1

Henry Lamb Columns in 1995

Contents
Sustainability: No! ......................................................................................................................3
Sustainability: why? ....................................................................................................................5
Sustainability: what is it? ............................................................................................................7
Sustainability: Politically correct - personally disastrous .............................................................9
The Battle For Property Rights .................................................................................................. 11
When Does a "Takings" Occur? ................................................................................................ 13
Property Rights Abuse .............................................................................................................. 15
Whoever Controls the Land Controls the Wealth ....................................................................... 17
The Green Party Platform .......................................................................................................... 19
The Green Party Platform: Economic Structures Under Siege ................................................... 21
The Green Party Platform: Technology Under Siege ................................................................. 23
The Green Party Platform: Ideology Under Siege ...................................................................... 25
The Global Environmental Agenda ........................................................................................... 27
The Global Environmental Agenda: How Can It Happen? ......................................................... 29
The Global Environmental Agenda: A Closer Look ................................................................. 31
The Global Environmental Agenda: A Better Way ................................................................... 33
Off the deep end: "Free the Planet" ........................................................................................... 35
Off the deep end: Islands of human habitat ................................................................................ 37
Off the deep end: Communal property ....................................................................................... 39
Off the deep end: Governance ................................................................................................... 41
Cosmolatry: the worship of gaia at the Temple of Understanding .............................................. 43
Cosmolatry: the New Age ......................................................................................................... 45
Cosmolatry at the United Nations .............................................................................................. 47
Cosmolatry: the worship of Gaia ............................................................................................... 49
Omnipotent Institutionus ........................................................................................................... 51
Omnipotent Institutionus: the source ......................................................................................... 53
Authority Ultimous at work ....................................................................................................... 55
The Global Battlefield ............................................................................................................... 57
Wetland Reform ........................................................................................................................ 59
Endangered Species Reform ...................................................................................................... 61

2
Citizen Suit Reform .................................................................................................................. 63
Property Rights Reform............................................................................................................. 65
Sustainable Development: Beware! ........................................................................................... 67
Sustainable Development: The First Principle ........................................................................... 69
Sustainable Development: What It Will Cost............................................................................. 71
Sustainable Development: What It Should Be .......................................................................... 73
Reorganizing society ................................................................................................................. 75
Education under the gaia principle ............................................................................................ 77
Total Reorganization ................................................................................................................. 79
Governing reorganized societies ................................................................................................ 81
International Intrigue ................................................................................................................. 83
International Intrigue: the instigators ......................................................................................... 85
International Intrigue: public/private partnerships...................................................................... 87
International Intrigue: the machinery ......................................................................................... 89
Land: private property or a public trust ...................................................................................... 91
Land: the Sierra Club's view ...................................................................................................... 93
Land: the Sierra Club's vision .................................................................................................... 95
Land: the foundation of freedom ............................................................................................... 97





3
Col 112 - January, 1995
Sustainability: No!

By Henry Lamb

Sustainability - as implied in the Convention on Biological Diversity, defined in the Global
Biodiversity Assessment, and practiced in third-word protected areas by indigenous (primitive)
"traditional" communities - has no place in American life.

On the other hand, prudent, responsible use of natural resources, by the resource owners, is the
essence of American life. Those individuals who use their resources responsibly tend to succeed.
Those who do not, tend to fail. Such is the effect of free market forces. America has more
timber acres and fewer agricultural acres, per capita, than any "sustainable" community in the
world. Only when resources are taken out of private ownership and held in common by "the
public," are resources seriously abused and degraded. There is no better steward of natural
resources than the private owner whose personal welfare is dependent upon prudent use of those
resources.

The value of private ownership is not a new discovery. In every nation where land and its
resources are held by "the public," the environment is a disaster. The environment is best in
nations that promote private ownership. The same principle applies to "public" housing, which
in city after city is a shambles compared to privately owned homes. Private ownership is the
foundation on which prosperity is built and it is also the most effective caretaker of the property
that is owned - including natural resources.

Those who sell sustainability contend that natural resources should not be privately owned.
Land is considered to be species habitat and whatever lives on the land is biodiversity which
must be used sustainably lest global warming descend in torrents of fire and brimstone.

The November 8th Republican earthquake resulted in an immediate response by Green
Advocacy Groups (GAGs). Dozens of organizations, journalists, educators, and activists met in
Blue Mountain, New York, to develop a coalition strategy to stop what they call the "anti-
democratic right." Some of the characteristics of the group they wish to stop, as they define
them, are those that support: "a rapacious form of unregulated free market capitalism," and
oppose: "government regulations concerning health, safety, and the environment."

A treatise issued by the group says they embrace all people who oppose groups that fight for
property rights, States rights, wise use of resources, sovereignty, and county government
autonomy.

Another coalition of GAGs, called the Western Ancient Forest Campaign, warns that the
Republican Congress will impose such horrors as: "risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, and
unfunded mandate legislation." They also warn that: "Takings amendments are another threat
which will pay property owners not to pollute, or not to destroy habitat value and ecosystem
functions.

4

Habitat value and ecosystem functions are obviously more important than the needs or wishes of
the person who owns the habitat and ecosystem - to the Western Ancient Forest Campaign. To
them, habitat value is more important than the Constitution which requires government to pay for
private property taken for public benefit. Those who cling to the Constitution and promote free
market capitalism, and work to reverse the proliferation of government regulations, and outlaw
unfunded mandates, and require cost-benefit studies, and meaningful risk analysis - have long
been labeled as "anti-environment" by the GAGs. The new label, "anti-democratic" is evidence
of deepening desperation at the realization that America is resisting the rush toward omnipotent
government control. America has had about enough government intervention. America wants to
get on with the business of earning a living. America is tired of hearing government say "no,
you can't." America certainly does not want to hear all the "no, you can'ts" associated with
sustainability.

America went to the polls on November 8th and said, loud and clear, "NO," to the omnipotent
government agenda. If necessary, in two years America can ask "which part of NO did you not
understand?"






























5
Col 113 - January, 1995
Sustainability: why?

By Henry Lamb

Sustainable use, sustainable development - sustainability - is the new organizing principle around
which government agencies, educational institutions, and world governments are restructuring.
Why?

Lester Brown, head of the Worldwatch Institute says: "Massive food shortages will develop over
the next 40 years as a population explosion outstrips world food supply." These words, written
in August, 1994, sound much the same as the words written by Paul Ehrlich in 1968:
"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines -
hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death."

Noel Brown, a Regional Director of the United Nations, told the "Voices of the Earth"
Conference in Boulder, Colorado last July:

"The global environmental crisis is, indeed, dire. The crisis is the result of human-created
problems ranging from deforestation, rising ocean levels and ozone depletion to wars, rapidly-
increasing population and poverty [which] have been documented in a doomsday report issued
by the United Nations."

Because the world is going to hell in a hand basket, according to the UN doomsayers, we must
reorganize the entire world around the principle of sustainability.

Whoa. Wait one minute. What environmental crisis are they talking about? The environment is
getting better, not worse. Surplus food storage is a much greater problem than food shortages,
except where local dictators steal it. Paul Ehrlich's predictions of starving millions is, in
retrospect, ridiculous exaggeration that never came to pass. The picture painted by the current
doomsayers is equally ridiculous exaggeration that is at odds with observable fact.

Those who can remember the belching smoke stacks and coal-fired train engines of the 1940s
and 1950s know that the air is certainly cleaner now than it was then. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) reports that total emissions into the air decreased by 33.8% between
1970 and 1990. Particulate matter released into the air decreased by 60.5% during the same
period.

Not a single river has caught fire since the Cuyahoga River in Ohio burned in 1969. The first
National Water Quality Inventory was conducted in 1973. Dr. Myrick Freeman reported that
96% of the nation's waterways were fishable then. EPA reports reveal continuing improvement
every year since. Water in America is safer and cleaner than in any other nation on earth.
Contrary to the claims of population fear-mongers, population growth rates have declined
globally since the 1960s, from 2% to 1.4%. Starvation is hardly the cause of declining
population growth. Ronald Bailey, author of Eco-Scam, says that only a tenth as many people

6
died of starvation between 1950 and 1975, as died during the last quarter of the 19th century,
despite the fact that the world's population had nearly doubled. Incidentally, virtually all
agriculture, resource use, and development in the 19th century, precisely fits the modern
descriptions of sustainability.

Deforestation is said to be a crisis that is causing the greatest species loss in 65 million years.
The fact is, according to a 1993 report issued by the U.S. Forest Service, every year since 1952,
forest growth has substantially exceeded harvest. Wooded acres have grown 20% in the last 20
years. The annual growth in wooded acres is three times greater than in 1920. In 1992, less than
1% of National forests were actually harvested. There are more trees in America today than
there were 100 years ago.

The oft-cited species loss used to justify sustainability and the need to protect biodiversity is
based on computer model projections. Actual species known to have vanished in the last 100
years are rarely listed. It is a very short list (fewer than 100 according to many estimates)
compared to the thousands of new species identified during the same period. No one knows how
many species there are. No one knows how many species become extinct or how many new
species emerge. Everyone knows, however, that the process has been going on since the
beginning of time, and that no man-made law is going to stop the process.

If the world were in such a "dire" environmental crisis, why is the population growing, albeit at a
declining rate? Why has life expectancy continued to increase - from 70.8 to 75.4 years,
between 1970 and 1990. Why do all the actual, scientific records say the environment is getting
better, not worse? Because the environment is getting better, despite the doomsayer's claims to
the contrary.



7
Col 114 January, 1995
Sustainability: what is it?

By Henry Lamb

"Sustainability" is an ambiguous term that can be used by those who wish to judge the activity or
behavior of others: acceptable behavior is sustainable; unacceptable behavior is not sustainable.
Section 10 of the Global Biodiversity Assessment says flatly that "current agriculture is not
sustainable."

Oh, really!

American agriculture has not only sustained a population that has more than doubled this
century, it has also provided food for much of the rest of the world. American agriculture is one
of man's most successful achievements. American agriculture provides a greater quantity, and a
broader variety of healthy, nutritious food, with less labor on fewer acres of land than ever
before.

Nevertheless, the National Wildlife Federation condemns agriculture as the most
environmentally destructive industry, and the international environmental community has
condemned "current" agriculture as unsustainable. Sustainability advocates contend that current
practices cannot meet the growing demand for food. Such a claim ignores the obvious fact that
current agriculture has more than met the world's growing demand for food, it has constantly
decreased the price of food (in constant dollar terms). The only obstacle to America's continuing
ability to meet the demand for food is government interference.

Sustainability applies not only to agriculture, but to every facet of human life. Maurice Strong,
Secretary General of the 1992 Earth Summit, says that air-conditioning, convenience foods,
processed meats, suburban homes, and the American life style, are not sustainable. Vice
President, Al Gore, says that the automobile is the greatest single threat to sustainability.

If what America is now doing is not sustainable, what is?

Legal documents, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, are careful to avoid defining
what is sustainable. The specific definitions are left to the Conference of the Parties. There is
plenty of evidence, however, which specifies sustainability.

Sustainable agriculture uses no man-made fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, no hybrid
seed stock or live stock, and only low-input technology is considered to be sustainable. Low-
input technology means technology that requires no fossil fuel. In other words, it's a mule,
horse, oxen, wife, or kids.

The Global Biodiversity Assessment describes "traditional" agriculture as the sustainable ideal.
"Traditional" is described as communities of indigenous (primitive) people who raise their own

8
food without the influence of modern technology. "Traditional agriculture" sounds very much
like American agriculture in the 19th century - described in 21st century eco-speak.

Literally, the concept of sustainability means that natural resources may not be used at a faster
rate than they can be renewed by nature. At first glance, it appears to be a prudent concept. The
kicker is - renewed by nature.

It takes nature millions of years to make a barrel of oil, a ton of coal, or a cubic foot of gas. In
less than a century, we have used resources that took millions of years to produce. Fossil fuel
energy cannot be used at a "sustainable" rate. Ironically, as long as free market forces prevail,
we will never run out of oil, coal, or gas.

During the Carter oil crisis in 1978, we were told that world oil reserves were 648 billion barrels
which would last only 29.2 years. Today, after 16 years of rising consumption, known reserves
stand at 991 billion barrels. Other possible reserves, such as the one under the Arctic Natural
Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), have never been tested. Coal and gas reserves will last at least two
centuries at current rates of consumption. But that's not the point. Some day, theoretically at
least, fossil fuels will be depleted.

Long before that happens, free market forces will force alternative energy sources into existence.
Ethanol is an alternative fuel that is renewable. It is not yet economically feasible. As fossil fuel
resources become scarce, the law of supply and demand will force prices up. Simultaneously,
technology will drive down the cost of alternative energy sources, and consumers will switch to
the energy source that is most cost-effective. Free market forces will - as they have for the last
two-hundred years - take care of sustainability. Government intervention in free market forces is
a far greater threat to sustainable use of resources than any free market use.




9
Col 115 January, 1995
Sustainability: Politically correct - personally disastrous

By Henry Lamb

To celebrate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations next year, the Global Vision Corporation
is producing a series of 100 60-second television spots promoting "sustainability" as the only
solution to global problems. The project is funded by UNICEF, UNEP (United Nations
Environment Programme), The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the Television Trust for
the Environment, Peace Child International, and the Center for our Common Future. The first
ten spots will be broadcast by satellite to 500 million homes in 100 countries during the
international Social Summit, in March, 1995. The series will preach doom-and-gloom
propaganda, and promise salvation through one-world government.

Maurice Strong, founder of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and Secretary
General of the 1992 Earth Summit, has now formed The Earth Council, an NGO (non-
government organization). Costa Rica gave the new organization a home and $500,000 to get
started. The purpose of The Earth Council is to monitor governments and multinational
corporations for compliance with the biodiversity treaty and other "sustainable" activities. The
Earth Council's membership is a who's-who of the world's "sustainable" elite, including Robert
S. McNamara, former Secretary of State and former President of the World Bank.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is building coalitions among "environmental, consumer, and
farming organizations that have united around sustainability," according to Sustainable Ag Week.
The Iowa Legislature has created the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. (Aldo
Leopold is the author of A Sand County Almanac which calls for a new land ethic that includes
land, rocks, flora and fauna in the community of life). The new Minister of Agriculture in
England, William Waldegrave, has announced plans to pay subsidies only to farmers who
practice "sustainability." The international community of Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs) are
conducting no less than 12 major conferences around the world during the month of November,
leading to another major treaty on sustainability. The President has created a special Task Force
on Sustainable Development that includes the heads of several major GAGs and cabinet level
officials.

Sustainability is politically correct, and the term is permeating our government, our educational
institutions, and the media - even though its meaning and implications for American life, are
seldom discussed. Maurice Strong has identified air- conditioning and single-family homes,
among other values, as unsustainable. Current agriculture, automobiles, industrial technology in
general, and energy and chemical production in particular, have all been identified as
unsustainable by the Global Biodiversity Assessment and other international authorities.

Few Americans can remember "the good old days" before air-conditioning, before automobiles,
before plastic and the many other miracles of chemical production. Few can remember plowing
behind a mule, hoeing endless rows of corn (most of which was for the mule), spirals of fly-
paper hanging from the ceiling to trap disease-carrying insects, coal-oil lamps and kerosene cook

10
stoves. Who wants to remember the outbreaks of polio and cholera that crippled entire
communities? Why should we want to remember, or return to, the good-old days of
sustainability?

It is the expressed objective of the sustainability concept to reduce American consumption,
affluence, and the capacity to produce wealth. The sustainability concept is built upon the
assumption that American prosperity comes only at the expense of the rest of the world.
"Equitable distribution of resource benefits" is the eco-speak language used to promote the
Marxist policy of taking from the rich to give to the poor. Throughout the world, Americans are
seen to be rich, obscenely rich.

America's wealth has been the object of envy by those who tried to take it by force. The
sustainability initiative also seeks to take America's wealth. Not by military force, yet. Take it
they will, if they can, by instilling guilt and fear through politically correct propaganda.
Individual Americans who have worked to achieve some measure of comfort and security are the
target. It is they who will suffer the sting of sustainability.







11
Col 117 February, 1995
The Battle For Property Rights

By Henry Lamb

Property rights will define the 104th Congress. Property rights were never an issue in America
until environmental laws and regulations intruded into rights that had been taken for granted for
centuries. In less than 10 years, more than 500 grassroots organizations have sprung up across
the country to defend private property rights.

The fledgling movement was able to block nearly all of the legislation proposed by Green
Advocacy Groups (GAGs) in the 103rd Congress. Sixteen of the nation's largest, most powerful
GAGs co-signed a letter sent to their combined membership which said that the property rights
movement presented the most severe threat they had ever experienced. The GAGs are now
waging a major propaganda war to diminish the effectiveness of the property rights movement.
That war will underlie virtually every issue considered in the 104th Congress.

As a young man in the 1950s, Miles Runk bought two lots on a Michigan Lake. He planned to
sell one, someday, and use the money to build his retirement home. Every year, he paid his
taxes, which increased steadily as houses began to appear. Two years before he planned to
retire, his wife died of cancer. Miles had to sell his lots, the only undeveloped lots remaining on
the lake, to pay his wife's hospital and funeral bills. Miles knew nothing of the wetlands laws
which had evolved since 1972, until he discovered that neither he, nor anyone else, could ever
build anything on his lots. He could not sell his property. He spent the last two years of his life
trying to convince the government that his property had been taken from him by the wetland law.

The property rights movement believes that if the government declares that Miles' wetland lots
have to be preserved for the greater public good, then the Constitution requires the government
to pay just compensation. The GAGs disagree.

Sierra Club spokesperson, Joe Turner, in an extensive, five-part propaganda piece published on
the Internet, sets forth the GAG arguments: "Takings bills would...force us to pay polluters not to
pollute."

A "takings" occurs when private property is rendered valueless by government action.
Historically, the exercise of eminent domain has honored the principle of compensation for
public use of private property. Environmental laws, however, rarely use private property for a
tangible purpose such as a highway. The property is simply "preserved" for the benefit of the
public.

Had Miles' property been needed for a highway, the government procedure would have not only
offered payment, it would have paid Miles' legal fees as well. In environmental regulatory
takings, the responsibility for compensation is shifted to the property owner. The government
will not pay unless forced to pay by a court. In a case very similar to Miles', David Lucas spent
years, and more than $1 million to force the government to pay for two lots in South Carolina on

12
which he was forbidden to build.

The property rights movement says the government must bear the responsibility of paying for all
property taken for public benefit, including wetlands and critical habitat. The Sierra Club says
this position is "...a radical new interpretation of the Constitution." Turner says, "This assault is
driven by a desire to boost private profits at the public's expense - not by a wish to defend
property rights."

Why should Miles Runk be deprived of his investment, and his profit, and pay taxes on the
property from which, not he, but the public, benefits? If the public gets the benefit, why should
the public not bear the expense?




13
Col 118 February, 1995
When Does a "Takings" Occur?

By Henry Lamb

Annie Laurie James' 900-acre farm provided a good living for her family for three generations.
The Obion River borders the farm, and some of the best crops in the county were grown on her
river-bottom ground - until wetlands became a prized "public" resource. Annie was forced to
sign over to the government in a perpetual easement, 149 acres of her farm. No, she was not
paid, and in fact, she must continue to pay taxes on the 149 acres. This "compromise" was
reached to avoid prosecution by the government and a law suit by a Green Advocacy Group
(GAG), for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act.

Nearly 17% of Annie's farm was "taken" for public benefit. But, since she retained the use of
83% of her property, the law says she is not entitled to compensation. The law is not clear on
exactly how much property, or value, must be taken before compensation is required.

One of the property rights bills introduced in the last congress would trigger compensation at a
50% reduction in value. The Sierra Club, and other GAGs, bitterly oppose this idea, on the
grounds that the heavy expense required would curtail environmental regulations. Government
cannot afford to pay for property taken by regulation, therefore, the property would not be
regulated.

Many property rights advocates contend that any property taken by government should be
compensated from the first dollar lost. Private property is not limited to wetlands and habitat for
endangered species. If the government assumes the power to control privately-owned wetlands,
which it has done, it can also control dry land, or farm land, or any other land it chooses. If the
government can control privately-owned land, it can control any other privately-owned property
it chooses, also.

The law now allows the government to force a landowner to leave privately-owned property
undisturbed, for the benefit of endangered species. Thousands of acres of privately-owned
timber cannot be harvested, because of the spotted owl, or a woodpecker, or a bear. The same
authority would allow the government, should it choose to do so, to declare spare bedrooms to be
critical habitat for the homeless.

If the government can force a landowner to provide habitat for owls, then the government can
also force a homeowner to provide habitat for the homeless.

Just compensation is the only effective restraint that prevents government from taking all private
property. Rather than confront these difficult issues head-on, the GAGs have chosen to redirect
the debate in an effort to distort the issues and discredit their opposition. The Sierra Club says
that the property rights movement is "...a powerful coalition led and financed by huge corporate
polluters." Their propaganda says, "Takings proponents are extremists who seek special
privileges. They want to do whatever they please no matter how it affects their neighbors."

14
Both assertions miss the truth by a country mile.

The Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) began raising the property rights issue in
1987. Since then, more than 500 grassroots organizations have formed and created a
spontaneous movement that is empowered by voters, not dollars. Of all the grassroots
organizations in the movement, perhaps one has an annual budget of a million dollars. A few
have achieved a $100,000 budget. But the vast majority work with volunteers, and very little
money.

The Sierra Club, by comparison, and its legal defense fund, had an annual budget of $49 million
in 1990 (last available reports). Much of their money comes from the government as payment to
their attorneys for litigating law suits they initiate. The sixteen GAGs that sent a joint letter to
their combined membership, urging them to oppose property rights legislation, have a combined
annual budget approaching $500 million, contributed by large corporations and foundations.

Sixteen GAGs, armed with $500 million per year, oppose property rights protection. Five
hundred property rights organizations, with less than one-tenth the money, are promoting
property rights protection.






15
Col 119 February, 1995
Property Rights Abuse

By Henry Lamb

The Sierra Club, according to Joe Turner, says that property rights proponents are "extremists"
who "...want to do whatever they please, no matter how it affects their neighbors." HOGWASH!
Property rights proponents are, most often, property owners who are very sensitive to the impact
of neighbors' activity on property value. Consequently, they are likely to be conscious of the
impact their activity may have upon their neighbors.

The privileges that accompany property rights stop at the point of infringement upon a
neighbor's rights. That potential conflict is inherent in the concept of private ownership of
property. The reality of that conflict is the reason for the judicial system. When the exercise of
one person's rights infringes upon and damages another person, the law provides for recovery.

Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs) have introduced a radical new interpretation of property rights.
They contend that "biodiversity" has inherent rights equal to humans. The Endangered Species
Act, and Wetlands policy create a boundary around the alleged rights of biodiversity and, they
contend that human activity which infringes upon these alleged rights should be prevented.
Humans who intrude into a critical habitat, or a wetland, should be punished and required to
restore biodiversity to its condition prior to human activity. GAGs contend that proposed
property rights protection laws would "...force us to pay polluters not to pollute."

Property owners should be able to do whatever they please with their property, so long as their
activity does not damage others. If others are damaged, the law has always provided for
recovery.

The radical GAG interpretation means that should a landowner choose to harvest timber from his
own property, that the government has designated a critical habitat, the landowner is a polluter.
The landowner's expectation of compensation for not harvesting his timber, is twisted by the
GAGs into extortion payments to the would-be polluter not to pollute.

Such a radical interpretation of the simple concept of property ownership rights is a scandalous
abuse of the property rights principle. Such distortions confuse rather than clarify the real debate
between public and private resources. The GAGs have attempted to build a psychological
temple around biodiversity, and elevate its importance above all other values. To them, property
rights are but an obstacle to be removed in the construction process.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) further distorts the property rights issue with
an outrageous interpretation of the Republicans' Contract With America. Erik Olsen, NRDC's
Senior Attorney, says, "The private property it would protect belongs to polluters." He also
objects to: allowing industry scientists to participate on review boards; allowing landowners to
sue to recover damages; and to requiring the plaintiff to pay legal fees for the defendant when the
plaintiff loses.

16
The NRDC insists that its scientists sit on review boards, but would not allow the regulated
industry to be represented. The NRDC is quick to file third-party law suits, and bill the
government for legal fees, whether they win or lose, but would not allow landowners to sue. The
NRDC does not want to be held financially accountable for the frivolous law suits it files for no
purpose other than to clog the system and to delay progress.

The NRDC is a $23 million per year GAG that orchestrated the Alar hoax that cost the apple
industry hundreds of millions of dollars. According to the Sacramento Bee, they have also
provided "questionable" data in a petition to list the gnatcatcher as an endangered species. The
petition blocked development in 400,000 acres of Southern California until a judge unraveled the
deceptions.

The GAGs, which property owners have supported for years, are largely responsible for the
erosion of property rights in America. Now, GAGs are leading the battle to defeat efforts to
restore property rights.



17
Col 120 February, 1995
Whoever Controls the Land Controls the Wealth

By Henry Lamb

The land and the natural resources it contains are the source of wealth. The battle to control land
use is not new. It is being waged, however, for a new purpose. The current battle for land use
control by the government is orchestrated by Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs), and is pursued in
every state and in every nation. The new purpose is to protect biodiversity; the inevitable result
is the control of all sources of wealth. The battle between private property rights and the
environment is a relatively new phenomenon in America. It has been underway for most of the
century, but has only recently been noticed in America.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) was organized in 1961, with Prince Philip as its leader. It was
an outgrowth of the British Flora and Fauna Society and was created to bring more money and
visibility to their efforts to protect flora and fauna (i.e. the environment, and now biodiversity)
throughout the British Empire. Their primary method of protection was the creation of parks and
reserves, now referred to as "protected areas".

Africa and India were prime targets. The WWF simply identified an area to be protected, and
the British Crown declared it to be a protected area, and designated the WWF as the manager.
Stories abound about local people being removed from the area, often by force, and denied any
use of the area or its resources. The land, and its resources, were used by and for the benefit of
the manager, and the government that controlled it.

To create a broader global appeal, another organization was established in 1948, three years after
the formation of the United Nations, called the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature (IUCN). A direct linkage of leadership is traceable from the Flora and Fauna Society to
the WWF, and on to the IUCN. The IUCN today is unique in that it boasts 68 sovereign nations
as members, along with 743 Government Agencies and Green Advocacy Groups. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the U.S. State Department, and the U. S. Agency for International
Development are listed as contributors to the IUCN's $53 million 1993 budget. Jay Hair,
President of the National Wildlife Federation, is also the current President of the IUCN.

It was the IUCN that first proposed the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1981. The IUCN
and the WWF developed most of the propaganda used by GAGs to promote biodiversity
protection. It is the IUCN that provides the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and other UN agencies, with policy
direction. Through the IUCN's global network of GAGs, there are plenty of foot soldiers to
lobby Congress, and state legislatures, file lawsuits, write press releases, and organize protest
demonstrations for the media.

It is the expressed objective of the IUCN, the WWF, UNEP, UNDP and their puppet GAGs to
control the use of all resources, which requires control of the land and water which contain those
resources. Land that is privately owned and privately controlled is an obstacle that must be

18
overcome before their objective can be realized. In many countries, land use can simply be
decreed by government. In America, the Constitution prevented government confiscation of
private property for 200 years. Since the 1970s, though, government has followed the strategies
of the IUCN, and expanded its control of the use of land through regulations. Land ownership
is meaningless, if another person (or government agency) controls the use of it. The wealth, and
potential wealth contained in the land belongs to the person (or government agency) that controls
it; not to the person who holds the deed, and pays the taxes.

Private property rights means the right to control the USE of land and the resources it contains.
That concept exercised by Americans has produced wealth and prosperity never before imagined
- as well as the world's healthiest environment.

The concept of private property rights cannot coexist with the concept of global protection of
biodiversity and the sustainable use of its components. The IUCN concept requires a
government to regulate and enforce "protection" and to define "sustainable use". If the IUCN
objective is realized, control will be in the hands of a UN agency, dominated by the IUCN. The
inevitable consequence will be the loss of private property rights and the opportunity to convert
resources to prosperity.




19
Col 121 March, 1995
The Green Party Platform

By Henry Lamb

At the core of all conflict between Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs)) and those who oppose their
policy proposals, is a fundamental difference in values. That difference is stated quite succinctly
by the Green Party: "We must change our viewpoint from a homocentric one to an ecocentric
one, and at once." Deep ecology literature uses the terms "Anthropocentric" (i. e. human-
centered) and "Biocentric" (i.e. nature-centered).

What is meant by "change our viewpoint" is clarified by eight principles in the Green Party
Platform:
1. The well being of life on earth has value that is independent of its usefulness to
human kind.
2. The richness and diversity of life has value in and of itself.
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy
vital needs.
4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial
decrease in human population. The flourishing of non-human populations requires such a
decrease.
5. Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the
situation is rapidly worsening.
6. Basic economic, technological, and ideological structures must be changed.
7. The ideological change is mainly appreciating life quality (dwelling in
situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of
living.
8. Those who agree have an obligation to try to implement the necessary changes.

Who agrees?

Vice President Al Gore agrees passionately, according to his book, Earth in The Balance. As a
part of his reinvention of government, the Ecosystem Management Policy was devised, in which
the EPA decided to put ecosystem protection on a priority level equal to the protection of human
health, according to EPA documents. Interior Department documents instruct employees to
consider humans as a "biological resource" in all ecosystem management activities.

Ecosystem management is a fundamental concept of the "Wildlands Project", proposed by Earth
First! founder, Dave Foreman. The project proposes that at least half of all land be restored to
wilderness, and that half of the remaining half be buffer zones in which government-managed
activity such as farming, mining, logging, and recreation could occur. Humans would occupy
the remaining 25% in "islands of human habitat", surrounded by wilderness where non-
human populations could flourish. The Convention on Biological Diversity, now being
promoted by the administration and GAGs, requires the creation of "protected areas", and holds
up the "Wildlands Project" as the ideal to be followed.

20

John Davis, Editor of Wild Earth, which published the Wildlands Project, says, "People would
not be required to relocate if they gave up motors, guns, and cows," which is what principle # 7
means in the Green Party Platform. It is also a realistic description of what is meant by the term
sustainable development.

Maurice Strong, founder of the United Nations Environment Programme, (the UN agency
responsible for implementing the Convention on Biological diversity) has publicly denounced as
NOT SUSTAINABLE such things as air conditioning, suburban housing, convenience foods
and fossil fuels.

The Green Party and other GAGs believe that improving the human standard of living
diminishes the standard of living for non-human biodiversity. The processes that improve the
standard of living for humans are the "economic, technological and ideological structures" that
must be changed, according to principle # 6.

The Green Party, now very active in California, Chicago, and other urban centers, and the major
GAGs, such as the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, and others are
waging an all-out assault on the structures they want changed.








21
Col 122 March, 1995
The Green Party Platform: Economic Structures Under Siege

By Henry Lamb

The foundation upon which the world's most prosperous economy has risen is private property.
By contrast, state ownership of property (socialism) and state control of private property
(fascism) are economic structures which have proven to be cataclysmic failures. The Green
Party and major Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs), however, ignore the failures of both socialism
and fascism and continue to promote policies to change the American economic structure based
on private property, to a structure based on state ownership and control.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 preserved 9 million acres as wilderness. In 30 years, officially
designated wilderness area has grown to more than 100 million acres. Official "protected areas"
in North America represent 12.6% of the total land area, according to the International Union for
the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The Global Biodiversity Assessment, required by the
Convention on Biological Diversity, calls for the implementation of a plan that would preserve
50% of the land area, and control another 25%.

Environmental policies, particularly those relating to endangered species and wetlands, have
given government effective control over virtually all private property, and GAGs continue to
lobby for more government control and more publicly-owned land.

In their wisdom, Jefferson, Madison and their colleagues, erected a barricade between private
property and government confiscation when they wrote the Fifth Amendment, which requires
just compensation when government finds it necessary to "take" private property. GAGs have so
skillfully written environmental laws and regulations that private property rights are completely
ignored when environmental policy is enforced. Infringement of private property rights by the
federal government provided powerful motivation to voters who so dramatically shook-up
Washington in the last election. The Sierra Club in particular, and other GAGs are mobilizing
their vast resources to bypass the new Congress and pressure the Gore-Clinton Administration to
implement GAG policy proposals 'administratively,' by Executive Order.

The economic structure is also besieged by a rapidly expanding stealth taxing policy. In 1960,
31.8% of the national income was consumed by taxes (federal, state, & local). This year,
44.2% of national income will be taken by government in direct taxes, according to Roger E.
Meiners and Roger Miller of Clemson University. Since 1960, in addition to the 39% increase in
direct taxation, federal mandates, mostly environmental regulations, take an additional 20% of
the national income.

Stunned by the election results, President Clinton rationalized that his economic successes had
not yet reached the average voter. What he fails to see is the fact that low inflation rates are
overwhelmed by expanding tax demands. One need not be a Wall Street analyst to recognize
that a $10,000 salary in 1960, which provided the earner with $6,820.00 of spendable income,
would have to swell to $19,000 in 1994 to produce the same amount of spendable income. With

22
inflation factored in, even at a most conservative rate estimate of 3.3%, the $10,000 salary in
1960 would have to rise to $30,000 in 1994 - just to retain the same standard of living as in 1960.

Inflation has been higher than 3.3%, and when coupled with expanding tax policies, the average
voter is working harder, earning more, and ending up with less money than ever before. The
average voter is not impressed with the Administration's statistics that say the economy is better.

The tax policy has expanded largely due to unfunded Federal mandates. The feds pass the law,
and require the state and local government to impose the tax. To the wage earner, a tax is a tax is
a tax.

The Environmental Conservation Organization joined a national effort to ban unfunded federal
mandates. The new congress has agreed to bring the issue to a vote. Not surprisingly,
GAGs support unfunded federal mandates. They are systematically urging their members to
oppose both unfunded mandate legislation and private property protection legislation. These
actions put the Green Party and highly respected GAGs squarely in the corner of government
control and ownership of property - including 64.2% (or more) of private income.

The intrinsic value of biodiversity, as alleged by the Green Party and the GAGs, is not sufficient
justification to change our proven economic structure based on private property, to a structure
based on government ownership and control, especially since history has already relegated such
structures to the garbage heap of failure.




23
Col 123 March, 1995
The Green Party Platform: Technology Under Siege

By Henry Lamb

The Convention on Biological Diversity uses the term sustainable development. The World
Trade Organization (WTO) Charter says its purpose is to assure resource use according to the
principle of sustainable development. The Green Party Platform calls for a change in the
structure of technology. These are simply politically correct euphemisms for the expressed
objective of shutting down modern industrial technology.

It is one thing to talk about returning America to a pre-Columbian condition, as do the
proponents of the Wildlands Project. It is quite another thing to adopt public policy that will
result in pre-Columbian lifestyles. Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs) rarely promote the
destruction of technology directly. Instead, they promote legislative or regulatory protection
from some alleged disaster. The last thirty years is strewn with the wreckage of industrial
technology, destroyed unnecessarily because the public and legislators were panicked into
action by questionable and often outright deceptive claims of imminent disaster. DDT, asbestos,
PCBs, Dioxin, CFCs, and Alar are but a few of the industrial technologies that litter recent
history - unnecessarily. Most Americans still believe these to be dangerous substances, despite a
preponderance of scientific evidence to the contrary.

Sixty Minutes was quick to proclaim Alar to be a deadly chemical sprayed on apples, based on a
flawed study produced by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). They have yet to
report the findings of Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, who reported that for a human to consume the doses
used in the NRDC study, a person would have to eat 28,000 pounds of apples per day, each day
for 70 years.

For several years, GAGs were content to target a single substance and wage a propaganda and
political campaign until the substance was banned. Now they have become impatient, and are
targeting entire industries.

For several years, GAGs have claimed that dioxin is a deadly killer. It was the presence of
dioxin that caused the evacuation of Love Canal and Times Beach, Missouri. Scientific fact,
however, has not cooperated with GAG claims. No one has yet found a single cancer death
attributable to dioxin. The government official who ordered the evacuation of Times Beach later
told a St. Louis newspaper that the exercise had been unnecessary. Dr. Bruce Ames, a noted
cancer researcher, says that a single beer produces a cancer risk 1,000 times greater than the risk
from dioxin faced by the people in Times Beach.

Nevertheless, GAGs have now focused on the chlorine industry. Greenpeace and the NRDC,
strongly supported by the World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund, WWF),
claim that chlorine results in increased dioxin levels accumulating in body fat which results in
increased health risks. Dozens of scientific studies challenge the GAGs' conclusions. Peru
listened to the GAGs' recommendations, and stopped using chlorine in public water supplies. A

24
Cholera epidemic was the immediate result. A million cases, and nearly 10,000 deaths occurred
before the epidemic was brought under control by reintroducing chlorine.

Last year, Congressman Bill Richardson (D-NM) introduced two bills to ban the use of chlorine
in America. Greenpeace and the NRDC, with extensive cooperation from the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), are preparing another campaign to ban all uses of chlorine -including
the disinfectant of public water supplies. The chlorine industry is under heavy siege.

The energy production industry is an even bigger prize. The use of fossil fuel has been declared
not sustainable by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). GAGs have already destroyed the
nuclear power industry in America. Every single power generating permit application in recent
memory has been challenged by GAGs and many have been withdrawn to avoid costly court
battles. Every single attempt to find new oil and coal reserves has met the same fate. Many
energy reserves have been declared to be "wilderness," or "protected areas," forever unavailable.
Projected energy demand outstrips projected supply around the year 2000. If all environmental
restrictions were lifted today, the industry could not build fast enough to keep pace with the
need.

To further burden the energy production industry, GAGs, supported by Al Gore and UNEP, have
proposed consumption taxes on fossil fuel energy. The attack on energy is to protect the planet
from alleged global warming, a popular, but scientifically unsound hypothesis based on
computer models, which is not supported by actual scientific, historical records.

When the Green Party says it is necessary to change the structure of technology, it means to
destroy technology, to insure that humans do not have the capability of infringing on the rights of
non-human populations.



25
Col 124 March, 1995
The Green Party Platform: Ideology Under Siege

By Henry Lamb

If there is an identifiable "American" ideology, it would include the idea of individual freedom,
individual responsibility, freedom to choose religious precepts, the right to own property and use
the resources it contains, the right to privacy, to speak freely, and the right to defend one's
person, family, and property. These ideas are among the basic human rights agreed to and
accepted by the individuals who carved America out of the wilderness. These ideas constitute
the foundation of American ideology. The American ideology is a structure the Green Party
says must be changed.

The problem with American ideology is that it evolved around respect for and appreciation of the
value of human life. The Green Party embraces an ideology which neither respects nor
appreciates human life more than any other life form. In fact, the biocentric ideology holds that
all life has equal intrinsic value. A human life has no more value than the life of a cockroach, or
the life of a rattlesnake. It is this biocentric ideology that must replace the American ideology,
according to the Green Party and the proponents of deep ecology.

Ideology, like religion, is a matter of faith. It is a matter of what one chooses to believe.
Baptists believe immersion is necessary for salvation. Methodists believe a few drops will do the
job. Jews believe that neither is required, but all believe that the Kingdom of God - has already
come, or is at hand, or will be experienced in the afterlife. Biocentrists believe that the Kingdom
of God is in reality, the Kingdom of Nature.

Christians believe salvation occurs when one accepts on faith the reality of God, and
demonstrates belief through behavior consistent with moral principles prescribed by Christian
doctrine.

Biocentrists believe "awareness" occurs when one accepts the Kingdom of Nature, or gaia, as the
source of life, and demonstrates that belief through behavior consistent with the moral principles
prescribed by biocentric doctrine.

People are converted to biocentrism in much the same way they are converted to any
other religion. First, there is a declaration of a supreme authority. Then, identification of a
specific course of required action. Next comes a promise of unparalleled reward for taking that
action, and a threat of unimaginable horrors if that action is not taken.

Biocentrists identify gaia as God. Their course of action is the green agenda, as summed up in
the new term "sustainable development". A healthy, sustainable planet is the reward, and gloom,
doom, death and destruction are certain if the world fails to convert.

Biocentrists are not content to simply preach their gospel, and let people decide for themselves
whether to believe or not. While they gladly accept all converts, they expect their congregation

26
to help impose their belief system on everyone else by supporting legislative proposals to
achieve their objectives. The proposal to convert half the continent to wilderness, the proposal to
ban chlorine and proposals to eliminate the use of fossil fuels all seek to impose the biocentric
ideology by law.

As with most religions, guilt and fear are more powerful persuaders than are promises of
rewards. The biocentric ideology is no exception. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA), plays to the guilt emotion by using gut-wrenching photographs of tortured animals to
shame people into submission. Greenpeace has paid hunters to torture baby seals and other
animals while they film fund-raising footage. The Earth Island Institute ruined the American
tuna fleet with manufactured footage of bloody dolphin deaths which they portrayed as "typical"
tuna harvests.

Fact, especially scientific fact, is not necessary to justify any religious claim. The Convention on
Biological Diversity specifically says that the absence of scientific certainty shall not be a
reason to postpone action.

In any religion, a proposition becomes a religious truth when a person accepts it as such. Once
accepted, a religious truth is rarely shaken by argument, evidence or fact. Once a person accepts
the biocentric idea that a laboratory mouse has as much right to live as a human, then the same
right has to be extended to wolves, grizzlies, cockroaches and rattlesnakes. Humans who
dishonor the rights of non-humans are heathen to the biocentric faithful. Heathen are
unenlightened, and must be forced to comply through force of law.

The Green Party, fully supported by well-funded national and international GAGs, are working
to impose their law in order to effect the changes in ideology called for in their platform.



27
Col 125 April, 1995
The Global Environmental Agenda

By Henry Lamb

Until a few years ago, most Americans were proud to participate in the "environmental
movement." Even when spotted owls were given nearly 6,000 acres each, and loggers were
given the boot - most Americans assumed it was necessary. But when forest fires near
Yellowstone ravaged an area the size of Denmark - because it was good for the environment -
many people began to wonder. When homeowners in Southern California were forced to watch
their homes burn to the ground because they were not allowed to plow a fire-break through a rat
burrow - many people began to really wonder. When Ming-Lin's tractor was arrested,
confiscated, and sued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because it accidentally ran over a rat
- people began to wonder if the environmental movement was on the right track.

What many Americans have suspected is now confirmed: the environmental movement was
hijacked. The track has been switched and a new crew is in control. Originally, the movement
was a network of small, local organizations working to clean up the neighborhood and promote
laws to stop pollution. Today, the global environmental agenda is a multi-billion dollar business
directed by a handful of international non-government organizations (NGOs), using the United
Nations to transform the world.

The hijacking occurred in the late 1970s and early '80s. Few Americans were even aware that
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) proposed a treaty on Biodiversity
in 1981. It took 13 years to get the treaty signed by 150 nations attending the 1992 Earth
Summit in Rio de Janeiro. But since 1992, the treaty has become international law and the entire
global environmental agenda is about to be published.

The Biodiversity treaty requires the development of a GBA - Global Biodiversity Assessment
(Article 25). Immediately after the Earth Summit, before the treaty had been ratified by any
nation, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) launched the massive GBA with $2 million
from the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The document is scheduled to undergo peer-
review in February, 1995 and be published in the summer.

Four of the 12 sections of the GBA were "obtained" and unauthorized summaries were
developed. Americans are in for a drastic shock. The GBA will become the official document
from which the regulations for the Biodiversity treaty will be developed. Section 9 of the GBA
says the root causes of the problem the treaty is designed to fix are:

(1) Human social organization
(2) Growth of human population and over-consumption of resources
(3) World trade
(4) Inadequate taxes on resource use
(5) Unequal ownership, management, and flow of benefits


28
To solve the environmental problems, these five root causes must be eliminated.

To begin with, the document says biodiversity (bugs, trees, snakes, and lizards) must be given
legal rights to "straighten out the principle that biodiversity is not available for uncontrolled
human use." From there, the document discusses the need to restructure our system of land use
to require any resource user to justify the need for the use, and to prove that the proposed use
would not harm biodiversity. In other words, the GBA recommends land-use policies that would
require a land owner to ask the government for permission to cut a tree dig a ditch, plant corn, or
to use the land in any way at all that may alter biodiversity. The government, of course, could
say no, or say yes, providing that the owner follows the government's management dictates.

Agriculture must be totally transformed. The GBA says that agriculture must return to the days
when no chemical fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, or hybrid seed were used. Fossil-fuel-driven
tractors are taboo, and irrigation must be stopped. Over-consumption must be curtailed. Such
things as air-conditioning, suburban homes, convenience foods and fossil-fuel motors are all
examples of over-consumption. World trade introduces undeveloped nations to consumerism
and addicts people to "unsustainable" lifestyles, so it too, must be transformed. Unequal
ownership and benefits for biodiversity are to be adjusted through what is called "internalization"
of costs, which means resource taxes to transfer wealth to developing countries. The global
environmental agenda intends to transform the world into villages within "bioregions" in which
people are dependent upon muscle power to produce their food using only the tools they can
make without industrial technology.

Bizarre? You bet! The entire agenda is described in vivid detail in the Global Biodiversity
Assessment coming soon to a government official near you!



29
Col 126 April, 1995
The Global Environmental Agenda: How Can It Happen?

By Henry Lamb

The global environmental agenda is being implemented every day, and America is paying much
of the bill. In 1993 alone, America contributed $646 million to 34 international organizations
involved with some phase of the implementation process, according to the U.S. State
Department. At least $1.2 million went to the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature (IUCN), the non-government organization that initiated the agenda. Another $22 million
went to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), which authorized the Global Biodiversity
Assessment (GBA) and will administer the Biodiversity Treaty. A whopping $123 million went
to the UN Development Program (UNDP) that is developing, and will administer the Sustainable
Development Treaty. American tax dollars are paying the very people who are hell-bent on
reducing America's standard of living by shutting down the industries that produce consumer
goods. To stop over-consumption in America and other developed countries, treaty proponents
intend to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of fossil fuel energy and man-made chemicals,
both essential ingredients in all manufacturing processes. The people American tax dollars pay
promote government control of all land use, and intend to impose a land-use system that requires
all resource use, even on private lands, to be permitted and regulated by government.

How can it happen?

The three primary institutions that initiated the global environmental agenda, and provide the on-
going direction, are: (1) the IUCN, (2) the WWF (World Wide fund for Nature, formerly the
World Wildlife Fund), and (3) WRI - World Resources Institute. These three non-government
organizations (NGOs) provide the strategies that are carried out by thousands of Green
Advocacy Groups (GAGs) around the world.

In America, major groups such as the National Wildlife Federation (whose president, Jay Hair, is
also president of the IUCN), the Sierra Club, National Audubon Society, National Resources
Defense Council (NRDC), Greenpeace, the Wilderness Society and others, collect contributions
from unsuspecting citizens, then lobby Congress and state legislatures, produce propaganda for
schools and the media and continually push the agenda that originates in the international
community.

The leaders of these GAGs take turns serving in highly influential government positions. Russell
Train headed WWF-USA before he went to the Environmental Protection Agency, when he left,
he tapped his GAG colleague, Bill Reilly, to take the EPA job, and Train returned to head a
subsidiary GAG. Train also hand-picked Gustave Speth to head the WRI. Speth's chief policy
analyst was Rafe Pomerance. After the Clinton/Gore election, Speth moved to head the UNDP,
and his assistant, Rafe Pomerance, moved to the U.S. State Department in charge of international
environmental issues. Little wonder that the U.S. gave the UNDP $123 million in 1993.

Top level positions in the State Department, Office of Management and Budget, Department of

30
Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies, departments, and
commissions are filled with people who came directly to their government jobs from a leadership
position in a GAG. Jessica Tuchman Matthews moved from President of WRI to Deputy
Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs. Thomas Lovejoy moved from the WWF to the
Department of Interior. George Frampton moved from head of the Wilderness Society to head
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Brooks Yeager moved from lobbyist with the National
Audubon Society to the Department of Interior. Bruce Babbitt moved from head of the League
of Conservation Voters to Secretary of Interior. The people who dreamed up the global
environmental agenda are now the government officials whose job is to implement the agenda.

The IUCN is a unique organization. Its 806 members include 100 government agencies in 68
nations, 53 international NGOs, and 618 GAGs. Their $53 million budget includes not only the
$1.2 million from the U.S. State Department, but contributions from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and from U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) as well. In the mid
1980s, the Tides Foundation funded the Institute for Global Communications (IGC) which set up
a worldwide computer network among the GAGs. More than 17,000 activists in 94 countries are
now hooked up the IGC network. Strangely, the IGC had an exclusive arrangement with the
IUCN and UNEP to provide all the communications arising from the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio
de Janeiro, and continues to feed IUCN strategies to member GAGs.

When the IUCN decides that wetlands need to be protected, it puts its strategy on the IGC
network and all the GAGs go to work promoting Wetlands. All the GAG officials in
government begin developing wetland policies, and regulations. Before average people are
aware that wetlands are no longer swamps, there is a new law, and people are going to jail. The
entire global environmental agenda is now on the wire, and GAG officials at every level of
government are busy developing policies, regulations, and laws to implement it. Americans,
beware!



31
Col 127 April, 1995
The Global Environmental Agenda: A Closer Look

By Henry Lamb

The Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) initiated by the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) is a massive document consisting of 12 sections, written by scientists and
environmental activists around the world. It sets forth a gloomy picture of the world and calls
for a major reorganization of societies, governments, institutions, and lifestyles. America is held
up to be the example of what is wrong and what must be changed. The prescribed changes
would transform America, and Americans, into a plight most of the world is struggling to escape.

The rationale has a lot of currency, is believable, and is winning converts by the millions,
especially among children and young people whose experience and education do not yet provide
adequate defense. According to the GBA, the world has far too many humans in it (5.6 billion)
and the population is expected to double in the next 60 years. The food and shelter demands of
all those people are ravaging natural resources (biodiversity). Moreover, the people who live in
America and other developed countries, are using far more natural resources than they need,
thereby increasing the strain on biodiversity. According to the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and their think-tank associates, civilization will inevitably
collapse as resources are depleted. If humans survive at all, they will regroup in small colonies
and revert to cave man lifestyles - unless...! The purpose of the GBA is to provide an
alternative. The global environmental agenda is offered as the only alternative that can prevent
the world from undergoing a cataclysmic collapse of the human society.

First, biodiversity must be elevated to a status of equal value with human life, in law and in
moral and ethical conduct. Human society must be reorganized around the principle of
protecting biodiversity. Biodiversity is to be established in law as "communal property." Use of
communal property is to be controlled by government. Laws governing resource use are to be
developed on the "precautionary principle" which means that a resource user must prove a need
to use the resource and prove that the use will not hurt biodiversity. The highest human
objective is to protect biodiversity. Individual aspirations are to be suppressed in favor of "fair
and equitable" distribution of resource benefits among all members of the global community.

The time frame projected to achieve this transformation ranges from 50 to 200 years. One of the
authors of the GBA says, "our goal should be staying the course, not setting a speed record."
The machinery to achieve this transformation has been designed and is presently under
construction in the form of international treaties, national laws and regulations, and propaganda
campaigns being waged by proponents of the global environmental agenda. In the short term,
the government authority is expected to be the United Nations. Maurice Strong, founding
Director of the UNEP and Secretary General of both Earth Summits in 1972, and 1992, is
campaigning to give the UN more global authority over environmental issues. He told the
Swedish Royal Academy that "The 50th anniversary of the UN next year (1995) provides a
unique opportunity to restructure and revitalize the UN...to prepare for the vastly increased role it
must have as the primary multi-lateral framework of a new world order."

32

UN authority, however, appears to be a transitional device to ultimately place governing
authority in the hands of "Bioregional Councils," designated by - not the UN, but by the IUCN
and its associates. The agenda is already being implemented around the world. Implementation
is at a variety of stages on different continents. In America, it is just beginning. In South
America, India, Africa, and Australia, implementation is much further along. Protected areas
have already been established in many South American countries. In Costa Rica, 42% of the
total land area is in preserves. More than 30% of the land in Venezuela, Columbia, and Ecuador
is in preserves. These land preserves have blocked every possible route for a proposed railroad
linking California to Chile, as well as prospective sites for a new sea-level canal to supplement
the Panama canal. These protected areas, or preserves, are being linked into "Bioregions"
which are administered by contract with NGOs. The WWF actively administers protected areas
in South America, Africa, and India. Subsidiary organizations are created to administer smaller
protected areas. And the development of bioregions is underway in America under the guise of
ecosystem management.

Even before the treaty was presented in Rio in 1992, a new organization was founded in the
northwest called the Greater Ecosystem Alliance (GEA). Funded through the members of the
Environmental Grantmakers Association, the GEA set out to map and inventory the Columbia
River Basin, a 75,000 square-mile area reaching from British Columbia to Nevada. It is no
coincidence that the GBA lists the Columbia River Basin as a high-priority bioregion. The
global environmental agenda is being implemented all around us.




33
Col 128 April, 1995
The Global Environmental Agenda: A Better Way

By Henry Lamb

The global environmental agenda assumes the world is going to hell-in-a-hand basket. It further
assumes the only salvation is a spectacular transformation of society that results in central
planning, central control, central enforcement and "equitable distribution of resource benefits"
among all the members of the global community.

Both assumptions are dead wrong. Even if resources were being depleted faster than they can be
regenerated, an international command-central is the worst possible way to correct the problem.

In the first instance, the environmental horror stories are grossly exaggerated, according to
hundreds of world-renowned scientists who signed the Heidleburg Appeal, which asked the
world's governments not to rush into policies the need for which are unsupported by scientific
evidence.

Secondly, the very idea that any number of scientists, activists, politicians and gurus can actually
"manage" biodiversity and 5.6 billion people, is aspiration to arrogance beyond the bounds of
belief.

A better way to deal with the many real problems that do exist is to build on the experience
acquired so far: hold to the principles that have proved successful; reject those which have failed.
Replicate those processes that produce positive results; eliminate those that do not. Identify
problems accurately - and honestly - and unleash human creativity, intellect, and determination.
Then, get out of the way.

Free people solve problems that prevent them from satisfying their natural instincts. Regulated,
or managed people do not. History is unmistakably clear on that fundamental principle. History
makes it equally clear that regulated, or managed people, inevitably become the victims of inept
managers. Not only is society devastated under managed regimes, natural resources are
devastated as well.

The global environmental agenda promises to inflict the worst of both outcomes on the
entire world. There is a better way.

America invented a better way by accident. Looking for nothing more than personal freedom,
and willing to face the threats of a hostile biodiversity, free humans set out to solve the problems
that stood between them and the satisfaction of their natural instincts. Nobody was in the way.
Government had not yet grown to sufficient size and power to control resource use, confiscate
profits, or chill the desire to succeed.

America should lead the world in finding solutions to the real problems that limit human
happiness. People in Africa need economic freedom, not ecology reserves. People in India need

34
prosperity, not population control. People around the world need to see the American example
of free people solving problems and producing prosperity. Freedom should be our number one
export.

When America sits at the international negotiating table, personal freedom expressed through
free markets should be the first criterion for participation. Proposed treaties and agreements that
tend to advance personal freedoms and free markets should be supported; those that tend
otherwise should not.

The first test of any treaty, whether on climate change, biodiversity, sustainable development,
world trade, or any other subject, is: does it encourage free people to find solutions, or does it
require government to find and impose solutions. If it empowers free people, it should move
forward; if it empowers government and restricts free people, it should not.

The global environmental agenda is designed to entangle free people in a web of expanding
government empowerment. It blames free people for exaggerated or imagined ills, labels
prosperity as over-consumption, condemns success, takes profits from productive people to
pacify the poor, and seeks to prevent the poor from ever learning how to exercise their freedom
to satisfy their own natural instincts.

The global environmental agenda has been developed, and is being imposed upon much of the
world with little fanfare in America. The spotlight of public debate must be illuminated. Those
who believe that human life is more than a "biological resource" have a responsibility to inform,
inspire, and recruit others to rise yet again to meet a new challenge that threatens personal
freedom. We, the little people who pay the taxes and elect the leaders, must become informed,
inspired, and insist that free people remain free to help the rest of the world discover what we
found by accident.



35
Col 129 May, 1995
Off the deep end: "Free the Planet"

By Henry Lamb

For several years now, there has been a growing suspicion that the leadership of the
environmental movement may be moving toward extremism. That suspicion is now confirmed.
In fact, "off the deep end" may be the understatement of the year. Drawn by such prestigious
sponsors as Greenpeace, Ralph Nader's U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG), Sierra
Club, Friends of the Earth, and others, 1800 students assembled in Philadelphia recently to attend
the "Free the Planet" conference. Carl Pope, President of the Sierra Club, told the students that
their struggle in the current political environment, is the "greatest challenge that any generation
has ever faced."

The "Free the Planet Campaign" (FTPC) will be launched officially April 22, as a part of the
Earth Day celebration. A key element in the campaign will be to collect a million signatures on
a petition to present to Newt Gingrich on July 10. The petition will demand "25 sensible"
actions to protect the environment. The "sensible actions" include such steps as: banning
chlorine, banning all logging in old-growth forests, banning off-shore drilling, banning nuclear
power, requiring 45 mpg cars, reducing carbon dioxide emission by 20%, and blocking
legislation to protect property rights.

"Hog calls to Congress" are scheduled on the 22nd of each month. The students are encouraged
to call their Congresscritter to denounce "polluter pork" and end their calls with a loud
"sooooey."

The FTPC calls for an "Environmental Bill of Rights" that says "Wildlife, forests, mountains,
prairies, wetlands, rivers, lakes, historic sites, urban parks, open space, oceans and coastlines are
all part of our national heritage," which must be preserved. The fact that private owners of such
properties may have other plans makes those private owners "polluters" who should be
penalized.

An Eco-Summit is planned in Washington in early April to coincide with the Senate debate on
three key elements of the Republican Contract with America: property rights protection
(HR925), suspension of regulations (HR450), and risk analysis (HR1022). Greenpeace
Executive Director, Barbara Dudley told the students they need to "go beyond legislation. We
should be storming the castle right now!"

The FTPC is planning massive boycotts of corporations which they claim are "greenwashing"
America. DuPont, Exxon, Dow Chemical, Monsanto, and Texaco are specifically targeted,
while corporations in general are under legislative attack. They intend to propose legislation that
revokes corporate charters. Spearheaded by Peter Montague, Executive Director of the
Environmental Research Foundation (funded by the Tides Foundation), the campaign seeks to
exclude corporations from the protections of the Constitution, make corporate officers personally
liable for environmental infractions, and limit the life of a corporation based on the corporation's

36
environmental responsibility.

The highlight of the Philadelphia conference was a street theater demonstration of students
dressed up like corporate executives and politicians swapping fistfuls of money while other
students held up a 5'by 8' "Declaration of Environmental Rights" on which was written:

We have a right to a voice in the decisions that affect our future.
We have a right to take direct action when our voices are not heard.
We have the right to community and local control over the quality of our air, water, land
and food.
We have the right to a biologically diverse world.
We have the right to a world where resources are fairly shared.
We have the right to an education that incorporates the principles of biological and
social diversity.
We have the right to local, state, national and international laws that ensure
environmental and social justice.
We have the right to break the law if the government conflicts with the principles of
justice.

Environmental leaders who lead students into this kind of extreme thinking and action have
indeed gone off the deep end. If the consequences were limited to a bunch of students dancing
around the streets of Philadelphia, making fools of themselves no one would get particularly
concerned. Students of every generation have performed similar rituals. It gets much more
serious when the leadership of the same environmental groups are appointed to high government
positions and charged with the responsibility of implementing their off-the-wall ideas as public
policy.



37
Col 130 May, 1995
Off the deep end: Islands of human habitat

By Henry Lamb

Speaking of "off the deep end" ideas, imagine all the people in America herded into islands of
human habitat scattered among vast reaches of wilderness connected by corridors of wilderness
up to 300 miles wide. Here's how Science (the official journal of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science) described the plan to establish "protected areas" in America: [It]
"is nothing less than the transformation of America to an archipelago of human-inhabited
islands surrounded by natural areas."

The plan referred to here, first appeared in Dave Foreman's Confessions of an Eco-warrior, in
which he described his dream of wilderness reaching from Mexico to New York, from Florida to
the Columbia River in the great northwest. Foreman, of course, is the guy who founded the eco-
terrorist group Earth First!, and who plea-bargained his way to a conviction for conspiracy to
blow up power transmission lines.

Foreman's dreams were given substance by Dr. Reed F. Noss, who, with a grant from the
National Audubon Society and The Nature Conservancy, developed what is called the
"Wildlands Project." The plan is given greater substance by the Global Biodiversity Assessment
which holds up the "Wildlands Project" as the ideal to be followed by the nations that ratified the
Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodiversity Treaty). The treaty was approved by the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee last year by a vote of 15-3, but was not ratified by the full
Senate when information about the "Wildlands Project" was provided to key Senators. The
treaty requires all nations to establish "protected areas" (article 8). "Protected areas" are not
defined in the treaty, but the definition is quite explicit in the GBA, also required by the treaty
(article 25).

Not to be outdone by the Senate of the United States, the Department of Interior is implementing
the plan without treaty ratification. Dr. Reed F. Noss, the guy who wrote the plan, is employed
by the Department of Interior as one of three scientists who are writing the recommendations to
be implemented as the result of the first year's operation of the National Biological Survey (now
called the National Biological Service). Both Reed Noss, and Dave Foreman are members of the
Advisory Board of the Greater Ecosystem Alliance (GEA) which has been working since 1992 in
the Columbia River Basin conducting studies and surveys to create a 75,000 square-mile
bioregion reaching from Canada to Nevada. Similar work is underway in the southwest, the
northeast, in Appalachia, Florida, and the Great Plains.
Under the guise of the National Biological Survey, and the Ecosystem Management policy, the
"Wildlands Project" is being implemented in America. The "off-the-deep-end" idea of herding
people into islands of human habitat is taking place every day.

People who live in the Columbia River Basin are being forced out. A federal judge recently
closed six national forests in the area in response to a law suit brought by Green Advocacy
Groups (GAGs). Five hundred grazing permits, nearly 200 active mines, and all forestry

38
operations must stop. The people whose livelihood depends upon cattle, mining, or logging must
move out. Others, whose livelihood depends upon the payroll of the resource providers, must
also move out. That, of course, is precisely the objective; move the people out so the land can be
returned to wilderness.

Reed Noss says: "the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the
needs and desires of humans...." In his "Wildlands Project," he also says: "I would offer a more
ambitious long-term goal...that at least 95% of a region be managed as wilderness. Nonetheless,
half of a region in wilderness is a reasonable guess of what it will take...assuming that most of
the other 50 percent is managed intelligently as buffer zones."

It is not enough for these "off-the-deep-end" radicals to convert half the land area to wilderness;
half of the remaining land area is to be used as "buffer zones" in which all resource use is subject
to the approval of government. If this plan is realized, human populations would necessarily be
squeezed into 25% of the land area that would truly be nothing more than islands of human
habitat surrounded by wilderness.





39
Col 131 May, 1993
Off the deep end: Communal property

By Henry Lamb

Another off-the-deep-end idea: natural resources, including land, air, and water, are all
"communal property" which cannot be "owned" by anyone. The use of any natural resource
should be approved by government only after the user proves that the use is necessary, and that
the use would do no harm to biodiversity.

This idea underlies much of the current environmental law and regulations that ignore the
individual land owner's right to use private property. Vince Halter has an ankle-deep, eight-foot
wide stream on his property. A gravel bed developed and split the stream into two channels.
Willows quickly grew on the gravel bed, clogging the stream and causing it to erode his pasture
and farm land. Having owned the land for a number of years, and having seen similar events in
the past, he knew how to remedy the problem. He sent a dozer into the stream to remove the
gravel bed. All hell broke loose.

The Corps of Engineers announced that Vince had polluted the "waters of the United States."
Vince's horrible sins were then announced to other government agencies and environmental
groups which were invited to comment on what should be done about Vince. The
recommendations are still coming in. Vince could be fined as much as $25,000 per day, jailed,
and required to rebuild the gravel bed in the center of the stream. The stream on Vince's
property is not his, it is "communal property." The fish in the stream are not Vince's; they are
"communal property." Vince will discover that the land adjacent to the stream is not his either
because the Corps of Engineers can delineate wetlands or flood plains or riparian zones wherever
it wishes and claim jurisdiction over the property Vince has paid for and on which he continues
to pay taxes. The off-the-deep-end idea of communal property is at work in America despite its
failure in every other nation that has tried to embrace it.

Vince's stream is one of ten thousand examples of the communal property concept at work.
When such examples do make the news, the land owner is cast as the villain for polluting or for
destroying critical habitat, or fouling a scenic "viewshed." What is at stake is far more important
than any single example, or any collection of horror stories. What is at stake is the foundation of
the American economic system.

The ownership of private property, including the use and control of natural resources on that
property, is the foundation of all wealth. Humans have the unique ability to transform natural
resources into goods and services that extend life, and make living infinitely more enjoyable.
The off-the-deep-end crowd contends that the use of natural resources is destroying the planet
and therefore must be stopped, or at least dramatically reduced, by heavy-handed government
restrictions.

Humans, like virtually all other species, do what comes naturally. Use of natural resources
comes as naturally to humans as it does to any other species. When a natural resource is

40
depleted, humans, as do virtually all other species, find alternatives, or they perish. Such is the
law of nature. Nature has the ability to change, to come up with alternatives, to replenish itself,
to adjust to the demands of any of the species it has provided. The idea that nature (biodiversity)
must be managed by a small group of government experts is the elevation of arrogance beyond
stellar measurement. Nevertheless, the "communal property" idea requires that a small group of
government experts decide whether or not a private citizen may use a natural resource.

Despite the pronouncements of the off-the-deep-end extremists, the planet is not doomed.
Cancer does not lurk behind every man-made chemical. Cars are not causing global warming.
And free-enterprise capitalism is not an instrument of death and destruction; it is the salvation of
mankind because it is the natural extension of the laws of nature. It is the mechanism humans
have developed naturally to satisfy their natural instinct to survive. What is unnatural is the
effort to block human development, to stop evolution, to preserve biodiversity at a stage which a
small group of government experts think is appropriate.

"Communal property" is a man-made idea that Karl Marx, among others, championed as the way
to equalize the distribution of resource benefits to all the people. The inherent, fatal flaw in this
idea is the fact that nature made individuals - man made communities. Communities that
suppress the natural rights of the individual in favor of the man-made rights of the community
have historically enjoyed the same success recently demonstrated by the collapse of the Soviet
Union. The idea of "communal property" in America is off the deep end.


41
Col 132 May, 1995
Off the deep end: Governance

By Henry Lamb

How are islands of human habitat governed so that communal property (natural resources) are
grudgingly used and assure that the benefits are equally distributed to all people on the planet?
The answer is a concept called "bioregionalism."

Bioregions are enormous tracts of land, such as the Columbia River Basin, which frequently
include several governmental jurisdictions and are defined by biological characteristics rather
than by political boundaries. The Columbia River Basin reaches from Canada to Nevada and
includes portions of Washington and Oregon as well as portions of western Montana. The
objective of bioregional governance is "local control" of resources.

To most people, local control means city councils, county commissions, state governors and
legislatures and other forms of locally elected governments. The off-the-deep-end extremists
have a different idea: "local control" means a bioregional council consisting of "stakeholders" in
the bioregion, administered by a designated NGO (non-government organization). Bioregional
regional governance is defined in Section 10 of the Global Biodiversity Assessment. It says the
biodiversity should be granted legal status and imbued with legal rights, and that NGOs should
be the primary mechanism to educate the stakeholders and enforce biodiversity protocols through
the use of law suits in behalf of biodiversity. Off the deep end? It's happening.

It is happening is South America, Africa, Australia and other nations around the planet. It is
underway in America. The Greater Ecosystem Alliance (GEA) is an NGO that has been working
in the Columbia River Basin since 1992. They are defining the bioregion and developing the
Columbia Covenants - recommendations for resource use, or non-use. They are in line to be
designated as bioregion administrators, should the biodiversity treaty ever be ratified in America.

NGOs developed the concept of bioregionalism, developed the biodiversity treaty, developed the
Global Biodiversity Assessment, and have developed an incredible network of thousands of
NGOs around the world. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is a major international NGO that
has several affiliated NGOs actually administering bioregions in other nations. Thomas E.
Lovejoy, formerly an official of U.S. WWF (now an official with the Department of Interior)
designed what is popularly called the "debt for nature swap." NGOs bought the debt of
developing countries for as little as fifteen cents on the dollar. Then gave the notes to affiliated
NGOs in the developing country which surrendered the notes to the local government at face
value, exchanged in the form of land and government bonds. The process virtually gave NGOs
millions of acres of land for a fraction of the land's value. The local NGO administers the
bioregion according to the dictates of the international NGO that made it all possible.

There are thousands of NGOs operating in America. The Pew Charitable Trust, one of 168
foundations that participate in the Environmental Grantmakers Association, provides millions of
dollars to the Tides Foundation, which in turn, funds small NGOs that fan out across the country

42
agitating in local communities to generate support for the off-the-deep-end ideas generated by
the international NGOs. Frequently, these small NGOs are nothing more than two or three well-
trained people who are the staff of a not-for-profit corporation called "friends of the whatever."
They are paid to review building permits, Section 404 wetland applications, and other activity
which they can protest or stop with a law suit.

The Tides Foundation also funded the Institute for Global Communications (IGC) which is a
global computer network that links 17,000 such activists in 94 countries. The IGC has an
exclusive arrangement with the International NGOs and with the United Nations to communicate
the international agenda to the NGO network around the world. NGOs, under the leadership of
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the WWF, and the World
Resources Institute (WRI) are preaching the off-the-deep-end gospel like missionaries around the
world. They are winning converts in America by branding private property owners as polluters,
claiming that any chemical made by man is causing cancer, and by perpetuating the myth that the
sky is falling through the hole in the ozone layer.

A growing number of the endangered human species is discovering the off-the-deep-end agenda
of the extremists, and demanding that government pay more attention to the needs of people and
less attention to bugs and lizards.

Nature can take care of itself.



43
Col 133 June, 1995
Cosmolatry: the worship of gaia at the Temple of Understanding

By Henry Lamb

Follow this closely: the Temple of Understanding (TOU) was founded in 1960 by Juliet
Hollister. In 1982, the UN formed the Global Committee of Parliamentarians on Population
and Development (GCPPD). The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) created a
special Trust Fund to "work with networks set up by the GCPPD. (The US contributes more
than $100 million annually to the UNDP.) In 1988, the TOU co-founded the Global Forum of
Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders for Human Survival in Oxford, England. A TOU brochure
says: "The Temple of Understanding is a Non-Government Organization (NGO) affiliated with
the United Nations. We sponsor monthly roundtables at the UN Headquarters featuring
outstanding religious leaders and scholars. The TOU is working on a conference to incorporate
the role of spiritual values at the United Nations and as part of the emerging new world order."

James Lovelock was a featured speaker at the Oxford conference. According to Shared Vision,
the official publication of the Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders on
Human Survival, "Lovelock's contribution is to suggest...that life on earth regulates its
environment as if it were one huge organism. The name given to the organism - and the idea - is
that of Gaia, the Greek earth goddess...She is of this Universe and, conceivably, a part of God.
On Earth She is the source of life everlasting and is alive now; She gave birth to humankind and
we are a part of her." Twelve board members of the Temple of Understanding also sit on the
Global Forum Council.

Lovelock warned that if we continue polluting, "the temperature and sea level will climb decade
by decade, until the world will become torrid and all but unrecognizable." He said global
warming is like the first signs of a fever, and that humans are not allowing Gaia to recuperate.
"She may be unable to relax because we have been busy removing her skin and using it as farm
land, especially the trees and the forests." He predicted: "The human and political consequences
of the two geocidal acts, forest clearance and suffocation by greenhouse gasses, will be the news
that usurps the political agenda"

The Temple of Understanding is housed in The Cathedral of St. John the Divine, 1047
Amsterdam Avenue, New York. Its publication, Cathedral, says that the Cathedral "finds itself
in the forefront of sacred environmental work. Now the National Religious Partnership for the
Environment has the reach to serve over 100 million interfaith congregants on a regular basis."
The Temple is aligned and "in harmony" with both the Theosophical Society and the Lucis Trust
(formerly Lucifer Publishing Company) to promote the "Convergence" and the "New Genesis"
which is an effort to amalgamate all the worlds religious beliefs into one, New Age religion
based on the principles of Gaia.

William Bryant Logan, Writer in Residence at the Cathedral, describes a St. Francis Day
worship service: "Many of us who regarded ourselves as `serious' looked forward with fear to a
kind of epic petting zoo that would trivialize both St. Francis and the great Gothic space.... I saw

44
children lying in the laps of large dogs and a boy bringing his stuffed animals to be blessed. I
saw the not-yet-famous elephant and camel march up the aisle.... It is equally appropriate to pray
for the Earth, to adopt a pet, to organize to fight incinerators, to plan education in sacred ecology,
or to lie down and admire the grass." Al Gore delivered the sermon at this particular worship
service, in which he "called on the congregants to recognize that `God is not separate from the
Earth'."

Amy Fox, an Associate at the Cathedral, writes: "the fundamental emphasis is on issues of
environmental justice, including air pollution and global warming; water, food and agriculture;
population and consumption; hunger, trade and industrial policy; community economic
development; toxic pollution and hazardous waste; and corporate responsibility. Fox describes
the work of the Cathedral as a "single mission with two doors: those who are passionate about
the natural world come in one door; those who care first about the human family come in the
other door. They can no longer separate one question from the other.

Paul Mankiewicz, co-head of The Gaia Institute, says they "encourage people to recognize the
interpenetration of human and natural communities by recognizing the individuality of each and
every being. He says that St. Francis insists "that we meet this wolf, this bird, and the leper, each
as an individual."

American tax payers send $100 million a year to the UNDP, which funds a special Trust to pay
outfits such as the Temple of Understanding to conduct workshops and international conferences
to promote Gaiaism as the religion of enlightenment in the New World Order.

The school prayer amendment seems minuscule by comparison.



45
Col 134 June, 1995
Cosmolatry: the New Age

By Henry Lamb

The Rev. Dr. Thomas Berry is on the Board of Directors of the Temple of Understanding at New
York's Cathedral of St. John the Divine. The Florida Catholic (Feb. 14, 1992) says Berry is
"...perhaps the leading figure in the movement to preserve the environment." The National
Catholic Reporter says Berry's book, The Dream of the Earth, "is the most important book
published in this country right now. Berry is the acknowledged leader of a massive shift in
consciousness as Christians begin to see the Earth as the revelation of God." In Context, a New
Age magazine, considers Berry to be "...a pivotal thinker in the emergence of a spirituality of the
Earth."

Berry is trained in theology, anthropology and cultural history and has authored several books
and papers, was head of the History of Religion Program at Fordham University, President of
the American Teilhard Association, and founded the Riverdale Center for Religious Research.
He is widely viewed as the "Pope," and leading spokesman of the New Age religion cosmolatry -
which is the celebration and worship of gaia.

What is cosmolatry? According to Berry, to save the earth from human exploitation, what is
needed is "...the change from an exploitative anthropocentrism to a participatory biocentrism.
This change requires something beyond environmentalism."

"We need to go to the Earth as the source whence we came and ask for its guidance.

The sacred character of the natural world as our primary revelation of the divine is our
first need, our second need is to diminish our emphasis on redemption experience in
favor of a greater emphasis on creation processes."

Creation magazine says Berry's book "speaks of the need to recapture the unassimilated elements
of paganism that can help us experience the spirit that is forming the new era and hear the voices
of the Earth that is calling us into the future."

"Writing in The Florida Catholic, Sister Chrysta Lerhinan calls Berry a "prophet." She says,
"Berry proclaims that life systems formed on earth over the past 65 million years have begun a
descent into degradation and possible extinction because of a deep cultural pathology of human
greed and addiction. He [Berry] charges that Christianity, far from redeeming the situation, is
partly responsible for it. He dismisses all religions as insufficient to remedy the disastrous
situation of planetary sickness and death, posing instead an `ecozoic' period in which mankind
heals its relation to the earth."

A Winter Solstice celebration honored a poem by Thomas Berry (which was actually written for
a celebration at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine). A newsletter of the Institute for Pastoral
Ministries at St. Thomas University in Miami, Florida (Fall, 1992) describes the celebration: "It

46
began with making a circle and visualizing light flowing through those in the circle. The Hindu
sacred mantra was chanted - Om...Om...Om.... The spirits were then invoked, plant or animal.
An example given was an invocation to the `O wise King Snake.' The ceremony was to restore
the sense of spiritual connection with the rhythm of the Earth - and praise and thank Her, the
Great Mother of us all."

To many Americans, these ideas and rituals are lunacy. They are, however, very real, very
powerful among the politically correct, and are very rapidly permeating "modern" religion,
academia, and the official United Nations organizational structure. A course description from
the Jesuit Seattle University entitled "Shamans and Systems" quotes from Berry's book: "What is
this shamanic dimension?" The course seeks to answer this question "Drawing on images and
insights from science, from the mystical and esoteric traditions, from shamanism, and from the
New Age Movement...we will seek to define the nature of an emerging global spirituality
(Seattle Summer schedule 1991, p15). Similar courses are offered by many leading colleges and
universities.

The gospel of theologian, Passionate Priest, The Rev. Dr. Thomas Berry is the official gospel of
the Temple of Understanding at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine. Cathedral Dean, and
President of the Board of Directors, The Very Rev. James Parks Morton, is also Co-Chair of the
Global Forum Council, on which also serve 11 other Directors of the Temple of Understanding.

The Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders on Human Survival was organized by
the Temple of Understanding and co-sponsored by the UN's Global Committee of
Parliamentarians on Population and Development which receives funds from the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP) to which America contributes more than $100 million each year.


47

Col 135 June, 1995
Cosmolatry at the United Nations

By Henry Lamb

Meet Maurice Strong, perhaps the most influential individual behind the global environmental
agenda. He was the Secretary-general of the first "Earth Summit" in Stockholm in 1972. He
founded the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1973 and served as its first
Executive Director. He was Secretary-general of the second "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro in
1992. His hand, voice, and influence have shaped global, national, and even local environmental
policies that affect every American.

In addition to his official UN duties, he has served as President of the World Federation of
United Nations Organizations, Co-chair of the World Economic Forum, a member of the Club of
Rome, Trustee of the Aspen Institute; Director of the World Future Society; Director of finance
of the Lindesfarne Association, founding endorser of Planetary Citizen, and founder of the
Business Council for Sustainable Development. When the Rio Summit adjourned in 1992,
Strong founded the Earth Council in Costa Rica.

Back up to the Lindesfarne Association for which Strong was the Director of Finance.
Lindesfarne is headquartered in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, along with the Temple of
Understanding. (See column 134.) Lindesfarne is the publisher of G-A-I-A, A way of Knowing -
Political Implications of the New Biology. James Lovelock, originator of the gaia hypothesis, is
also a member of Lindesfarne.

Strong owns a ranch in Colorado called Baca Grande. Larry Abraham and Franklin Sanders, in
their book, The Greening, describe the ranch as "an international community of spiritualists,
complete with monasteries, devotees of the Vedic mother goddess, amulet-carrying native
American Shamans, and Zen Buddhists." On this ranch, the Lindesfarne Association built a
Babylonian Sun God Temple. Strong's global exploits are driven by his deep convictions based
in cosmolatry. Strong granted an interview with David Wood, a writer for West magazine.
Strong described a novel he wanted to write about the future. The story is set in the World
Economic Forum (which Strong Co-chaired). More than a thousand CEOs and Heads of State
meet each year to discuss and plan the world's economic activity.

What if, Strong asks, this forum decides that the only way the planet can survive is for the
developed countries to reduce their consumption significantly. Continuing with his plot
description, Strong concludes that the developed countries would not voluntarily reduce
consumption. His novel would feature a secret society, not terrorists, but world leaders of
business and government, who position themselves strategically in financial institutions,
communications centers, regulatory agencies, commodity markets, in the media - wherever
necessary - and jam the gears until industrialized civilizations collapse.

Strong's ideas for a novel, expressed casually to a reporter, are not necessarily an actual action

48
plan. His official, published words, however, are another matter. He told the Earth Summit in
Rio: "It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class -
involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use
of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air conditioning, and suburban housing - are
not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmental [sic]
damaging consumption patterns."

In his introduction to Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World's Economy and the
Earth's Ecology, Strong wrote: "This interlocking...is the new reality of the century, with
profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international.
By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life.
He told the Swedish Royal Academy: "The 50th anniversary of the UN (1995) provides a unique
opportunity to restructure and revitalize the UN...to prepare for the vastly increased role it must
have as the primary multi-lateral framework of the New World Order."

Strong has demonstrated an uncanny ability to translate his ideas into official policy. His ideas
are the product of his religious convictions. His religion is cosmolatry - the worship of gaia.



49

Col 136 June, 1995
Cosmolatry: the worship of Gaia

By Henry Lamb

According to the dictionary, cosmolatry is "worship of the universe." Father Matthew Fox,
founder of the Institute of Culture and Creation Spirituality, and publisher of Creation magazine,
further defines the term: "the world is being called to a new `post-denominational,' even a `post-
Christian' belief system that sees the earth as a living being - mythologically, as Gaia, Mother
Earth - with mankind as her consciousness. Such worship of the universe is properly called
cosmolatry."

Those who have experienced the so-called `enlightenment' of gaia believe all existing religions
can and should be folded into cosmolatry. Temple of Understanding literature boasts among its
"founding friends": Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, H.H. the XIVth Dalai Lama, Madalyn
Garabaldi, Sir Zafrulla Khan, Fr. Thomas Merton, Jawaharial Nehru, Tenko Nishida, H.H. Pope
John XXIII, H.H. Pope Paul VI, Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishman, Eleanor Roosevelt, H.E.
Ambassador Zenon Rossides, Anwar-el-Sadat, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, President S. Zalman
Shazar, and Secretary-General U Thant. Add to this gaia-stew one Southern Baptist Vice
President, Al Gore, who delivered a sermon at the Temple in which he proclaimed that "God is
not separate from the Earth!"

This stellar crowd of gaia worshipers have the full force of the United Nations to help proclaim
their gospel. The Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders on Human Survival
(Both Senator Dave Durenberger and Representative James H. Scheuer have served on the
Global Forum Council), in cooperation with the Global Committee of Parliamentarians on
Population and Development give credence, stature, and funding to the missionary effort to take
cosmolatry to the four corners of the earth.

The sanctification of biodiversity through cosmolatry is an ingenious strategic move because it
removes the necessity of proving anything. The protection of biodiversity becomes the religious
duty of the enlightened. Non-compliance with the religious dogma will result in a hell far worse
than Dante's: e.g. global warming with melting ice caps and rising oceans; a holey ozone layer
through which UV rays will kill frogs, blind people and cover their bodies with deadly skin
cancer; starving multitudes trying to scratch out survival from deserts created by unrepentant,
heathen loggers. And the strategy is working.

Belief in gaia is a matter of faith, as is "belief" in any other religion. There is an old Christian
hymn that says: "you ask me how I know He lives - He lives within my heart!" There is no
arguing with that kind of belief. No proof is necessary; no disproof is possible. The enlightened
of gaia says "you ask me how I know global warming is real - I know within my heart." No
proof is necessary; no disproof is possible. It is a matter of faith.

The gaia crowd has gone one step further. The preamble to the Convention on Biological

50
Diversity specifically states that the absence of scientific certainty shall not be a reason to
postpone action in the face of a threat to biodiversity. The so-called, or alleged "threat" can be
known "in the heart" of the enlightened. Moreover, through its incredible web of bureaucracies
and organizations, this principle - called the Precautionary Principle - is being instilled into
policies of international and national governments. Obvious scientific fact, as in the case of the
actual scientific record of global temperatures, is being ignored while policies are shaped in
response to the "in the heart knowledge" of the enlightened. No example is more striking than
the banning of CFCs in response to the alleged ozone hole enlightenment.

More insidious is the massive educational campaign that is underway in America and around the
world to teach people that it is morally wrong to cut a tree or kill a predator. Children are
continuously bombarded in school and in the media with the message of enlightenment of
cosmolatry. So pervasive is the structure of the gaia crowd that thousands of Green Advocacy
Groups (GAGs), funded profusely by highly respected philanthropic foundations such as the Pew
Charitable Trust, the W. Alton Jones Foundation, and many others, churn out mountains of
propaganda for distribution through the schools and the media.

The missionary strategy of cosmolatry is more sophisticated than the Christian Crusades or the
Moslem jihad. There is no frontal attack. There is no time line for global conversion. There is
only persistence and the multi-media campaign to convince the unenlightened that regardless of
their religion, they are becoming obsolete unless they accept the understanding that God is
revealed in creation and that in creation, all living things are "beings" equal in the eyes of gaia -
God revealed.

While adults struggle with issues such as property rights, wetlands, endangered species, and
budgets, children - through elementary and secondary schools, as well as colleges and
universities - are being taught that property rights cannot include natural resources, wetlands and
endangered species and trees are sacred, and that budgets fueled by capitalist economies are
destroying the planet. The New Age of cosmolatry is upon us, and is the solid foundation upon
which the New World Order is being constructed.



51
Col 137 July 1995
Omnipotent Institutionus

By Henry Lamb

Janet Reno said that there should be no linkage between the Oklahoma City bombing and Waco
because nothing could justify the horrible event in Oklahoma City. She is right; there is no
justification for the Oklahoma City event. Nor is there any justification for the Waco event.
Reno, of course, believes that Waco was justified. The perpetrators of the Oklahoma City event
believe they were justified - therein lies the linkage. These two events, each justified in the mind
of the perpetrators, are both horrible and neither is justified by any humane criteria of right and
wrong or social justice.

One event was perpetrated by individuals who are now pursued by the collective resources of the
U.S. government. The other event was perpetrated by the U.S. government. The Oklahoma City
perpetrators, if found, will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, as well they should be.
The perpetrators of the Waco event, were found, and elevated in rank and pay.
Why are the perpetrators of one hideous act rewarded, and the perpetrators of an equally hideous
act considered to be the lowest form of criminal, worthy of the death penalty?

The answer, of course, is that one perpetrator is the U.S. government; the other is a nobody. The
U.S. government, particularly in recent years, has moved to a new plateau of maturity:
omnipotent institutionus. In the historic cycle of governments, this stage of maturity inevitably
precedes the final stage: institutionus overripus. Like the overripus stage in the relentless cycle
of nature, governments too, can rot, decay, and become the fertilizer from which new beginnings
sprout.

The U.S. government, however, has a mutant gene: authority ultimous. This gene, like adrenalin
in the human body, releases protectus libertus at the first signs of omnipotent institutionus. For
more than 200 years, this mutant gene has thwarted every outbreak of omnipotent institutionus; it
is likely to do so again. There is some cause, however, for cautious concern. This current
outbreak suggests that the omnipotent institutionus bug has developed new, resistant strains, hell-
bent on reaching the overripus stage.

The bug has been striking in more subtle ways through a broader spectrum of targets. Ten years
ago, the U.S. government decided to control private property because it contained water within
18 inches of the surface for seven days during the growing season. Omnipotent institutionus
manifested itself in the federal "wetland" policy. Then the U.S. government decided to control
the land which might be used by non-human species threatened by the human species.

Omnipotent institutionus manifested itself again in the federal endangered species policy. In a
first-time occurrence, omnipotent institutionus displayed its growing resistance. Officials from
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) lashed out at the protectus libertus
efforts of individuals who spoke against HUD's plans to control local neighborhoods. Similar
displays of resistance are now appearing in the omnipotent institutionus' plans to access private

52
electronic communications.

Nowhere is the bug more visible than in the federal "seizure" policy. Private property can now
be seized by the U.S. government on the suspicion that an offense may have occurred. Allowed
by authority ultimous originally, to stem the flow of illegal drugs, the policy now reaches to
computers owned by individuals who operate hobby bulletin boards, sports fishermen whose
catch may not meet the size requirement, or to land owners whose property is coveted by the
Fish and Wildlife Service.

Guns, too, in the hands of authority ultimous, trigger a violent display of resistance by the
omnipotent institutionus bug. Randy Weaver's shotgun barrel was suspected to be one-quarter
inch shorter than the legal requirement (suspected because an agent of omnipotent institutionus
provided the gun to Weaver). Weaver, exercising protectus libertus, was surrounded by the full
force of the U.S. government, his wife and son shot dead, and he was hauled off to jail, later to
be exonerated by a jury. Omnipotent institutionus, led by Larry Potts, was able to temporarily
quash protectus libertus at the Weaver home. The same Larry Potts led the Waco brigade
against protectus libertus. Potts now leads the investigation of the Oklahoma City bombing, is
applauded by Janet Reno, and elevated to the number two spot in the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.

There is reason for cautious concern about the resistance displayed by this current outbreak of
omnipotent institutionus. Aside from the strength of the resistance the bug has displayed, its
manifestations are disguised by insufficient and inaccurate information. The authority ultimous
gene is getting confusing signals and is unsure whether to activate protectus libertus or defend
the omniscience of the institution. Moreover, the institution is activating the old technique of
"blaming the victim." Both the chief and vice-chief omnipotent, point to the victims with disdain
and label manifestations of protectus libertus as "right-wing extremists" who condone the
Oklahoma City event, all the while failing to recognize that the same rationale labels those who
condone Waco as "left wing extremists."

Neither event can be condoned in a human community. Both must be condemned. Neither
individuals nor institutions can be allowed to take human life or property with impunity.
Individuals are more difficult to persuade; governments, however, can be persuaded at the ballot
box - if the authority ultimous gene is not destroyed.



53
Col 138 July, 1995
Omnipotent Institutionus: the source

By Henry Lamb

Omnipotent Institutionus (the federal government) is using the Oklahoma City tragedy to silence
its critics and discredit its detractors. The "extreme right wing" is now responsible for all that's
wrong in America. Immediately, President Clinton blamed talk radio for fomenting the attitude
that formulated the bomb. The media took aim on militias and labeled militia members as kooks
who condone violence. Green groups seized the opportunity to link "wise use" and property
rights groups to militias and stretch the alleged connection all the way to Oklahoma City. Carol
Browner, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), attacked the Republican
Contract with America as an attack on the authority of the federal government. Omnipotent
Institutionus would have Americans believe that anyone who disagrees with an action or position
of the federal government is a dangerous member of the "extreme right wing."

It is not talk radio, of course, nor is it militias, nor "wise use" nor property rights groups that
have created the anti-federal government attitude that has emerged in recent years. It is the
actions of the federal government. President Clinton is not to be blamed for those actions; they
began long before he arrived in Washington. He must bear the responsibility, however, for
allowing those actions to continue, and in fact, to intensify during his watch. Moreover, he, Vice
President Gore and much of the administration appear to be carriers and propagators of the
Omnipotent Institutionus disease which has infiltrated the federal government.

The federal government, in its entirety, is not bad; it is good. It is the best government yet
devised by man. It gets sick from time to time, as it is now, but it can be cured with a healthy
dose of authority ultimous administered directly through the ballot box. A fairly strong dose was
delivered last November. An even stronger dose, delivered in 1996, should work like castor oil
and rid the system entirely of all signs of Omnipotent Institutionus.

Strangely, the disease originates outside the federal government. In fact, those most severely
afflicted with the disease, (Bruce Babbitt, Carol Browner, George Frampton, Rafe Pomerance,
and many others) came to the federal government from organizations who actually want the
federal government to be consumed by Omnipotent Institutionus. These organizations are
convinced that they alone know how society should be organized, how other people should live,
and what other people should and should not do. These organizations realize that the only way
they can impose their vision of how everyone else should live is through an omnipotent federal
government.

These organizations are in a life or death struggle for survival. It took most of the century for
them to gain access to the federal government and they are not going to give it up without a fight.
And they are fighting. Those senior officials within the federal government are fighting with
misinformation, disinformation, lies, character assassination, name-calling, intimidation,
prosecution, confiscation, and anything else they can get away with. Those organizations outside
the federal government are fighting with an even broader array of weapons, including, in some

54
cases, violence.

Earth First! openly advocates violence. The group known only as "FC" which claims
responsibility for 16 bombings and three deaths told the New York Times they will continue their
terrorism unless they get their way. The difference between these groups that openly advocate
violence and the organizations from which our current administration emerged is simply a
difference of tactics. Their philosophy and objectives are the same. Dave Foreman, who
founded Earth First! was a lobbyist for the Wilderness Society. George Frampton was President
of the Wilderness Society when he was appointed head of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The
"FC" unabomber, who killed Gil Murray at the California Forestry Association, said in his letter
that their objective was to "break down society into very small, completely autonomous units,"
and to bring about the "...destruction of the worldwide industrial system."

Dave Foreman has written extensively about this same objective. His new organization, the
Cenozoic Society, and its publication Wild Earth, created the Wildlands Project with extensive
help from Dr. Reed F. Noss and funding from the National Audubon Society and The Nature
Conservancy. John Davis, editor of Wild Earth, says that his publication and the Wildlands
Project "...advocate the end of industrial civilization." Dr. Reed F. Noss was hired by Bruce
Babbitt to produce a special report for the Department of Interior to serve as the basis for
implementing the Wildlands Project in America. The Sierra Club has embraced the concept
and has identified 21 bioregions that cover the entire United States. The United Nations has
adopted the concept in its Global Biodiversity Assessment and specified the Wildlands Project
as the ideal to be followed by nations bound to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The way to stop this foolishness is for the people of America to deliver a heavy, undiluted dose
of authority ultimous, administered directly through the ballot box, at every opportunity.


55
Col 139 July, 1995
Authority Ultimous at work

By Henry Lamb


Despite the howls of virtually every Green Advocacy Group (GAG) and the promise of a
Presidential veto, the new House Republican majority moved matter-of-factly ahead with the
exercise of authority ultimous when it voted 240 to 185 to enact the Clean Water Amendments of
1995 (HR961). While the Act addresses an array of clean water issues, it is Title VIII that has
the GAGs in a dither: the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995.
Omnipotent institutionus emerged in the mid 1980s when the Corps of Engineers (COE) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to prosecute people for modifying mudholes - on
their own property.

Ocie Mills went to jail for dumping 19 loads of building sand on a 65-foot building lot.


John Poszgai went to jail for cleaning up an illegal dump.

Miles Runk died during a two-year fight to get a fill permit so he could sell a lot to pay his wife's
funeral expenses. Under the law passed by the House, none of these tragedies would have
occurred. None would have been required to even ask the federal government for permission to
use their own property - and the GAGs and other proponents of omnipotent institutionus are
having a hissy.

The new law takes substantial power away from the federal government and returns it to
individuals where it belongs, while providing ample protection for the public interest in
wetlands. Moreover, the new law honors the Constitution and the principle of private property
rights by guaranteeing that land owners will be compensated when their property value is
diminished by 20 percent or more to benefit the public.

The GAGs call this law the "Polluters Bill of Rights." To generate opposition to this bill in the
Senate, a coalition of GAGs has launched a reported $2 million advertising campaign to distort
the facts, deceive the public, and disparage the individuals who champion authority ultimous.
The new law recognizes that not all wetlands are created equal. Under the old law (current
policy), a one-foot square mudhole is subject to the same protection as the Everglades. (Mike
Strizki was actually fined $6,000 for allowing a telephone pole to be planted in what the
government called a wetland). The new law creates three categories of wetlands based on their
ecological value: type "A" wetlands are 10 or more contiguous acres that provide "critical"
wetland functions. That means that they are wet. Type "B" wetlands are those that provide
"significant" wildlife habitat. Both types require a federal permit before modification. Type "C"
wetlands are those that provide neither significant wetland function nor wildlife habitat - a 65-
foot building lot, for example. Type "C" wetlands may be modified without a permit from the
government.

56
The new law also exempts "normal" farming operations and maintenance of drainage systems
from the permitting process. Bob Brace, a Pennsylvania farmer, has been fighting the wetland
policy for nearly seven years because the federal government says that by cleaning his ditches he
is polluting the "waters of the United States." The new law would give Bob's land back to him
and allow him to continue his farming operations without intrusions from the omnipotent
institutionus.

President Clinton has vowed to veto the law if it reaches his desk because the compensation
provision would, as the GAGs describe it, force taxpayers to pay polluters not to pollute. Several
issues arise from such a deceptive characterization: is cleaning out a farm ditch, or dumping
building sand on one's own property, or removing old tires and refrigerators from your own
property actually polluting? Omnipotent institutionus says it is; authority ultimous says it is not.
Should Dave Lucus be compensated when the government prevents him from building a home
on his beachfront lot - because it is the last undeveloped lot on the beach? Omnipotent
institutionus (and the GAGs) say no; authority ultimous (and the new House majority) say
absolutely!

The GAGs contend that compensating property owners when their value is diminished by
regulatory land use restrictions will break the bank. They are correct; it is now breaking the bank
of the individual land owners who are forced to pay the price for the public benefit. If regulatory
land use restrictions are necessary to protect the public interest, then by all means, the public
must pay the price. The fact is, that without accountability forced by free market pricing, federal
and state agencies have no constraints. As long as someone else has to pay, government
agencies have no reluctance to regulate. The new law forces government to pay for regulatory
restrictions from their own budgets. What better way to induce responsibility into the regulatory
process. Chances are very good that an agency will think long and hard about the real value of a
wetland if the cost of protecting the wetland must come from their budget rather than from the
pocket of the land owner.

The new wetland law is not law yet. It must be approved by the Senate where it is sure to be
sabotaged by the GAGs, and it must muster enough support to override a Presidential veto (or to
Veto the President). This law is a classic battle between omnipotent institutionus and authority
ultimous.



57
Col 140 July, 1995
The Global Battlefield


Omnimpotent institutionus is a tonge-in-cheek term used to describe those people who sincerely
believe that society prospers when controlled by an omnipotent government. Authority ultimous
is used to describe those people who sincerely believe that society prospers when allowed to
evolve naturally as the result of individuals seeking to satisfy their own self-interests. The
conflict is as old as society. Historically, in most cultures, one group will prevail for a time only
to be overthrown by the other group. The authority ultimous group created America and its
views and values prevailed for nearly 200 years. Throughout the last half of the 20th century,
the omnipotent institutionus view gained substantial strength, primarily through the modern
environmental movement. Resistance to the growing strength began to emerge in the mid 1980s
through community organizations now known as "wise use" or property rights groups. The
Republican sweep last November represents the most serious threat to the omnipotent institionus
view so far encountered. But the conflict was not resolved in November. The battle rages in
Washington, in virtually every state and community, and throughout the world.

The reason omnipotent institutionus was able to make such remarkable progress in such a short
period of time is because the people who believe government control is best for society have
organized, developed a long-range global strategy, and are working diligently to achieve their
vision of the perfect society. The November election was but a single, and relatively minor,
victory for authority ultimous on a global battlefield. The day after the election, omnipotent
institutionus began damage control maneuvers and shifted into high gear with strategies to
counter the opposition. While authority ultimous basks in its victory, new battles on far-flung
battlefields are being prepared.

The Clean Water Amendments, recently passed by the House, as well as the other provisions of
the Contract with America, are mostly diversions from the other battlefields that are now, or will
soon be under siege. The Endangered Species Act will soon be the focus in Washington as
authority ultimous attempts to bring the same kind of common sense to regulatory control as it
exercised in the Clean Water Amendments. Omnipotent institutionus will howl and scream and
flush tons of hyperbolic propaganda through the media. All the while, nearly unnoticed, or
deliberately ignored, the many faces of omnipotent institutionus will continue to exert its power
and influence.

In America, the Columbia River Basin is under siege. The area is designated as a high priority
bioregion by the Wildlands Project and is being attacked by dozens of non-government
organizations (NGOs) with law suits and a variety of regulatory control proposals. The
Department of Interior has two studies underway in addition to a nation-wide analysis of what
needs to be regulated conducted by none other than the man who wrote the Wildlands Project,
Dr. Reed F. Noss. In New York, the state drew a line around six million acres and called it a
park, never mind that half of the area is privately owned. The Adirondack Park Agency has the
power to virtually control all land use within the area. This technique is being duplicated
through Heritage Corridor programs. No state is free from coordinated projects aimed at getting

58
land away from the control of individuals and under the control of omnipotent institutionus.

It is not just land and natural resources that are subject to control by omnipotent institutionus.
The Oklahoma City bombing is being used as an excuse to vastly expand the power of
government to infringe upon the freedom of individuals. Telephone companies are already
required to provide automatic access for wire-taps in new digital equipment as the result of a law
passed last year. Now, anti-terrorism proposals would give the federal government even more
power to snoop and make it illegal for individuals to send encrypted computer messages without
first giving government access to the encryption key. Similar proposals provide expanded
authority for the federal government to infiltrate organizations which might be "suspected" of
anti-government activity. Under Clinton's proposals, the military could be used to perform
police activities. These omnipotent institutionus ideas and proposals should conjure up images
of the KGB is the former Soviet Union or the SS of Hitler's Germany. There should be no place
in America for these measures.

At the same time, proponents of omnipotent institutionus are working to exact new economic
penalties upon authority ultimous. Under a Nobel Prize winning proposal offered by James
Tobin, every international monetary transaction would be taxed to provide an estimated $1.5
trillion annually to the United Nations organizations. Such an infusion of money, a hundred and
fifty times more than is now spent by the UN, would finance a standing global army, as has been
proposed by the Commission on Global Governance. It would also free the UN organizations of
any dependence upon, or accountability to its member nations. It would create the ultimate
omnipotent institutionus which has clearly demonstrated its disdain for authority ultimous
through the Conventions on Climate Change and Biological Diversity.

The conflict between the two views of the perfect society is raging at a level never before
experienced. The current battle is not being fought with nuclear threats, but with propaganda,
fear, hyperbole, deception, regulation, treaties, and with any other device that serves to control
individuals within a society. Authority ultimous cannot relax; the real battle lies ahead, both at
home and on the global battlefields.



59
Col 141 August, 1995
Wetland Reform

By Henry Lamb

The House of Representatives has reformed the nation's wetland policy in the adoption of the
Clean Water Amendments of 1995 (HR961). Green advocacy groups (GAGs) have gone
ballistic and the President has vowed to veto the bill if it reaches his desk. Clearly, the nation's
wetland policy must be reformed and the measures offered by the House are an excellent
beginning.

Under current rules, any land, regardless of size or location, can be designated "wetland" if
moisture is found within 18 inches of the surface for seven days during the growing season. The
land itself may be dry. The new policy would require that water be present at the surface for 21
consecutive days during the growing season for the majority of years that records have been
kept. A wetland would also have to produce vegetation that grows only in wet conditions.

Under current rules, a one-square foot area is subject to federal jurisdiction. And even
inadvertent alteration could subject the land owner to fines. The current wetland policy provides
an excuse for federal land use control; it has very little to do with protecting environmentally
significant wetlands.

The new policy establishes a classification system that recognizes the fact that not every
mudhole is a valuable wetland. Under the new policy, Type A wetlands are those which are of
critical significance to long-term conservation, which serve critical wetland functions, and
consist of ten or more acres. These wetlands are still fully protected and require a permit before
any alteration. Type B wetlands are those which provide habitat for a significant population of
wetland dependent wildlife, or provide other significant wetlands functions. These too, are fully
protected and require a permit before alteration. Type C wetlands are those which serve limited
wetlands functions, or are prior converted cropland, or are within industrial, commercial or
residential complexes or other intensely developed areas. Type C wetlands need no permit
before alteration.

This provision has the GAGs gagging. The Sierra Club sent out an alert through the Internet
claiming that the House bill "would permit increased pollution and allow destruction of over half
of the nation's remaining wetlands." The pollution standards in the new Act remain the same;
Type C wetlands, as defined in the bill, are essentially mudholes on private property which the
federal government had no business confiscating in the first place. The Sierra Club and a host of
other GAGs have cranked up their lobbying campaigns and their media barrage of
disinformation to try to persuade the Senate to gut the wetland reform passed by the House.

The President's opposition stems from the compensation provisions of the new policy. The
House bill provides compensation for land owners when the value of their property is diminished
by as much as 20 percent as a result of a wetland determination. The new bill is quite specific.

60
The burden of proof rests with the government and the responsibility for payment rests with the
agency making the determination. The land owner is provided with several options. This
provision complies with the Fifth Amendment guarantee that "...nor shall private property be
taken without just compensation...." Yet, the President says we can't afford to pay, and the
GAGs say the bill requires taxpayers to "pay polluters not to pollute."

The bill represents a common-sense approach to protecting real wetlands while not interfering
with private property rights and economic development. It cleared the House by a vote of 240 to
185, 50 votes less than the number required to override a Presidential veto. The Senate is just
beginning to work on the controversial issue. Senator John Chafee (R-RI) chairs the Committee
of jurisdiction and he, despite his Republican heritage, is prone to cower before the vocal, well-
funded GAG lobby. The House bill, at least the wetlands portion, was authored by a Democrat,
Jimmy Hayes of Louisiana. He has tried for four years to get his wetland reforms to the floor for
a vote. Ironically, it took a Republican majority to adopt the reforms. The issue should not
be partisan. The issue is clear: private property rights. When the government finds it necessary
to restrict land use for the good of all the people, then all the people should pay the cost, not the
individual land owner who happens to have the misfortune of owning the particular property the
government wants.



61
Col 142 August, 1995
Endangered Species Reform

By Henry Lamb

As a tool to protect and recover endangered species, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)
is an abject failure; it is, however, an enormous success as a tool to impose federal land use
control. In the 22 years of its existence, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent and not
a single species has been legitimately delisted. The number of species listed has grown to more
than 900 and there are more than 4,000 additional species nominated for listing. Almost every
county in America is home to one or more endangered species. That means, simply, that the
federal government has regulatory jurisdiction everywhere an endangered species roams, or
might roam. The ESA is first and foremost, a land-use control Act; it must be reformed.

Like the Clean Water Act, the ESA was scheduled for reauthorization four years ago. Green
advocacy groups (GAGs) and the Democratic majority kept both bills off the table for fear that
property owners might affect changes in the law. Under the Republican majority, the ESA is
destined to be rewritten.

Land owners and resource providers have been working for years to make Congress aware of the
flaws in the existing law and the horrible impact of the law's enforcement upon certain
individuals. Congress has turned a deaf ear, until now. In March, a group met in Washington to
create the Grassroots ESA Coalition. More than 300 groups from all 50 states quickly joined in
an effort to counter-balance the influence of the GAGs. The Coalition seeks to repeal the
existing law and replace it with a law based on several principles that are totally unacceptable to
the GAGs:

Animals and plants should be responsibly conserved for the benefit and enjoyment of
mankind;
The primary responsibility for conservation of animals and plants shall be reserved to
the states;
Federal conservation efforts shall rely entirely on voluntary, incentive-based programs;
Federal conservation efforts shall encourage conservation through commerce, including
the private propagation of animals and plants;
Specific safeguards shall ensure that this Act cannot be used to prevent the wise use of
the vast federal estate;
Federal conservation decisions shall incur the lowest cost possible to citizens and
taxpayers;
Federal conservation efforts shall be based on sound science (independently peer-
reviewed).

These principles shift the whole strategy of species conservation from "command-and-control"
by the federal government, to ideas and initiatives of the private sector and local government.
The conservation failures have come under the ESA; the success stories come from the initiative

62
of the private sector.

Wild turkeys were all but extinct less than fifty years ago. Without an ESA, the Wild Turkey
Association undertook a conservation program which placed turkeys on private lands. Wild
turkeys have recovered and now provide an annual harvest of 550,000 birds which produce
nearly $600 million in economic activity. Turkeys could be placed on private property without
the land owner having to relinquish control of his property to the federal government. Imagine
the land owner's response to a request to release a pair of spotted owls on his property;
automatically, the federal government would take effective control of the land and the owner
would be allowed to pay taxes - and little else.

The eastern blue bird was in danger of extinction because another bird raided the nest.
Innovative bird lovers designed a nesting box with a hole big enough for the blue bird, but too
small for the predator. By widely distributing the bird house, the blue bird made a startling
recovery. Compare that success to the way the federal government approached conservation of
the red harvest woodpecker. Millions of acres were declared "critical habitat," land owners were
not allowed to harvest timber crops or to use their land for other purposes. Again and again, the
current command-and-control philosophy of more and more regulations results in hardship for
people and failure for the critters.

The ESA must be reformed. Several bills are now pending in both the House and the Senate.
Whatever eventually comes out under the name Endangered Species Act, should remove the
command-and-control authority from the federal government, make federal policy advisory and
voluntary, and leave conservation of species up to the people who have a direct stake in the
outcome, and who are directly accountable to the voters.



63
Col 143 August, 1995
Citizen Suit Reform

By Henry Lamb

A study of only four of the nation's Green advocacy groups (GAGs) revealed that between 1985
and 1994, 103 different law suits were filed, under ten different statutes, which forced eight
federal agencies to pay more than $4 million to the GAGs for attorney fees and expenses.
This money is not damage awards it is simply attorney fees and expenses incurred by the GAGs
that filed the law suits.

The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund was the big winner. The Sierra Club was second, followed
by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
Citizen suits have become the weapon of choice for GAGs. There are now 132 different statutes
under which "citizens" may sue the government or private industry or individuals for non-
compliance. These suits are often frivolous, always create havoc, and are frequently extremely
costly.

The audacity of the GAGs is exemplified in a suit filed by the Defenders of Wildlife in which the
GAG alleged that two of its members had traveled to Egypt and Sri Lanka and had visited
ecologically sensitive areas which had subsequently become the sites of large-scale development
projects. Since the projects had been funded in part by the federal government through USAID,
the members had been deprived of the opportunity to observe ecologically sensitive wildlife at
the site on future visits, and therefore, were entitled to recover damages.

Chester McConnell, representative of the Wildlife Management Institute sued Annie Laurie
James because she cleaned out a drainage ditch on her property which, McConnell alleged,
deprived him of the opportunity to watch birds that no longer frequented the James' ditch. James
ultimately settled the suit by placing 189 acres of her property in a perpetual easement, forever
untouchable, but forever taxable.

The attorney fees taxpayers are forced to pay for these obnoxious law suits are the least, though
irritating, of the negative consequences. Frequently, the suits are intended to do nothing more
than to stop a construction project or a timber sale. Delay and legal fees have prompted many a
project sponsor to abandon the project. That, of course, is the objective of these suits. Often, out
of court settlements result in giant pay-offs for the plaintiff. Large corporations would much
prefer to pay GAGs blackmail than to experience the bad press and delays that litigation often
brings. Finally, law suits result in complete shut-down of economic activity as in the case of the
spotted owl. Initially, the spotted owl was not listed as endangered. It was the result of GAG
sponsored lawsuits by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund and others that shut down the
northwest threw thousands of people out of jobs, and gave each pair of owls several thousand
acres of prime timber. The fact that the gaggle of GAGs that filed the suits turned around and
charged the taxpayers more than $2 million for attorney fees is just more salt in the wound.


64
Citizen suit provisions of environmental, and other legislation, must be reformed. Citizens
should have access through the courts to redress industry or government when a legitimate cause
of action can be demonstrated. Citizens have that access in common law. The citizen suit
provision could be stricken from all statutes and citizens that experience "injury in fact" can still
sue either the government or industry. GAGs interpret the citizen suit provisions to mean that
they can sue in behalf of bugs and lizards, trees and rocks, or future generations for the alleged
loss of possible benefits such as visiting an ecologically sensitive site, or watching birds.

No one in the federal government is monitoring these citizen suits. No one knows the magnitude
of the adverse impact they are having on property rights or on the economy. The General
Accounting Office should begin an investigation immediately to survey the damage, and then
Congress should begin to tighten the standing provisions of all legislation to require that "injury
in fact" has occurred before any citizen, or any GAG, can clutter the courts, rob the taxpayer, and
derail development.



65
Col 144 August, 1995
Property Rights Reform

By Henry Lamb

Twelve states have enacted some form of private property rights protection legislation.
Similar legislation has been introduced in 33 other states. Both the House and the Senate are
grappling with the property rights issue. What is the problem? Why, after 200 years of an
unchallenged policy of private property rights, is there a need to redefine just what those rights
are?
Despite the enormous progress that has been made by Americans, living under the
principle of private property rights, many people believe that individual rights to private property
are less important than the "public" rights to private property. Green advocacy groups (GAGs)
line up behind the notion that air, water, wildlife, trees, and rocks, cannot be "owned" by an
individual; they are "public" resources that should be communally owned and managed by a
central government. It is this fundamental difference in the way property is seen that creates the
conflict in environmental policy.
America has proven the validity of Arthur Young's 1787 observation: "Give a man the
secure possession of bleak rock, and he will turn it into a garden; give him a nine years lease of
a garden, and he will convert it to a desert...." Americans took secure possession of a bleak,
hostile continent and made it the garden spot of the world. Eastern Europe, on the other hand,
gave its people a lease on a cultivated garden which quickly devolved into an environmental
desert. The difference is the ownership of private property.
Early efforts to protect the environment did not envision the wholesale confiscation of
private property rights that dominates current environmental protection policy. The original
Clean Water Act was aimed at "navigable waters of the United States." Through citizen suits
and bureaucratic expansion of legislative intent, the law now extends to any mudhole, anywhere
in the country. The Endangered Species Act further extends federal jurisdiction to virtually any
land which an endangered or threatened species may wish to occupy.
Ecosystem management policies now being implemented by the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Environmental Protection Agency consider humans to be a biological resource,
and the property they own to be first and foremost habitat to be restored, rehabilitated, and
managed for the benefit of biodiversity - not necessarily for the benefit of the land owner. The
principle of

private property rights is being ignored by the agencies of government because those agencies
are now dominated by individuals who formerly ran the GAGs which filed the lawsuits and
lobbied the government to adopt the "public" resource philosophy instead of the private property
rights philosophy.
Without the secure possession of private property, all other rights, liberties, and freedoms
become hollow, empty vessels. It is the right to possess, use, manipulate, and profit from private
property that empowers the individual to speak freely, to build houses of worship, to choose
Democrat or Republican - to live free! Without economic independence, the individual becomes
a vassal, hardly more than a slave, to the government that regulates and controls individual

66
choices and eventually all individual activity.
History has clearly demonstrated that such systems are doomed to failure. They are
fatally flawed and must inevitably result in collapse. Such systems of central planning and
central control are the opposite of natural law. Individuals of every species "own" the space they
possess and use it freely at the expense of other species - until the space is occupied by another.
It is this process, often chaotic, often violent, that advances the species. Individual humans have
found ways to mitigate the chaos and violence, but retain the benefits of the process. The result
has been an unparalleled advancement of the species. The domination by the "public resource"
philosophy in recent years has slowed human advancement and threatens the same kind of
stagnation that ultimately destroyed the former Soviet Union. Individual property owners
recognize this threat and are rising to remove it. That's why more than 130 separate bills have
been introduced into state legislatures to protect private property rights. That's why dozens of
bills have been introduced in Congress, all of which are designed to enforce the Constitutional
guarantee that in America, the right to own and use private property shall not be abridged by the
government.



67
Col 145 September, 1995
Sustainable Development: Beware!

By Henry Lamb

Sustainable Development means: development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Who could argue with
such a noble objective? This definition was developed by the original Brundtland Commission,
and formally adopted by the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD, which was
created by Executive Order 12852 on June 29, 1993. For two years, now, the Council has been
moving steadily forward with policy recommendations that will eventually find their way into
administrative rules, legislation, and virtually every citizen's life. The idea of Sustainable
Development, as defined above sounds much more noble than it appears in practice.

In the first instance, the very term - Sustainable Development - implies that current development
is not sustainable. No one seems to have challenged that assumption. The PCSD is moving
forward as if it were a proven fact that current development is not sustainable. The work of the
PCSD rests upon the assumption that current development activities will inevitably result in
catastrophic collapse of not only America, but of the entire planet. Where is the evidence that
supports such an assumption? Somehow, Vice President Al Gore has managed to sidestep the
evidence issue and move forward on the assumption. The result is a high-powered Presidential
Commission that is having profound influence on how individual citizens live their lives.

The Council consists of 25 members and three ex-officio members. The Co-Chairs are: Jonathan
Lash, President of World Resources Institute (WRI), and David T. Buzelli, Vice President of
Dow Chemical Company. It should be noted that the World Resources Institute was created in
1982 by Russell E. Train, (then head of the World Wildlife Fund - USA) with substantial grants
from the Rockerfeller Brothers Fund and the MacArthur Foundation. Gustave Speth was
appointed President and served until his appointment to the Clinton/Gore transition team, from
which he moved directly to head the United Nations Development Program. Speth's assistant,
Rafe Pomerance, moved directly to the U.S. State Department as Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Environment, Health and Natural Resources. It is little wonder that Clinton (Gore) turned again
to the WRI for leadership of the PCSD. Since its inception, WRI has been one of three non-
government organizations (NGOs) that have been primarily responsible for the development and
implementation of the Global Environmental Agenda. That fact largely accounts for the
similarity between the PCSD documents and the bizarre ideas that permeate the environmental
agenda of international organizations.

Dow Chemical was named to give the impression that the Council is balanced between
environmentalists and industry. Ha! The Council is unbalanced. A full third of the members are
head honchos of major green advocacy groups (GAGs) including Jay Hair, National Wildlife
Federation; John Sawhill, Nature Conservancy; Michele Perrault, Sierra Club; John Adams,
Natural Resources Defense Council; and Fred Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund. Another
third consists of government officials with such notable objectivity as Carol Browner; EPA,

68
Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Department of Interior; Mike Espy, Secretary of Agriculture; and
Hazel O'Leary, Secretary of Energy. Free enterprise, property rights, and the little guy are
represented on the Council by such industry giants as Dow Chemical, and Browning Ferris
Industries' William D. Ruckelshaus, the former EPA Administrator who banned DDT despite the
scientific recommendations to the contrary, and then admitted it was a "political" decision.

Even if the industry representatives wanted to represent the little guy, their vote would be
overwhelmed by the two-thirds that are died-in-the-wool green. Industry reps were chosen
carefully, however. The industries represented on the Council are among the largest contributors
to green organizations. At least two are participants in the Environmental Grantmakers
Association. The Council was constructed to give the impression of balance, but with a certainty
of outcome. The recommendations that will come from this group were written long before the
group was convened. And they were written by the international environmental community.

This high-octane Presidential Council is writing rules that will impact every single citizen. The
ideas advanced so far are directly out of the Global Environmental Agenda. Most of the ideas
are designed to control individuals, restrict property rights, convert private resources to
"communal" wealth, and call it all - Sustainable Development.



69
Col 146 September, 1995
Sustainable Development: The First Principle

By Henry Lamb

The President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) has developed 16 principles that
they have determined are necessary to adopt in order to achieve "sustainability." The first
principle is:

"We must preserve and, where possible, restore the health and regenerative capacity of
natural systems, including soils, water, air, and living organisms, that are essential to
both economic prosperity and human life itself."

Wow! Note the use of the word "preserve" not "conserve." Note the use of the word "restore."
These words have special meaning in the context of sustainable development. "Preserve" means
to lock up as much as 50% of the nation's land area in wilderness, with another 25% "managed"
under the control of government. "Restore" means to return degraded ecosystems to their
"natural" condition before the impact of human activity. Does that sound bizarre or what? The
PSCD documents speak only of the wonderful benefits that are to be derived from sustainable
development; they do not speak of the costs. The idea of sustainable development, however, did
not arise in a vacuum. It is a part of an overall strategy which originated in the international
environmental community, was woven through the fabric of international organizations, and is
now being fitted for the uniforms of Americans, distributed by the President's Council on
Sustainable Development.

On June 14, 1992, World leaders, including President George Bush, adopted the UNCED
Declaration at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de
Janeiro. That document is the foundation of many of the policies that are now becoming law in
America. Principle 7 says: States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve,
protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth's ecosystems. To implement this
principle, UNCED leaders unveiled the Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodiversity
Treaty) which has now been ratified by 106 of 169 Signatory nations. Principle 17 calls for an
"Environmental impact assessment." The Biodiversity Treaty requires a Global Biodiversity
Assessment (GBA), which is scheduled for release in July, 1995, and Bruce Babbitt has created a
National Biological Survey (now renamed National Biological Service NBS), which, in fact,
complies with the requirements of the Global Environmental Agenda. It is the GBA which gives
meaning to the words "preserve" and "restore" in the President's Council documents.

The UNCED Declaration of 1992 gave authority to the idea of Sustainable Development and the
Biodiversity Treaty. The Biodiversity Treaty gave authority to the GBA and the NBS. It is the
GBA that specifically states that preserving and restoring natural systems should follow the form
established by the Wildlands Project, authored by Dr. Reed F. Noss. And it is no accident that
the same Dr. Reed F. Noss works for Bruce Babbitt and has prepared the first report on
ecosystems that should be preserved and restored. The first principle of the President's Council
on Sustainable Development is to implement the requirements of the Biodiversity Treaty - even

70
though the Senate refused to ratify the treaty in 1994.

The PCSD is only one of several different initiatives at work, all of which are designed to
implement the objectives of the Biodiversity Treaty, with or without Senate ratification or
Congressional approval. The Biosphere Reserve Program, Heritage Corridors, Wilderness
designation, Parks expansion, Scenic River designation, and a host of localized lock-it-up
initiatives all work toward the eventual transfer of private property and resources to government
control.

The PCSD task force on natural resources lists as its first objective: "Create a network of
conservation areas for each bio-region in the country based on public/private partnerships...."
The mission of the United States Biosphere Reserve Program: "...is to establish and support a
U.S. network of designated biosphere reserves...," of which there are already 47 in the United
States. The GBA says that bioregions should be patterned after the Wildlands Project, and the
Wildlands Project says that "At least half of the land area of the 48 coterminous states should be
encompassed in core reserves and inner corridor zones."

There is no question that domestic environmental policy has been overwhelmed by the Global
Environmental Agenda. The international objectives are being implemented in America under
the guise of apple pie and motherhood by the use of terms such as sustainable development, and
under the auspices of thinly veiled, GAG controlled policy makers such as the President's
Council on Sustainable Development.



71
Col 147 September, 1995
Sustainable Development: What It Will Cost

By Henry Lamb

To achieve sustainable development, the President's Council recommends an "...effort to advance
the use of building codes in securing environmental benefits. These would involve sources and
choices of materials, siting, design, construction process, and landscaping." Building codes
generally are used to insure safe construction; the President's Council wants to extend
government authority all the way to design, siting, and landscaping decisions. That sounds
pretty ominous to people who believe government is already too intrusive, but the truth is, this
recommendation is only a suggestion of what is really meant, and what is really intended by the
designers of the sustainable development concept.

Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development, told the gathering in Rio that "...frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels,
appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not
sustainable." If the authority to regulate building codes is given to green building police, air-
conditioning and single-family homes could be outlawed. There is no question that both are seen
to be unsustainable by those who dreamed up the idea of sustainability.

The President's Council also recommends "...shifting the tax burden...toward consumption...to
promote a more progressive system of taxation...." With the authority to tax natural resources,
the government could control the entire marketplace. To stop logging, simply increase the tax on
wood and paper products. To remove cattle from public lands, or to reduce the intake of red
meat, impose a tax on beef. To control the flow of consumer products, and thereby reduce
consumption - tax fossil fuels.

The real goal of sustainable development is the reduction of consumption in developed countries.
Andy Kerr, head of the Oregon Natural Resources Council (which is affiliated with the
Wildlands Project) advocates a forced reduction of consumption by as much as 75 percent.
Proposals advanced at the recent Climate Change Conference in Berlin to reduce carbon dioxide
emission to 1990 levels is nothing more than an effort to reduce fossil fuel energy consumption
by 60 to 80 percent. Such a reduction in energy use would automatically result in staggering
price increases which would cause a corresponding reduction in consumption. These are some
of the costs of sustainable development.

But there is more. The President's Council recommends the creation of a program to label and
certify sustainable products. "An appropriate third-party, non-governmental entity will be
supported with federal funds to certify...environmental[ly] superior products." An NGO will be
selected to pass judgment on which products are sustainable. What happened to the idea of free
markets? What happened to competition? When did the government get into the business of
telling private citizens what kind of house to build, where to build it, what kind of flowers to
plant, which products to buy, - and, by taxing resources, what price they will pay? This is part of
the cost of sustainable development.

72

But there is still more. The President's Council recommends the development of "...a reasonable
stewardship ethic." The recommendation proposes to transform the Department of Education, to
utilize the Departments of Labor and Commerce, the National Science Foundation and the
National Endowment of the Humanities in programs of blatant social engineering designed to
"...contribute to individuals having time for community and family and reducing their
consumption."

In keeping with the Global Environmental Agenda, the President's Council recommends:
"Establish a bold new performance-based environmental management system immediately to
transform the...environmental regulatory system that is currently in place. The new system will
continuously improve the nation's environmental quality, enhance economic competitiveness,
and produce greater social equity...." There is nothing in the recommendation that distinguishes
management of private lands from public lands. There is nothing to suggest that property rights
are to be observed, let alone protected. There is, however, a recommendation to expand the
authority of NGOs (non-government organizations) in the oversight and monitoring of
management activity. The Global Biodiversity Assessment contains a similar recommendation
under the guise of public/private partnerships.

Sustainable development is the buzz word of the 21st century. In the 70s, "environmental
protection" was used to cover a multitude of intrusions into private property rights. In the 80s,
"biodiversity" was born and was used to further erode individual liberty. Now, "sustainable
development" encompasses both and, like pac-man, is gobbling up what remains of free
enterprise and individual rights in America.



73
Col 148 September 1995
Sustainable Development: What It Should Be

By Henry Lamb

Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs - is a noble idea. In some form, every parent has fostered
that idea. Every parent strives to pass on to future generations a better opportunity for the child
to not only meet his own needs, but to prosper and enjoy the experience of life. Nature built that
instinct into the human species. Government need not declare it. Government need not pursue
it. Government should not attempt to enforce it. In so doing, government can only obscure the
individual's hope of providing for his own posterity.

Sustainable development has always occurred, and will continue to occur - if people are allowed
to function naturally - without excessive manipulation by artificial and arbitrary governmental
authority. Herein lies the great conflict: those who govern, or would govern, cannot believe that
people can or will govern themselves. It is beyond the collective comprehension of bureaucrats
to accept the idea that people seeking their own self interest can result in anything other than
chaos. The truth is that people seeking their own self interest is the only way development can
occur in an orderly fashion. Only when government is granted or assumes the authority to
manage people does development stagnate, and people are pushed into poverty.

Of course there are inequities and abuses when people pursue their own self interest; there are
inequities and abuses among every species as each member pursues its own self interest. Nature
designed it that way and it will not change simply because the President's Council on Sustainable
Development recommends a change. The only thing that will change is the individual's ability to
pursue his own self interest.

There are also inevitable inequities and abuses when government imposes its management
regime. The difference is that individual abuses tend to be self-correcting; government abuses
tend to become institutionalized. For example, when an individual uses his territory (land) in a
way that damages his neighbor, the neighbor has immediate recourse: negotiation, a club,
shotgun, or court of law - depending on the stage of civilization that may exist. On the other
hand, when the government declares dry and dusty land to be a wetland, the individual has no
recourse - his ability to pursue is own self interest is thwarted. His ability to meet his own needs
and provide for the needs of future generations is reduced and government is free to move on to
the next individual with its heavy hand of institutional abuse.

Government regulator types argue that the massive number of people now on the planet make it
impossible to allow individuals to pursue their own self interest. The claim is that people are
devouring "biodiversity" and soon there will be nothing left to feed people or critters.
There is nothing new about that claim. It first appeared in the 1600s. It is repeated every decade
or so. The claim was wrong in the 1600s, in the 1800s and in the 1900s. The claim that the earth
cannot support the life it spawns is perhaps the most arrogant assertion of pseudo knowledge that
can be expressed by a human.

74
No one knows the capacity, the capability, the resilience, or the resolve of nature. We know that
nature is self-regulating. When nature is abused by man, termites, or volcanos, it recovers.
When a pasture is overgrazed and no longer provides grass enough to feed cows, the cow owner
moves his cows - and the pasture recovers. Man has learned to temper the grazing to provide an
optimum balance between his pasture's capability and his cow's requirement. That balance is
honed most precisely by the person who owns the resource - not by a government bureaucrat or
an idealistic do-gooder in a distant city.

It is hard to believe, but nonetheless true, that sustainable development will occur in direct
correlation with the absence of government regulation: the less regulation imposed upon people,
the greater the sustainability of resources and development; when more regulation is imposed
upon people, sustainability, prosperity, and individual liberty suffer. The President's Council on
Sustainable Development obviously disagrees with this observation despite 80 centuries of
evidence. Because the idea is sanctioned by the international community, shrouded in a cloak of
Presidential respectability, articulated by a Council of day-glo big wigs, sustainable development
has become little more than camouflage to conceal the outright theft of the individual's ability to
meet his own needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.



75
Col 149 October, 1995
Reorganizing society

By Henry Lamb

Hiroshima awakened the world to a new era of warfare. Sputnik awakened the world to a new
era of space exploration. Such awakenings are rare in history; change most often occurs in
relative silence and is recognized only after the fact. The change now underway, occurring in
relative silence, is far more significant than either Hiroshima or Sputnik; it is the planned,
deliberate reorganization of global sociteies.

Al Gore's passionate plea for society to reorganize itself around the principle of rescuing the
environment was praised by the greens and laughed at by others. Most of the world's people,
however, know nothing of the changes that are well underway, nor of the impetus and fuel that
propel the changes that are taking place daily.

The changes are manifested in a myriad of small, seemingly unrelated policy decisions. Over the
last twetny years, nearly every domestic policy decision has been influenced by or determined by
the initiative to reorganize societies around the world.

At the heart of the initiative is a new understanding of man's role in the cosmos. The idea that
man was created by and in the image of God is now seen to be an inadequate view of reality.
The idea that man is nature's crowning jewel is now seen to be completely wrong and arrogantly
self-serving. The new paradigm sweeping the world in silence is based on the gaia hypothesis:
the idea that "...we are part and parcel of a living planetary organism."

Some of the most powerful people on earth are advancing this new enlightenment. Dr. Robert
Muller, former assistant to three UN Secretarys General, describes humans as "...cosmic and
earth cells" of the living planetary organism. "The whole human species has become the brain,
the heart, the soul...of the Earth." Humans are thought to be individual cells among all other life
forms, all of which constitute the living organism that is the planet earth. It is this living
organism, the earth, that evolved the human species. Muller says "This planet has not been
created for humans, but that humans have been created for the planet." He means it quite
literally when he says: "we are living Earth.... This is our newly discovered meaning. We now
have a world brain which determines what can be dangerous or mortal to the planet."

Muller celebrates the role the United Nations has played in advancing this new discovery of the
meaning of human life. He says: "The world is changing very fundamentally in terms of
consciousness, behavior and action. We are in the process of becoming a global civilization.

There is more to come."

He has called for 18 new initiatives beginning with a new world cosmology which would
"explain what the cosmos is expecting from us in our next phase of evolution." He wants a new
world spirituality in "which we will see the integration of humanity with nature...." He has

76
called for "proper planetary management; new world education; new world science [that] must
assume a cosmic responsibility; new world economy;" and in short, a new world organization.

Muller and his colleagues are not only in positions of power to influence such changes, they are
actually initiating these changes around the world, including changes in American domestic
policy. Changes have been most visible in environmental policies where a host of policies have
been designed by "the brain" of the earth which has determined that certain actions are
"dangerous or mortal to the planet."

Policies related to education, population growth, taxation, world trade, and even local
governance, have all been influenced by the newly discovered role man is to play in the new
organization of society. The new paradigm has in fact, permeated virtually every aspect of
American life. It has grown in relative silence and for most Americans it will not even be
discovered until it has become an accomplished fact.




77
Col 150 October, 1995
Education under the gaia principle

By Henry Lamb

Robert Muller is not a household name - but it should be. For forty years, he served as an
assistant to three UN Secretaries General. He now serves as Chancellor of the UN University for
Peace in Costa Rica. More importantly, he developed what is known as the "World Core
Curriculum" for global education.

Muller is not your basic "reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic" educator. He is a devout proponent and
effective advocate of the gaia hypothesis. He believes that the earth is a living organism and that
each living creature is a single cell in the organism. Moreover, he believes that humans represent
the heart, soul, and brain of the organism. He believes that this enlightenment is the result of the
evolutionary process in which the earth created humans for the purpose of protecting the
organism.

To normal people, these ideas may sound as if they came from another planet; to world leaders,
these ideas are gospel. The United Nations Education, Scientific & Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) certified the Robert Muller school in Arlington, Texas in 1985. The purpose of the
school was to develop the World Core Curriculum.

The school's first goal is to "assist the child in becoming an integrated individual who can deal
with personal experience while seeing himself as a part of the greater whole. In other words,
promote growth of the group idea...[and] replace all limited, self-centered objectives." Other
goals include making the child a "planetary citizen" that can balance "spiritual, mental,
emotional, physical, and academic development."

Education, according to the Muller school, is "the training, intelligently given, which will enable
the youth of the world to contact their environment with intelligence and sanity and adapt
themselves to the existing conditions." In short, Muller's World Core Curriculum is designed to
teach children his gaia hypothesis, that they are nothing more than one cell in the living organism
of earth, and that they must behave for the benefit of all other cells, human or not.

Were these ideas confined to a small school in Texas, it wouldn't matter. They are not. These
same ideas emerged in the recent "Education 2000" project. They are being taught as gospel in
UN sponsored Universities around the world, and in the bastions of higher learning throughout
America.

Through the Temple of Understanding at St. John the Divine Cathedral in New York (which also
houses the Gaia Institute), the UN convened a Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary
Leaders for Human Survival. The Advisory Board for this UN Forum almost exactly duplicates
the Board of Advisors of the Temple of Understanding. Robert Muller, of course, is one of the
major advisors.
So thorough has the influence of gaia been on world leaders that Vice President Al Gore

78
delivered a sermon at the Temple of Understanding in which he declared that "God is not
separate from the Earth."

Muller's World Core Curriculum is reaching the children of the world in UN sponsored projects
and through projects funded by Congress and a variety of foundations. The Pew Charitable Trust
has guaranteed funding of up to $50 million per year to launch a children's program called Earth
Force. The National Wildlife Federation churns out Muller-type propaganda by the car load
which is welcomed by most public schools. The main-stream media, especially the Ted Turner-
Jane Fonda networks, pump hours and hours of television programming to children which is
based on the gaia hypothesis.

Education of the world's youth has been underway for nearly a generation. New values are
replacing the old values on which America was built. Rugged individualism, free markets,
personal responsibility, are now outdated ideas, according to the Muller-gaia way of thinking.
Equity, compassion, and reverence of the entire global family (including bugs and lizards) are
now the values of the enlightened.



79
Col 151 October, 1995
Total Reorganization

By Henry Lamb

The idea of reorganizing global societies is nearly beyond comprehension. Nevertheless, it is an
idea in full bloom and societies around the world are in various stages of reorganization.
America is considered to be the pivotal nation; if America succumbs, the rest of the world is a
push-over.

The reason total reorganization is necessary is to defeat a common enemy which threatens to
destroy all life on the planet. The enemy, according to the reorganizers, is man's affluent life
style. Man's quest for wealth is destroying biodiversity and causing the planet to warm so
rapidly that all life is threatened. That is the party line. The consequences of allowing society to
continue developing as it has are catastrophic. Therefore, as Al Gore put it in his book Earth in
the Balance, society must be reorganized - whatever the cost.

Of course, to the reorganizers, it doesn't matter that their contentions are not true. What matters,
according to Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace, is "...what people believe is true." And
people believe that the planet is warming because of man's use of fossil fuel, and that
biodiversity (endangered species) are vanishing at a rate greater than at any time in 65 million
years. Because people believe these doomsday stories despite the availability of solid scientific
evidence to the contrary, the reorganizers are rapidly advancing their reorganization plan.

Global reorganization is based on several discernable principles. First is the gaia hypothesis
which seeks to reorganize all religions of the world into one philosophical notion that the earth is
a living organism which is both responsible for the creation of life and for providing sustanence
for life.

Consistent with the gaia hypothesis is the idea that all resources (biodiversity) are of equal value
and should be used only as required to sustain life. Since humans have developed the capacity
to use far more resources than is required to sustain life, a system must be designed to govern the
quantity of resources that humans may use. Such a system is being designed. The philosophical
underpinning for the system is the idea that resources are "communal property" and therefore,
use of communal property by any individual should require a permit from some authority chosen
to govern the use of resources.

That abstract idea takes on new meaning in the face of the Endangered Species Act.

Trees, which have historically been the property of the land owner, are now habitat for wildlife
which is communal property. Land owners may not use their private property unless a permit is
granted by the federal government. Wetlands may not be used without a permit from the federal
government. Resources along a designated "scenic river" may not be used without a government
permit. And on and on and on.


80
These regulatory restrictions are but meager first steps toward total reorganization. Ultimately,
the global reorganizers expect to have at least half of the land area in the United States
designated as core wilderness areas forever off limits to human populations. An additional 25
percent is to be buffer zones in which humans must secure a permit to conduct any activity.
Humans are expected to live in the remaining 25 percent in what Science magazine calls "islands
of human habitat" surrounded by wilderness.

By outlawing the use of fossil fuel, energy required to manufacture consumer products will be so
scarce that prices will deny most humans the use of goods now taken for granted. By outlawing
chemicals such as chlorine, manufacturing processes are expected to grind to a halt, forcing
humans to live a proper life style. Robert Muller, a champion reorganizer, says: "Simple frugal
lives of five billion people are the most monumental contribution to the environment of this
planet." It is clearly the plan of the reorganizers to force humans to live as peasants in small
societies that worship gaia, under the central authority of the world's elite.



81
Col 152 October, 1995
Governing reorganized societies

By Henry Lamb

For more than a half-century, the President of the United States has been the most powerful
individual on the planet. In the reorganized society of the next century, the President will be
irrelevant, as will the Congress, state and local governments. Governance will occur through
bioregional councils. Such councils are being constructed today throughout America with little
or no recognition of the ultimate consequences.

In 47 Biosphere Reserves in America, and in nearly 300 more around the world, reorganizers are
busy building "partnerships" for the future. These "partnerships" are presented as voluntary
participation agreements which seek solutions to transboundary environmental problems.
Pollution, they say, doesn't stop at the county line and therefore a new mechanism must be
created that reaches across county, state, and even national boundaries. That new mechanism is
called the bioregional council and its work is described in great detail in the Global Biodiversity
Assessment and other documents prepared by various United Nations organizations.

Bioregional councils are not instruments of any government. Yet they may be created by any
government. In every instance, they are dominated by non-government organizations (NGOs).
NGOs are qualified by the United Nations. Qualified NGOs are affiliated with one or more of
the three international NGOs that developed the reorganization plan. NGOs are expected to
provide the local education, and enforcement to control all activities within the bioregion. The
primary enforcement tool is expected to be law suits, filed under the authority of international
treaties where available or federal law when possible. Further enforcement mechanisms have
been built into the World Trade Organization and new punitive tax measures are now proposed
to provide even more enforcement tools.

These bioregional councils are being sold to the public as a way to secure cooperation from all
the stakeholders. They are being sold as non-binding agreements on local governments and
private property owners. Don't you believe it. The Adirondack Park Commission was created
by state law in New York. Its members were appointed. The state designated three million acres
of private property around the existing park as a state park. The commission has the legal power
to control all activity on private property within the buffer zone. It is one of many techniques
being used to create bioregional councils that are beyond the reach of the electorate and that will
ultimately govern the people within the bioregion.

The National Heritage Act of 1995, now pending in Congress, provides for the creation of
bioregional councils under the guise of "stakeholder partnerships." The language of this
particular proposal precludes local government from vetoing actions by the council which may
affect local government. NGOs dominate these councils by design.

Literally thousands of NGOs are at work in virtually every community implementing the
reorganization plan. These NGOs are not to be confused with real grassroots organizations that

82
spring up in neighborhoods to fight some local issue. These NGOs are professionals. Here's the
way it works. The Pew Charitable Trust, for example, gives the Tides Foundation a grant. The
Tides Foundation then funds an office in a particular community with three or four professionals
under the name of some appropriate sounding non-profit organization. The Greater Ecosystem
Alliance is such an NGO, created for the purpose of pushing the Columbia River Basin
Bioregion. These NGOs get their money and their marching orders from the institutions that are
hell-bent to reorganize societies around the world.

The Sierra Club, one of the largest and wealthiest NGOs, has announced that it has divided
America into 21 bioregions and is now in the process of redrawing maps and promoting the
development of bioregional governance throughout.

America is seeing just the beginning of the reorganization process. Although it has been
underway for many years, the evidence is just beginning to appear in the daily lives of average
citizens. America is being reorganized to fit the mold of the gaia-worshiping global
reorganizers.




83
Col 153 November, 1995
International Intrigue

By Henry Lamb


It is not the black helicopters nor the white, U.N. emblazoned tanks that Americans should fear.
What should be feared is the eagerness of certain U.S. Government officials to facilitate the
implementation of the Global Environmental Agenda, often without public or Congressional
awareness.

The September summit at Yellowstone provides a classic example of how the Global
Environmental Agenda is being imposed in America. A little background: in 1991, an assembly
of Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs) called the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee,
created a "vision" document which, among other things, recommended a buffer zone of nearly 18
million acres to surround the 2.3 million acre Yellowstone National Park. Ranchers, loggers,
miners, and landowners in the 18 million acre area renounced the plan, which was not adopted.
One of the landowners in the area was Crown Butte Mines, Inc. which owned Henderson
Mountain in the New World Mining District.

For more than a hundred years, prospectors have dug gold from Henderson Mountain and the
New World Mining District. Fisher Creek, which winds up in Yellowstone, contains 250,000
tons of acidic rock from past mining activity. Even though prospectors dug for a hundred years,
they never found the mother lode; Crown Butte Mines did.

Gold ore worth an estimated $600 million lies buried in Henderson Mountain. Crown Butte
Mines wants to get it. They applied for a mining permit nearly three years ago, shortly after the
"vision" document died. Crown Butte has spent, so far, $35 million attempting to comply with
the permitting process required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and a host of
other federal and state laws and regulations which involve 20 government agencies. The process
is nearly complete. The final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is scheduled for release late
this year.

The EIS reveals that Crown Butte would clean up the 250,000 tons of acidic rock left by
previous miners. It would build an earthquake-proof containment facility for new mine tailings.
It would divert stream flows away from Yellowstone to insure that the Park would not be
affected by the mine, even in the event of an unexpected catastrophe. The EIS was beginning to
show how the mine would be a real environmental asset to the Park and an economic boom to
the communities in the area. But some people don't want any mining near Yellowstone.

Fearful that the Crown Butte mining plan may meet the permitting requirements of 20
government agencies and actually be approved, the same GAGs involved in the 1991 "vision"
document sent a letter to Dr. Bernd von Droste in Paris, France. Why, you may ask, would the
GAGs turn to Paris, France for help, rather than to Congress?


84
In the 1970s, the United States joined 147 other nations in the World Heritage Treaty. The
purpose of the treaty was to designate sites, such as Yellowstone, "of international significance."
The treaty requires member states to "protect" such areas. The World Heritage Committee was
created by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to
monitor World Heritage Sites. Dr. Bernd von Droste is Chairman of the World Heritage
Committee (WHC). The GAGs want the WHC to list Yellowstone as "in danger" which would
bring global pressure to bear on the United States to "protect" the park.

Upon receipt of the letter, von Droste wrote to Assistant Secretary of Interior, George Frampton,
and asked for a comprehensive report on Yellowstone. Rather than tell von Droste that a three-
year, 20-agency, $35 million review would be complete in a few months, which would be readily
available to the WHC, Frampton said he didn't have time to write a report and urged von Droste
to bring a team to make his own evaluation, and specifically requested that a representative from
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) tag along. Frampton even agreed
to pay the team's expenses. Frampton also told von Droste that his boss, Bruce Babbitt, had
already told the U.S. News & World Report, that "placing a mine just across the boundary from
Yellowstone is a bad idea, pure and simple."

Bruce Babbitt (formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters) and George Frampton
(formerly head of the Wilderness Society) joined their GAG colleagues in a deliberate effort to
subvert the legal permitting process, ignore the scientific conclusions developed by the
Environmental Impact Statement process, sidestep any Congressional involvement, and use
international media pressure to impose their vision of Yellowstone on America.

Bernd von Droste brought his team to Yellowstone for four days in September. Surprise,
surprise; von Droste said that the American EIS process was "fragmented" and failed to take a
"holistic" approach to the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. The team discussed the need to create
a buffer zone around the park, say, about 18 million acres.

The full World Heritage Committee will meet in December to hear the team's report. Then a
decision will be reached as to whether Yellowstone should be placed on the "in danger" list. Of
the 400 designated World Heritage sites, 18 are in the United States; the Everglades is already on
the "in danger" list. Yellowstone is in danger, but not from Crown Butte Mines.



85
Col 154 November, 1995
International Intrigue: the instigators

By Henry Lamb

Tim Cassidy says we're "calling on international observers to judge the threat the [New World]
mine would pose as just one of many strategies to stop the mine." Tim Cassidy represents
American Rivers, one of several Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs) which constitute the Greater
Yellowstone Coalition (GYC). Their goal is to encircle Yellowstone National Park with a so-
called "buffer zone" eight times bigger than the park itself, thereby creating a 20-million acre
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, which will eventually be under the control of international
authorities. Never mind that the 18-million acre buffer zone includes private property, local and
county governments, numerous ranchers, loggers, miners and communities that depend on the
economic output of the region.

American Rivers is funded in part, by the U.S. Government (five grants from the Department of
Interior between 1993 and 1995 and additional grants from the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation which is funded by Congress), as are many of the coalition GAGs. In addition to
direct grants from the federal government, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition also collects
attorney fees and legal expenses from the American taxpayer. On June 23, 1994, the Greater
Yellowstone Coalition was awarded $32,750 in civil action (#93-0303-E-HLR) by the U.S.
District Court. Interestingly, the attorney for GYC is listed as the Sierra Club Legal Defense
Fund. Between 1992 and 1995, the Sierra Clubs and their Legal Defense Fund, collected
$2,299,218.13 from the American taxpayer in 34 similar cases, according to the General
Accounting Office (GAO). Unwitting contributors to the Sierra Club and other GAGs, and the
unknowing American taxpayers are actually providing the funding for the implementation of the
Global Environmental Agenda which seeks to control the world's natural resources - including
land.

Tim Cassidy is absolutely right when he says they intend to stop mining in the Yellowstone
ecosystem. His organization, and the other organizations in the Greater Yellowstone Coalition
have already demonstrated their willingness to circumvent the law to achieve their objectives.
Paul Pritchard, president of the National Parks and Conservation Association, said: "We hope
Crown Butte realizes that this action is not part of a battle over their rights under and (sic)
antiquated federal mining law, but of a fight to preserve the most revered national park in
the world." About 90 percent of the mining site is privately owned, according to Crown Butte
officials. The GYC wants to stop all activity on both private and public property in the area.
Yellowstone, however, is but a small skirmish enroute to the achievement of a much broader
objective.

The Sierra Club announced their "Ecoregion" program in March of 1994. This program
coincides with the "Bioregions" described in the "Wildlands Project" developed by Dave
Foreman (of Earth First! fame) and Dr. Reed F. Noss. The program redraws the map of North
America into 21 "Ecoregions," or "Bioregions," one of which includes Yellowstone: the Rocky
Mountain Bioregion. Next door is the Pacific Coast Bioregion. Here, it is the Greater

86
Ecosystem Alliance that is filing lawsuits and agitating to stop development and remove people
enroute to the eventual wilding of an area that stretches "from Baja to British Columbia." In
each of the 21 Bioregions, GAGs (funded by federal grants, proceeds from lawsuits, prestigious
foundations, large corporations, and individual contributors who think they are protecting the
environment) are busy advancing the Global Environmental Agenda.

The anchor in each of the Bioregions are the World Heritage sites, Biosphere Reserves, National
and State parks. These are areas already protected by state, federal, or international law.
Yellowstone, for example, is a National Park which is also a World Heritage Site, and also
designated as a Biosphere Reserve. Both the World Heritage designation and the Biosphere
Reserve designation give the United Nations direct influence in how the area is to be managed.
The official Operational Guidelines of the U.N. World Heritage Convention (Section 44(b)(vi))
requires the establishment of buffer zones around the heritage site. The official Strategic Plan
for the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program (operated under the auspices of UNESCO) calls for the
creation of "a network of designated Biosphere Reserves" which includes fully protected
"wilderness" areas, surrounded by "Managed Use Areas" (buffer zones), surrounded by "Zones
of Cooperation."

The Convention on Biological Diversity (Article 8) requires the creation of "Protected Areas."
The Global Biodiversity Assessment, developed by the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) and funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), defines those protected areas to
be essentially what Dr. Reed F. Noss described in the Wildlands Project (Section 10.4). Dr.
Noss is on the Board of Directors of the Wildlands Project; Dave Foreman is Chairman of the
Board. Both Foreman and Noss are on the Advisory Board of the Greater Ecosystem Alliance.
Foreman is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Sierra Club. And Reed Noss recently
completed a special report for Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of Interior, which identifies just which
ecosystems should be protected.

The Wildlands Project describes the underlying doctrine of resource management which is the
heart of the Global Environmental Agenda. The mine near Yellowstone does not fit the agenda.
Cassidy speaks with some confidence and more candor when he says the World Heritage
Committee is only one of many strategies being advanced to stop the mine. The agenda,
however, is not simply to stop the mine, but rather to lock-up 50 percent of America in
wilderness, control another 25 percent in managed buffer zones, and squeeze the people into the
remaining 25 percent into "islands of human habitat surrounded by wilderness."



87
Col 155 November, 1995
International Intrigue: public/private partnerships

By Henry Lamb

In November, a conference will be held in Knoxville, Tennessee with the theme: "Assessing the
Appalachian Landscape: Getting to Action through Partnerships." The mission statement of the
U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program says: "The program promotes a sustainable balance...through
public and private partnerships...." The President's Council on Sustainable Development says:
"Create a network of conservation areas for each bioregion in the country based on
public/private partnerships...."

What, exactly, are "public/private" partnerships?

In public documents, the term remains undefined by design leaving the listener to infer whatever
may be convenient at the moment. The term, however, is given explicit definition throughout the
Global Biodiversity Assessment. In short, public/private partnerships are the transitional phase
toward the creation of Bioregional Councils. Bioregional Councils are the entities which are
envisioned as the mechanism of governance for bioregions now being developed.

The people who attend the conference in Knoxville will hear presentation after presentation
about how government and the private sector must work together voluntarily to protect the
biodiversity of the region. The presentations will be made, primarily, by representatives from
Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs), and officials from the Southern Appalachian Biosphere
Reserve, which is, in fact, the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, and now includes buffer
zones and zones of cooperation that stretch from near Huntsville, Alabama to near Richmond,
Virginia. The conferees will hear about specific agreements that are being developed, in which
GAGs (also called NGOs for non-government organizations) will monitor resource use and
regulatory compliance. Some agreements will typically call for administration by GAGs. They
will hear that the U.N. University of Peace has already proposed to build a "Zero Emissions
Institute" in Chattanooga. In general, the conferees will hear about the wonderful world we can
build if we all work together in voluntary, but binding, agreements.

The Yellowstone Vision Document process was very similar to what is happening in Appalachia.
Similar conferences are being conducted in the Columbia River Basin, in the Adirondacks, in
Southern California, around the Great Lakes, in Florida, in Texas, and in virtually every part of
the country.

What, exactly, is wrong with voluntary agreements?

These agreements, these "public/private" partnerships, are each minuscule steps toward the
eventual reorganization of American society. Each step is so small, and presented as a vitally
necessary step to "protect" the panther in Florida, or the owl in Washington, or the warbler in
Texas, or the integrity of Yellowstone, that neither the direction nor the ultimate destination is
clearly visible to the participants. Until recently, serious students could only guess at the

88
direction and speculate about the destination. Now, both the direction and the ultimate
destination are a matter of public record. Both are published and are being actively promoted.
Both are described is a series of documents published jointly by the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the World
Wide Fund for Nature (WWF, formerly World Wildlife Fund), and the World Resources
Institute (WRI). These documents comprise tens of thousands of pages which most Americans
will never read. But they reveal with frightening clarity the ultimate destination toward which
each public/private partnership is inexorably leading.

GAGs, or NGOs if you prefer, are identified in these documents as the primary instrument of
implementation. They are expected to dominate the discussion in conferences such as the one
scheduled for Knoxville in November. They are expected to be granted legal standing to sue in
behalf of biodiversity. In America, GAGs have legal standing under all environmental laws
since the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Legal standing for biodiversity has been
proposed in America, and is proposed in international law, but so far, America has limited
standing only to endangered species and wetlands.

NGOs gain their status through designation by a United Nations Organization. Only GAGs with
a proven track record of agreement with the UN organization are granted what is called
"consultative" status with the UN. Only approved GAGs may participate in the pre-conference
forums and negotiating committee sessions. It is through this incredibly broad system of GAGs
that the UN organizations can ultimately control the destiny of the rapidly developing bioregions
in America.

As the public/private partnership phase nears completion in a given bioregion, it will be
necessary to create a mechanism to govern across city, county, state, and even national borders.
That mechanism is expected to be the creation, by voluntary agreement, of a Bioregional
Council, on which local governments and private interests will be represented, but which will be
dominated by GAGs. The function of the GAGs in Bioregional Councils is expressly seen to be
to educate the people in biodiversity protection and to enforce the principles and requirements as
set forth in international law.



89
Col 156 November, 1995
International Intrigue: the machinery

By Henry Lamb

It's not on anyone's bestseller list. There are no reviews in Time. The Reader's Digest has not
chosen to condense it. Most Americans will never hear about the Global Biodiversity
Assessment (GBA), but their lives are already being affected by it. The GBA is a massive
document produced by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the
international machinery that is rapidly reorganizing the societies of the world. UNEP is simply
the facilitator. It was created in 1973 to be a "catalyst" to implement the ideas and programs of
others. It has been enormously effective in its short life, and its influence is gaining momentum.
There are good reasons for its success.

Twenty-five years before there was a UNEP, there was an IUCN, the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature. The IUCN is not an official government agency; it is a non-profit
organization centered in Gland, Switzerland. The IUCN was the brainchild of the same Sir
Julian Huxley who founded the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO). It was created to provide the lobbying support needed to move proposals through
the UN.

The IUCN boasts that its membership, as of May 1994, included 53 international NGOs, 550
national NGOs, 100 government agencies, and 68 sovereign states representing a total of 126
nations. Its current president is Jay D. Hair, formerly CEO of the National Wildlife Federation,
America's largest Green Advocacy Group (GAG). The IUCN has "consultative" status with at
least six different U.N. Organizations, including UNEP. Their operating budget in 1993 was $54
million which included substantial contributions from the U.S. State Department ($1,214,873)
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) was created in 1961 by Sir Julian Huxley and Max
Nicholson, for the purpose of developing programs which would attract public contributions to
help fund the IUCN. Nicholson's 1970 book, The Environmental Revolution: A Guide for the
New Masters of the World, foreshadows much of the international intrigue that is being played
out in America today. The WWF headquarters shares a building with the IUCN in Gland,
Switzerland.

Russell E. Train, head of the WWF in America, created the World Resources Institute (WRI) in
1982. Gustave (Gus) Speth was named President. The Institute was launched with funding from
the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Andrew K. Mellon Foundation to
the tune of $25 million. The Institute functions to provide the expert, so-called "scientific"
support for the proposals developed by the IUCN. The WRI Board includes Martin Holdgate,
who served as IUCN's Director General from 1988 to 1993, and Thomas E. Lovejoy, the WWF
official who originated the "debt-for-nature" program. Speth brought heavy credentials to the
job. A graduate of Yale and Oxford, a professor of law at Georgetown University, and co-
founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Speth served WRI until the Clinton election.

90
He then served on Clinton's transition team for which he was rewarded with an appointment as
head of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Speth's chief policy analyst, Rafe
Pomerance, was moved to the U.S. State Department as Assistant Secretary of State for
Environment, Health and Natural Resources.

These three inbred NGOs are the wellspring from which flows the ideas that are being translated
by the UNEP, UNDP, and dozens of other United Nations Organizations, into international
treaties and agreements as well as national laws and regulations. They have produced, not only
the ideas, but have been the school from which dozens of national and international officials
have graduated.

Perhaps even more important, they are the command post for thousands of subsidiary NGOs
around the world. The WWF has offices in most nations around the world. In South and Central
America, WWF affiliates actually administer existing Bioregions. The National Wildlife
Federation has chapters in virtually every state. They exist to implement in the field the policies
that are formulated in Gland, Switzerland. The 600 NGO members of the IUCN work together
in coalitions such as the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and the Greater Ecosystem Alliance, and
dozens of others, to multiply their political effectiveness. Through extensive cross-connections
with Foundations, these organizations strongly influence which NGOs get funding. More than
$500 million annually is spent advancing the agenda developed by these three NGOs.

The Global Biodiversity Assessment will carry the official seal of UNEP. It was paid for by the
United Nations Global Environment Facility (GEF). But it was developed by these three NGOs
and their activist colleagues around the world. When people gather at a local courthouse to
consider some new environmental protection measure sponsored by a "local Citizens for..."
group, chances are quite good that the spokesperson's salary is paid by an organization with
direct links to these three NGOs. When an injunction is filed in Arizona to stop logging in 11
national forests by the Greater Gila Biodiversity Project, or by the Biodiversity Legal
Foundation, rest assured that their salaries are paid by organizations with direct links to these
three NGOs.

When the Sierra Club, the Environmental Working Group and the Natural Resources Defense
Council issue simultaneous press releases three days before a Congressional vote on the Clean
Water Act, be confident that their actions are orchestrated and funded through direct linkages
with these three NGOs.

Here is the engine that drives the Global Environmental Agenda.




91
Col 157 December, 1995
Land: private property or a public trust

By Henry Lamb

At the crux of the debate lies a fundamental difference of opinion eloquently expressed by
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Hobbes said, in 1651, that "The control of power must be
lodged in a single person, and no individual can set their own private judgments of right and
wrong in opposition to the sovereign's commands." That sovereign, according to Hobbes, with
absolute authority and power, could delegate land and resource use for the benefit of all.
John Locke disagreed. He said, in 1690, unowned things (resources) are not owned in common
under the authority of the sovereign, but that ownership of any unowned thing belongs to its first
possessor, as observed in practice throughout all of nature.

Since the Hobbes-Locke debates of the 17th century, societies have experimented with
governments based on both philosophies. The Hobbes theory was put to the test, most notably,
in 1917 when absolute sovereignty was vested in the communist party in Russia. The sovereign
delegated land use for the benefit of all. In less than 75 years, Hobbes' theory proved to be a
catastrophe. The theory failed, not only in Russia, but in Cuba, and in virtually every other
society that has adopted it.

Eager to escape the Hobbesian theory administered by the King of England, a small group of
rabble-rousing rebels possessed the unowned lands of America. When the King tried to enforce
his claim of sovereignty over the newly possessed lands, the rabble-rousers revolted and
terminated the King's claim. In 200 years, without the benefit of a sovereign delegating benefits,
the rabble-rousers advanced civilization to unimagined heights of health and prosperity. They
did it by possessing and utilizing unowned things (resources) as dictated, not by the sovereign,
but by their own self-interest.

It would appear that the lessons of history should be clear. It would seem that all societies
everywhere would want to emulate the American experience. Many do. But still, there are those
who believe that Hobbes was right, despite the repeated failures of every society that has been
built on his principles.

The current property rights debate in America is a renewal and continuation of the Hobbes-
Locke debate of the 17th century. There was very little debate during the first 200 years in
America. First possessors possessed, utilized, and flourished. The nation flourished. The
Hobbesians never went away, they were just ignored. Throughout the first hundred years of
America, government acquired land expressly for the purpose of getting land into private hands.
Under the Northwest Ordinance of 1785, the government sold land for $1 per acre. Under the
Homestead Act, land was given away in 160 acre tracts to anyone who would live on it for five
years.

In the 1930s, avowed socialists, Robert Marshall, Aldo Leopold, and Benton Mackaye founded
The Wilderness Society. (The same organization whose former President, George Frampton,

92
now heads the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). In a publication entitled The People's Forests,
The Wilderness Society advocated the confiscation of privately owned forests. Throughout the
1960s, the Wildlife Management Institute, the National Audubon Society, the Izaak Walton
League, and the Sierra Club joined the Wilderness Society to promote the Wilderness Act of
1964 which established the notion that some land should be protected from any human activity.
The act set aside nine million acres as wilderness. Since then, more than 90 million acres has
been added to the wilderness inventory and new proposals are offered each year.

The official policy of "Public Domain" lands was set in concrete in 1976 with the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act. Those who believe in the Hobbesian theory of control by the
sovereign have gained much ground. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, coupled with the
regulatory expansion of the Clean Water Act, serve to extend Federal (sovereign) jurisdiction
over virtually all land in the United States. Land owners have again begun to revolt. A massive
"Property Rights Movement" has emerged in recent years protesting the government's intrusion
into private property rights. The same organizations that promoted the Hobbesian theories in the
1930s are at the forefront of legislative efforts to expand the sovereign's power and castigate the
property rights movement as enemies of democracy. The Sierra Club has emerged as a major
spokesman for hundreds of Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs), all of which are pushing to expand
the sovereign's power to control land, and render obsolete the principle of private ownership
which made America the envy of the world.



93
Col 157 December, 1995
Land: the Sierra Club's view

By Henry Lamb

Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, stood before the Commonwealth Club in San
Francisco last June, and delivered a scathing attack on the idea of private property rights and
those who are trying to protect them. He told the group:

"Land is real estate. Real, in this case, does not mean solid. It means royal; land came
from the king. In England, kings gave out lands to their feudal retainers.... In the 13
colonies, land was held by virtue of royal charters. When the kings, or the federal
government, conveyed land to settlers, they also conveyed restrictions."

This view ignores the John Locke philosophy of ownership by first possession. It also ignores
the fact that America rejected the king's ownership of American soil. It also ignores the fact that
the creators of American government most feared creating a monster that would, like the king,
claim ownership of the land. When the people of America adopted the U.S. Constitution, the
principle of private ownership of land was established firmly in the law of the land.

The 5th Amendment allows the federal government to "take" private property, providing that due
process of law and just compensation is provided to the land owner. If land belonged to the
government, or to the sovereign, to convey "with restriction," why does the Constitution
specifically require the government to pay the owner? For the government to "take" the land, it
must belong to someone else. The creators of America clearly intended for the land to belong to
private individuals. The entire history of the government, prior to the mid 20th century,
illustrates a wide understanding that the land should be privately owned. Government worked
hard to get newly acquired territories into private hands. Not until the reemergence of the
socialist theories in the mid 1930s, did the Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs) such as the Sierra
Club begin to overwhelm the concept of private property rights in America.

Pope, and his GAG cohorts use a variety of skillful distortions to convince Americans that
private property rights is a bad idea. In his speech to the Commonwealth Club, he used the
example of two property owners whose land was divided by a stream that flooded each year.
When the flood came, both landowners were equally flooded. Under the private property
doctrine, either land owner has the right to build a levee to protect his property, which would
force the other property owner to suffer all the flooding while the one was protected. Pope says
that the government has the right, and should restrict both property owners and make them both
suffer equally.

Pope's argument assumes that the government's solution is the best solution. That is the
fundamental flaw in the Hobbesian-socialist-communist notion of absolute sovereignty of
government under which the doctrine of Public Trust must operate. American history has proved
beyond any shadow of doubt that when left to their own resources, Americans can solve
whatever problems arise. In Pope's example of the two land owners, he fails to consider that the

94
two individuals might get together and work out a mutually agreeable solution. He fails to
recognize that common law provides adequate remedy for the damaged land owner in the event
he is damaged. There is simply no benefit to be obtained by either party when the government
steps in to take control.

Pope chooses not to argue the merits of his sovereign government theory. Instead, he lambastes
those who believe that the John Locke-private property principle best serves society. He dubbed
the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act as the "Polluters Bill of Rights" because it requires
government to pay just compensation when private property is taken for public use. He charged
that Newt Gingrich's "regulatory reform" is a "euphemism which elevates polluter profits above
public health." He claims that the property rights movement in America is inspired and funded
by greedy industry, which "overlaps so heavily with the members of the militia...."

Pope and his cohorts want to cast proponents of property rights in the most negative light
possible. They must discredit their opposition because they cannot defeat the idea of property
rights on the merits. The concept of private property rights, so well understood by the framers
of our Constitution, is the foundation upon which America is built. That concept is under severe
attack by Pope's Sierra Club, a host of GAGs, as well as by the international environmental
community. If the concept of private property rights can be destroyed in America, and absolute
sovereignty, rather than enumerated powers, be handed to the federal government -- America
will quickly crumble as surely as did the Berlin wall.



95
Col 159 December, 1995
Land: the Sierra Club's vision

By Henry Lamb

In a special, expanded edition of their magazine, the Sierra Club introduced "...a fresh way of
looking at the world. We here describe 21 ecoregions that, while embracing all 50 U.S. states
and 12 Canadian provinces and territories, are not defined by them. The Sierra Club has
wholeheartedly embraced ecoregionalism as a context for our work during the coming decades,
and has devoted significant energy to recasting the maps of the United States and Canada."
There is no place for private property in the Sierra Club's vision of how the world ought to be.

Sierra's vision is a literal interpretation of the Wildlands Project, written by Reed F. Noss, funded
by The Nature Conservancy and the National Audubon Society, and published by Dave
Foreman's (Earth First! founder) Wild Earth. The Wildlands Project is named as the ideal to be
followed in the Global Biodiversity Assessment (Section 10.4), a document coordinated by the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and funded by the U.N. Global Environment
Facility. This is the plan required by Article 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, a treaty
signed by President Clinton which narrowly escaped ratification in 1994. Had the treaty been
ratified, or if it is ratified in the future, the U.S. would be bound to implement the plan.
This same plan is at the heart of UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere Program and the World
Heritage Program, which already have 65 sites designated in the United States. President
Clinton, in response to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has created the
President's Council on Sustainable Development which is recommending to Congress that the
plan be implemented.

The Sierra Club is moving forward with its program to implement the plan with or without the
treaty. It has already designated 21 ecoregions and has invested considerable energy and
resources into their "environmental agenda" which will result in the plan's implementation.
Sierra's vision is becoming crystal clear and private property is seen as nothing more than an
obstacle to be overcome.

The Sierra publication says: "...we are designing protection for the public and private lands that
are the core habitat for native species." Reed Noss says, in his Wildlands Project, that:

"the native ecosystem and the collective needs of non-human species must take
precedence over the needs and desires of humans." John Davis, editor of Wild Earth.
says "Human residents need not be asked to relocate, but all people should be required to
respect the wildlife...by refraining from any use of motors, guns, or cows. The problem
here is not so much people as it is their damnable technologies."

Sierra's vision is to eventually designate at least 50 percent of the land in North America as
wilderness, off limits to human beings. Another 25 percent is to be designated "buffer zones" or
"zones of cooperation," in which all resource use must be strictly regulated by the government
authority. People are to be relocated into what Science magazine describes as islands of human

96
habitat surrounded by wilderness.

The Global Biodiversity Assessment says (Section 10.5) "There may be a transition phase while
local inhabitants are provided with options for relocation outside the area." And the President's
Council on Sustainable Development is recommending the creation of a "national commission to
develop a national strategy to address changes in national population distribution that have
negative impacts on sustainable development."

Private property cannot be tolerated in Sierra's vision of the land. But it is not simply Sierra's
vision. Nor is it simply Dave Foreman's, nor Reed Noss' vision. It is the vision on an incredibly
complex, extremely powerful conglomeration of international and national organizations that
have been working for decades to gain control of the land and its resources. Similar efforts in
the past have ended in war. In this century, such wars were ended by Americans fighting to
protect their land and their right to own and use it. Strangely, it is American officials in the
Executive branch, and many in Congress who are actually promoting policies that advance
Sierra's vision. Through grants and legal fees paid to Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs), it is the
American taxpayer who is funding the implementation of Sierra's vision. It is the American
taxpayers, through their 100 billion dollars contributed to the United Nations over the years, that
have financed the development of the organizations which now seek to destroy America's wealth
that comes from the private ownership of property.

Americans must decide whether they want to own the land and use it as they see fit, or if
they prefer to turn over that right to a government authority that will decide for them where they
should live and what they may be permitted to do on the land. If the Sierra Club and their
cohorts have their way, land owners will not.



97
Col 160 December, 1995
Land: the foundation of freedom

By Henry Lamb

Without land, and the right to be secure in the ownership of land, no other freedom matters. The
framers of our Constitution firmly believed that the private ownership of land was the foundation
of America. Private ownership of land is the principle which distinguishes America from other
forms of government. It is the principle that allowed individuals to unleash creativity and
ingenuity that resulted in advancing human civilization to achievements previously unimagined.
It is the defining principle which gives hope that future generations too, will be able to solve
their problems and continue to advance civilization to even higher plateaus.

Land, and the resources it contains, is the source of all wealth. Whoever controls the land, and
its resources, controls the wealth. Urbanites, whose income is derived from insurance sales,
clerking, lawyering, accounting, and other non-commodity activities, frequently fail to recognize
the connection between the land and wealth. People who have grown up in major urban centers
have little connection with the land. It matters little to them whether the government or
individuals own the land. They don't. Often, they would rather have the government own 40
percent or more of the land. Under government ownership, non-land owners can feel that
somehow the vast stretches of the west, or Alaska, actually belong to them.

If government owns the land, no one can be secure where ever they live. The owner always has
the final say in who may access his land. If the government owns the land, you may speak as
freely as you wish - until you annoy the owner. You then could be expelled to speak your piece
to the Siberian snowman. Such was the case in the Soviet Union where the government owned
the land. You may worship freely, as long as your worship fits the mold of the owner of the
church. You may work at the job of your choosing, so long as the owner of the land on which
your job is performed wants the job performed. No other freedom can exist if the individual is
not secure in his land and the resources it contains.

It is strangely ironic that this discussion is even taking place in America where the principle of
private property rights was enshrined in the greatest document ever written about self-
governance. But there are those who believe the principle of private property rights is obsolete.
They believe that private property rights are the cause of the loss of biodiversity, the reason for
inequitable distribution of wealth, and the foundation of all the world's major problems. Those
people believe that the only solution is government control of private property, and thereby
control of the people. Those people have developed a long-range strategy, using various
governmental institutions, to ultimately gain control of all land and all resources - the source of
all wealth. That strategy is advancing steadily around the world, and particularly in America,
behind a billowing smoke screen of sustainable development, biodiversity loss, and climate
change.

Those who promote the principle of government control of land and resources have built a
frightening scenario of what will happen if the government does not take control of private

98
property - impoverishment of the biosphere. They have devised a complex scheme to wrest
control from private land owners through a maze of treaties, laws, and regulations which, little
by little, transfer private property rights to government authority. In the last 20 years, Americans
have already lost rights to land use which have been taken for granted for 200 years. Through
the Convention on Biodiversity, the Climate Change Treaty, and the President's Council on
Sustainable Development, plans are now on the table which would bring the federal government
to the local building and zoning department where a prospective home builder would be required
to use only certified materials, build only on an acceptable site, using a government approved
design, and landscape according to the government's design.

To pursue life, liberty, and happiness - people must be free. Freedom begins with the right to
own, and use, private property. Common law provides for individuals who are damaged by
another's use of private property to recover those damages. There is no need for the government
to take control. There are no benefits that accrue to the individual when the government does
take control. There is only inevitable calamity. People must be free to exercise their ingenuity,
using their own land and resources, to pursue their own brand of happiness without being
managed by a government or a king. Every war we have ever fought was fought to preserve this
fundamental principle. Americans must recognize that the new weapons of war are not bombs
and soldiers, but armies of Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs), swarming the halls of Congress,
state legislatures, and county court houses, fighting with propaganda and misinformation. The
weapons of war may have changed, but the ultimate objective has not. Private property rights
are the immediate target, but the ultimate control of people is the true objective.