assistant
Secretary-General to three Secretaries-General at the U.N., believes that every human being is a
cell in the organic body of earth. Like individual cells in the human body, each person has a
specific function to perform in sustaining the life of the living earth. He believes that the gaia
hypothesis is an enlightenment, an evolution of knowledge. He believes that the creation of the
United Nations reflects the evolution of the earth’s brain, and the people who work at the U.N.
are the individual cells of the earth’s brain. ( Robert Muller, "A Cosmological Vision of the
Future," World Goodwill Occasional Paper, October, 1989.)
Few of the forces working to expel God from American life, will admit, or perhaps even
recognize, the source of this new belief system. The new belief system, and all that it implies,
cannot prevail in the face of Christianity, or the God Christianity worships. This is why America
must fall from Grace.
God remains unaffected by this foolishness. God is changeless; it is the people who suffer when
individual worship and pursuit of understanding is commandeered by the group, or by the
government, and forced into yet another mold fashioned by the newly enlightened.

121
Col20031113

Terror in America – by proxy

By Henry Lamb
We didn’t start this war, but we must finish it. We were attacked on September 11, 2001 by
forces whose goal is to destroy America’s economic and political power. We have two choices:
we can apologize to our enemy, and change those of our policies they find objectionable, bring
our soldiers home, and hope terrorists won’t blow up anything else in America. Or, we can find
our enemies and defeat them. Any choice between these two extremes simply delays the day
when we will have to fight the enemy in the streets of America, rather than in a foreign land.
This president, with the support of Congress, and the overwhelming support of the people, chose
to find our enemies, and defeat them. Now that the war is slipping into its third year, and the
cost is being paid, in money, and in lives, support in Congress and among the people, is slipping
away. Our enemies know us well. They saw us cut and run from Vietnam when the body bags
mounted. They saw us let terrorists overthrow our embassy in Iran, and sit helpless for more
than a year, unable to rescue our people from their grip. They saw us leave Lebanon when
terrorists blew up our soldiers. They saw us make big noise, but little more, after the first
attempt to destroy the World Trade Center. They saw us cut and run from Mogadishu.
Our enemies are confident that we don’t have the guts to finish the fight they started. And they
may be right.
Some Americans believe that war is never justified. Others believe that we should take the first
option, and apologize for our policies, and bring our troops home. Still others believe that we
should turn to the United Nations. But there is a growing number of Americans who just want to
get our troops out of Iraq, with little care, or thought, about the consequences.
Many of these people gravitate to organizations such as A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War
and End Racism). This international organization, with offices and staff in several major U.S.
cities, springs into action whenever there is an opportunity to protest and demonstrate against the
United States. Their list of coalition partners, includes:
Socialist Center, Athens, Attica, Greece;
Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia, Praha, Czech Republic;
German Communist Party, Ruhr-Westfalen, Germany;
Partido Comunista de la Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina;
Bedfordshire Socialist Alliance, Luton, England;
Freedom Socialist Party;

Ramsey Clark - former U.S. Attorney General;

122
 Green Party USA, and many other individuals and organizations that share their views.
We are in a war against terror, whether we like it or not. We must fight it at its source, or we
will fight it in our cities. It will be a long war, and an expensive war. If we continue to fight it
at its source, we may be able to keep it from becoming as bloody as previous wars. If we cut and
run, as our enemies expect us to do, they will regroup, and find ways to deliver weapons deadly
enough to make the death toll of Americans rise to numbers that rival those lost in other wars.
The terrorists know that the value of television and newspaper coverage they get from every
bomb blast they cause - far exceeds the cost of the explosives used. They are using the media
very effectively, not to sell their ideology, but to peddle terror in America – by proxy. And it is
working, as is demonstrated by the declining support for our presence in Iraq.
The constant, organized drumbeat of the anti-war professionals, amplified by a complicit media,
is clouding the reason we are at war in the first place. It’s not about oil. It’s not about exerting
American arrogance. It’s not about territory, or ruling the world - despite the claims of those
who make these arguments. The war is about defending America by defeating terrorists who
want to destroy this nation.
The war must be fought on the battlefield, with bombs and bullets, but it will not be won there.
It will be won only when the people who now volunteer to be fodder for the bin Ladens of the
world, have, and realize that they have, a better alternative.
Our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is a heroic effort to help provide a better alternative to
those people. If we cut and run before we accomplish this objective, we will have further fanned
the flames of terror, and encouraged its generals to bring the war to our shores – again.

123
Col20031125

Who owns “public” land?

By Henry Lamb
Nearly 100 ranchers gathered in Farmington, New Mexico, last weekend, to listen to Wayne
Hage, and his wife, former Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth-Hage, explain how the “public”
land on which their cattle graze may not be “public” at all. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims
found, in Hage v. United States, that the ranchers, not the federal government, may be the true
owners of the property referred to as “public” land.

Environmental organizations, and agencies of the federal government, have been trying to rid the
West of cattle for decades. The Hage decision demonstrates that the “ownership” of the forage,
water, and migration routes, may actually belong to the ranchers, and not to the government.
The doctrine of “prior appropriation” governed land and water acquisition in the West long
before there was a United States. This doctrine means that the first person to find water, and put
it to beneficial use, had the exclusive right to use the water and the adjacent land and forage
sufficient to maintain the livestock the water would support.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed in 1848, decided the boundary between Mexico and
the United States. Article Eight of this treaty declares that citizens living within the area
assigned to the United States would “retain all the property they possess without their being
subjected, on this account, to any contribution, tax, or charge whatever.”
Virtually every land law enacted since this treaty contains language that protects the existing
rights of those who “possess property” as the new laws enter into force.
For half a century, there was no thought or question about whether the federal government
owned the land on which the ranchers grazed their cattle. The feds got involved to help resolve
conflicts among the ranchers who claimed grazing rights on the same land. Since grazing rights
flowed from the prior appropriation of water rights, access to water became the basis for
establishing the extent of grazing rights.
In the late 1800s, the federal government established a mechanism for adjudicating these
conflicts. Based on established and recorded rights to water, the adjudicators developed a way to
measure the forage that would be required to support the cattle that could be supported by the
available water. This measure was called AUM – Animal Units per Month. An AUM represents
the forage required by a cow and a calf for one month. Conflicts among the ranchers were
resolved by the federal adjudicators, who awarded an appropriate number of AUMs to each
rancher involved in the dispute, and surveyed and defined the geography in which the cows
could graze.
These AUMs and the defined territory became the “allotments” attached to the water rights of
the ranchers. Both the right to the water, and to the forage, and access (rights of way) to the
forage, were already owned by the ranchers. The allotments were simply the adjudicated

124
division of pre-existing rights of the ranchers. The ranchers were required to pay a fee to the
government, for the cost of this adjudication.

This simple process of adjudicating the existing rights of ranchers, evolved, to enlarge the fee to
cover not only the adjudication costs, but to also provide a portion to local government, and to
create a “range improvement fund,” which could be used by the ranchers to help defray the cost
of capital improvements to the range.
Environmentalists, and in recent years, the federal government have ignored these historical
facts, and have held that the land and water in the West belong to the federal government, and
may be used by the ranchers only with the permission of the government, expressed through the
allotment of AUMs for which the ranchers pay.
This new interpretation of the ownership of “public” land was imposed on Wayne Hage a decade
ago, when his cattle were taken by the government and sold, because Wayne did not have the
permits the government said were necessary. The government has gone on a rampage in recent
years, to remove cattle from the West, using the same assumptions and techniques against
ranchers whom the feds say are “trespassing” on federal land.
The Hage case may pull the rug, floor, and foundation from the government’s efforts to exercise
control of land that it may not own, after all. In his ruling in the Hage case, Judge Loren A.
Smith said, “...the Court is not of the Opinion that the lack of a grazing permit that prevents
access to federal lands can eliminate Plaintiff’s vested water rights...that predate the creation of
the permit system.”
Ranchers who can demonstrate a clear chain of title to water rights and the adjacent forage may
well, in fact, own the “public” land which the federal government claims.

125
Col20031128

U.N. says Yellowstone no longer “in danger”

By Henry lamb
The World Heritage Committee has decided to remove its “in danger” designation from
Yellowstone National Park. In a lengthy report, the committee “Urges the State Party (the
United States) to continue to report on Yellowstone's snowmobile phase-out and other efforts to
ensure that winter travel facilities respect the protection of the Park, its visitors, and its wildlife,”
and “invites” the United States “to provide to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2004,
existing recovery plans setting out targets and indicators for the 6 remaining long-term
management issues (mining activities outside the park, threats to bison, threats to cutthroat trout,
water quality issues, road impacts, visitor use impacts).”
“Urges,” and “invites” is the language used by the U.N. to support its claim that it has no
authority to dictate land use policy in the United States. Nevertheless, ratification of the World
Heritage Treaty obligates the United States to comply with the “urgings and invitations” of the
U.N.
It was this same committee that in 1995, placed Yellowstone on its “in danger” list, at the urging
of a group of environmental organizations, and George Frampton, then-head of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
The action came after the New World Mine had spent more than $30 million trying to comply
with all the requirements of the federal government so it could pursue an estimated $300 million
mining venture, several miles outside the park’s boundaries. The mining company spent years,
and a small fortune, and had overcome all the obstacles thrown in its path by the Clinton/Gore
administration. A detailed analysis of just how the environmental organizations conspired with
the administration and the U.N. committee is available here.

Without waiting to review the mining company’s final Environmental Impact Statement, the
federal government imposed a moratorium on mining in a 19,000-acre area around the park. The
federal government stopped the mining project, and paid $65 million to acquire most of the land.
For years, many of these same environmental organizations have been working to implement
what is called the Yellowstone to Yukon program, an effort to link wilderness areas together
from Wyoming to Alaska. This adventure has now become the Mexico to Yukon program.
Yellowstone is one of 20 World Heritage Sites in the United States, and also, one of 47 U.N.
Biosphere Reserves.
Throughout the Clinton years, environmental organizations essentially ran the administration:
Bruce Babbitt came from the League of Conservation voters; George Frampton came from the
Wilderness Society, and more than a dozen other executives of radical green groups filled top
management positions. Yellowstone is just one example of how environmental organizations,
working through their colleagues in the administration, worked with the United Nations to

126
implement the global environmental agenda.
Even when the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity was defeated in the Senate, the Clinton
administration continued to implement its provisions through what it called its Ecosystem
Management Policy. The objective is to eventually get all land use under the control of
government, and to get all national governments under the control of the United Nations.
Many people find this idea too bizarre to take seriously. Still, the U.N. is exercising its influence
in the United States, through specific projects such as the Yellowstone situation. Environmental
organizations continue to work through their friends in the Bush administration, and in Congress,
to advance their land use control ambitions.
New Jersey Congressman Robert Andrews has introduced a bill (HR625) to advance the global
agenda; the U.S. Forest Service has developed an extensive study to identify corridors to connect
the wilderness areas; and in 2003 alone, 99 ballot initiatives in 23 states resulted in $1.3 billion
in new tax money to buy more private property – “open space” – for the government.
The U.N. may have lifted its “in danger” designation from Yellowstone, but it has not lessened
its drive to eventually eliminate private property, in order to “restore” the land to wilderness,
while forcing people to live in “sustainable communities,” with strict, no-sprawl urban limits.
This is how society should be organized, according to the U.N., and the radical environmental
organizations that claim to be “saving” biodiversity. Much to the chagrin of both of these
institutions, the Bush administration has not been a willing accomplice to this “wrenching”
transformation of American society.

127
Col20031208

Stealing our children’s birthright

By Henry Lamb
The generation that fought so hard to save the world from communism is now working
feverishly to condemn America’s future to socialism. Through dozens of programs, all designed
to “protect” the land from development, we are transforming America from the land of the free,
to a nation of renters.
Nearly every week, The Nature Conservancy announces a new scheme to “protect” vast stretches
of land, through outright purchase, the purchase of development rights, or through conservation
easements. TNC claims they have protected nearly 12 million acres already, and have their eye
on another three million acres in Alabama and Tennessee. There are more than 1200 similar
“conservancy” organizations in the United States, all doing the same thing.
When a person fragments the title to his land with a perpetual conservation easement, or by
selling development rights, he is, in effect, robbing future generations of the opportunity to make
their own decisions about how to use the land. What right do we have to deny future generations
the use of prime real estate?
The Nature Conservancy paints a pretty picture during the sales pitch: “Imagine a vast natural
playground stretching from North Alabama into Central Tennessee. Imagine forests, meadows,
rivers and wetlands open to the public for hunting, fishing, canoeing and hiking. Imagine farms
managed to be both self-sustaining and environmentally responsible.”

Sounds good, until the “open to the public” goes away. And who decides if, and when, and how
long the area may be open to the public? Who decides how to manage the farms? The owner, of
course - is The Nature Conservancy. The private owners who are convinced to sell development
rights, or conservation easements, sell their right to use their land in any way that’s not agreeable
to The Nature Conservancy. When it comes time to sell the land for retirement, or to pay
medical bills, the land has little value, except to The Nature Conservancy. The price is no longer
subject to market demand, it is virtually useless.
When The Nature Conservancy acquires the remaining rights to the land, are they under any
obligation to keep the land open to the public? No. Their practice has been to use the land for
development, for logging, for oil, or for whatever purpose they desire, including selling vast
portions of unusable land to the government – often for a profit.
The campaign to save “the last great places,” and all open space, has been incredibly successful,
and even more ridiculous. There is no shortage of space in the United States. Less than five
percent of the land area is developed, according to the federal government. There is plenty of
space, but less and less of it is owned by private individuals.
Governments own nearly 42 percent of the land area, and are buying more land every day.
Conservancy organizations are buying land for their own “preserves,” and selling what they

128
don’t want to government. Not only are we stealing our children’s birthright, we are
condemning them to eventually live in a socialist state, where government owns all the sources
of production.
In every community where there is an “open space” bond initiative on the ballot, people should
organize to defeat it. In every community where local government is planning to install a
“comprehensive plan” to dictate the future use of private property, people should organize to
defeat it.
At the rate we are now transferring private property to government, and to its surrogate
“conservancy” organizations, it will take only a few more generations before all the land is under
government ownership or control. America will then truly be a socialist nation.
Had this trend begun a hundred years ago, we would already be a socialist nation of renters,
subject to the whims of government. When there is no more private land to produce property
tax, will the government stop collecting tax? Hardly. The government will allow us to work its
land and tax our productivity to whatever extent it wishes. That’s how it works in socialist
nations.
This march toward socialism can be reversed by first recognizing the gross disservice to future
generations of our current land-grabbing policies. Then we should force government to begin
divesting its gigantic inventories of land, returning it to the private sector, where it can again be
the basis of our free-market economy.
This can happen only if we have an informed electorate that recognizes the dangers inherent in
the present trend, and then works to elect officials at every level of government who share this
belief in free markets, and are committed to keeping America the land of the free.

129
Col20031218

U.N.: Butt Out!

By Henry Lamb

U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan, wasted no time condemning the United States for
restricting Iraq reconstruction contracts to coalition participants. Within hours after the capture
of Saddam Hussein, Annan was again in front of the cameras declaring that the U.N. would not
recognize any judicial proceedings that included the possibility of capital punishment.

Mr. Annan: sit down and shut up; you have no say in this matter.
In a blistering speech to the U.N. Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, said:
"The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a
murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of
victims in horrifying testament to that failure."
Bush-bashers who condemn the president for not getting the U.N.’s “permission” – as Howard
Dean puts it – should also find another song to sing. The U.N. has demonstrated its inability, or
unwillingness, to do what needed to be done in Iraq. The U.N. blew its last chance to be relevant.
The United States has demonstrated that U.N. approval is not necessary to achieve international
cooperation. More than sixty nations are participating to the extent they can, in the liberation
and reconstruction of Iraq. The U.N. sanctioned coalition for the first Persian Gulf war
consisted of only 34 nations, that contributed only 24 percent of the troops. And it should be
noted, that it was the U.N. that explicitly prohibited this coalition from entering Baghdad and
ending Saddam’s regime, the first time.
The United States has launched a new, historic, initiative: world peace through global freedom.
No group of elite intellectuals met to deliberately devise this strategy, as did the fathers of the
U.N., when they designed the “world peace through world law” initiative. In fact, the new
initiative is not a design it is an accident, resulting from the realization that the world’s best hope
for peace and prosperity must be constructed on the principles of freedom.

Afghanistan and Iraq are the first experiments, again, not by design, but by necessity. These
nations represented a clear and present danger to the United States, a danger which had to be
removed. When the United Nations displayed its impotence, the United States did what had to
be done, and much more.
The United States could have simply destroyed both nations, and brought the troops home. It
would have taken years for either of these nations to rebuild and reorganize another serious
threat. Because we are Americans, we could no more leave these nations in ruins, than those
nations we defeated in World War II. It is our nature to help make life better for those around us,
even those who have opposed us in the past.

130
Rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan will be much more difficult than rebuilding Japan and
Germany. The bricks and mortar are not the problem; introducing the principles of freedom is a
staggering problem. In a culture that has been taught for generations to hate the American Satan,
people will be very reluctant to embrace our ideas about freedom and self-governance. Only
persistence and determination will eventually demonstrate that our goal is to help these people
discover that they too, can escape the bonds of dictatorial tyranny.

As freedom begins to take root in the Middle East, and its benefits begin to improve living
conditions and inspire hope for the future, warlords and would-be tyrants will begin to lose their
grip on communities and nations. Freedom, once known, is a powerful force that cannot be
easily extinguished. Freedom is contagious, and can create its own global design.
The United Nations has never been about freedom; it has been about creating a world
government with the power to prevent war by controlling the means of making war, and by
managing the affairs of all people. This utopian vision ignores a fundamental, self-evident truth
so eloquently expressed by Thomas Jefferson, that all men are endowed by their Creator with the
unalienable right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The vision held by the United
States is far more noble: to help the people of Afghanistan and Iraq create their own
governments, empowered by the consent of the people, to secure this right for themselves.
It’s time to move beyond the United Nations, and embrace this new initiative for global freedom.
America must lead the way, and every American has the opportunity, if not the responsibility, to
embrace and support this effort to help the people of Afghanistan and Iraq discover the gift of
freedom provided by their Creator, but denied to them by the likes of Saddam Hussein and
Osama bin Laden.

131
Out of the wilderness
(For Whistle Blower magazine August 28, 2003)

By Henry Lamb
Like the villain in the 1958 Steve McQueen movie, wilderness has become an amoeba-like blob,
growing with each new park expansion, wilderness designation, National Monument
announcement, wildlife refuge, heritage area designation, and open-space acquisition. The
Sawgrass Rebellion seeks to squash the wilderness blob, and stop, and reverse its relentless
growth.
Wilderness is not for people; humans are essentially banned from wilderness areas. Roads are
closed, and nature is allowed to run its course. Wildfires have been the chief product of
wilderness this year, destroying millions of acres of resources and wildlife, as well as homes and
businesses on adjacent lands.
Still, the wilderness blob continues to grow, fed by ever-increasing land acquisitions, promoted
by a cadre of environmental organizations and funded with your taxes through every level of
government.
More than a decade ago, policy makers were convinced that the only way to save the world from
inevitable destruction by human development was to begin a world-wide “restoration” campaign
to stop uncontrolled human development, and return the land to its “natural” condition.
Dave Foreman, a founder of Earth First!, was among the first to publicly discuss this vision. In
his 1991 book, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, Foreman says:

“We should demand that roads be closed and clearcuts rehabilitated, that dams be torn
down, that wolves, grizzlies, cougars...be reintroduced to their native habitats. We must
envision and propose the restoration of biological wildernesses of several million acres in
all of America’s ecosystems, with corridors between them for the transmission of genetic
variability.... The only hope for Earth (including humanity) is to withdraw huge areas as
inviolate natural sanctuaries from the depredations of modern industry and technology.
Move out the people and cars. Reclaim the roads and plowed land.”
Foreman articulated a vision that festered among deep ecology extremists, many of whom
represented their respective organizations as members of the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature. The IUCN, headquartered in Switzerland, is the official consultant to
UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Program, the World Heritage Committee, the United Nations
Environment Program, and virtually all U.N. environmental treaties.
The wilderness vision began to take shape first through UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere
Program. Without fanfare, or Congressional or legislative approval, 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves
were designated in the United States, among the 411 now scattered around the world. Biosphere
Reserves consist of core wilderness areas, connected by corridors of wilderness, all of which are
surrounded by buffer zones, identical to Foreman’s description.
With funding from the Audubon Society and The Nature Conservancy, both of which are
members of the IUCN, Reed Noss developed a detailed plan called the Wildlands Project, which

132
Dave Foreman published in 1992, in a magazine called Wild Earth.
The Noss plan specified that “at least half of the land area of the 48 conterminous states should
be encompassed in core reserves and inner corridor zones.” This should be adequate, he says,
“assuming that most of the other 50 percent is managed intelligently as buffer zone.”
This publication hit the street just months before the U.N. Conference on Environment and
Development convened in Rio de Janeiro, at which the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity
was adopted. President Bush refused to sign this treaty, but President Clinton signed it shortly
after he took office in 1993. Vice President Al Gore was assigned the task of “reinventing
government,” and set out to reorganize all land and resource management agencies to implement
the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Senate refused to ratify the treaty in 1994, but the Clinton/Gore administration continued to
implement its “ecosystem management policy” as if the treaty had been ratified. This new policy
elevated “ecosystem protection” to the same priority as human health, and urged that humans be
considered as a “biological resource,” in ecosystem management, according to internal working
documents of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Interior.
The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity held its first meeting in
1995, at which UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Program presented its global network of
Biosphere Reserves as the starting point for implementing the new treaty. The United Nations
Environment Program presented its 1140-page Global Biodiversity Assessment, as the
“instruction book,” for implementing the new 18-page treaty.
On page 993, the Wildlands Project, published in the United States in 1992, is identified as
“central” to the successful implementation of the
Convention on Biological Diversity.
While these events were taking place in the
policy-making arena, the Wildlands Project set up
shop in Tucson, Arizona and enlisted dozens of
environmental organizations and activist groups
to fan out across the nation to begin “field
studies” to determine which lands could be
converted to wilderness, where corridors needed
to be established, and what could be done to move
people out of these areas.

The Sierra Club, on whose board Dave Foreman

also served, published its vision of “Ecoregions”
which replaced the 50 states with several
ecoregions defined by their biodiversity
characteristics.

Florida was one of several high-priority targets

for “restoration,” with the goal being to convert
the state from 90 percent private ownership to 90 percent public ownership, with core
wilderness areas connected by corridors that would connect with wilderness areas in Georgia,

133
and ultimately with the U.N. Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve, and on to the
Adirondacks.

Other groups worked to define areas in the Southern Rockies, and ways to connect wilderness to
the Northern Rockies, to be connected eventually through the Y-to-Y program: Yellowstone to
the Yukon.
Many of the people who helped conceive and develop this vision were selected by the
Clinton/Gore administration to head the agencies of government responsible for managing the
nations’ lands and resources. More than 20 top officials, and an unknown number of field
personnel, came directly from environmental organizations that support this vision of wilderness
restoration.
Wilderness expansion has been successful largely because the concept, in its entirety, has never
been presented, debated, or authorized by any legislative body. Instead, individual segments
have been targeted and presented, not as a part of a larger plan, but as an essential project to
achieve some immediate environmental protection objective.

In the northwest, one of the first high-priority areas to receive public notice, the Endangered
Species Act was chosen by the Sierra Legal Defense Fund (now known as Earth Justice) as the
basis for a lawsuit to list the spotted owl as an endangered species. A very friendly U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service was eager to comply. The result: the forests became “critical habitat.” The
timber industry collapsed and nearly 30,000 people were forced to seek employment elsewhere.
The scheme worked so well that it was used in Arizona and New Mexico - with the same result.
Never mind that the spotted owl was never endangered, that it does not require 500 acres per
nesting pair, and that, in fact, they have been found nesting in the structure of billboards. The
objective, though, has nothing to do with protecting the spotted owl, it has everything to do with
moving people out of areas that have been designated for wilderness restoration.
The Clinton/Gore administration used other devices to expand wilderness. A very successful
device was the designation of National Monuments. The Antiquities Act says that sufficient land
to protect the monument may be included in the designation. Clinton designated 1.8 million
acres around a rock formation called the Grand Staircase- Escalante, in Utah. This is far more
land than is necessary to protect the rock formation, but was required to prevent mining the
world’s largest reserve of low-sulfur coal, thereby preventing human use of the land and its
resources.
Another favored technique for expanding wilderness and excluding human use, is the
designation of “roadless” areas. Even though every law enacted by Congress recognizes pre-
existing rights-of-way across federal lands, and guarantees continued public access, the
Clinton/Gore land management agencies chose to ignore the law, and close roads and rights-of-
way.
South Canyon Road in a remote corner of Nevada is one of those roads used for centuries by
people to access the public lands. A portion of the road was washed away by a flood, and the
local folks decided to rebuild it. The Clinton administration stepped in, and said no. It was an
opportunity to close another road to block access to wilderness.

134
The decision sparked a confrontation between local and federal officials. The locals were joined
by several hundred other people who formed what became known as the “Jarbidge Shovel
Brigade.” Individuals gathered to help move huge boulders placed in the road by the federal
government, and rebuild the road by hand. The federal government, and some environmental
organizations, claimed that opening the road would harm an “endangered” fish.
The Nature Conservancy, and other environmental organizations targeted an area 40-miles west
of Columbus, Ohio to “protect” from urban sprawl by designating the area as the Darby Wildlife
Refuge. The land was privately owned, extremely productive farmland. The Fish and Wildlife
Service, working closely with the environmental organizations, developed a plan to convert the
privately owned land to public land - without asking the landowners what they wanted.
The landowners organized to resist the land-grab, and were joined by people from across the
country. The Jarbidge Shovel Brigade caravanned across the country to hold a rally in the Darby
to show the federal government that the people did not want their land gobbled up by the
government.
While the land-grabbers were losing the battle in Ohio, they were plotting to take the land
farmed for a century by people in the Klamath Basin on the Oregon-California border.
Wilderness-seeking environmental organizations claimed that the water in Klamath lake, created
expressly for use by Klamath Basin farmers, was needed to protect an endangered sucker fish
and a salmon species. A very friendly Fish and Wildlife Service was eager to comply with the
demands of the environmental organizations and shut off the water to the farmers.

Without water, the farmers could no longer farm the land, and it could be restored to wilderness.
The land happens to lie in the path between wilderness areas in northern California and
wilderness areas in the northwest which need to be connected by corridors where there are no
people.
Again, the local farmers were aided by an even larger number of people from across America,
who drove from distant states in caravans to form a “Klamath Bucket Brigade,” to carry buckets
of water from the lake to the irrigation canals in a symbolic effort to bring the needed water to
farmers.
A review by the new administration of the basis on which the sucker fish was listed, found that
there was not sufficient evidence to warrant the withdrawal of water from the farmers, and the
farmers were spared, for the moment, the loss of their land.
Similar scenarios are unfolding in communities across the country. Few gain national attention,
but all are designed to expand wilderness, corridors, and buffer zones, by forcing people off the
land and into high-density sustainable communities that are being created to receive them. Step
by step, the Wildlands Project is being implemented, even though it is not recognized as such.
The Endangered Species Act has been the weapon of choice to drive people off their land, and
prevent the use of both private and public land. Other techniques are also used. In Hinton, West
Virginia, designation of a “Scenic Highway,” will force private landowners to become “willing
sellers” so that their homes can be bulldozed out of the “viewshed” of the highway.
Conservation easements and the transfer of development rights are being used with increasing

135
frequency. Conservation easements and TDRs, as they are called, fragment the title to property
which makes sale– and future use-- nearly impossible. Eventually, government, or an
organization such as The Nature Conservancy, becomes the only buyers. Of course, it is
government and conservancy organizations that are buying the conservation easements. The
objective is to get people off the land, to expand wilderness, corridors, and buffer zones, which is
the implementation of the Wildlands Project while calling it something else.

The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, for example, makes no reference to the
Wildlands Project. Its purpose is to “save the Everglades.” The CERP is a collection of more
than 50 individual projects scattered across South Florida that are supposed to restore the
Everglades, provide new water to urban areas, and protect homeowners from flooding. In
reality, it will likely do none of the above. The Washington Post published a series of articles
quoting scientists and government officials who say that no one knows whether or not the
proposed projects will work. The one thing these projects will do, is force people off their land,
and expand wilderness.
The Everglades is already a U.N. Biosphere Reserve, a U.N. World Heritage Site, and a U.N.
Ramsar Wetland. To comply with the management requirements set forth by UNESCO, the U.S.
must take certain actions to expand the core wilderness areas, connect these areas through
corridors, and control the management of the buffer zones.
The CERP makes no mention of any U.N. connection or motivation; it refers only to the need to
restore the Everglades. Among the environmental organizations that have been instrumental in
the development of the CERP are the Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, and the
Florida Chapter of the National Wildlife Federation - all members of the IUCN which formulated
the international policies and treaties that they are now implementing under the banner of the
CERP.

South Canyon Road affected only a few people. The Darby Refuge affected a few hundred
people. Klamath Basin affected about 1400 farm families. The CERP, however, affects several
thousand people, many of whom came to America when Castro took their land in Cuba. They
are not simply rolling-over, to allow Dave Foreman’s vision to be implemented without a
contest.
Anays Carhart’s mother was one of those people who fled Cuba when Castro took her land.
Thirty years ago, she paid $4,000 for 1.5 acres of Dade County, Florida, in America, the land of
the free. She had no idea that her land was targeted by the wilderness expansion crowd to be
“restored.” She was not asked, she was told, that she would have to move. Two years ago, she
was offered $1,000 for her land. She refused. Her land was taken. She was told she would
receive $650. So far she has received nothing. She is angry.
Nearly 10 years ago, Congress directed the Corps of Engineers to build flood protection
structures to protect nearly 2,000 families who live in what is called the 8.5 Square-mile Area.
Wilderness expanders, however, want the people moved out of the area so it can be restored to
wilderness, allowing the free flow of water to areas they want restored to wilderness.
The South Florida Water Management District, an agency of state government, withdrew support
for the project, without which, the Corps could not complete the project. The CERP devised a

136
scheme which would require flooding only about one-third of the area. Local residents who do
not want to be flooded into oblivion, filed suit. The judge said the Corps and the SFWMD had
no authority to change the Congressional directive. While the legal battles have raged,
Madeleine Fortin, and her neighbors who live in the area, is forced to wade through thigh-deep
water to get to their cars which can no longer negotiate the flood-ravaged roads. Land values
have dropped well below the mortgage balances on many of the properties. This is how people
become “willing sellers” to the only buyer - the government.
Across the state, in Naples, Florida, a group of investors spent millions of dollars acquiring land
and designing a state-of-the-art subdivision, that met all local, state and federal environmental
requirements. Just months before construction was to begin, the CERP revealed a project that
would raise the water table under the proposed subdivision to a point that would make
construction impossible. This is a new way to keep people off the land and ensure that it
remains wilderness.
Another way to keep people off the land is through zoning restrictions. Amendments have been
proposed to zoning and planning ordinances that limit new construction to one home per 320
acres. That’s two homes per square mile.
Still another device being used is an unusual arrangement for the transfer of development rights.
In one designated area, people are allowed to sell development rights, to buyers in another
designated area. Among the many problems posed by this scheme, is this: the value of the
development right is not negotiated by the seller and buyer. The right is expressed as a unit,
based not on the size, location or value of the property, but on the existence of the property. An
owner of 20 acres in the designated area may sell only a single TDR unit, while the owner of a
single acre may sell a single TDR unit.
Even worse, the TDR is not offered to an open market of buyers, but only to a buyer designated
by government, who may, or may not choose to buy the TDR for whatever amount he may wish
to offer. Surely, this scheme will not stand legal scrutiny, but it provides powerful insight into
the tactics used by those whose goal is to force people off the land in order to expand wilderness.
The Sawgrass Rebellion
Land owners in Collier County, Florida organized the “15,000 Coalition,” so named to represent
the 15,000 acres owned by the organization’s 4,000 members. The Dade County Farm Bureau,
and a coalition of off-road vehicle recreationists, and a legal foundation, sent out calls for help to
other organizations across the country.
The Paragon Foundation in Alamogordo, New Mexico heard the cry, and offered to help the
local groups organize a unified resistance. They dubbed their resistance the “Sawgrass
Rebellion.” Leaders of these groups attended the annual Freedom 21 Conference in Nashville,
Tennessee in mid-July. Leaders of more than 50 grassroots organizations from 34 states and two
foreign countries who attended the conference, adopted the Sawgrass Rebellion as its priority
project to help the South Florida people resist the wilderness expansion plan which threatened
their homes, their farms and businesses.
Grant Gerber, an Elko, Nevada attorney who helped organized the caravans to South Canyon

137
Road, to the Darby, and to the Klamath Basin, volunteered to coordinate national caravans from
several points across the nation to arrive in Naples, Florida on October 17, for two days of rallies
before parading across Alligator Alley to Homestead in Dade County for a final rally there on
October 19.

The caravans will visit nearly 40 cities for local rallies to support the Sawgrass Rebellion, and
bring thousands of people from every corner of the country to stand in solidarity with the people
in South Florida.

The beginning of the end

The Sawgrass Rebellion is the beginning of the end of uncontested wilderness expansion in the
United States. The Florida rallies are just the beginning of organized resistance to the Wildlands
Project, and its many forms of implementation. Senator Barbara Boxer’s most recent California
Wilderness bill is a target of resistance. Representative Lois Capps’ proposed expansion of a
National Park on California’s northern Coast is a target of resistance. A new U.N. Biosphere
Reserve proposed for the Bay of Fundy along the Maine-Canadian border is a target of
resistance.
Everywhere environmental extremists are working to expand wilderness, grassroots
organizations are organizing to resist.
One of the reasons environmental extremists have been so successful during the Clinton/Gore
years is because their former employees ran the government agencies charged with implementing
their policies. These agencies were quite willing to extend federal grants to these environmental
organizations, to pay for the staff that attend all the local planning meetings and exert the
necessary influence on state and local government officials.
Until recently, the magnitude of these grants has been unknown. One of the organizations that
support the Sawgrass Rebellion, the Environmental Conservation Organization, developed a
computer program that allows its members to search the records of the Federal Assistance
Awards Data System (FAADS), to see how much money has been awarded to any organization,
and for what purpose.
The Nature Conservancy, a prime mover of wilderness expansion efforts, received more than
500 grants totaling nearly $103 million during the last term of the Clinton/Gore administration.
The Audubon Society received more than 120 grants totaling $10.4 million, and the National
Wildlife Foundation received $4.8 million during the same period.
A new administration, and public exposure to the federal grants that many people believe to be
misuse of tax dollars, coupled with a growing determination of private property advocates, may
well be more than the Wildlands Project anticipated. People who are beginning to realize that
the rash of land-use restrictions over recent years are, in fact, a part of a much larger agenda, are
taking another look at that agenda, and deciding it is not consistent with the principles of
freedom that underlie America. Ordinary citizens are holding their elected officials accountable,
and elected officials are beginning to question the assertions made by environmental
organizations.
The Sawgrass Rebellion is an historic event that may be the point in time when America turned

138
away from the extremist’s vision of wilderness preservation, back to the vision of private
property, free markets, and individual rights.

In Steve McQueen’s movie, The Blob, the out-of-control amoeba-like blob grew by gobbling up
people. Wilderness grows by gobbling up land. The blob was controlled and stopped, when
public officials finally paid attention to what their constituents said, and recognized the danger.
Wilderness expansion can be controlled and stopped only when public officials listen to their
constituents and recognize the danger. The Sawgrass Rebellion is beginning to get their
attention.

139
Jack and Jeannette’s pursuit of happiness
(For Whistle Blower magazine, July, 2003)
By Henry Lamb
Two suitcases, three kids, $1100 in cash, and a ton of hope, is all that Jack and Jeannette had
when they moved to Florida in 1981. Jack’s career as a supervisor in an Ohio steel mill,
evaporated during the economic “malaise” of the late 1970s. Jack found work as a welder and
helped build the globe at Disneyland. Jeannette got a real estate license, and they set out to build
a new life in a new land.
They worked hard, putting their three kids through college, and investing a little as they could, in
Florida land. By the mid 1990s they held title to more than 700 acres of land. They converted a
dream into a business plan for their retirement: 50 acres would be developed as a primitive
camping area, which would produce enough revenue to meet living expenses. About 150 acres
was designated for a youth camp and outdoor recreational retreat, with programs to help kids
overcome violence, obesity, and substance abuse. The remaining land was to be set aside,
designated as natural wildlife habitat.
The first step, a 57-acre lake, required a permit from the Corps of Engineers. Got it. Then the
Florida Department of Transportation required modifications to the highway entrance.
Expensive, but done. Then came Volusia County’s development permit, with the requirement
for engineering studies, plats, modifications, and finally, approval. It took $300,000 to meet all
the county’s requirements, but finally, they were ready to open for business. The marketing plan
was launched, with brochures and advertising targeting folks coming to Daytona Beach for a big
race.
Two weeks before the opening, the county issued a notice not to open. The county had decided
that the primitive camping area needed a paved parking facility for the handicapped. Paving had
previously been prohibited, to preserve the “primitive” character of the development. The
county allowed a temporary opening for the big race, but nothing more.
With hopes building for an eventual grand opening, the paving was done. A new marketing plan
was devised, and another opening date set. But no. The county appeared again, this time, to
inform Jack and Jeannette that an old road on the property was disturbing 4,500 square feet of
wetland. They were told that a permit to open would be issued, only if they signed a document
admitting to polluting a wetland, paying $10,000 and giving two acres to the county – as
“mitigation.”

The old road had been in the original plan. Why was it now a problem? Why was the paved
parking area not specified in the original requirement? Why all the delays? Similar delays and
new requirements have kept the project in limbo for more than three years.
Jeannette discovered that the staff of the county’s permitting department, also served as staff for
“Volusia Forever,” an advisory group appointed by the county, to advise the county on land to
be purchased with revenues generated by the county’s version of “Florida Forever,” a land
acquisition program adopted a few years ago.
Land two miles away from the proposed new campground, was on the Volusia Forever buy-list.

140
Jeannette wondered if Volusia County wanted their land. She wondered if the delays, and
continuing revocations and denial of operating permits, were simply a way to force them to
spend more and more of their savings, and force them into bankruptcy, so they would eventually
have to sell the land – to Florida Forever?

In the early 1990s, when Jack and Jeannette were beginning to dream about the land in their
future, Florida was among the first states to embrace the President’s Council on Sustainable
Development’s emerging land acquisition initiatives. The state legislature created P-2000,
appropriating $300 million per year to buy land from private individuals. This program expired
in 1998, but was replaced with the Florida Forever program, authorized by a Constitutional
Amendment approved by 72% of the voters. The state continues to spend $300 million per year
through this program. Additionally, 21 Florida counties have approved new tax levies expressly
for the purpose of buying private land to expand the government’s land inventory.
In 1992, the Wildlands Project boasted that while currently, only 10 percent of Florida was
publicly owned, their plan estimated that by 2002, 50 percent of the state would be publicly
owned, and eventually, 90 percent of the land would be publicly owned, leaving only 10 percent
in private hands. So far, considerably more than one million privately owned acres have been
purchased by various levels of Florida government. The Florida Forever program is effectively
implementing the Wildlands Project, with tax dollars. Nationally, the goal of the Wildlands
Project is to convert “at least half” of the total land area into wilderness, with no human activity
allowed, and “most of the rest of the land” designated as buffer zones, managed for
“conservation objectives.”
Jeannette doesn’t remember whether or not she voted for the Florida Forever amendment, or for
the Volusia Forever tax increase. It just wasn’t that important, at the time. It is now.
Jack and Jeannette are among thousands of people being forced to become “willing sellers” to
accommodate government’s insatiable appetite for more and more land. This land acquisition
policy represents a major erosion of a fundamental principle of freedom: private ownership of
land and resources.
There was a time in America, when people were free to dream dreams, to work hard, to invest in
their dreams, and to pursue their own happiness as they chose. This freedom produced the most
dynamic economy, the most prosperous nation the world has ever known. The erosion of the
principle of private land ownership has robbed not only Jack and Jeannette of their dreams, their
investment, and quite likely, their land, it is eroding the freedom from every American, and
erasing the hope of prosperity for future generations.

141
Hope for the future
(For Whistle Blower magazine, July 2003)

By Henry Lamb

The U.S. Constitution is to freedom, what the Bible is to Christianity. The Constitution is the
basis of hope to live free; the Bible is the basis of hope to live forever. Nothing in either
document provides a guarantee of success. Hope becomes reality only to the extent that we
accept and embrace the great principles that each document contains. These great principles are
valid guidelines for behavior, not because they are in these documents; they are in these
documents because experience and history have proven them to be valid.
Experience and history have also repeatedly demonstrated that the further an individual, or a
nation, strays from these guiding principles, whether by design, or error, the less likely either
will realize their hopes.
The United States has strayed rather far from the principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution.
Consequently, Americans are less free than in past generations. The departure from the
principles of freedom has been gradual. The inevitable loss of freedom has been incremental
and cumulative, and has gone unnoticed, by all but those whose lives have collided with a
government regulation – where freedom once stood.

Who owns the land?

A fundamental principle from which government has strayed is the principle of government
ownership of land. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution is quite clear. Aside from the
District of Columbia, the United States Government may “exercise exclusive legislation” over
land “Purchased by the consent of the state legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for
the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings.”
The principle is clear: government should own only the land required for essential operations.
This principle applies to state and local government as well as to the federal government.
Moreover, government should purchase the land it requires, with the approval of the governing
body in which the land is situated. This requirement placed on the federal government
demonstrates respect for, and subservience to, the authority of state government in which the
desired land is situated. The land not owned by the government for essential operations, should
remain in the hands of private owners.
Dissenters from this interpretation of Article 1, Section 8, are quick to point to the vast land
holdings of the federal government when the Constitution was written, land recognized as
“territories,” in which no state legislature existed. This fact, they contend, is evidence that the
founders intended for the federal government to own more land than is required for essential
operations.
Honest evaluation of the historical circumstances forces a different conclusion. The primary
purpose for the acquisition of the “territories” was to provide security for the citizens within the
states. The clear objective of the government was to transfer ownership of this land to private
citizens as rapidly as possible. From the Land Ordinance of 1785, before the Constitution was

142
written, throughout the 1800s, government ownership of land was understood to be temporary,
for the purpose of disposing the land into the hands of private owners. As late as 1862, the
Homestead Act “gave” 160 acres to people who would live on the land for five years, and
provided for the sale of land, at $1.25 per acre, after only six months residency.

This fundamental principle began to erode in 1871, when the American Association for the
Advancement of Science pressured Congress to pass legislation to “protect” the forests. As the
anti-capitalist sentiment rose in response to the so-called “robber-barons,” progressive socialists
convinced congress that “conservation” was more important than the fundamental principle of
limited government ownership of land. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 ended government’s
disposition of public lands, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)
firmly established the concept of “public domain.”
The federal government owns about 33 percent of the total land area, and state and local
governments own about 10 percent more. Approximately 43 percent of the total land area of the
United States is owned by government. Only a fraction of this land qualifies as essential for
government operations, as required by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
The fact that the erosion of this fundamental principle has occurred as the result of deliberate
legislative design, makes it legal, but it in no way lessens the inevitable consequence – the loss
of freedom. Most of the “public land” is now posted, and the public is subject to civil and
criminal penalties for trespassing.
The enactment of FLPMA in 1976 was not the destination of the “progressive” activists, it was
the launching pad for a new, more aggressive campaign to eventually bring all the land under
government ownership or control. The effort to get more land into federal ownership has
intensified dramatically since 1976, on the pretense of protecting the environment.
The last two sessions of Congress have seen efforts to vastly expand federal land acquisition
from private owners. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA), also called the
“Confiscation and Relocation Act” by its opponents, sought to establish a perpetual, off-budget,
multi-billion-dollar fund, expressly for land acquisition from private owners. Dozens of other
bills offer tax credits, special appropriations, and other incentives to expand the government’s
land inventory, while reducing private ownership.

Who controls land use?

The land government has not yet acquired, it controls. Until the 1970s, rural land, and the
resources it contained, was controlled exclusively by its owner. The 1972 Clean Water Act was
grotesquely contorted, by a friendly lawsuit which resulted in an environmental organization
rewriting the definition of “waters of the United States” to include mud-puddles on private
property. Nearly 200-million acres of private property fell under the jurisdiction of the federal
government by virtue of this “wetland” definition.
The 10th Amendment specifically requires that:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the Sates, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

143
No where does the Constitution delegate to the federal government the power to regulate mud-
puddles, or any other use of private property. Nevertheless, the infamous 70s also produced the
Endangered Species Act, which authorizes the federal government to further regulate the use of
private property. Hundreds of laws and thousands of regulations now control the use of almost
every square inch of land in the United States.
The infamous 70s also saw two different attempts to pass the Federal Land Use Planning Act,
which would have given the federal government direct authority to usurp powers “reserved to the
States” by the Constitution. Both attempts failed, but the effort to control land use did not.
Instead of legislation, the proponents of government control changed strategies, and began to use
administrative procedures to do by rule, and financial incentive, what Congress had rejected.
Two states, Florida and Oregon, adopted their own state-wide comprehensive planning acts,
which, essentially, took control over land use away from county government.
State and local governments were eager to accept the tax dollars offered by the federal
government, even with the strings that were inevitably attached. Once a state or local
government accepted federal money, a federal agency dictated how the money must be spent.
Consequently, the federal government gained much control over state and local government, and
then could insist that local laws and ordinances be conformed to the policies dictated by the
federal government.
The decade of the 90s saw even more aggressive federal control of land use. Exotic schemes,
such as the Department of Transportation’s “Scenic Highway” program, placed control of land
use within the “viewshed” of a designated highway in the hands of an appointed council. A
more direct scheme was the creation of “economic empowerment zones,” and “historic” or
“cultural” areas, in which the federal government dictated the terms of land use. The federal
government has been very creative in manufacturing new methods to tighten its grip over the
control of land use.
The most aggressive scheme was the funding of the American Planning Association to prepare
Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook, 1500 pages of model legislation to be adopted by the
states, which would force state and local government to come into compliance with land use
policies dictated by the federal government. A bill was proposed in Congress to reward with
cash, the states that adopted the model legislation offered by the APA.
This model legislation sets the parameters for “sustainable communities” as described in the
U.N.’s Agenda 21, and the Clinton-era President’s Council on Sustainable Development.
Through this legislation, federal government control of land use would extend to private homes
in towns and cities, as well as businesses. The control would extend to the kinds of plants that
may be used for landscaping, even to the size and color of signs placed on private businesses.
The Constitution forbids this intrusion by the federal government into the affairs of state and
local government. Constitutional authority, however, is rarely a requisite for legislation,
especially legislation to implement “politically-correct” ideas. Court challenges must be waged
by private citizens, who are forced to work through layers of administrative and judicial
procedures, fighting all the way, an army of attorneys paid with tax dollars, before even getting
the Supreme Court to consider taking a case. There is little incentive, and less funding, to
challenge the Constitutionality of these laws.

144
The erosion of Constitutional principles is taking its toll on America. Individual freedom that
fostered spectacular growth and prosperity a century ago has been corralled by a government that
requires a permit, or a fee, or both, to dig a ditch, cut a tree, or paint a house – on private
property.

Businesses that grew from a good idea and hard work are being regulated into bankruptcy, or
into another country. The jobs these businesses produced are now going to Brazilians, Koreans,
Chinese, Mexicans – and not to Americans. The economic powerhouse that made possible the
world’s highest standard of living is slowing. The people who advocate more government
control refuse to recognize that their policies erode freedom, and cause the inevitable reduction
in economic opportunities.
The Constitutional principles of freedom are well established. Their validity is irrefutably
demonstrated in the history of America. These principles benefit people, only when people
accept and embrace them. When they are ignored, the benefits vanish. Government has
persistently ignored the principles of freedom set forth in the Constitution. It has done so
because the people have allowed it. Our government, after all, is a reflection of the people who
elect it.
Freedom is not a destination; it is a journey, fraught with danger, from those who know not its
Creator. There is neither a highway nor roadmap to freedom. As a nation, we chart our course
with each policy decision we make. Our only guide is our history, the history of other nations,
and our Constitution – the basis of our hope to live free.

145