1

Henry Lamb Columns in 1996

Contents
Invasion of green religion ............................................................................................................3
Invasion of green religion: the message of Cosmolatry ...............................................................5
Invasion of green religion: the UN connection.............................................................................7
Invasion of green religion: the big lie ..........................................................................................9
Toward Global Governance....................................................................................................... 11
Toward Global Governance: The global bureaucracy ................................................................ 13
Toward Global Governance: Global taxation ............................................................................. 15
Toward Global Governance: A flawed idea ............................................................................... 17
The year of decision .................................................................................................................. 19
The year of decision: It's time to stop ........................................................................................ 21
The year of decision: America's role beyond the UN ................................................................. 23
The year of decision: A strategy for freedom ............................................................................ 25
Redefining American Values ..................................................................................................... 27
Redefining American Values: The Pursuit of Happiness ............................................................ 29
Redefining American Values: Government Complicity ............................................................ 31
Redefining American Values: The 21st Century ........................................................................ 33
Governance by non-elected officials .......................................................................................... 35
NGOs: Organizing for governance ............................................................................................ 37
NGOs and Bioregions ............................................................................................................... 39
How can Bioregionalism be stopped? ........................................................................................ 41
Kindred Spirits: Unabomber and Earth First!............................................................................. 43
Kindred Spirits: Unabomber and Dave Foreman ....................................................................... 45
Kindred Spirits: Unabomber and Al Gore .................................................................................. 47
Kindred Spirits: Unabomber and Bill Clinton ............................................................................ 49
Sustainable Communities; Vanquished Freedom ....................................................................... 51
Sustainable Communities: Yours could be next! ....................................................................... 53
Sustainable Communities in the Bioregion ................................................................................ 55
Sustainable Communities Means Managed Societies ................................................................. 57
Global governance at work Civil Society ................................................................................... 61
Global warming: is it real? ........................................................................................................ 67

2
Global warming: what it means ................................................................................................. 69
Global warming: a matter of consensus ..................................................................................... 71
Global warming and NGOs ....................................................................................................... 73
Propaganda Parade: Global Warming ........................................................................................ 75
Propaganda Parade: Managed Markets ...................................................................................... 77
Propaganda Parade: Education .................................................................................................. 79
Propaganda Parade: The New Earth Ethic ................................................................................. 81
The Information Age ................................................................................................................. 83
The Information Age: up close and personal.............................................................................. 85
The Information Age: for your own protection .......................................................................... 87
The Information Age: environmental propaganda ...................................................................... 89
The War on Automobiles .......................................................................................................... 91
The War on Industry ................................................................................................................. 93
Who's Financing the War?......................................................................................................... 95
Is There A Better Way? ............................................................................................................. 97


























3
(161 January, 1996)
Invasion of green religion

By Henry Lamb

A hundred million people in 53,000 congregations have been targeted for takeover by a sinister
old Satan all dressed up in a new frock of institutional respectability. Recognizing that all
religions exist, as the Boston Globe puts it, "to ask one question: What is the place of the human
species in the created order," an incredible New Age machine has emerged to provide the
answer. The National Religious Partnership for the Environment is an impressive
conglomeration of religious communities that has garnered more than $5 million from such
prestigious foundations as The Pew Charitable Trusts, Stephen C. Rockefeller, the Turner
Foundation, W. Alton Jones Foundation, and The New World Foundation.

The Partnership is a formal agreement among the U.S. Catholic Conference; National Council of
Churches of Christ; Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life; and the Evangelical
Environmental Network. The Partnership has established a "consultative" relationship with the
Union of Concerned Scientists and lists such prominent scientists as E.O. Wilson, Carl Sagan,
Thomas Malone, and Henry Kendall as their consultants. The chief executive officers of eleven
major Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs) co-signed a letter of support for the Partnership. Among
the GAGs were: the National Audubon Society; Natural Resources Defense Council; the Sierra
Club; the Environmental Defense Fund; and the World Resources Institute.

Partnership literature says its program "seeks to broaden exponentially the base of mainstream
commitment, integrate issues of social justice and environment, and urge behavioral change in
the lives of congregants." To achieve this objective, the Partnership has prepared and distributed
"education and action kits" to 53,000 congregations including every Catholic parish and every
Jewish synagogue in the nation. The kits contain Sunday School and sermon resource material
designed to mesh with the doctrine of the particular denomination being targeted.

Another goal is "legislative updates." In June of 1994, 40 Partnership officials met with 25
senior White House officials (including Vice President Al Gore, Bruce Babbitt, Carol Browner,
and Undersecretary of State, Tim Wirth) to "begin an ongoing process of dialogue and
appropriate collaboration."

This activity is the fruition of ideas that emerged from the Global Forum of Spiritual and
Parliamentary Leaders for Human Survival that was held in 1988, co-sponsored by the Temple
of Understanding and the United Nations Global Committee of Parliamentarians on Population
and Development. James Lovelock, author of The Ages of Gaia, and the originator of the Gaia
Hypothesis, was the featured speaker. The Very Reverend James P. Morton was, and continues
to be the President of the Temple of Understanding, Dean of the Cathedral of St. John the
Divine, and is now a member of the Board of Trustees of the National Religious Partnership for
the Environment. The Fall, 1994 newsletter of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine claimed that
the National Religious Partnership for the Environment was "a Cathedral-based institution" with
the "reach to serve over 100 million interfaith congregants on a regular basis." The address for

4
the National Religious Partnership for the Environment is the same as the Temple of
Understanding: 1047 Amsterdam Avenue, New York City.

It is unmistakably clear that the new Partnership is the product of the Temple of Understanding
housed in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York. The Cathedral is also the home of
The Gaia Institute and the Lindesfarne Association, both of which produce New Age, mystic
propaganda. The Partnership was nurtured by then-Senator Al Gore who, along with Tim Wirth,
hosted a 1990 Congressional breakfast with Partnership promoters. Vice President Al Gore
delivered a sermon at the Cathedral in 1994, in which he proclaimed "...God is not separate from
the earth," the central tenet of the gaia religion. The Board of Directors of the Temple of
Understanding permeate both the Global Forum Council, and the Advisory Board of the UN's
Global Committee of Parliamentarians. The Temple of Understanding brings together such
divergent influences as the Dalai Lama and the Pope, Islamic leaders and Evangelical preachers.
What these individuals have in common is an overarching belief in a new religion, or cosmology,
as it is more appropriately described. Through the National Religious Partnership for the
Environment, this new cosmology is being systematically injected into 53,000 congregations
across the nation behind the announced objective of engaging churches in the environmental
crisis.





























5
(162 January, 1996)
Invasion of green religion: the message of Cosmolatry

By Henry Lamb

The National Religious Partnership for the Environment claims that it seeks to engage "tens of
thousands" of congregations in the "environmental crisis." Behind the facade of tree-planting
and recycling, lies a pantheistic theology that is pure nature worship. The Temple of
Understanding, which pushed the Partnership into existence, is housed in the Cathedral of St.
John the Divine in New York City. The Cathedral has been transformed into a shrine for "sacred
ecology." A blue crab, striped bass, mussels and other animals and plants live in a specially
constructed Earth Shrine habitat. One wall, 25 feet high, is decorated with real tropical rain
forest flora consisting of bromeliads, orchids, ferns, mosses, and aquatic plants as an example of
"sacred ecology ." Writer in Residence at the Cathedral, William Logan, described a service at
which Vice President Al Gore delivered the sermon, as appearing to be an "epic petting zoo." A
camel and elephant walked the aisles of the Cathedral, and worshipers marched to the altar with
"a bowl full of compost and worms."

Among the illustrious Directors of the Temple of Understanding is the Geologian, Passionate
Priest The Reverend Thomas Berry. In his book, Dream of the Earth (published by Sierra Club
Books), Berry never uses the word "God," but speaks of a numinous force in the universe. He
says that "We should place less emphasis on Christ as a person and a redeemer. We should put
the Bible away for 20 years while we radically rethink our religious ideas." According to Frank
Morriss, in an article entitled "Restructuring the Church Into Their Own Image," Father Thomas
Berry claims that "It is now time for the most significant change that Christian spirituality has
yet experienced. This change is part of a much more comprehensive change in human
consciousness brought about by the discovery of the evolutionary story of the universe. In
speaking about a new cosmology he reminds us that we are the earth come to consciousness and,
therefore, we are connected to the whole living community - that is, all people, animals, plants
and the living organism of planet earth itself." (Emphasis added.)

The gaia hypothesis, developed by James Lovelock, claims that the planet earth is a living
organism, that human beings, like cockroaches and rattlesnakes, are nothing more than cells
which collectively constitute the organism. Lovelock, Berry, and the promoters of the National
Religious Partnership for the Environment believe that the earth is the creative force which
produced all life forms and as such, it is the earth that should be worshiped, not the external
creator God of the Bible. This belief adds considerable significance to Al Gore's declaration in
his sermon at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine that "God is not separate from the earth."

Amy Fox coordinated a Temple of Understanding program called "Environment 89." She is now
Associate director of the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. She is quoted in a
Cathedral newsletter: "We are required by our religious principles to look for the links between
equity and ecology." She says that in the materials sent to more than 53,000 congregations, 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

6
policy; community economic development; toxic pollution and hazardous waste; and corporate
responsibility. It is no accident that the agenda being advanced by the Partnership is identical to
the Global Environmental Agenda being advanced by the United Nations.

The Temple of Understanding is an official NGO, registered with the UN. Its literature boasts
that it conducts regular "roundtables" at the UN Headquarters featuring outstanding religious
leaders and scholars. It was the Temple of Understanding that co-sponsored, with the UN, the
Global Forum for Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders which was co-chaired by James Parks
Morton, President of the Temple of Understanding and Dean of the Cathedral of St. John the
Divine. The Cathedral also houses the Lindesfarne Association, whose one-time Financial
Director was Maurice Strong, who was the Secretary General of the first UN Earth Summit
which produced the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). He also served as
UNEP's first Executive Director, and also chaired the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janerio in 1992. For years, Strong has
owned a Colorado ranch known as Baca Grande on which the Lindesfarne Association built a
Babylonian sun God Temple. The ranch is home to a monastery and a variety of New Age
religious activities. Strong now head the Earth Council, a Costa Rica-based NGO that is
promoting a treaty on sustainable development, and is a Director of World Resources Institute,
whose President, Jonathan Lash now co-chairs the President's Council on Sustainable
Development.



























7
(163 January, 1996)

Invasion of green religion: the UN connection

By Henry Lamb

Throughout America, more than 53,000 congregations are using material in their education
program and from the pulpit supplied by the National Religious Partnership for the Environment.
Most use the material in the belief that somehow it will help congregants become more engaged
in the "environmental crisis." In reality, these churches have opened their doors to the proverbial
trojan horse, filled with propaganda skillfully designed to instill the rationale for nature worship
and to advance the global agenda of social reorganization. Few of the Christians and Jews, or
their Priests, Pastors, or Rabbis, realize that they are being used to advance a cosmology
condemned by both the New and Old Testaments, and to advance a social order of global
governance.

At the heart of the new cosmology is the idea that the earth is the creative force of life - or gaia,
as named by James Lovelock. Thomas Berry, gaia's chief guru, says that "the sacred character of
the natural world as our primary revelation of the divine is our first need." Berry says that
"biblical insights should be shelved in favor of a spirituality which accepts the natural world as
the primary manifestation of the divine." He says "If we are to avoid an environmental
Armageddon, we must adopt a new attitude which celebrates the sacredness of the universe."
Berry is referred to in Creation magazine as "The herald of...the Ecozoic age [who] 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 voice of the Earth that is calling us into the future."

These are the ideas that underlie the notion that human beings, as merely one batch of cells
which constitute the living organism of earth, are, like a cancer, multiplying out of control and
destroying the sacred giver of life - gaia. Consequently, terms such as "environmental
Armageddon," and "environmental crisis," are used to justify severe behavioral changes
recommended in the material furnished to churches by the National Religious Partnership, and
by the policies now being implemented through the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Through these and other UN organizations, policy initiatives are being implemented around the
world, including the United States, that are designed to force human beings to behave in ways
that reverence the sacred gaia. The Biodiversity Treaty calls for the return of half of the land in
America to "core wilderness," off limits to human beings. The Climate Change Treaty calls for
the reduction of fossil fuel use in developed nations by as much as 80 percent. The Endangered
Species Act forces farmers to stop cultivating farm fields that are inhabited by the kangaroo rat.
And the President's Council on Sustainable Development is recommending a Presidential
Commission to study how population can be redistributed to reduce its impact on biodiversity -
another euphemism for gaia. Nowhere is this gaia influence more sinister than upon the nation's
youth.

8
Prentice Hall publishes a textbook for seventh graders called Life Sciences. It says: "Gaia is
Mother Earth. Gaia is immortal. She is the eternal source of life. She does not need to
reproduce herself as she is immortal. She is certainly the mother of us all, including
Jesus...Gaia is not a tolerant mother. She is rigid and inflexible, ruthless in the destruction of
whoever transgresses. Her unconscious objective is that of maintaining a world adapted to life.
If we men hinder this objective we will be eliminated without pity."

Public education was targeted by UNEP and UNESCO in the 1970s as the place to begin
indoctrinating people with the gaia principle. Robert Muller, Assistant to three UN Secretaries
General, developed what is called the "World Core Curriculum" to guide the development of
educational programs around the world. Robert Muller says "The United Nations is the
biological meta organism of the human species. We are becoming a new species on this planet.
We have now the birth of a global nervous system. We are beginning to have a global heart, be
it only our love for nature, to preserve this earth - this planet of ours - and we will also see the
birth of a global soul." Muller is the Chancellor of the UN University. Through the UN
Commission on Education, his World Core Curriculum is proposed to be the basis for education
"for all the schools on this planet."






























9
(164 January, 1996)
Invasion of green religion: the big lie

By Henry Lamb

If a lie is big enough, and repeated often enough, it will gather unto itself a group of believers.
Those who believe and respond to such a lie are either simply misguided or being manipulated.
Those who believe the lie despite scientific evidence to the contrary, are fanatics. Those who
know the truth and preach the lie to achieve their own private agenda are manipulators of the
first order, operating without the benefit of morality. Most of the people victimized by the
National Religious Partnership for the Environment are being misguided and manipulated. Some
of the proponents of the Partnership are simply fanatics who reject scientific evidence in favor of
the "knowing" that comes from the "enlightenment" of gaia. Pushing the program are a handful
of manipulators who know the truth but persist in preaching the lie.

The lie, of course, is that the earth is on the threshold of an "environmental Armageddon," or in
the last stages of an "environmental crisis." Perhaps the biggest lie is the cataclysmic
descriptions of the consequences of global warming: ice caps will melt, seas will rise, population
centers will be inundated, storms will intensify, deserts will spread, and crops will refuse to grow
- because humans are burning fossil fuel.

Dr. Stephen Schneider, the most frequently quoted proponent of the global warming scare, told a
group of scientists: "[We] have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic
statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what
the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Dr. Schneider knows full well
that the actual scientific record reveals no global warming beyond normal variability - about one
half of one degree this century, most of which occurred during the first half of the century,
before the post-war explosion of fossil fuel use. Nevertheless, the big lie persists.

The real reason fossil fuel energy is under such severe attack is the fact that energy is the central
ingredient in the manufacture and distribution of consumer goods. Consumer goods are made
from natural resources. Natural resources are biodiversity - plants and animals that are cells in
the living organism of earth - the sacred gaia. Human beings, like cancerous cells, are destroying
other cells in the organism by converting those cells into consumer goods. The objective is to
reduce consumption by eliminating the use of fuel energy.

Another big lie, advanced by Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute and Paul Ehrlich, author
of The Population Bomb, and repeated with the authority of the UN in the Global Biodiversity
Assessment is the notion that human population now exceeds the planet's ability to provide
sufficient food. In the 1970s, Ehrlich predicted that Americans would be starving by the
thousands within a decade. He was wrong. Lester Brown has been forecasting doom and
disaster for years. He is still wrong. The UN's Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) says the
planet can support no more than one billion people at the American standard of living, or about
five billion at a standard of agrarian subsistence. Brown, Ehrlich, and the authors of the GBA
are well aware of the work done by celebrated scientist Roger Revelle, former Director of the

10
Harvard Center for Population Studies, who concluded that the planet could support a population
of at least 40 billion people with a daily diet of 2,500 kilocalories, using no more than 25 percent
of the land area, with crop yields of only half the yields produced in America. They know that
Revelle's work is supported by the findings of Colin Clark, former director of the Agricultural
Economic Institute at Oxford University whose conclusions estimated that the earth could
support at least 35.1 billion people at a standard similar to America's.

Neither truth nor scientific evidence supports the gaia agenda. That's why both are cast aside by
the big lie that frightens people into protecting a planet that is in no danger. Proponents of the
gaia principle - the green religion - have, and will continue to resort to any distortion and
misrepresentation that serves their cause: the advance of a global reverence of gaia as the
foundation of global governance. Schools, the media, the government, and now, through the
National Religious Partnership for the Environment, the churches, have all been infiltrated by the
gaia gospel. It is a big lie, and it is repeated often. Woe be unto the Great Deceivers.

































11
(165 February, 1966)
Toward Global Governance

By Henry Lamb

There can no longer be any doubt that there is, and has been for several years, a well-conceived,
expertly executed, long-range plan to build the United Nations network of organizations into a
system of global governance. The plan is nearing its final stage of implementation, aided
enormously by the current administration. Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott, wrote an
article for Time magazine entitled "The Birth of the Global Nation" (July, 20, 1992) in which he
said the case for world government had been made and that nationhood as we know it will be
obsolete in the next century. Talbott won the "Global Governance Award" from the World
Federalist Association in 1993.

Immediately following the 1992 election, Gus Speth, then-President of World Resources
Institute, was appointed to Clinton's transition team, and then moved directly to head the United
Nations Development Program. Speth declared in the U.N.'s 1994 Human Development Report:
"Indeed, we have a unique opportunity to strike some new global compacts...financed by global
fees such as the `Tobin tax', an international tax on consumption and non-renewable energy,
global environmental permits...These proposals demand a great deal from the international
community. But they are all doable."

Clinton appointed Morton Halperin as Assistant Secretary of Defense. His views on global
governance were so intense that the Senate failed to confirm the appointment. Clinton then
appointed him to the National Security Council - which did not need Senate confirmation. In
May, 1994, Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive (PDD25), a secret, classified
document that is not available, even to Congress. While the actual document has not been
released, a summary of the administration plan calls for the "creation by the UN of a Plans
Division, an Information and Research Division, an Operations Division, a Logistical Division, a
Public Affairs Cell, a Civil Police Cell, and a Professional Peace Operations Training Program.
The U.N. should have a `rapidly deployable headquarters team' and its own modest airlift
capabilities." It is this document that the administration says gives the President the authority to
assign U.S. military personnel to the United Nations.

Many Americans believe the U.S. Constitution prohibits U.S. soldiers from serving any "foreign"
government, and that neither Congress nor the President can authorize what is explicitly
prohibited by the Constitution. In an effort to bypass this controversy, the U.N. has adopted the
Convention on the Safety of U.N. and Associated Personnel," an international binding treaty,
soon to be presented to the Senate for ratification.

The issue of U.N. authority is much greater than simply one of global cooperation; it is an issue
of sovereignty. The Constitution authorizes a national army for the purpose of national defense.
But the effort to relinquish that authority to the U.N. goes back as far as 1961 when the U.S.
State Department issued a proposal (Publication #7277, September, 1961) which called for: "The
disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form

12
whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a
United Nations Peace Force." The Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy's assassination, and the fall of
Nikita Krushchev forced this initiative into obscurity for two decades. Since the 1980's, the U.N.
has been preparing, and is now implementing, a much more comprehensive plan to replace the
notion of national sovereignty with the enlightened concept of global governance.

Maurice Strong has said publicly, that: "It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised
unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful." Maurice Strong is the leading
contender to replace Boutros Boutros-Ghali in 1996 as Secretary General of the United Nations
General Assembly. For more than a year, a "Draft Strong" movement has been underway around
the world. There are already at least 102 of the 185 member nations committed to Strong - more
than enough to ensure his coronation.

While the main stream media ridicules those who fear black helicopters and blue-helmeted
invaders, they fail to report the insidious and relentless progress being made by U.N.
organizations to systematically suppress the freedom of individuals and nations by building a
global bureaucracy to govern virtually every aspect of human life.






























13
(166 February, 1996)
Toward Global Governance: The global bureaucracy

By Henry Lamb

The United Nations is more, much more, than the blue helmets and white vehicles seen on the
nightly news. It is more than the massive relief efforts, and the interminable debates of the
Security Council. It is hundreds of different organizations that have emerged around the world,
each with its own staff, working in its assigned area, to achieve a well coordinated agenda to
ultimately govern the activities of all people everywhere.

Efforts to consolidate global governance authority under the U.N., behind the banner of `world
peace,' failed in the 1960s. After a decade of regrouping, the globalists took up a new banner:
`environmental protection.' Maurice Strong emerged as the leader of the first Earth Summit in
Stockholm in 1972. He then founded, and directed the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP). He has since been, perhaps the single most influential person driving the global
environmental agenda. He was the Secretary General of the second Earth Summit at Rio de
Janeiro in 1992, and now stands ready to assume the throne as Secretary General of the United
Nations General Assembly in total command of all the far-flung United Nations organizations.

UNEP quickly recognized that if the environmental agenda was to be advanced, it must have the
capability of directing other U.N. organizations. One of its early strategy successes was the
creation of the DOEM - Designated Officials on Environmental Matters. This body is headed by
UNEP's Deputy Director, and consists of official representatives from virtually every U.N.
organization. Through the DOEM, the UENP can ensure that all U.N. organizations develop and
implement programs consistent with the global environmental agenda.

That coordination has been abundantly clear in recent years, especially since the 1992 Earth
Summit. Every global conference is steeped in language that reflects the Rio Declaration.
"Biodiversity" and "Sustainability" dominate every emerging U.N. document as well as those
treaties and agreements adopted since Rio. There are dozens of documents under development,
and others already finalized that are now being implemented through an incredible array of
bureaucracies around the world.

The Framework Convention on Climate Change is administered under the auspices of UNEP.
The Convention has its own secretariat, or administrative staff. The Convention provides for the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has an extensive and growing staff
and a new office building. It also authorizes a Conference of the Parties (COP), which has its
own staff. The Vienna Convention on Ozone Depleting Substances, administered by UNEP, is
becoming another institution with its own secretariat and staff. The Convention on Biological
Diversity is also administered by UNEP. At its second meeting of the Conference of the Parties,
it chose Montreal as the permanent home of the Convention, and will build its facilities for still
another bureaucracy. The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) is a U.N. financial institution
which now redistributes wealth, and is proposed to hold title to the "global commons" and
become the issuer of resource use permits. UNEP also administers dozens of fishing treaties,

14
and treaties dealing with endangered species (CITES), and wetlands (RAMSAR), and shipments
of hazardous waste (BASEL), and each treaty has its own secretariat, staff, and bureaucracy
scattered throughout the world. And UNEP is only one of at least 126 different U.N.
organizations involved in the implementation of the global environmental agenda.

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP), headed by the Clinton transition team
leader, and former President of the World Resources Institute, Gus Speth, is responsible for
dozens of other programs that deal with population control, education, sustainable development,
and international trade. The Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Cairo last March, was
an UNDP event. Clinton appointee, Timothy Wirth, headed the U.S. delegation which pushed
the controversial proposal to include language about population control which, under the Reagan
administration, had caused withdrawal of support for the United Nations Fund for Population
Activities. Clinton has since restored those funds, some of which go directly to support
programs in China that force women to use contraceptive devices and penalize families that fail
to get government permits to have children.

It is through the UNDP, particularly its 1994 International Conference on Population and
Development, that the most serious global taxation proposals are being advanced. The only
control member states have over the U.N. is funding. As President Reagan demonstrated, the
United States can withhold funding to force the U.N. policies to conform to U.S. philosophy. If
the U.N. can escape the funding shackle, it will be free to impose whatever policies it deems
appropriate and the United States can do nothing about it.

























15
(167 February, 1996)
Toward Global Governance: Global taxation

By Henry Lamb

Like the proverbial camel, global taxation has already stuck its nose under the United Nations'
tent. The Law of the Seas Treaty, which became international law without U.S. ratification on
November 16, 1994, may impose a tax, in the form of an application fee of $250,000, on
American companies that wish to mine the ocean floor. This treaty creates a bureaucracy called
the International Seabed Authority which can charge annual fees or demand royalties from any
company that uses the seabed.

Global taxation is not an issue subject to referendum, or on which Americans may vote. It is an
issue that is being implemented through obscure mechanisms which are unseen by most
Americans, but which will, none the less, impose severe economic hardship. Global taxation is
creeping into most developing U.N. documents, and the concept is supported by a growing
constituency. Among the several different taxing proposals now pending, the most significant is
a tax of .05% on foreign exchange transactions. This proposal, advanced by Nobel Prize
winning economist, James Tobin, would be an "unseen" tax, yet it would yield $1.5 trillion
annually to fund United Nations operations. Currently, the entire U.N. budget is approximately
$11 billion. The Tobin tax would provide a 150-fold increase in the United Nations' ability to
implement its programs. The U.N. could ignore the U.S. in any programmatic dispute.

Gus Speth, President Clinton's handpicked head of the United Nations Development Program, is
a vocal supporter of global taxation. A 1994 report issued by his agency said a "...serious search
should begin for new sources of international funding that do not rely entirely on the fluctuating
political will of the rich nations. Global taxation may become necessary in any case to achieve
the goals of global human security. Some of the promising new sources include tradable permits
for global pollution, a global tax on non-renewable energy, demilitarization funds and a small
transaction tax on speculative international movements of foreign exchange funds."

At the World Summit for Social Development, then-President, Socialist Francois Mitterand
urged the 115 government leaders in attendance to "make a real commitment" to global taxation.
According to a report dated March 6, 1995, issued by the Global Commission to Fund the United
Nations, a select group of 15 U.S. Senators and 51 House members were given a "behind the
scenes" presentation on global taxation alternatives. Commissioners include: Bella Abzug,
outspoken participant in the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Robert Muller,
Chancellor of the U.N. University and author of the World Core Curriculum, former Senator
Alan Cranston, author of the California Wilderness Act, and now President of the Gorbachev
Foundation, and Inge Kaul, Director of UNDP's Human Development Report. Kaul wrote in a
Commission report, that to rectify the "present financial constraint on U.N. activity, [it is time]
to shift the burden of financing the U.N. from national to global sources - by introducing charges
for the use of global commons or levies on international activities such as trade and foreign
currency transaction."


16
Another UNDP official, Ruben Mendez, said in an April publication called Choices: "It is time
to make an intellectual quantum leap, and to look beyond the nation-state for new, innovative
and independent transnational sources of funds." Mendez has proposed a slightly modified
version of the Tobin tax plan to still another organization pushing for global taxation: the U.N
Commission on Global Governance. This 28-member Commission includes Maurice Strong, the
leading contender to replace Boutros Boutros-Ghali as Secretary General; Oscar Arias, former
President of Costa Rica, and Adele Simmons, President of the MacArthur Foundation, among
others. The Commission's official report, called Our Global Neighborhood, says: "It is time for
a consensus on global taxation for servicing the needs of the global neighborhood. A start must
be made in establishing schemes of global financing of global purposes, including charges on
the use of global resources such as flight-lanes, sea lanes, and ocean fishing areas and the
collection of revenues agreed globally and implemented by treaty. An international tax on
foreign currency transactions should be explored as one option, as should the creation of an
international corporate tax base among multinational corporations."

This report, too, uses the environment to advance its global governance agenda. The report says
further: "The idea of safeguarding and managing the global commons -- particularly those
related to the physical environment -- is now widely accepted; this cannot happen with a drip-
feed approach to financing. And the notion of expanding the role of the United Nations is now
accepted in relation to military security." Another group called the Independent Working Group
on the Future of the United Nations, funded by the Ford Foundation, says "It is reasonable that
it [the U.N.] should enjoy income from some sort of levy on the utilization of the global
commons." Yet another organization pushing for global governance is the Independent
Commission on Population and Quality of Life, whose membership includes Eleanor Holmes
Norton, the Congressional Representative from the District of Columbia.

The major public support for global governance is coming from the United Nations Association.
This group scheduled dozens of local events in celebration of the U.N.'s 50th anniversary in
October, has stepped up its television ads depicting the U.N. as the savior of the planet, and
through its prestigious membership and supporter list, is actively campaigning to strengthen the
United Nations into a network for global governance.
















17
(168 February, 1996)
Toward Global Governance: A flawed idea

By Henry Lamb

Global governance can, at best, only slow the progress of human achievement. At the end of the
day, human ingenuity will inevitably prevail. The long road of human history, though filled with
fits and turns and tragic mistakes, points toward a time when all men shall truly be free and live
in harmony with each other and with the world that sustains them. The road to global
governance is a detour, replete with dangers already endured by those whose suffering should
guide our journey to the future.

Human beings, like all other creatures, must be free to choose their own destiny. When they are
not; they wither and die. Freedom is not free; the cost is constant vigilance. Nature is designed
to progress on the strengths of all species, not on the weaknesses. The strength of the human
species is intelligence, freely applied to the problems it confronts. Governments are created by
individuals and have no power or authority beyond the consent of their creators. Governments,
however, once created, inevitably assume a life of their own, with all the good and bad qualities
possessed by the individuals that constitute the government.

Governments, like individuals, may be ambitious, incompetent, devious, or benevolent.
Governments, like individuals, find ways to counter, or balance, the initiatives of each other.
The process may be chaotic, bloody, and painful, as it is in all of nature. But eventually, balance
is achieved, progress is made, and society advances. Should a government arise, for which there
is no counter, no balance, individuals become nothing more than subjects dependent upon the
whims of the government. Man's long road out of the jungle is dotted with the ashes of other
governments, first built on the consent of the governed, then defiled by its own ambition, and
eventually collapsed by the weight of its own incompetence.

The current rush to create global governance is simply the reemergence of the ageless quest for
power. Every government that has ever failed has increased its power beyond the consent of the
governed by promising protection from a real or manufactured threat to the individuals governed.
In truth, governments provide nothing. Government is simply a mechanism through which
individuals perform. Governments cannot have ideas; individuals do. Governments have no
wealth, unless taken from individuals. Governments sail no ships, launch no missiles, fire no
weapons, provide no protection - it is, in the end, individual human beings exercising their
intelligence and energy in the face of a problem or in pursuit of an objective.

That fact underlies the failure of every failed government. When government amasses the power
to sufficiently suppress the freedom of the individuals governed, individuals arise and cast off
that government. It may take years, even centuries, but it will occur, as history will attest.
America has succeeded as long as it has only because its founders realized that success and
achievement were the work of individuals, and crafted a government to promote individual
achievement and severely limit the power of government. As the American government grows
in power over the individual, it grows dangerously closer to the point of reconstruction as was

18
demonstrated by the result of the 1994 election.

Global governance, as presently being developed by the United Nations organizations, makes no
pretense of recognizing individual freedom or even the need for consent by the governed. While
publicly spouting phrases such as "public/private partnerships" privately, binding treaties and
punitive taxes are being imposed. Without apology, the concept of individual achievement is
criticized in the World Core Curriculum and the redistribution of wealth is advocated to achieve
what is called "equity." Nature knows no equity. Individuals, whether human or not, earn what
they get, defend what they earn, and have no right to expect anything else. A global government
that promises "equity" to gain the consent of the governed is no different from the government
that promised the utopia of communism. No government has the power to ignore the laws of
nature - and survive.

If the United Nations is to contribute to the progress of human societies, its function must be
limited to nothing more than a forum where individual sovereign nations may gather to discuss,
debate, and work out their differences. Anything more is an invitation to disaster on a global
scale. Unfortunately, much, much more has already occurred. The UN began with 1500
employees. Now more than 52,000 employees fill hundreds of bureaucratic organizations,
sucking up billions of dollars earned by hard-working individuals, imposing programs that
inhibit, rather than encourage individual freedom.

Global governance must be avoided. The United States is the only power in the world that can
prevent the move toward global governance, but alas, the current administration is aiding and
abetting the movement. Individuals who value freedom must recognize that freedom is at risk
and use the power of persuasion among friends, and the power of the ballot box among enemies,
to sustain the freedom that has allowed America to prosper. The detour to global governance can
still be averted, but the time is short. Once America has relinquished its sovereignty to global
governance, the direction of the journey cannot be changed at the ballot box, nor can a single
nation withdraw from global dominance. A century of suffering will be required to once again
confirm that government cannot manage individuals; that individuals must manage their
governments.
















19
(169 March, 1996)
The year of decision

By Henry Lamb

In 1776, a handful of individuals, who saw themselves to be nothing more than concerned
patriots, made decisions that shaped the destiny of America and the world. The decisions made
between now and November 1996 will be no less fateful. In fact, the election of 1996 in
America may well be the watershed which determines whether the future flows toward a world
of expanding individual freedom, or a world where people's lives are managed by a global
government.

The paramount issue facing America - which will be determined in the next election - has not yet
hit the political radar screen. Pundits discuss the relative chances of the various Republican
nominees, Whitewater, Bosnia, Medicare and Medicaid, the Republican revolution, and a host of
other issues that pale to insignificance compared to the drama unfolding beyond our borders.
While Americans prepare for a barrage of bumper stickers and negative campaign ads, powerful
people positioned around the world are planning to plunder America and reduce its power and
prestige to achieve what is called global "justice and equity."

The United Nations has funded a three-year, so-called independent Commission on Global
Governance to recommend to the international community how best to achieve global
governance. The Commission's report was released late in 1995. The recommendations leave
no doubt; the published plan calls for a World Conference on Global Governance in 1998 to
adopt the official treaties and agreements which will install global governance by the year 2000.

What is critical about the 1996 election? The current Administration has appointed individuals
throughout the Executive Branch, including the State Department, who are actively promoting
the agenda of global governance. Unless there is a sweeping change in the Administration in the
1996 election, American delegates to the United Nations will continue to aid and abet the
wholesale decimation of American sovereignty by subjugating America to the authority of a
restructured, omnipotent United Nations system.

The 1996 campaign must focus on essentially the same issues that confronted the patriots in
1776: freedom, sovereignty, and the inalienable right to pursue life, liberty, and property through
individual achievement and personal responsibility. These are the core values on which America
was built. These are the very values that the Commission on Global Governance intends to
replace with its set of core values which is founded on "equity" insured by the "rule of
enforceable law." Justice, according to the Commission, can occur only when society is
economically equalized, and equalization can occur only when society is managed by a system
of global governance dedicated to a common objective.

Americans want no part of such a society. Americans sacrificed, fought and died to defend
freedom from the military imposition of a managed society. The great danger confronting
Americans is that they do not yet know that the enemy has changed uniforms, and tactics. The

20
threat is no longer the red star and sickle painted on planes and missiles; now the threat comes
from hoards of NGOs (non-government organizations) cheering the proposals pushed by
international statesmen at World Conferences designed to incrementally achieve with verbosity
what could not be accomplished with bombs.

The 1996 campaign must go well beyond the usual rhetoric; it must go well beyond politics -- to
the very core of America. What has been called "the Republican revolution" must become the
new American revolution -- a revolt against the unrelenting campaign to enslave the world in a
system of global governance. America is the only power on earth strong enough to stop the
global governance movement. It can do so only by standing firm in the United Nations and
demanding that the UN dismantle its sprawling bureaucracies and retreat from its objectives of
global governance. Those people now speaking for America at the UN -- all appointed by the
current Administration -- are not defending American values. They are, in fact, assisting the
United Nations system in its quest for global governance.

Neither Washington nor the main-stream media will tell America that the sovereignty of our
nation is at risk. As in 1776, it must be the people who rise up and tell Washington which
direction to choose. And it must be done in the 1996 election. People must be elected to
Congress who share America's core values, not those who promote global governance in the new
world order. Above all, since it is the President who appoints our delegates to the UN, we must
elect a President and Vice-President who share America's core values, not those values published
by Al Gore in his book, Earth in the Balance. It is American sovereignty that provides
individual freedom. Even though the federal government has infringed upon those freedoms, if
we are a sovereign nation, we can correct our federal government. If, however, we relinquish
our sovereignty to a global power, we have no hope of freedom beyond that granted by those
who seek to manage human behavior.





















21
(170 March, 1996)
The year of decision: It's time to stop

By Henry Lamb

Shortly after the creation of the United Nations, signs began to appear along American roads that
said "Get US out of the UN." Proponents of withdrawal from the UN have been painted by the
media as right-wing extremists who fail to see the inevitability of globalization. Every
administration since Roosevelt has declared that participation in the United Nations would never
lead to world government. Indeed, the UN was designed to ensure that world government could
never occur. Each of the five major powers were given veto power in the UN Security Council,
the UN's supreme authority. Any of the five veto nations could block any proposed UN action.
The veto was used frequently during the cold war. But since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, it
has been used only once by Russia on a relatively insignificant issue.

As further defense against world government, the UN architects made the UN dependent upon its
members for funding. The UN operates on the money provided by member nations. America
has frequently withheld its payments to the UN in order to nudge the institution in directions
more closely aligned with American values. With these safeguards in place, both Washington
and the media ignored the claims of those who warned of the danger of an ultimate UN take
over. Over the years, various conspiracy theories have been advanced and quickly discounted.
UN foes have systematically been branded as paranoid alarmists. Their warnings have now been
vindicated.

During the cold war, globalists worked in silence. The two major powers dominated the world
scene, and regardless of what the globalists might want, they knew full well their agenda was
secondary to the wishes and power of the two predominant global forces. When the Soviet
Union collapsed, however, a vacuum was created. The globalists saw an opportunity to bring
their agenda out of the closet. Throughout the 1980s, they had been working to develop a
common enemy -- environmental degradation -- which they believed would unite both the
United States and Russia in a common defense under global management. When the Berlin wall
fell, so did the need to unite the two opposing forces.

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) had already been
in the works for years. It provided the ideal occasion to roll out the global agenda for inspection
by the world community. The world community cheered and adopted several treaties and
documents that set the world's course toward global governance. At the same time, emboldened
by the world's acceptance of the UNCED documents, a new Commission on Global Governance
was created. The Commission worked for three years, constructing the plan to make global
governance a reality. That plan has now been published by Oxford University Press, and entitled
Our Global Neighborhood: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance (ISBN 0-19-
827998-3, $14.95 410pp)." The report confirms all the worst fears of those who have warned
about the UN's take-over of the world.

The Commission would strip the veto power from the five permanent members. It would adopt a

22
system of global taxation to insure adequate funding for UN programs and enforcement of
international law. It would create a standing army. And it would declare the atmosphere, outer
space, the oceans, and biodiversity to be -- Global Commons -- under the authority of the UN
Trusteeship Council, and administered by a new Economic Security Council. It would
consolidate all international monetary systems, all international trade, and all international
development under the authority of the new Economic Security Council and require
multinational corporations to secure an international license and pay royalties to the UN.

It is time to stop the UN and its mad dash to global governance. And at this late date, there is
only one way to do it: withdraw. Congressman Joe Scarborough (R-FL) has introduced a bill
(HR2535) to do just that. His bill calls for an orderly withdrawal over four years, reducing
America's financial support by 25 percent each year. His bill would require that the UN find a
new home, and that America's involvement in UN peacekeeping missions be reduced each year
and eventually eliminated. It is drastic action. Such a plan will draw screams and howls from
the media and from the liberal left. The current Administration, especially Vice-President Al
Gore, will ridicule the bill and those who support it. But the alternative is inevitable global
governance.

Withdrawal from the UN does not mean, necessarily, withdrawal from the world community --
nor should it. It could mean the emergence of American values around the world. It could mean
freedom for people whose only hope now is a chance to come to America. It could, and should,
mean a new era of freedom and prosperity for all people everywhere.

























23
(171 March, 1996)
The year of decision: America's role beyond the UN

By Henry Lamb

The emergence of America launched an astronomical rise in the quality of life for human beings
around the world. Life expectancy, even in the least developed nations, has been increased by
technologies developed in America. People everywhere clamor to get to America in hopes of
having a piece of the American pie. The United Nations' proposals to impose global governance
would slice the American pie into tiny pieces and give it to the people who cannot get to
America. The process, inevitably, would diminish the American pie to the point that Americans,
as well as the rest of the world, would starve.

America first, must stop the United Nations' plan to impose global governance. Then, it should
reach out to the world and share the recipe so every nation can make its own pie of prosperity.
For America to fulfill its role in the world beyond the United Nations, the American people must
elect officials who understand that it was not the federal government that made America great;
America was made great by individual human beings who possessed the freedom to pursue life,
liberty, and property. America's greatest gift to the world is not our wealth or our technology,
but the discovery of the unlimited potential of the human spirit when it is freed from the
encumbrances of omnipotent governance. When people control governments, there is no
problem they cannot solve; when governments control people, the solutions become insoluble
problems.

What is called the "Republican revolution" is the rediscovery of American values that go far
beyond politics. It is an American revolution - joined by members of every political stripe -who
realize that the federal government must be reminded that it is the servant of the people, not their
master. The revolution was only launched in 1994; more ground must be gained in 1996.
Enough ground must be gained, particularly that ground centered at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
to insist that the United Nations abandon its quest for global governance, and then begin to
export America's most valuable commodity -- individual freedom.

At Global Conferences, American representatives should not be insisting that America submit to
treaties such as the Convention on Biological Diversity - as did Vice-President Al Gore.
American Representatives should be insisting that any international agreement protect national
sovereignty and insure individual freedom and the right to pursue life, liberty, and property.
Presidential appointees should not be inviting United Nations officials to intervene in the
business activities of American companies - as did Fish and Wildlife Secretary, George
Frampton. Presidential appointees should defend national sovereignty from the intrusions of any
foreign power. The American people must first reclaim power and control over its own federal
government, and then freely share with the world the recipe for prosperity.

Arguments to the contrary will abound. Many people in America, and in the international
community, do not see America to be a beacon of freedom, hope, and prosperity. They point to
the inner-city ghettos, and blatant crime in the streets, and corporate irresponsibility as the

24
product of American freedom. Their argument claims that these outcomes are the inevitable
result of individual freedom where only a few achieve prosperity at the expense of the masses
who are left to suffer. Their solution is "equity" enforced through international law.

Freedom includes the freedom to err. Freedom cannot be exercised without the freedom to make
mistakes. Progress can occur only when mistakes are made. Indeed, success is defined by
failure. What works cannot be known, until what does not work has been eliminated. Prosperity
comes at a price. And that price is the mistakes that are made en route. When people are free to
make mistakes, people learn from their mistakes quickly, and correct them. Governments,
however, with their usurped omnipotence, make no mistakes. In its own eyes, whatever
government does is law, and therefore right. People, individually, cannot correct the mistakes of
government. Consequently, un-admitted mistakes multiply and accumulate until either the
government itself or the people can no longer stand the weight of collective incompetence, and
inevitably, the government collapses. People then, must begin anew to fend for themselves,
using their own energy and ingenuity, to produce the security they might have had in the
beginning had not government presumed to provide it for them.

America must ever stand as a beacon of individual freedom, limited government directly
accountable to the electors, compassion, and a willingness to share with all who would not
attempt to constrain life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.



























25
(172 March, 1996)
The year of decision: A strategy for freedom

By Henry Lamb

A serious call to withdraw from the United Nations is sure to bring a howl from the President,
Vice-President, Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs), the Socialist Party, and from the liberal
elements of American society. There can be no better way to focus the debate in 1996 on the
critical issues that emanate from the proposals to impose global governance through the United
Nations system. Of course, it would be better not to withdraw from the United Nations, if the
United Nations were not hell-bent on becoming the governor of the world. But now that the plan
is published, now that the highest officers of the United Nations system have announced their
intention to establish global governance -- there is no alternative. America must stop this lunacy.
By advancing Congressman Joe Scarborough's bill, the "United Nations Withdrawal Act of
1995," (HR2535), to the front pages of every newspaper and to the floor of Congress, the 1996
campaign will rise above the usual rhetoric and force our candidates to declare themselves on the
side of sovereignty and individual freedom, or on the side of global governance.

America can play a vital role in the emerging global community without acquiescing to the
global governance aspirations of the international elite. It is America's responsibility to help the
world avoid the global catastrophe that will inevitably follow any attempt to manage global
societies. It is incredible that such a scheme would even emerge in the aftermath of the colossal
failure of the communist experiment in Russia and Cuba. The international elite, however, are
convinced that they now have the formula and can do globally, what no nation has been able to
do within its own borders: provide cradle-to-the-grave "security of the people."

Every person should first, read the Commission on Global Governance report, "Our Global
Neighborhood," or an analysis of the report (_cologic, January/February, 1996), to satisfy
himself that the UN is indeed, attempting to impose global governance under the "rule of
enforceable [international] law." Then ask a Congressman for a copy of HR2535, to be
personally assured that the proposed withdrawal is reasonable. Then persuade every person in
every neighborhood and every organization to do the same thing. Ask every candidate for every
office for a position on HR2535. Develop and adopt resolutions at Rotary, Kiwanis, Chamber of
Commerce, and other civic organizations expressing support for HR2535. Call radio talk shows,
and write letters to the editor, again, and again, and again. America is the only power on earth
strong enough to stop the UN march to global governance, but the only power on earth strong
enough to direct the American government, is the people who created the government in the first
place.

This Presidential election may be the last election in which the people of America still have the
power to control their own destiny. If the UN is successful in its plan to convene a World
Conference on Global Governance in 1998, and implement global governance by the year 2000,
the next Presidential election won't matter at all. The President and America, and all its people,
will be under the "rule of enforceable [international] law."


26
This strategy will bring to a screeching halt the relentless intrusion on property rights by the
federal government now trying to implement the provisions of the Convention on Biological
Diversity with its "Ecosystem Management Policy." It will stop the outpouring of tax dollars to
the population control programs sponsored by the United Nations. It will redirect the discussion
of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Climate Change, and perhaps prevent a 60
percent reduction of energy use in America. It will stop further negotiations on the
Desertification Treaty which could give international control to American farm lands. It will
block the give-away of American technology now being negotiated by American observers to the
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. It will stop the expansion
of UNESCO's Biosphere Reserve Program, now threatening southern Appalachia and the
Missouri Ozarks. It will keep UNESCO's World Heritage Committee out of domestic business
affairs. It will prevent the UN's Robert Muller World Core Curriculum from invading our
schools in the form of "Outcome Based Education." It will block the transfer of parental rights
to the international community as is proposed in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

It will keep outer space free for those who can get there. It will keep the airwaves free from
globally controlled government propaganda. It will keep the airways and oceans free for those
who need them. It will keep the land -- American land -- out of the control of a handful of
international elite, unelected bureaucrats. It will keep America, and its people, out of the control
of a handful of international elite, unelected bureaucrats, who think they know best how we
should live our lives.


























27
(173 April, 1996)
Redefining American Values

By Henry Lamb

For more than a generation, traditional American values have been undergoing a planned process
of redefinition. The process is nearing completion and many Americans have not yet realized
what has occurred. To the Americans who carved this nation out of wilderness, life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness were the supreme values to be protected at any cost. In a generation,
these words have come to describe new values which differ markedly from those for which our
ancestors fought and died.

Life, the first and highest value set forth in our Declaration of Independence, describes human
life. The ordinary people who created an extraordinary nation made no apology for their belief
that human life is the crowning achievement of a supreme creator. They celebrated the belief
that human life reflected the image of the creator and that all other life forms are a gift to be used
to sustain and benefit human life. This belief in the value of life is described in scientific terms
as anthropocentrism, or "man-centered."

In a generation, anthropocentrism has been denounced as the cause of most of the world's
problems, and life, as a value, has been redefined. The new definition of life, the first and
highest value to be protected, is all life forms, of which human life is but one strand with no
more value than any other life form. This belief is described as biocentrism, or "nature-
centered." It is this biocentric belief that now describes the value of life as policies are adopted
which purport to protect "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

This redefinition of the value of life has profound impact upon the place and role of all human
beings on this planet. The biocentric value of life bestows upon every tree, cockroach, and
rattlesnake, the same right to life that a human enjoys. In the biocentric view, the use of a tree or
the squashing of a cockroach by a human is equal to the murder of another human, since all life
forms are of equal value. It is this belief that compels Earth First! members to chain themselves
to trees and destroy logging equipment in an effort to prevent humans from committing murder.
It is this belief that compels Greenpeace members to destroy whaling vessels. It is this belief,
described as "the new earth ethic," that underlies regulatory policies which prevent humans from
using natural resources that are seen to be other life forms with as much right to live as humans.
The value of life has been redefined.

The only way to protect life, as it has been redefined, is to constrain the liberty of human beings.
In their pursuit of happiness, humans cannot be allowed to continue to murder defenseless trees
and animals. Therefore, those who hold the biocentric value of life have developed a maze of
regulatory constraints which are redefining the traditional American value of liberty into a new
pattern of human behavior controlled, not by the individual, but by a central legal authority.

Liberty, as used in the Declaration of Independence, meant individual liberty. It meant freedom
for every individual to do whatever he or she chose to do in pursuit of individual happiness.

28
Liberty was constrained only by the common law which provides recourse for the infringement
on one's freedom by another. It was this meaning of individual freedom that made America
flourish. It was the recourse provided by common law that enforced the personal responsibility
which accompanies individual freedom. Individual liberty, tempered by personal responsibility,
produces excellent achievement. Freedom for every individual - to try, to fail, to try again, to
compete, to outsmart, to succeed - is the driving force which propelled America and the world to
the fantastic accomplishments achieved in the last century.

Liberty, as redefined by the new "earth ethic," means freedom for the individual to do whatever
is allowed by the central authority. Individual achievement is discouraged in favor of teamwork
to promote the common good. Individuals working together toward an objective prescribed by
the central authority, eliminates competition and reduces personal responsibility. The new "earth
ethic" promises security for the people who exercise their liberty within the behavior that is
deemed acceptable, or "sustainable" by the biocentric central authority. Behavior which is
deemed not to be "sustainable," is ridiculed, discouraged, and penalized. Individuals who cling
to the old definition of liberty are now castigated as greedy, anti-environmental polluters who
seek only to enrich themselves at the expense of society.






























29
(174 April, 1996)
Redefining American Values: The Pursuit of Happiness

By Henry Lamb

Happiness in America has always centered around owning a piece of land, a home, having a
family, and an adequate income earned doing something that is enjoyable. America was created
to guarantee its citizens the right to pursue happiness - any way they chose. The creators of
America recognized that in order to pursue happiness, citizens must have the right to life, liberty,
and property. The Constitution which created America, guarantees these rights. These
fundamental values are now being redefined by the new "earth ethic."

The right to own property, the foundation of all American freedoms, is being eroded. The new
earth ethic holds that biodiversity, that is, all life forms, must be protected from the onslaught of
human beings. Since biodiversity lives on land, the use of land must be controlled. The control
of land use by a central authority negates the purpose of private ownership. The right to own
property, as guaranteed by the Constitution, has been eroded by an explosion of land-use laws
and regulations which effectively destroy the traditional American value of the right to pursue
happiness - as one chooses. Moreover, the keepers of the new earth ethic are not content to rely
on regulations. It is their goal to remove land from individual ownership by placing it under the
ownership and control of government where possible, or other organizations such as The Nature
Conservancy. Already, governments own 40 percent of the land in America. A significant
additional amount is owned by more than 700 land conservancy organizations. Every year,
billions of dollars are appropriated for land acquisitions at every level of government, and
billions more are funneled to land conservancy organizations. The long range plan, now
published in the Wildlands Project, the Sierra Club magazine, the UN's Global Biodiversity
Assessment, and elsewhere, is to eventually get all land out of the hands of private owners and
redefine the concept of property rights to mean ownership of an apartment or condo in a planned
"sustainable" community.

The pursuit of happiness, as envisioned in the new earth ethic, is a vastly different vision from
those entertained by the creators of America. The new vision is not fully formed. It has been
developing in the literature for more than a generation. There is now enough published
information, however, to begin to construct an accurate picture of how humans can expect to
pursue happiness in the next century.

The new earth ethic requires a central, biocentric authority, under the auspices of the United
Nations. The function of national governments is seen to be the enforcement of international
agreements within their boundaries. State and local governments are expected to be consumed
by Bioregional Councils, dominated by "civil society" representatives. "Civil society" is defined
to be NGOs (non-government organizations) accredited by the United Nations. Bioregional
Councils will have direct access to the United Nations through a "Petitions Council," a new UN
body, that will function under the authority of a restructured UN Trusteeship Council, consisting
of "civil society" appointees, who are charged with the trusteeship of the "global commons."
Under the new system of governance, now being developed by the United Nations, individuals

30
will be "managed" in order to protect biodiversity. Human populations are to be gradually
moved to what Science magazine describes as "islands of human habitat surrounded by
wilderness." These islands of human habitat are expected to be isolated communities that are
essentially self-sufficient, using only approved non-chemical, non-motorized agricultural
techniques on land that is designated as "buffer zones" surrounding core wilderness. Such
communities would have little need for the energy-intensive industrial complex that pollutes the
air and consumes natural resources, nor would there be a need for the gigantic transportation
system to move consumer products to market. True happiness, under the new earth ethic, begins
with an awareness of oneness with the earth.

The new definition of the value of pursuing happiness is being imposed throughout the land
every moment of every day. Thousands of NGOs are working to implement measures to restrict
land use, at every level of government. Other NGOs are working to destroy industry in America
by imposing bans on man-made chemicals such as chlorine. Other NGOs are working to rewrite
the curricula for public education. Other NGOs are focusing on American churches in an
organized campaign that already reaches 53,000 congregations on a regular basis. Sadly, our
federal government is leading the charge to redefine American values.






























31
(175 April, 1996)
Redefining American Values: Government Complicity

By Henry Lamb

Even before Al Gore became Vice President, he led a Congressional majority, supported by the
popular environmental movement, to enact laws which redefine traditional American values. As
Vice President, he has been able to speed up the process by placing many of the very people who
designed the new "earth ethic" in key policy positions. Virtually all the federal agencies which
have regulatory responsibility over natural resources are now headed by individuals whose
biocentric belief system has been well established. Representatives to the United Nations have
also passed the biocentric litmus test, and are now advancing proposals to achieve "global
governance" at the expense of American sovereignty. Al Gore is the green guru in the federal
government most responsible for the government's complicity in redefining American values.

The Republican revolution of 1994 caused Gore and his green army to regroup and plan a new
strategy. Rather than engage the debate raised by the Republican majority, Gore is leading the
Democratic minority in a strategy of deception and demagoguery aimed at the destruction of all
who oppose their vision of a biocentric world - including the Republican party.

The House passed amendments to the Clean Water Act which included important protection for
private property owners. Gore and his minions immediately branded the bill as the Republican's
"Dirty Water Act" and held press conferences claiming that the bill would force tax payers to pay
polluters for simply obeying the law. Congressmen Don Young and Richard Pombo introduced
reforms to the Endangered Species Act which many people believe would be more effective in
protecting endangered species. Gore and his minions immediately sent up a chorus that the bill
would "roll back 25 years of environmental progress." Senator Bob Dole introduced the
Omnibus Property Rights Act to enforce the Constitutional protection of property rights. Gore
and his minions launched a national media campaign claiming that the bill would create a new
entitlement program for polluters.

Their strategy is working. The Republican revolution began with a Contract with America
which promised to restore traditional American values to domestic policy. Gore and his minions
have successfully distorted the effort into the perception that Republicans have issued a Contract
on America which will destroy the environment, enrich the greedy, impoverish the middle class,
and starve the poor and the elderly. Gore and his minions have been able to shift the debate
away from the real issues, confident that a constant stream of propaganda against the awful, anti-
environmental, anti-poor, anti-elderly Republicans will result in a Democratic majority in
Congress and a return of the Clinton-Gore White House.

The on-going, highly visible budget battle is not about the issues at conflict within the budget
bill; the battle being waged by the White House is about public perception of the warriors.
Neither Clinton, nor his spokesmen, ever discuss the merits of a position held; they simply claim
to be protectors of health care for the poor, education, and the environment, while at the same
time, denouncing Republicans as heartless destroyers of health care, education and the

32
environment.

Implicit in the White House position is the same belief system that is embraced in the new earth
ethic. That belief system holds that government should provide "security" for the people, and
that government should "educate" the people, and that government should "manage" natural
resources. Congress, under the control of Democrats for the last 40 years, has imposed that
belief system so thoroughly that many Americans have forgotten, or have never known, the
traditional American values of individual freedom and personal responsibility. The best way to
destroy individual initiative and achievement is to remove the need for it. In its effort to provide
"security" for the people, government inadvertently removed the need for individuals to exercise
their own initiative to achieve personal security. The greater the dependence individuals have
upon government, the more manageable society becomes. It is the goal of Al Gore and his
minions to manage society. It is the stated objective of the new earth ethic to transform societies
into a "global neighborhood" managed under the watchful eye of "civil society" enforced by
international law. The federal government, under the leadership of the recent Democratic
majority and the current Administration, is aiding and abetting the transition from individual
freedom and personal responsibility to a managed society of individuals who accept government
control in exchange for government hand-outs.

America was created to insure that its citizens were free to pursue opportunity. America now
limits, and increasingly controls, its citizens' ability to pursue opportunity. There can be only
one, inevitable, eventual result of the new earth ethic being imposed with government
complicity: human disaster.
























33
(176 April, 1996)
Redefining American Values: The 21st Century

By Henry Lamb

Florida is the state chosen by the Wildlands Project to illustrate what America should look like in
the 21st century. The illustration appeared in the Fall, 1995 Patagonia catalog, along with an
introduction by Dave Foreman. Three maps show the state as it now is, as it will be in 10 years,
and how it will look in 100 years. The first map identifies about 10 percent of the state as
"protected areas" and the balance as privately owned property. The protected areas include the
Everglades, which is a UN Biosphere Reserve and a UNESCO World Heritage Site "in danger."
A small area around Ocala, some of the panhandle, and a few scattered spots in central Florida
are also shown as protected areas.

The second map, Florida as it will be in 10 years, shows greatly expanded protected areas,
including "Corridors linking panthers from the Everglades to Georgia and Alabama." Much of
the upper west coast pinelands, the small towns around Lake Okeechobee, Palatka, Deland, and
other towns in northeast Florida will be inside the protected areas. Nearly half the state will be
converted to core wilderness or buffer zones in ten years, according to the Wildlands Project
plan. The final map "shows what we need to do to ensure the biological health of the state."
Approximately 90 percent of the state is protected in wilderness and buffer zones and the
remaining 10 percent is left for clusters of human population around Miami, Fort Meyers to St.
Petersburg, Orlando, Jacksonville, and Pensacola.

How can a not-for-profit organization, headed by a convicted eco-terrorist, publish such a
blatantly ambitious plan in a prestigious national publication? Dave Foreman has every reason
to be confident. Florida is ahead of most states in their effort to destroy the concept of private
property rights. Since its 1972 Comprehensive Land Use Planning Act, Florida has continually
tightened its control of private property. Florida law even allows local governments, and the
state, to widen road right-of-ways by mowing or maintaining private property adjacent to roads
for four years, and then legally "take" the property without even notifying the land owner.
Florida's legislature and state house have been dominated by biocentric green leadership for
years. Moreover, the Everglades have been under the Biosphere Reserve Program of the UN for
many years. Until now, however, the land-use control measures imposed on Florida's people
were presented simply as necessary steps to protect the environment. Only in recent months has
the full plan been revealed.

The plan to convert America to wilderness may begin in Florida, but it is being implemented
across the nation with the full support of the current Administration. Carol Browner,
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is the former Environmental Protection
Chief for the state of Florida. The Secretary of Interior, Bruce Babbitt, and the head of the Fish
and Wildlife Service, George Frampton, both formerly headed environmental organizations that
helped to design the wilderness plan.

The United Nations has also formally embraced the Wildlands Project as the method to be used

34
to implement Article 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Recently published plans to
restructure the United Nations would put all lands, both public and private, under the authority of
the UN Trusteeship Council to be administered through a system of Bioregional Councils
consisting of appointees from accredited environmental organizations.

What happens to the people? They are relocated to islands of human habitat surrounded by
wilderness. They are expected to use most of their time growing, or hunting their food using
only the methods approved and permitted by the Bioregional Councils. The proponents of the
Wildlands Project have determined that the human race will be better off communing with nature
than present life styles provide. They have also determined that the population must be reduced
by at least 50 percent, and some advocate a reduction of 80 percent. To bring that about,
proposals have been made to require a government license to bear children.

The 21st century will be a new world if world governance plans are implemented. Air
conditioning will be a thing of the past. The CFC ban, effective December 31, 1995, is a major
step in that direction. Automobiles will slowly give way to bicycles and non-motorized vehicles.
Electricity generated by fossil and nuclear fuels will become so expensive as to be unavailable to
most homes. Vacations will become short jaunts to wilderness areas to commune with nature in
what is called "eco-tourism" expeditions. Schools will teach selfless deference for the benefit of
the community. Churches will proclaim gaia as the source of life and the object of worship.

The plan is laid. The plan is published in a variety of UN and federal documents,
and the plan is being implemented every hour of every day by environmental organizations and
by their puppets in the federal government. Only aware, alert, courageous people can prevent it.























35
(177 May, 1996)
Governance by non-elected officials

By Henry Lamb

Government by the people, for the people, and of the people, is given meaning when the ultimate
power of the people is expressed through the ballot box. Without the ability to "throw the bums
out," at the ballot box, those who govern have no accountability, and less responsibility to those
who are governed. In America, the ballot box has been the great defender of liberty and the
instrument through which the will of the people has been haltingly advanced.

Now, the ballot box is in great peril. A new system of governance is emerging. The new system
pays lip-service to the ballot box, but is replete in ways to by-pass its authority. This new system
of governance is being promoted by the United Nations. It is a system of governance by non-
government organizations. Non-government organizations that have been approved, or
accredited by the United Nations, are now being called "Civil Society Organizations." Those
organizations which have not been accredited are called "populist activist groups."

In the March/April edition of World Watch, Senior Researcher, Michael Renner makes the case
for governance by "Civil Society Organizations." He says that there is "growing evidence that
the global market poses a threat to both cultural and biological diversity, and the need for
defenders of diversity to be in on global governance." He also says that national governments
are declining in authority the world over. He says "...it may be time for CSOs to move to the
fore."

CSOs or NGOs are moving to the fore, at both the international and national level. As Renner
points out in his editorial, NGOs have played an increasingly influential role in international
conferences since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. They are also gaining influence in domestic
policy issues. And there is a new role developing that will give them even more power. The
function of NGOs is discussed in great detail in the Global Biodiversity Assessment, the 1100-
page document recently released by the United Nations Environment Program, funded by the
Global Environment Facility.

NGOs are to be elevated in legal status, and be empowered to sue in behalf of biodiversity. They
are to be empowered to receive funds directly from UN sources, and to manage and administer
UN programs. These new proposed powers for NGOs take on added significance in view of the
recommendations of the Commission on Global Governance report entitled Our Global
Neighborhood. This 410-page document calls for the restructuring of the United Nations, and
for the creation, within the UN system, of a new "Assembly of the People" which is to be chosen
from 300 to 600 "accredited" NGOs. The UN Trusteeship Council is to be restructured and
consist of no more than 23 representatives from "accredited" NGOs, who will be given
"trusteeship" of the global commons. The global commons is defined to be "the atmosphere,
outer space, the oceans, and the related environment and life-support systems that contribute to
the support of human life." There will also be a new "Petitions Council," consisting of five to
seven representatives from "accredited" NGOs whose job will be to screen petitions from NGOs

36
in nation states and recommend appropriate UN response. NGOs are moving to the fore.

The granddaddy of all NGOs, the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) is
primarily responsible for the UN-NGO policy. It was organized in 1948 by the same people who
organized UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). It
created the WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) in 1961, which then created the WRI (World
Resources Institute) in 1982. These three NGOs now guide more than 29,000 international
NGOs, and many more thousand national NGOs in the implementation of policies which they
have themselves developed. For example, it was the IUCN who first proposed the Convention
on Biological Diversity in 1981. More than 7,000 NGOs assembled in Rio to lobby the delegates
to the Earth Summit to adopt the treaty. The NGOs were coordinated by the IUCN and the WRI.
It was the IUCN who first proposed and lobbied for the UN resolution which provides
"accreditation" for NGOs. The IUCN has 550 NGOs, 100 government agencies, and 68
sovereign states in its membership. The United States Department of State contributes more than
$1 million per year to this NGO. Indeed, NGOs are moving to the fore!
































37
(178 May, 1996)
NGOs: Organizing for governance

By Henry Lamb

How, exactly, are NGOs organizing for governance? There are dozens of different techniques
employed, all working toward the same objective: control of land and resource use decisions.
One of the more popular techniques is the use of natural or cultural "Heritage Areas." A
common feature of these "Heritage Areas" is the creation of a "Management Board." This
Management Board is supposed to represent the interests of all the "stakeholders" within the
Heritage Area. Management Boards are given a wide range of authority. In some instances,
authority is limited to simply recommending to local governments what should be done. In other
cases, the Management Board has absolute authority over all land use and resource use within
the area. Currently, there are at least eight different "Heritage Area" bills in Congress seeking to
establish Heritage Areas in South Carolina, Michigan, Georgia, Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.

Typically, the Heritage Area Act will define the geographic area, establish broad objectives of
preserving "heritage," and create a Management Board to accomplish the task. Frequently, the
legislation will designate a few public officials, a few business leaders, and a bevy of NGO
representatives to sit on the Management Board. Quite often, the Heritage Area Act is the result
of lobbying by a group of NGOs who then get named to the Management Board. In almost
every instance, the NGOs dominate the board, if not in number, then in preparation and
expertise. NGO representatives to these management boards are frequently full-time employees
of an NGO created by a larger NGO expressly for that purpose. The Tides Foundation, which
receives funding from the Department of Interior and other federal sources, has an elaborate
program called the "Incubator Program" which creates and funds small two- or three-person
NGOs for the express purpose of achieving a local objective such as the creation of a Heritage
Area.

This same technique is used by the Man and the Biosphere Program of the State Department.
The program is a product of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization), and now operates 47 Biosphere Reserves in the United States. The oldest
Biosphere Reserve is the Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Program (SAMAB),
which began in the Great Smoky Mountains. The SAMAB area now extends from near
Birmingham, Alabama to near Richmond, Virginia. The SAMAB "Management Board" was
created by mutual agreement among several state and federal agencies. Soon after the
Management Board was established, it incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation and became a
full-blown NGO in its own right. Its board of directors includes representatives from the
National Parks and Conservation Association, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, and
other NGOs.

The Adirondack State Park Commission is perhaps the most extreme example of non-elected
governing authority by a management board. This Commission was created by state legislation,
appointed by the governor, and has absolute authority over nearly three million acres of private
property surrounding the three-million acre Adirondack State Park. In fact, the entire six-million

38
acre area is designated as a state park, even though half of it is privately owned. Private land
owners may not disturb their own land without approval of the management board.

Most often, authority is accumulated by management boards in small increments. The
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is a widely used mechanism by which management boards
grab power. A simple agreement between the management board and a local government may
call first, for all zoning changes to be reviewed by the management board to test for compliance
with the "Heritage" plan. Then the language of the MOA might be revised to include the words
"reviewed and approved." Gradually, these management boards extend their influence and their
power as far and wide as possible. The NGOs on these management boards are affiliated with
NGOs who work on a broader agenda. Whether the management board is created to serve a
local watershed, a heritage area, or a Biosphere Reserve, their activities are coordinated within a
much broader agenda leading to the creation of Bioregions and Bioregional Councils. These
plans are discussed, and the procedures for implementation are set forth in the Global
Biodiversity Assessment, especially in Sections 9 and 10. The Bioregions are to become the
basic unit of governance, with representatives from the Bioregional Councils selected to serve on
the newly proposed "Assembly of the People" at the United Nations. With the newly proposed
"Petitions Council" in place at the UN, management boards will have direct access to the UN
enforcement agencies for infractions of land-use plans. Elected officials may still be in place,
but their authority over land use and resource use will be irrelevant.



























39
(179 May, 1996)
NGOs and Bioregions

By Henry Lamb

The Sierra club has proposed a new map of North America consisting of 21 Bioregions, which,
according to the Global Biodiversity Assessment, should become the basic unit of governance.
Bioregions are defined by ecosystems, not by political boundaries. The Department of Interior
has defined 52 ecosystems in the United States which fit nicely into the 21 Bioregions proposed
by the Sierra club. Within each of the Bioregions and ecosystems, there are active NGOs
working to implement a variety of land lock-up schemes. The more popular schemes currently
include Natural and Cultural Heritage Areas, Biosphere Reserves, Viewsheds, Ecosystem
Management Plans, Buffer Zones around existing parks, and Zones of Cooperation around
Buffer Zones.

The impetus for each of these schemes comes from an NGO or a coalition of NGOs, aided and
abetted by the Department of Interior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in particular, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service, and a host
of other federal and state agencies. With few exceptions, NGOs initiate the local action with a
willing federal or state agency, sometimes with funding supplied by the agency, and then the
NGO promotes the program through local meetings and propaganda, lobbying local, state, and
federal officials until the program becomes official. Inevitably, the program will provide for a
Management Board on which the NGO is a participant. Once in place, the program then is
expanded and coordinated with other programs in the ecosystem and Bioregion.

Within a Bioregion there may be dozens of separate, individual programs, each managed by a
Management Board dominated by NGOs. The Sierra club, or The Nature Conservancy, for
example, may have representatives sitting on several Management Boards within a Bioregion. In
other instances, the Tides Foundation may have several of its "Incubator Program" organizations
sitting on Management Boards. Local chapters of the National Wildlife Federation and the
Wilderness Society are frequently represented on local Management Boards. Through this
infusion of local NGO representation, larger NGOs coordinate the agenda of local land-control
programs. And because the larger NGOs are affiliated with the international NGOs such as the
IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature), it is the international agenda that is
being imposed at the local level in the United States. The current President of the IUCN is Jay
Hair, former President of the National Wildlife Federation. The current co-chair of the U.N.
Commission on Global Governance is Shridath Ramphal, former President of the IUCN.

Ultimately, the plan as discussed in numerous U.N. documents, envisions the development of a
Bioregional Council as the supreme governing authority over the Bioregion. The Bioregional
Council is to be chosen from the various Management Boards within the Bioregion.
Representatives from the various Bioregional Councils are to be chosen to serve on the U.N.
"Assembly of the People," the "Petitions Council," and the U.N. Trusteeship Council.
Moreover, NGOs are to be given direct funding from federal and U.N. sources, and
engaged to perform actual management and administrative functions within the Bioregion. This

40
practice is already underway in America and throughout the world. The Nature Conservancy has
secured millions of dollars from the Department of Interior to perform management and
administrative activities on land owned by The Nature Conservancy. In South America, the
World Wide Fund for Nature, and its local chapters, are actually managing Bioregions and
Biosphere Reserves with money provided by the United Nations. The IUCN is the official
scientific reviewer of nominations for World Heritage Sites, paid for by UNESCO. Between
1993 and 1996, the Department of Interior alone, awarded $242 million to 869 NGOs and
individuals for projects ultimately designed to destroy private property rights and to bring about
the new system of governance by non-elected NGOs governing Bioregions.

This new system of governance is not presented to the public as a new system of governance. It
is presented as a local program designed to preserve the heritage of an area, or to protect a
"fragile" ecosystem, or to save some alleged "endangered" species. Often, local NGO members
and local agency officials are totally unaware that the program they are promoting is a part of a
much broader agenda. The official guidelines of the World Heritage Treaty instructs promoters
to not inform local people because opposition may bias the ultimate decision. Because
proponents of this new governance by "civil society organizations" have been so thorough in
their planning and implementation, most of America is just now becoming aware of the impact
the new system will have on individual freedom and private property rights in America.
America is just now beginning to wake up.



























41
(180 May, 1996)
How can Bioregionalism be stopped?

By Henry Lamb

Throughout America, local communities are being confronted with initiatives to create a heritage
area, a biosphere reserve, a wildlife refuge, a buffer zone, or some other program to reduce
private property rights in favor of a management board consisting of interested "stakeholders."
Increasingly, local land owners are becoming alarmed and are organizing in an effort to combat
the confiscation of their rights. With powerful, well-funded NGOs (non-government
organizations) and the federal government pushing for these programs, local citizens are at a
disadvantage and are ill-prepared to pose an effective defense. There are a few general
principles that local communities are finding to be effective.

When such a threat is raised in a community, the first question to be raised is "why?" Why is the
proposed program necessary or desirable? The answers will fall into one of two general
categories: to protect the environment (biodiversity), or to preserve the heritage. Too often,
these answers are simply accepted as valid. They should not be. Proponents of land-use lock-up
programs should be forced to produce scientific evidence to prove that current resource use poses
a real and certain danger to the environment. Rarely is that evidence available. At best,
proponents point to "biodiversity loss" in broad general terms, and point to the "alleged" need to
restore ecosystems to "pre-settlement conditions." There is little evidence that "collective
management" of land and natural resources improves the environment; there is substantial
evidence that such management is actually a detriment to the environment. Local citizens need
to familiarize themselves with these arguments and be prepared to produce evidence to refute the
alleged need for such a program.

The next question to be asked is: "Will this program diminish private property rights?" The
answer is likely to be a profuse "no." The fine print in the program, however, will delineate
several ways that private property rights will be diminished. Local citizens should challenge
each of these potential restrictions on private property rights. Then, local citizens should take the
offensive by insisting that any plan must contain, at a minimum, the following principles:

(1) Veto power by each and every duly elected body within the proposed plan area. Every
city council, county commission, or state legislature must retain the right to veto any provision of
any plan. Only by retaining accountability at the local elected level can private citizens hope to
resist the abuses of non-elected management boards.

(2) No net loss of private property. Any plan that seeks to acquire private property for any
government should also require that a like quantity of land already owned by the government be
released to private individuals. The government already owns 40 percent of the land area in the
United States. Proponents of land lock-up schemes will not be content until the government or
its surrogates, such as The Nature Conservancy, own or control all of it. The line must be drawn
in every local community.


42
(3) No net loss of tax base. A popular scheme to lock-up land is the use of "conservation
easements." Tax breaks are offered to the land owner in exchange for a perpetual easement that
restricts land use. When this occurs, it forces the tax rate to increase on all other land owners, or
reduces the tax base that is available to local governments to provide needed services.

(4) No conservation easements beyond the life of the signer. Conservation easements deprive
future generations of the opportunity to use land and resources. No land owner can know what
conditions will exist two or three generations downstream. To prohibit descendants from using
land and resources is incredibly short-sighted, and leaves a legacy to the descendants that implies
that they will not have the intelligence to use the resources wisely. Had the conservation
easement mentality prevailed a hundred years ago, society would have been locked into a painful
agricultural subsistence mode, dependent upon horse-drawn transportation, and pony-express
communications. Our generation must not limit the advance of society to the vision of
biocentric, environmental extremists who believe "the good old days" were the utopia to which
we should return.

These four simple principles can stop many of the land-use lock-up schemes now being
perpetrated on local communities. Proponents cannot tolerate private property rights, nor the
ultimate authority of local elected officials. Rather than adopt a toothless plan, proponents
generally withdraw the plan and go back to the drawing board. That doesn't mean that they have
given up. In fact, it usually means that they redouble their propaganda efforts and find a new
way to achieve the same objectives. Land owners and private citizens who value individual
freedom, private property rights, and free enterprise must be ever vigilant and involved. Local
land use battles are won by those who show-up, speak-up, and exercise the freedoms guaranteed
by the Constitution of the United States of America.






















43
(181 June, 1996)
Kindred Spirits: Unabomber and Earth First!

By Henry Lamb

In the March/February (1994) issue of the Earth First! magazine, an article lambasted Burson-
Marsteller, and erroneously reported it to be the public relations firm used by Exxon after the
spill. The article also said: "Burson-Marsteller promotes an elite form of `environmentalism"
that serves the needs of the corporate world. The main purpose of this shallow
environmentalism is to make the public believe that 1) the environmental crisis has been
exaggerated by sensationalism and irresponsible activists, and 2) that `responsible'
environmentalists work with, and not against, the corporate establishment."

In November, 1994, Earth First! held a meeting in Missoula, Montana. Theodore Kaczynski's
name is on the attendee list.

The next month, a Burson-Mosteller executive, Thomas Mosser, was killed by a mail bomb.

In April, 1995, The New York Times published a letter from the Unabomber which said: "we
blew up Thomas Mosser last December because he was a Burson-Marsteller executive. Among
other misdeeds, Burson-Marsteller help Exxon clean up its public image after the Exxon Valdez
incident. But we attacked Burston-Marsteller less for its specific misdeeds than on general
principles...its business is the development of techniques for manipulating people's attitudes."

Earth First! denies any connection with Kaczynski, and in an open letter to ABC News, insisted
that Earth First advocated non-violence. Judge for yourself from this excerpt from an article by
Mike Roselle, an Earth First! official, which appeared in the Earth First! Journal just weeks
before Thomas Mosser was killed: "We don't care who is in power in Washington, for whoever
stands on the walls of Babylon will be a target for our arrows. When we raze the citadel, it will
matter not who holds the keys to the corporate washroom.... What we want is nothing short of a
revolution. Monkeywrenching is more than just sabotage, and your [sic] goddam right it's
revolutionary! This is jihad, pal."

Actually, this language is pretty tame for the Earth First! Journal, and downright milque-toast
compared to other newsletters in the radical environmental movement. One such newsletter,
Live Wild or Die, distributed only by hand, by the Earth First! elite to special recipients, carried a
"hit list" of eleven corporations targeted for "direct action." Two of the top three names were hit
by the Unabomber. Thomas Mosser, and Gil Murray both died as the result.

This from the Wild Rockies Review, (Vol.6, No. 1, p. 9, 1993): "My theory is that if, every time
the Forest Service or some other entity commits an act of destruction of the wild...I take my
anger and I place it in a certain compartment inside my brain, then when it becomes time to
throw bombs I will be able to access those places of anger that I have stored and be a very good
bombthrower, perhaps better than the other bombthrowers." This group is reported to be one of
several "direct action" groups operating at the behest of Earth First!.

44
Despite the denials and protestations of Earth First!, its legacy of monkeywrenching (eco-
terrorist activity) and its long trail of published venom, has now been exposed by the spotlight
cast on the Unabomber. In his letter to The New York Times, and in his 37,000-word
"Manifesto," the Unabomber's values and visions are revealed. They are the same values and
visions championed by Earth First! - and many others who claim the moral high-ground, while
wallowing in the immoral mud of lies, deceit, destruction and death.

The Earth First! gospel was first spoken by Dave Foreman, who founded Earth First! in 1980.
His book, Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching, is more than 300 pages of detailed
"how-to" commit eco-terrorism. Diagrams and directions for destroying bulldozers, bomb-
making, tree-spiking, all the way to billboard burning and computer jamming are provided for
his followers. They are still following although Foreman has moved on. As a condition of his
suspended sentence for conspiring to blow up power transmission lines, Foreman had to sever
his ties with Earth First!. He did, officially. He then created a new batch of organizations to
continue his war on people. Now he is using new weapons, new strategies, and new friends. It
is still the same Dave Foreman, the same message, the same mission, and the same
determination. His message is the much like the message published by the Unabomber:
whatever hurts the earth - must die!





























45
(182 June, 1996)
Kindred Spirits: Unabomber and Dave Foreman

By Henry Lamb

Dave Foreman created Earth First! because The Wilderness Society, where he was a lobbyist,
was "becoming indistinguishable from those we were ostensibly fighting." In his book,
Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, Foreman says: "It's time to get angry, to cry, to let rage flow at
what the human cancer is doing to earth.... We are warriors. Earth First! is a warrior society.
We have a job to do." That "job" is to destroy the industrial-technological society.

Foreman says: There is no hope for reform of the industrial empire. Modern society is a
driverless hot rod without brakes, going ninety miles an hour down a dead-end street with a
brick wall at the end. Bioregionalism is what is on the other side of that wall."

The Unabomber says, in paragraphs 111 and 140 of his Manifesto, "Industrial-technological
society cannot be reformed. The only way out is to dispense with the industrial technological
system altogether. This implies revolution...." Both the Unabomber and Foreman are eco-
defenders, monkeywrenchers, revolutionaries in a war to save a planet that is in no danger. The
Unabomber uses bombs to intimidate, maim, and kill. Foreman's strategy is more subtle, more
sophisticated, more socially acceptable - but far more dangerous.

The Unabomber says: "The positive ideal that we propose is Nature. That is, WILD nature:
those aspects of the functioning of the Earth and its living things that are independent of human
management and free of human interference and control. We would like, ideally, to break down
all society into very small, completely autonomous units" (Letter to The New York Times, April,
1995 and paragraph 183 of the Manifesto).

Since leaving Earth First!, Foreman has created the Cenozoic Society, Wild Earth, and the
Wildlands Project to bring about the very goal described by the Unabomber. The Wildlands
Project is a massive plan to convert "at least half of the land area of the 48 conterminous states
[to] core reserves and inner corridor zones. Eventually, a wilderness network would
dominate...with human habitation being the islands."

An independent review of the Wildlands Project, published in the July 25, 1993 edition of
Science, described the Wildlands Project as "...nothing less than the transformation of America to
an archipelago of human-inhabited islands surrounded by natural areas." Why? The Unabomber
explains: "There is good reason to believe that primitive man suffered from less stress and
frustration and was better satisfied with his way of life than modern man is."

Dave Foreman explains: "We can see that life in a hunter-gatherer society was on the whole
healthier, happier, and more secure than our lives today as peasants, industrial workers, or
business executives."

To achieve the goal, the Unabomber says: "Our immediate goal...is the destruction of the

46
worldwide industrial system."

Foreman's new publication, Wild Earth, says: "Does all the foregoing mean that Wild Earth and
the Wildlands Project advocate the end of industrial civilization? Most assuredly. Everything
civilized must go."

Are these the maniacal rantings of eco-fanatics? The United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) has officially identified the Wildlands Project as the model to be followed in the
implementation of Article 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, as described in their
recent publication, Global Biodiversity Assessment. The Sierra Club has embraced the bioregion
concept of the Wildlands Project and has published a map which proposes the conversion of
North America into 21 bioregions. (Dave Foreman is a member of the Board of Directors of the
Sierra Club.) The Department of Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency have
adopted an "Ecosystem Management Policy" which is actively implementing the provisions of
the Wildlands Project. Eco-fanatics are busy, worldwide, implementing the goals set forth by the
Unabomber and Dave Foreman.

While the land is being converted to wilderness, the war on the industrial-technological society is
gaining momentum. The two indispensable ingredients of an industrial society, energy and
chemicals, are under siege. And the mechanism for enforcement is under construction.



























47
(183 June, 1996)
Kindred Spirits: Unabomber and Al Gore

By Henry Lamb

When Al Gore published Earth in the Balance in 1992, he probably had no idea that his
impassioned plea to "reorganize society" to save the environment was exactly what the
Unabomber was trying to do. When Gore advocated using any and "all means" to achieve his
reorganized society, he probably didn't mean using bombs to kill people or to destroy power
transmission lines as Dave Foreman was convicted of conspiring to do. Whether he realized it or
not, Al Gore's eloquently flawed call to arms is a battle cry to join the same revolution advocated
by Dave Foreman and the Unabomber.

Al Gore must bear the major responsibility for banning CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons). On the
pretext of the unproved, highly controversial theory that CFCs are destroying the ozone layer,
Gore bombed inexpensive, safe, refrigeration. The impact on industry of this one salvo is far
more deadly than all the Unabomber's bombs. The search for alternative refrigeration is already
costing hundreds of billions of dollars - needlessly. And pricing refrigeration out of the market
for billions of people in developing countries. This is war on industry.

Al Gore must bear the major responsibility for implementing the Wildlands Project in America.
It was his "reinvention of government" that provided the smoke-screen behind which he created
the White House Ecosystem Management Task Force that ultimately developed the Ecosystem
Management Policy that instructs federal employees to consider human beings as a "biological
resource."

Al Gore must bear the major responsibility for allowing Tim Wirth to agree to accept the
recommendations of the next Conference of the Parties on carbon dioxide emission reductions.
Under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, promoted by Al Gore, the United States
is bound to comply with the protocols of the Convention. The Conference of the Parties wants
America to reduce its energy consumption by as much as 80 percent. At the last meeting in
December, Wirth refused to accept the recommendation, presumably because its consequences
would be felt before the 1996 election. According to scientists who attended the meeting, Wirth
agreed to accept the recommendations of the 1997 meeting (after the elections) regardless of
what those recommendations may be. Such a reduction of energy use in America would be war
on industry and devastating to the American people.

The war on industry is not limited to energy it has also trained its awesome power directly on
industrial chemicals as well. Al Gore shares responsibility with Earth First! allies, Greenpeace
and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), in a concerted effort to ban all uses of chlorine. In
1993, Greenpeace issued several reports alleging that man-made chlorine is responsible for all
manner of human ills. Congressman Bill Richardson (D-NM) introduced two bills that would
have effectively banned chlorine in America. Fortunately, the bills did not survive the 103rd
Congress. Theo Colburn, a scientist for the World Wide Fund for Nature announced that
chlorine was the cause of small allegator penises and her colleague, Louis J. Guillette, told a

48
Congressional Committee that "There is not a man in this room that is half the man his
grandfather was."

Al Gore wrote the Foreword for Theo Colborn's latest book, Our Stolen Future. He calls it a
sequel to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, and it is a continuation of unscientific, scary scenarios
designed to frighten people into accepting public policies that have little or no benefit to the
environment, but are devastating to industry. Chlorine is an essential ingredient in 96 percent of
all crop-protection products, almost all pharmaceutical products, thousands of plastic products
(including PVC pipe), and 98 percent of all public water supplies. A ban on chlorine is war on
industry - and on human beings.

Not a single case of cholera was reported this century in Peru, Columbia or Ecuador until 1991,
when these countries were advised to ban chlorine. They did. By January 1994, 8,622 deaths
resulted from 941,804 cases of cholera, according to the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,
published by the Massachusetts Medical Society (which also publishes the prestigious New
England Journal of Medicine).

The revolution called for by the Unabomber, Earth First! and Dave Foreman has been joined by
Al Gore, Greenpeace, the World Wide Fund for Nature, and a host of mainstream environmental
organizations and institutions, both in America and throughout the international environmental
community. The success or failure of the revolution depends, to a very large extent, upon who is
elected President of the United States in November, 1996.

























49
(184 June, 1996)
Kindred Spirits: Unabomber and Bill Clinton

By Henry Lamb

"Our immediate goal...is the destruction of the worldwide industrial system," says the
Unabomber in his April, 1995 letter to The New York Times. The Unabomber chose mail bombs
as his weapon; Clinton chose to build an administration hell-bent on achieving the same goal.
Those who have not read Sustainable America: A New Consensus, the report of the President's
Council on Sustainable Development, or measured the impact of Clinton's appointees, may think
the Unabomber-Clinton connection to be a stretch. In reality, the connection is real. The
Unabomber's approach is crass, violent, and repulsive; Clinton's approach is smooth, duplicitous,
and repulsive. The goal is the same: the destruction of the worldwide industrial system and the
inevitable reorganization of human society.

Bill Clinton must bear the ultimate responsibility for his Vice President's actions, as well as the
actions of his appointees. The Ecosystem Management Policy, which is little more than a
surrogate for the Wildlands Project, is being implemented by Clinton appointees Bruce Babbitt,
former head of the League of Conservation Voters; George Frampton, former head of The
Wilderness Society; Rafe Pomerance, former policy analyst for the World Resources Institute;
Brooks Yeager, former Vice President of the National Audubon Society; Thomas Lovejoy,
former officer of the World Wide Fund for Nature; Jessica Tuchman Matthews, former Vice
President of the World Resources Institute; David Gardiner, former legislative director for the
Sierra Club; John Leshy, former official at the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Reed F.
Noss, author of the Wildlands Project.

His President's Council on Sustainable Development includes Jay Hair, former President of the
National Wildlife Federation, now President of the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature (IUCN); Jonathan Lash, President of the World Resources Institute; Michelle Perrault,
International Vice President of the Sierra Club; John C. Sawhill, President of The Nature
Conservancy; Fred D. Krupp, President of the Environmental Defense Fund; and John H.
Adams, Executive Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

These are by no means all of the officials who now work for the Clinton White House who got
their start in a radical environmental group such as Earth First! Another Clinton appointee,
Gustav Speth, founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council, former President of the World
Resources Institute, and Clinton transition team member, now heads the United Nations
Development Program and is a strong advocate of global taxation and global governance.

The Clinton White House, from Al Gore to the Director of Yellowstone National Park, is
promoting global governance through the Climate Change Treaty, the Biodiversity Treaty, the
Ozone Treaty, Agenda 21, and virtually every other UN initiative that has emerged since 1992.
A proposal floated by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) would provide the frame work for global
taxation and would side-step Bob Dole's bill which calls for withdrawal from the UN in the event
of global taxation. The proposal is expected to be introduced in this session of Congress. It

50
could not be introduced without the knowledge and blessing of the Democratic leadership -
which begins with Bill Clinton.

By far, the most deadly threat to the worldwide industrial society is the call for a World
Conference on Global Governance in 1998, issued by the UN-funded Commission on Global
Governance. The purpose of the conference is to present the treaties and agreements necessary
to achieve global governance by the year 2000. The blueprint for global governance is laid out
in great detail in a recent publication entitled Our Global Neighborhood, the Report of the
Commission on Global Governance. The recommendations would create a world government to
enforce international law within the boundaries of sovereign states. The primary reason global
governance is necessary, according to the report, is to protect the environment by reducing
consumption and thereby saving natural resources. A high priority method to be used is taxing
fossil fuels so energy costs will be so high, consumers can no longer afford the products made by
the industrial-technological society. A UN standing army and a global central bank are also
proposed. The global governance agenda is well-developed and now before the world for
implementation.

Bill Clinton's number two man in the State Department, Strobe Talbott, wrote an essay for Time
magazine in 1992. He said: "Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize
a single global authority...`citizen of the world' will have assumed real meaning." If Clinton's
appointees remain in the White House for four more years, they will surely achieve the
Unabomber's goal of destroying the worldwide industrial system.

























51
(185 July, 1996)
Sustainable Communities; Vanquished Freedom

By Henry Lamb

"Sustainability" is a term that is just beginning to reach Joe A. Citizen; in the months and years
ahead, it will dominate virtually every aspect of American life. Since the concept was first
defined in the 1987 report by Gro Harlem Brundtland (Vice-president of the World Socialist
Party), it has swelled into a tidal wave that is washing across the world and has now crashed onto
American shores and will soon inundate every American Community.

The "sustainability" paradigm rests upon the firm belief, as expressed by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), that: "Humanity's collective imperative now is to shift
modern society rapidly onto a sustainable path or have it dissolve of its own ecologically
unsustainable doings." The same document, prepared for the World Bank and for the United
Nations Habitat II Conference in Istanbul, says that society has two choices. "One choice is to
go as we go and do as we do." Or, "We shift our consumption, extraction and harvesting patterns
and technologies; reframe our ethical choices," and reshape, redesign, planned communities
"within the dictates of natural ecology."

The first choice, which to some may sound like freedom "to go as we go and do as we do," is the
unsustainable, unethical choice, according to HUD. The ethical choice is: "The vision for
`Community Sustainability,' defined as the condition of social, economic and ecological harmony
that people require, deserve and must create where they live, if their lives and their inheritors'
lives are to be meaningful, wholesome and hopeful." Joe A. Citizen, who now is pretty much
free to go as he goes and do as he does, might be surprised to learn that HUD considers his life is
meaningless, unwholesome, and hopeless.

The HUD document, the report of the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD),
as well as the United Nations documents that call for the drastic reorganization of society, all
claim that: "By science's consensus we have but decades to recast the ways we operate as a
modern society with respect to earth's natural ecological systems of support." Instead of
producing specific, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support such claims, the "precautionary
principle" is offered, which says that if a serious threat is thought to exist, action must be taken
even in the face of scientific uncertainty. Every alleged ecological calamity - global warming,
population explosion, and biodiversity loss - is widely challenged throughout the scientific
community. For every scientist on the calamity bandwagon, there is another scientist of equal
stature to refute the allegations. At the very least, society should be aware that there is no
scientific consensus to justify the dramatic changes that are planned. Proponents of
sustainability label detractors as unethical, and continue the push to recast society into planned
communities, managed through an evolving system of "good governance" that dilutes the
authority of elected officials and elevates the power of NGOs (non-government organizations).

The objective of "sustainability" is to integrate economic, social, and environmental policies to
achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and to preserve and restore biodiversity.

52
Sustainable communities is but one facet of a much broader sustainable agenda. It is the
initiative that will touch most Americans first, and in fact, is already being advanced throughout
communities across the country. The U.S. Forest Service has awarded $700,000 to the Chicago
Region Biodiversity Council, a collaborative effort of 34 federal agencies and environmental
groups, established to begin the process of making Chicagoland into a "sustainable community."
Similar processes are underway, funded by government and private foundations, all across
America. The PCSD recommends that tax money be used to provide incentives to communities
that engage in collaborative community planning for sustainability, and that funding authorized
under other federal programs be denied or delayed for communities that are slow to begin the
collaborative process toward sustainability.

Originated by the United Nations, embraced by the Gore/Clinton administration, implemented by
an army of coordinated NGOs, the tidal wave of "sustainability" is crashing across America.
Most Americans have not seen the warnings and will not recognize the dangers until they are
drowning in sustainability.
































53
(186 July, 1996)
Sustainable Communities: Yours could be next!

By Henry Lamb

If your community has a population of 50,000 or more, someone is working to create a
"sustainability council," or, it has already been done. Smaller communities, your time will come
- soon. The federal government, in collaboration with selected NGOs (non-government
organizations), is encouraging the creation of local "sustainability councils" which are to become
the driving force in the reorganization of society. These councils may have a variety of names.
Regardless of the name, however, their function is pre-planned, their procedures are pre-
conceived, and the outcome of their work is pre-determined. Your community is about to be
reorganized, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), so your
life will be "meaningful, wholesome, and hopeful," whether you like it or not.

The initiative in your community could come from any federal agency through a grant to a
municipality or directly to an NGO. Or the initiative could be funded by a private foundation
and coordinated by an NGO. By using a variety of start-up mechanisms and an assortment of
names, the well-coordinated effort disguises the appearance of the massive federal/international
social re-engineering project that is underway.

The council, by whatever name, will enlist the support of all relevant local, state, and federal
government agencies, then add representatives from the academic community, carefully selected
individuals from the business community, and the leaders of cooperating NGOs. This phase is
usually completed before the community at large knows it has been done. Frequently, the first
few meetings of the council will be attended only by invited guests, chosen from the membership
lists of participating NGOs, or for some other strategic purpose. Sympathetic individuals in the
media will have been provided background material and enlisted to support the effort. Most
community residents will become aware of the effort through a 60-second TV news item or a
brief story in the local newspaper. The story will make it appear that the entire community has
come together to solve common problems and build a beautiful future.

Exactly what that future includes will not be revealed. Each of the reorganizational components
will be revealed over time, only as necessary, to avoid the inevitable backlash from private
citizens as they learn how their lives will be impacted. The work of the council is to devise
whatever mechanisms may be necessary to achieve several objectives: reduce consumption -
especially energy; restore biodiversity through an ecosystem management approach; stop urban
sprawl; and convince local residents that they are "unethical" if they fail to support whatever it
takes to achieve these objectives, through massive, coordinated re-education and propaganda
campaigns.

Here is a picture of your community when it has been reorganized to become "sustainable,"
taken from HUD's report to the United Nations:

"For this hopeful future we may envision an entirely fresh set of infrastructures that use fully

54
automated, very light, elevated rail systems for daytime metro region travel and nighttime goods
movement, such as have been conceptualized and being positioned for production at the
University of Minnesota in Minneapolis; we will see all settlements linked up by extensive bike,
recreation and agro-forestry "E-ways" (environment-ways) such as in Madison, Wisconsin; we
will find healthy, productive soils where there is decline and erosion through the widespread use
of remineralization from igneous and volcanic rock sources (much of it the surplus quarry fines
or `rockdust,' from concrete and asphalt-type road construction or from reservoir silts); we will
be growing foods, dietary supplements and herbs that make over our unsustainable reliance upon
foods and medicines that have adverse soil, environmental, or health side-effects; less and less
land will go for animal husbandry and more for grains, tubers, and legumes. Gradually, decent
standards of equity will be in place for women, for children and for the disadvantaged; the `peace
dividend' will be forced upon us as the insane costs of military armament become challenged
globally."

The purpose of the "sustainability council" is to give the appearance that the reorganization of
society is the result of local initiative and reflects local desires. The fact of the matter is that how
you are to live in your own community has been determined in Gland, Switzerland, confirmed by
the United Nations in Rio de Janeiro, embraced by Al Gore in Washington, and is now being
imposed upon you in the name of "sustainability."




























55
(187 July, 1996)
Sustainable Communities in the Bioregion

By Henry Lamb

The Sierra Club has proposed the reorganization of North America into 21 bioregions delineated
by their ecological characteristics (Sierra, March/April, 1994). Each bioregion includes several
states, counties, municipalities, and communities. The "sustainable communities" initiative is the
first building-block toward the construction of bioregions and the total reorganization of America
into a "sustainable" society as envisioned by the United Nations.

Sustainable communities must be seen in the context of the broader, published agenda, which
limits privately owned property to no more than 25% of the total land area, removes human
populations from at least 50% of the total land area, and requires that the remaining land be
managed by government/NGO (non-government organization) partnerships. The Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) suggests that the time frame for reorganizing
sustainable societies can be no more than three decades. Others believe it will take 50 to 100
years. Whatever the time frame, the process has begun with the sustainable communities
initiative.

Each community, regardless of size, will have its own "sustainability council." A common
characteristic of these councils is that they are dominated by individuals from government
agencies charged with the implementation of the government's sustainability agenda, supported
by representatives from NGOs whose salaries are paid by grants from the federal government or
by cooperating foundations. Local government officials, who are enticed by incentive grants
from the feds, and local residents are typically outnumbered and outmaneuvered. The first
function of the sustainability council is to complete the "visioning" process. This process
produces a document that describes how the community should be organized to achieve the goals
required to make the community sustainable. In the context of bioregions, individual
communities cannot be left to design their own future. HUD says:

"there will be the linking up of networks of communities of varied sizes within quite
varied and multiple regional contexts, such as `community constellations' linked by
compacts based upon common interests. Between communities will be rural landscapes -
highly functional landscapes - based upon entirely fresh understandings of landscape
ecology and its integral relationship to the sustainability of urbanization."

Translated into plain English, that means that sustainability councils will coordinate their
"visions" to achieve a regional or bioregional vision consistent with the ultimate outcome that
has already been determined. To achieve the predetermined outcome, some smaller communities
will have to be completely shut down. That process is already underway in the northwest and
other parts of the country near federal forests and public lands. By banning logging on public
lands, as the Sierra Club has proposed, residents of logging-dependent communities have no
choice but to move out to find new sources of income. By denying grazing and mining permits,
still more communities are evacuated and gobbled up by the wilderness required by the

56
bioregional agenda.

It is the mid-size communities, suburbs, and bedroom communities that will feel the next crunch.
These are the communities that are described as "urban sprawl" which is to be stopped. These
are the communities that have devastated "greenfields" and are destroying ecosystems. Visions
of sustainable communities will put an immediate stop to future geographical growth. The
vision documents will also reveal a planned reduction or elimination of infrastructure support to
communities outside the "approved" area of urbanization. Financing for activities outside the
approved "greenlined" area will become impossible. Land use restrictions outside the approved
area will tighten. Farming outside the approved "management" areas will become impossible,
and people who choose to live outside the approved sustainability ethic will be ridiculed and
made to feel inferior. People who do not get on the sustainability bandwagon can expect to be
treated very much like the people who choose to smoke cigarettes.

The common thread that weaves the various councils together is the NGO. Coordinated by their
national and international headquarters, and fueled by federal and foundation funding, NGOs
will see that the various community vision documents mesh into a bioregional vision that is
consistent with the global agenda.

When your community's sustainability council is formed, look for a representative from the
Sierra Club, whose International Vice President, Michelle Perrault, is a member of the
President's Council on Sustainable Development, and whose Board member, Dave Foreman, is
largely responsible for developing "The Wildlands Project", the master plan for bioregions.
























57
(188 July, 1996)
Sustainable Communities Means Managed Societies

By Henry Lamb

"Sustainability" - sustainable communities, sustainable development, sustainable agriculture, - is
not simply a comprehensive approach to environmental protection. The recurring theme
throughout the sustainability literature is the integration of "economic, equity, and
environmental" policies. That grandiose language is translated by specific policy
recommendations which use the environment as an excuse to manage the economy to achieve
social equity. Throughout the literature, terms such as "harness market forces" describe
proposals to impose consumption taxes on products that "management" deems to be
unsustainable. Air conditioning, convenience foods, single-family housing, and cars are among
the products already determined to be unsustainable. "Equity" means forcing those who produce
an income to provide for those who do not. "Environmental protection" means constraining
individual freedom to accommodate "management" to prevent the impending impoverishment of
the planet.

"Management" is not the government. The government is simply the instrument for enforcing
the dictates of management. Management is actually the NGOs, headed by the big three - the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); the World Wide Fund for Nature
(WWF); and the World Resources Institute (WRI). These three NGOs have set the ideological
agenda. They have created a world-wide network of affiliated NGOs, well-positioned and
adequately funded to implement the agenda. And they are acquiring the legal status to manage
national, state, and local governments, as well as the lives of individual citizens.

Sustainability councils, dominated by NGOs and public officials paid to implement the
sustainability policy, are being formed in every community. These councils coordinate their
activity with regional councils also dominated by NGOs. Ultimately, each bioregion is to have a
bioregional council to coordinate, or manage, the activities within the bioregion. The function of
governments within the bioregion will be simply to enforce the dictates of the council. Ultimate
enforcement is to come from the United Nations.

Official documents now published by the UN call for the creation of a Petitions Council, and an
Assembly of the People, both selected from representatives of accredited NGOs. The function of
the Assembly of the People is to review resolutions of the General Assembly. The function of
the Petitions Council is to review compliance petitions from bioregional councils and direct the
petitions to the appropriate agency within the UN for enforcement. All of the environment -
including private property - is to be placed under the "trusteeship" of the UN Trusteeship
Council, consisting of no more than 23 individuals selected from accredited NGOs. The existing
World Trade Organization as well as the proposed Economic Security Council, have unlimited
authority to impose a wide range of sanctions - including military action by a standing UN army
- against any nation deemed to be not in compliance with any treaty or UN dictate.

The Law of the Seas Treaty has already created the International Seabed Authority which has

58
legal jurisdiction over all non-territorial waters. Anyone wishing to salvage a shipwreck or
harvest ocean resources must obtain a permit and pay annual royalties. Application fees may be
a quarter-million dollars or more, and unspecified royalties are authorized by the treaty. The
United States has not ratified the treaty, but Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, told a
Stanford University audience on April 9, that ratification of the Law of the Seas treaty and the
Biodiversity treaty would be top priority items on the Clinton/Gore agenda for 1997.

The plan for a world-wide, managed society is in place, published extensively in the literature of
the United Nations. The plan is so massive, so complex, so bizarre, that it is difficult to
comprehend in its totality. The public has seen only small segments of the plan at any one time.
The various world conferences over the past four years have drawn only limited publicity for a
short time. The President's Council on Sustainable Development has conducted its work in a
public vacuum. And any negative discussion about the UN or about the environment is quickly
denied and cast aside by the administration and the media as nothing more than the rantings of
right-wing extremist whackos. All the while, day by day, the plan unfolds. In every community,
a net is being deployed to surround every American. Over the next few years, expect the net to
be slowly drawn around all individual freedoms, and tightened relentlessly until the managed
activities of human beings produce the sustainability envisioned by the international managers.





























59
(189 August, 1996)

Global governance at work: Habitat II

By Henry Lamb

Habitat I, which met 20 years ago, declared: "...public control of land is therefore indispensable.
Public ownership of land is justified in favor of the common good, rather than to protect the
interests of the already privileged." Habitat II has declared: "full and progressive realization of
the right to adequate housing" The U.S. delegation supported this controversial universal
"right." Like Agenda 21, from the Rio Conference on Environment and Development, the
Conference document has no legal authority. The document serves to represent "international
consensus" upon which legal documents are later developed.

The universal "right" to housing is an old issue. It appears, in sort of a back-door fashion, in the
Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which was ratified by the U.S. on
October 21, 1994. The universal "right" to housing first appeared in the 1966 International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which the U.S. is a signatory, but which
has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate. The idea of a "right" to housing also appears in the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has not been ratified by the Senate. The consensus
reached by the Habitat II Conference, which convened in Istanbul the first half of June, adds
international pressure on the U.S. to ratify the concept in the various UN documents that are
floating around Congress. Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, told a Stanford University
audience in April that ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, along with the
Biodiversity Treaty and the Treaty on the Law of the Sea, would be high on Clinton's second-
term agenda.

A declaration by a UN organization that there exists a "universal right to housing" provides no
one with a house. An international Convention containing the same declaration, even when
ratified by the Senate - provides no one with a house. What is does is authorize and empower the
United Nations to supply housing to whomever it chooses. What it does is establish the UN as
the UN as a socialist government, authorized to redistribute the wealth of those who have earned
the right to live in their own homes - to those who have not.

U.S. delegates to Habitat II, appointed by President Bill Clinton, not only endorsed, but actually
promoted the agenda which is based socialist on principles. Marxist philosophy, whether it is
called socialism, communism, collectivism, stateism, or whatever, is built upon the belief that the
state, or government, is sovereign. Rights and freedoms are the state's to give. Democracy, in a
Marxist society, is the process by which individuals negotiate to convince the government to
grant a right or freedom. In a speech to the UN General Assembly in 1988, Soviet President
Gorbachev said "Peace and maximum democracy are the guarantors of freedom. Our aim is to
grant maximum freedom to people, to the individual, to society." The Marxist view is that
government is omnipotent; individuals can have no rights, freedom, or property that is not
granted by the state.

Ronald Reagan had a different view. He said: "Freedom and democracy are the best guarantors

60
for peace." In America, we believe that people, not governments, are sovereign. Governments
have, or should have, no power or authority not specifically granted by the people. Apparently,
the U.S. delegates to Habitat II tend to agree more with Mr. Gorbachev than with Mr. Reagan.
And Mr. Clinton has promised to ask the Senate to ratify another international Convention, based
on socialist philosophy, to give to the UN the power to grant a "right" to housing to those the UN
feels are entitled to housing. It doesn't end there.

The conference document calls for the banning of all forms of housing discrimination. An owner
would have to sell or rent to virtually anyone who offered to buy or rent: drug dealers,
homosexuals, gangsters, and presumably, even to those who had no apparent means to pay.

Nature gives no person nor any species a "right" to housing. Every person and every species has
to fend for themselves and provide their own housing. What gives the UN the audacity to think
it has the authority to grant a "right" nature didn't? The UN believes it is "unjust" for some
people to have housing and others to be homeless. Those who disagree are heartless and
uncaring, in the UN-socialist view. The fact is, that housing, and every other "right" has to be
earned. What is given by government, and called a "right," can just as easily be taken away. A
right earned with sweat and blood can also be taken away if the people allow the government to
usurp power they, the people, have not granted.




























61
(190 August, 1996)
Global governance at work: Civil Society

By Henry Lamb

Civil society is defined by the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance to be those NGOs
(non-government organizations) accredited by the United Nations. NGOs that have not been
accredited by the UN are referred to as "populist, activist organizations" which have "the
potential to strike down the carefully crafted products of international deliberation, usually on
the grounds of nationalism." In other words, an NGO that is approved, or accredited by the UN
is "civil society." Those NGOs that have not been accredited, such as the Environmental
Conservation Organization, are "populist" organizations. The Commission warns that "Yielding
to internal political pressures (generated by `populist' organizations) can in a moment destroy
the results of a decade of toil." Civil society is the mechanism through which global governance
works.

Since 1992, each of the world conferences sponsored by the UN has opened the door wider to
accredited NGOs, and called for the elevation of their status in UN affairs. The Habitat II
Conference, recently held in Istanbul, made it official. With the adoption of Rule 61, approved
by the UN General Assembly, accredited NGOs may now select representatives to serve as
official delegates and participate in the conference debate and votes. Habitat II has set the
example to be followed in all future UN conferences, and has challenged national governments
to follow their lead and elevate NGO participation in the national decision-making process.

Not surprisingly, the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) final report,
Sustainable America: A New Consensus, calls for a "collaborative" decision-making process that
provides for greater participation by selected NGOs. The PCSD report says: "We need a new
collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions; more rapid change; and more
sensible use of human, natural, and financial resources in achieving our goals." Another
reading of this same thought might be: "Elected officials at the local, state, and national level are
not achieving our goals, therefore, we need to bypass them." Civil society governance is a way
to bypass elected officials and avoid accountability to the electorate.

The process of civil society governance is very sophisticated. It is presented as "public/private
partnerships." No better example exists than the proposals of the PCSD. To create so-called
"sustainable communities," the PCSD recommends federal incentive grants to organizations that
will sponsor a "community visioning process." A "stakeholders" council is organized, with care
taken to select representatives from only those NGOs that are known to support the agenda.
Typically, the council will be dominated by such NGO representatives and representatives from
government agencies. A few elected officials will be added, along with a few business people -
to give the appearance of broad community support. Populist, activist organizations, or those
organizations that do not support the agenda, are systematically excluded, and frequently do not
learn about the process until after the council has been formed.

Civil society is seen to be the instrument, not only of creating a vision of sustainability, but of

62
implementing that vision. NGOs are increasingly the recipients of grants from the federal
government, as well as from private foundations, to implement some aspect of the global/PCSD
agenda. NGOs are a primary medium for condom distribution in this country and around the
world. NGOs are also used to spread the propaganda that passes for "environmental education."
NGOs get grants from one agency of the federal government to sue another agency of the federal
government. And then, under the authority of laws NGOs have lobbied into existence, collect
attorney fees and expenses for the law suits. Civil society is wreaking havoc with the rest of
society.

Civil society is accountable to no one. Elected officials can at least be un-elected. How does the
rest of society un-elect Maurice Strong, who heads several NGOs that are responsible for
advancing the global environmental/social agenda around the world? How does the rest of
society diminish the influence of the World Resources Institute, or the International Union for
the Conservation of Nature or the World Wide Fund for Nature - all NGOs driving the global
agenda?

The rest of society (the uncivil portion) needs to be aware as these "public/private" partnerships
and "community visioning councils" appear in their own community and realize that they are
seeing global governance at work in their own communities.




























63
(191 August, 1996)

Global governance at work: What's wrong with it?

By Henry Lamb

Listening to the sales pitch of the sustainable development crowd, one might think that without
it, the world is destined to doom, and with it, the world is about to enter a new era of utopian
ecstasy. Of course, neither is true. There is little, if any, scientific foundation for the draconian
policies being inflicted upon society to "save the planet." Nor are there benefits to be derived
from voluntarily handing over to the UN, our God-given, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and
freedoms. But every day, regulatory policies increase, and individual rights and freedoms are
diminished. Global governance - as it is presently designed - cannot succeed.

Global governance cannot succeed because it is designed on a philosophy that is fundamentally
flawed. The Chinese delegate to the UN Conference on Human Rights, Liu Huaqui, expressed
the UN philosophy quite succinctly: "There are no absolute individual rights and freedom,
except those prescribed by and within the framework of the law. Nobody shall place his own
rights and interests above those of the state and society." Really!

There is a law higher than the state. To begin with, humans created the state and the law. And,
of course, humans came into existence by an even higher authority. There was no law, other
than the law of nature, when the pilgrims first stepped onto American soil. Humans created the
state and the law. The state is, or should be, accountable to the people who created it. There was
no United Nations until the humans meeting in San Francisco in 1945, created it. The UN is, or
should be, accountable to the people who created it. The idea that people have rights and
freedoms only by virtue of a grant from the state is not simply socialist, it is ridiculous.

All people are born with the instinct to eat and to reproduce - and the equipment to do both. That
is all that nature provided. People, like every other species, are born free to do whatever is
necessary to eat and reproduce. Constraints on the freedom are placed on people by the people
themselves. Nature intended them to be free - free to kill or be killed, or to love and be loved.
Nature has not improved upon that basic design. Man, on the other hand, has tinkered with the
design and called it improvement. Early on, man learned to control others to lighten his own
load. Governments were created to control people. People were controlled by their governments
until that basic instinct to be free stormed the Bastille, penned the Magna Charta, and launched
the Pinta, Nina, and Santa Marie. That scruffy collection of wilderness-conquering ingrates we
respectfully refer to as our Founding Fathers drafted a document which severely limited the
power of government - and maximized the freedom of individuals.

The government thus created - the United States of America - is not responsible for elevating
society to previously unimagined heights. That credit must go to the individuals who enjoyed
the freedom provided by the severely limited government. Prosperity and social progress is
directly linked to individual freedom. Poverty and social decay is directly linked to the absence
of individual freedom. One need look no further than to a comparison of America with the

64
former Soviet Union to realize the validity of the observation. But even in America, prosperity
and social progress is waning. Could it be related to the simultaneous erosion of individual
freedom? Certainly!

What's wrong with global governance is this: the entire design of global governance is built upon
the socialist notion that individual rights and freedoms are gifts to be bestowed by an omnipotent
government in exchange for individual behavior supportive of the government's agenda. The
United States should not support this foolish notion. Instead, the United States should be
insisting that the United Nations get out of the way and let other nations discover the wealth that
follows the birth of freedom. Unfortunately, the U.S. government appears to have forgotten the
limitations placed upon it by the Constitution. It has found ways to ignore and bypass even the
fundamental right to own and use private property. It is using administrative procedures and
Executive Orders to bypass Congress and advance the global agenda as rapidly as possible in
America. It is also supporting virtually every UN proposal to advance global governance around
the world. Global governance cannot possibly succeed because it ignores a fundamental law of
nature: people are born to be free. Unfortunately, like three generations of Russians, Americans
and the rest of the world may be forced to live through the suffering caused by the inevitable
failure of the flawed notion of global governance.





























65

(192 August, 1996)

Global governance at work: Defeated by the people

By Henry Lamb

Ultimately, freedom shall prevail. The "gates of hell" shall not prevail against the truth, and the
truth is - that people are born to be free. It may take several more generations or several more
centuries, but ultimately, people will learn how to live together as free people - unfettered by the
enlightened elite, who in every generation, think they know what is best for the rest of society.
The generation that now bridges the millennium will determine whether society moves forward
by expanding individual freedom, or moves backward by diminishing it.

Like Madison, Jefferson, and the others who took time away from conquering the wilderness to
craft the best government known to man, the current crop of Americans must take time away
from earning a living to protect what remains of the best government known to man.
It begins with each person - individually. It is not politics. It is not "the establishment." It is not
"those people." It is a personal, individual, gut-wrenching responsibility that rests heavily upon
the shoulders of every individual who has enjoyed the freedom this country has provided.
People - individually - must stand up and say enough is enough.

Private property must remain in the hands of individuals. The highest priority for global
governance is to get land and all natural resources under the control of government, and then get
government under the control of the United Nations. People must recognize that federal
jurisdiction over wetlands is an excuse to exercise federal control over private property. People
must recognize that "critical habitat" has less to do with endangered species than extending the
power of government over the land and lives of individuals. Heritage corridors, natural
landmarks, and buffer-zones around National Parks are warm and fuzzy-sounding terms to
disguise the ulterior objective of exercising land control.

The Nature Conservancy, and the more than 700 similar organizations, are not friends of
freedom. Between 1964 and 1994 The Nature Conservancy acquired three million acres of land
to protect nature, according to their pamphlets. But according to the General Accounting office,
2.5 million of those acres were transferred to the government, at a profit. Moreover, The Nature
Conservancy took millions and millions of tax-payer dollars in the form of federal grants, to
acquire the property in the first place.

Land, and the resources it contains, must remain in the hands of private individuals. The
government (state, local, and federal) already owns 40% of the total land area in America, and
through environmental and heritage laws, may claim jurisdiction over virtually every square inch
of the remaining 60%. People must realize that without land, and the resources it contains, no
other freedom matters. It is not enough to simply draw the line at 40%; we must demand that
land, and the right to use it, be returned to private citizens. Only in so doing can the global
governance cabal be defeated.

66

No more state and federal acquisitions of land to "protect" biodiversity. Nature needs no
protection. The so-called "fragile" ecosystems were here long before governments, and were
designed to endure, in fact, to thrive on the activities of the species that inhabit them - including
the human species. No more land-use restrictions from the enlightened elite bureaucrats who
think they know better how to use the land than the people whose lives are dependent upon it.
No more sit back and take it. Stand up, and say enough is enough!

People need to watch for "public/private" partnerships developing in their own community.
People need to attend meetings of "visioning councils" in their own community. People need to
find out what is being taught in their local schools. People need to visit with their elected
officials and ask them to protect their private property and individual freedoms, and not to
support the on-rush of "sustainable development" initiatives that are being imposed upon
communities. People need to join local and national organizations that are fighting to protect the
Constitutional principles upon which America was founded. People need to vote - and vote
intelligently. Every candidate should be asked to state his or her position on private property
issues, and on global governance issues - before a single vote is cast. People must realize that
individuals, meeting their personal responsibility to uphold freedom, have the only power on
earth strong enough to defeat the tidal wave of global governance that is sweeping across the
land. People can - and must - stop the rush to global governance.



























67


(193 September, 1996)
Global warming: is it real?

By Henry Lamb

To the massive UN bureaucracy, it no longer matters whether or not global warming is actually
occurring. The UN has declared a "wide ranging consensus" in the scientific community, and
that "urgent" measures must be taken to prevent catastrophic calamities.

This message was delivered to more than 1500 delegates and NGO (non-government
organization) observers attending the second meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COPII) to
the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) in Geneva Switzerland, July 8 - 19.

The basis for the doom-and-gloom declaration is the Second Assessment Report (SAR) of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), another UN organization. The report, two
years in the making, was adopted in December, 1995 by the IPCC. After the report had been
approved and adopted by the scientists, the lead author of the report, B. D. Santor, acting with
the consent of the Co-chair of the Working Group, John Houghton, and with the consent of the
Executive Secretary of the Convention, Michael Cutajar - changed the report significantly
without the approval of the scientists.

Dr Freidrich Seitz, President emeritus of Rockefeller University and former President of the
National Academy of Sciences, said: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the
peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report. Nearly all the changes worked
to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard global warming claims."

A hundred distinguished scientists released a joint statement on July 10 in Geneva which said
that: "there is still no scientific consensus on the subject of climate change. On the contrary,
most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate
warming whatsoever."

The statement emerged from a recent conference on global warming sponsored jointly by the
Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and the European Academy for
Environmental Affairs in Leipzig, Germany.

Despite the very real and growing controversy in the scientific community, Cutajar told a press
conference in Geneva that there was "wide-ranging" consensus among scientists with only a few
dissenters who were closely aligned to coal and oil interests.

A reporter from _cologic asked Cutajar if the strength of the so-called consensus had been
measured by any kind of vote, in view of the growing controversy. Cutajar, obviously irritated,
replied: "Consensus is not unanimity; it is very much up to the president."


68
The UN is desperately attempting to ignore the rising voices of dissent in the scientific
community. When a response is necessary, it is usually a disparaging comment designed to
discredit the dissenter. Moreover, the UN is moving forward with a full-court propaganda press.

Professor G.O.P. Obasi, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO),
told the delegates that "...the issue is now clear, the time for debate is over and the onus is on us
to take decisive action fairly quickly. We now have the evidence which makes the FCCC an
absolute necessity." He called on the delegates to "Recognize the urgency of the situation," and
to "take urgent measures to implement the FCCC."

The Conference of the Parties, as well as the rest of the UN machinery, are moving forward as if
global warming were an absolute fact when, in fact, it is not. The World Health Organization
(WHO) released a three-year study which purports to predict the health consequences of climate
change. The fine-print in the study reveals that the projections of doom-and-gloom are based on
computer models by eleven scientists, funded originally by the U.S Environmental Protection
Agency in 1993.

Climate change has not been a major issue for most Americans because until now, compliance
has not been mandatory. The Geneva meeting, however, sets the stage for a legally-binding
protocol (regulation) which will send the price of electricity and petroleum products -- and every
product that is manufactured with the use of fossil-fuel energy -- soaring well beyond the
budgets of most people.

























69


(194 September, 1996)
Global warming: what it means

By Henry Lamb

Whether or not global warming is actually occurring is not subject to debate at the UN. The only
remaining question is how to implement the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC)
as rapidly and as stringently as possible.

The original terms of the treaty require developed countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases to the 1990 level by the year 2000. A proposal by the Alliance of Small Island States
(AOSIS), introduced in Berlin last year, calls for a reduction to levels 20% below 1990 levels by
the year 2005. The OASIS proposal has become the proposal favored by the UN. The first
meeting of the Conference of the Parties adopted the "Berlin Mandate" which is an agreement to
adopt a legally-binding protocol (regulation) by 1997. Should the AOSIS proposal become the
legally-binding protocol in 1997, independent economic studies indicate that a reduction of
energy consumption between 60% and 80% would be necessary for compliance.

The American delegation to the Geneva meetings appears to be supporting the AOSIS proposal.
While the U.S. has made no public announcement on an acceptable target, Timothy Wirth, head
of the American delegation, has said that America would support a legally-binding protocol. A
delegate from Kuwait told ecologic that in private negotiating sessions, he had been frustrated
by the American delegate who argued against Kuwait's efforts to reduce the impact of the
proposed protocol. Besides Tim Wirth, the American delegation includes Eileen Claussen, who
negotiated the Montreal Protocol (which banned freon), David Donniger, and David Gardiner,
both of whom were previously officials in major Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs). The U.S. is
not expected to make clear its position on emissions reduction targets until after the November
election.

Orchestrated to advance the negotiations, the World Health Organization (WHO), the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
released a joint report called Climate Change and Human Health. The report claims that global
warming has already caused an increase in malaria, dengue and yellow fevers, cholera, liver
fluke, and Hantavirus. The report predicts that unless carbon dioxide emissions are dramatically
reduced, these diseases will afflict an additional 50 - 80 million people per year. Moreover, the
report claims that the polar ice caps will melt, islands will sink, coastal areas will be flooded, and
all manner of storms, cyclones, and severe weather will befall the planet.

According to the WHO, the report is based on the work of eleven scientists using computer
simulations in a project that was funded originally in 1993 by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The computer simulations differ sharply from the actual scientific record which reveals
that the net change in global mean temperature for the entire century has been less than 1
0
C --
well within normal variability. The last half of the century -- when carbon dioxide emissions

70
increased most dramatically -- the temperature actually declined. Since 1979, global temperature
has been measured by satellite and is extremely accurate. The actual record reveals a slight
downward trend since 1979, despite claims to the contrary by Al Gore, G.O.P. Obasi (Secretary-
General of WMO) and the advocates of global warming.

The reason global warming is being advanced despite the absence of supporting science may be
related to a presentation made by Mohamed T. El-Ashry, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
of the Global Environment Facility (GEF). As he released GEF's quarterly report, he told the
delegates that his agency had leveraged $462.3 million into $3.2 billion in climate change
projects. An analysis of those projects found 33 which listed as "executing agency," or
"collaborating organization" three key NGOs (non-government organizations): International
Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); and World
Resources Institute (WRI). These 33 projects totaled $354 million. These three NGOs are the
driving force behind the UNEP and at the national level, coordinate the activity of NGOs that are
responsible for lobbying UN policy into national law.
































71


(195m September, 1996)
Global warming: a matter of consensus

By Henry Lamb

The UN operates on neither the principle of a free press nor the democratic process -- at least as
it is known in America. Most of the sessions during the two-week meeting of the Conference of
the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) were posted "Privee." A
reporter for ecologic who ignored the sign was told by a UN legal advisor that the UN's rules of
procedure provided the presiding officer the authority to declare a meeting private at his sole
discretion.

At a thirty-minute press conference conducted by Michael Cutajar, Executive Secretary of the
FCCC, and Chen Chimutengwende, President of the Conference of the Parties, the press was
spoon-fed doom-and-gloom. In response to a question by CBS Radio, Cutajar said that he
expected the outcome of the meeting to be acceptance of the most stringent proposal for a legally
binding protocol -- a 20% reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in developed countries.
Chimutengwende said he expected a "stronger commitment from developed nations and more
assistance with housing, education, and development" for developing nations.

The process is designed to assure the outcome desired by the UN -- there are no votes!
Decisions are made by "consensus." Consensus, according to Cutajar, is "very much up to the
president."

A plenary session was scheduled to "elect" officers to assist the president. Chimutengwende
announced that he had a list of seven nominees. He read the names. Then he said: "in the
interest of an efficient and orderly meeting, I propose that they be elected by acclamation." He
then slammed the gavel down and said: "I declare them elected!"

He then announced that about 80 ministers (cabinet level or higher) were expected to attend the
Ministerial Conference, and that he had decided to limit attendance at the meeting to ministers
only. Delegates from Russia, Korea, Iran, Bangladesh, and the U.S., objected. There was no
debate, no discussion. The president announced the last speaker on the subject and moved to the
next item on the agenda.

The delegate from Venezuela asked that the reports of the various working groups (which met in
private sessions without benefit of the press) be presented in writing to avoid any ambiguities.
The president said he had decided to hear oral reports which would then be summarized by the
staff. The meetings that are open to the public are little more than an exercise to legitimize a
previously determined outcome or to propagandize the delegates with speeches.

Elizabeth Dowdswell, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP),
told the delegates: "We have acknowledged that the climate is at risk and we are the cause." She

72
said UNEP was integrating their climate, ozone, and biodiversity programs into their new
"Globalization Program" which would coordinate trade, environment, and law activities.

In his welcoming speech, Claude Agee, Geneva's Environmental Minister, said: "Man must give
up some of his freedoms. Wealth must be distributed more equitably." And, that man must
develop an "environment of the soul," which he defined to be a new "earth ethic" to preserve and
protect the environment.

The day following the Ministerial Meeting, President Chimutengwende presented a draft of the
Ministerial Declaration. The document was prepared by the UN staff and a group he referred to
as "Friends of the Chair." The draft document was presented at the noon recess with an
announcement that it would be considered after lunch. When the plenary reconvened after lunch,
the president said that some delegates had told him the document went too far, and that others
had said it did not go far enough. "Therefore," he said, "it must be about right. It is decided!"
With that, he slammed his gavel down and proceeded to the next item of business.

After the fact, the president allowed four speakers on the subject of the Ministerial Declaration.
Australia disassociated its delegation from the document, and received an enthusiastic ovation.
America strongly endorsed the document, and received an enthusiastic ovation. Saudi Arabia
said that in view of the response to both sides of the issue, it was apparent to all that no
consensus had been reached, and then, speaking for 14 countries, proceeded to disassociate those
delegations from both the process and the document. The last speaker, from a small island state,
said that while the developed nations were arguing over fine points of procedure his country was
sinking into the ocean because developed countries couldn't curtail their appetite for consumer
goods.






















73


(196 September, 1996)
Global warming and NGOs

By Henry Lamb

Non-government organizations (NGOs) are essential to the success of the UN agenda. At the
climate change meetings in Geneva last month, 91 NGOs were officially accredited to "observe"
the proceedings. Three of the NGOs could be described as representative of industry; the
balance represented Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs). Many of the NGOs were coalitions such
as the Climate Action Network (CAN) whose delegates included the Sierra Club, W. Alton Jones
Foundation, and the Center for Environmental Law. The Nature Conservancy; the
Environmental Defense Fund; the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN);
the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); and the World Resources Institute (WRI) were among
the other NGOs present.

Accredited NGOs have rights at the UN that are not available to the press. The International
Institute for Sustainable Development, for example, has access to meetings from which the press
is barred. During the Geneva meetings, they published "Earth Negotiations Bulletin," a
summary of significant events during the conference.

Another Conference Publication, called ECO, has been published at every UN conference since
1972 by NGOs. The Geneva issues were published by a team of 17 members of the Climate
Action Network. It is an unabashed propaganda piece which advocates prompt, stringent
enforcement of the Climate Change Convention and ridicules the treaty's opponents. For
example, one report says: "The U.S. used the microphone for five minutes but contributed
nothing." Another report included this: "USA made an interminably long intervention which this
correspondent is unable to report because she nodded off at an early stage." By contrast, the
same report said: "Guatemala made an admirably concise statement calling for a protocol
containing legally-binding commitments for Annex I (developed) countries."

Greenpeace held a briefing for the delegates and the press during which they called for a
reduction of carbon dioxide to a level 20% below 1990 levels in developed countries. They
claimed that without such a reduction, the rate of global warming would be greater than any seen
in the last 10,000 years; there would be reductions in biodiversity, and in food production. Their
arguments are based on the same computer models which have been corrected downward three
times in the last six years, and which are not supported by the last 100 years of scientific
measurements of the actual temperature record.

Not to be outdone, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) staged its own briefing for delegates
and the press to present its most recent study. The study claims that "climate change will alter
natural vegetation, wildlife habitat, crop-growing seasons, and the distribution of pests and
diseases throughout Southern Africa." The study closely parallels a similar report released by
the World Health Organization, and blames all the problems on developed countries. The study

74
concludes: "The whole of Africa contributes around 7% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.
It is both ironic and tragic that Africa should suffer such devastating effects as a result of other
countries' activities." Not only the delegates, but perhaps more importantly, the press, is
influenced by the unrelenting, coordinated propaganda of the NGOs. These stories are broadcast
as gospel and few reporters have the inclination to ask for substantiating science or question the
politically-correct agenda.

It is no coincidence that the weekend the delegates arrived in Geneva, a local news magazine
published a major article claiming that: "Global warming is no longer tomorrow's worry. High
up in the Swiss Alps, you can actually see it happening. Now the ice is melting, and the
consequences for Switzerland and far beyond are catastrophic."

The Global Commons Institute staged a seminar entitled "Climate Change and Global
Governance." The two-hour session outlined what was described as the only way to stop global
warming: restructuring the UN to oversee and regulate "global governance." The specific
recommendations followed the plans published by the UN-funded Commission on Global
Governance report entitled Our Global Neighborhood, released last fall, calling for an end to the
veto power and the permanent member status on the Security Council, a standing UN army, and
giving the UN Trusteeship Council authority over the global commons.

The Natural Resources Defense Council held a seminar which was the second Preparatory
Committee meeting of the International Car Summit. This will be an international event
designed to present a plan for removing fossil-fuel burning vehicles from the human experience -
- the next generation of personal transportation. Ownership fees, mileage fees, fuel taxes,
mileage and weight standards, and a host of other plans are in the making to force people out of
automobiles and into alternative transportation. NGOs, with the funding and authority of the
UN, constitute an army of foot soldiers marching in every community to save the planet from
imaginary destruction.



















75


(197 October, 1996)
Propaganda Parade: Global Warming

By Henry Lamb

Timothy Wirth, Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, has organized a dog-and-pony show
that is traveling around the country at tax payers' expense, to convince Americans that the world
is really on the brink of oblivion, and that immediate, draconian action is necessary to avoid all
manner of imagined havoc. The Wirth circus was in Austin, Texas on August 13, and in Chapel
Hill, North Carolina on September 19, to promote the Clinton-Gore decision to support legally
binding agreements to reduce energy consumption in America. This same Timothy Wirth
assured an audience at Rockefeller University on March 3, 1995, that the U.S. would not adopt a
policy of legally binding agreements. Wirth seems to be all over the place, saying whatever is
necessary, to advance the global agenda toward global governance.

In his 1993 book, Science Under Siege, Michael Fumento quotes Timothy Wirth: "We've got to
ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing
the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

Dr. Stephen Schneider, perhaps the most frequently-quoted scientist on global warming issues,
told Discover magazine in 1989: "To get some broad-based support, to capture the public's
imagination...entails getting loads of media coverage. So, we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of doubts we may have....Each of
us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." (In 1977,
this same Stephen Schneider was warning of a new ice age as evidenced by declining global
temperatures.)

Timothy Wirth is telling Americans that the science supporting global warming claims is
"convincing and compelling." More than 100 climatologists from around the world say that the
science is neither convincing nor compelling. In a letter dated August 23, 1996, signed by five
of those scientists, Mr. Wirth is called on the carpet for telling the Rockefeller University
audience one thing, and then doing just the opposite at the Geneva Conference on Climate
Change. Wirth is also chastised for a State Department letter to the UN which urged UN
officials to modify the text of the Second Assessment Report on Global Warming.

The text was modified extensively - after the report was accepted by the scientists, but before it
was printed for the public. The modifications removed references to doubts expressed by
scientists - as prescribed by Dr. Stephen Schneider.

Why are Timothy Wirth and the Clinton-Gore White House willing to distort science and spend
tax dollars promoting global warming and an international agreement that will devastate the
American economy?


76
Global warming is one of the "scary scenarios" upon which the entire global agenda is based. If
the global warming theory is invalidated, then Agenda 21 is invalidated and the science which
underlies all the "scary scenarios" will be questioned. Proponents of global governance cannot
let that happen. Literally billions of dollars are at stake, to say nothing of the power that
accompanies the global agenda. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) has already invested
$2.3 billion in global warming projects around the world. Much of the money is being spent on
projects to brainwash children into believing the world is going to hell-in-a-handbasket, and that
the UN agenda is the only salvation.

Neither Wirth nor his UN cronies will debate the issue. Instead, they choose to discredit the
dissenters. Wirth told a press conference in Geneva that the dissenters were "a couple of
revisionist scientists" who were being paid by the energy industry. The fact is that the dissenters
now number more than 100 scientists, some of whom served on the UN's scientific panel. The
scientists are concerned, not only about the misrepresentation of the scientific findings on global
warming, but also about the corruption of the scientific process. If the UN and the Clinton-Gore
White House are willing to distort science on global warming, can they be believed on any other
issue?

As early as 1992, Richard Lindzen of MIT reported that research grants were being withdrawn
from scientists whose research results were not supportive of the global warming theory. The
U.S. is now spending in the neighborhood of $2 billion annually on global warming research. If
Wirth discounts the research from the energy industry, research from the global warming
industry should also be discounted. Global warming has become a multi-billion dollar industry.
It no longer has anything to do with science nor with environmental protection. It is an industry
built upon the fears of deliberately misinformed people who allow government to spend tax
dollars on a global agenda that ultimately is designed to destroy individual freedom, private
property rights, and national sovereignty.




















77
(198 October, 1996)
Propaganda Parade: Managed Markets

By Henry Lamb

Free enterprise and free markets may well be a myth already. If the UN has its way, free markets
and free enterprise will be relegated to the ash heap of obsolescence. Throughout Agenda 21,
and the report of the President's Council on Sustainable Development, references are made to
"harnessing free market forces," and to "providing tax incentives and disincentives" in order to
get industry to perform as government desires. In America, government already manages the
markets to a very large extent. But what we have seen so far is nothing compared to what is in
store.

Mining, logging, and ranching are directly affected by the Endangered Species Act. Farming
and development are directly affected by the wetlands policy. Land use -- anywhere in America
-- is now subject to federal government approval. Industries of every stripe are now subject to an
incredible maze of federal regulations. So tight and all pervasive is government control that the
federal government now is confident that it can direct the market to achieve its social agenda.

The genius of a free market is that demand forces supply. Demand is driven by better ideas and
better products. America is a showplace of how better ideas have driven demand for better
products which have created an industrial economy the likes of which the world has never
known. The Clinton-Gore White House is now transforming that showplace into a replica of the
managed markets that have failed time after time in other nations. The prime target is the energy
industry.

Government did not have to ban the horse and buggy. There was no corn-guzzler tax placed on
Studebaker's Conestoga, to give Henry Ford's Model T an advantage. Ford's better idea was all
that was necessary to launch a new era in personal transportation and in personal prosperity.
There was no government tax placed on candles or whale oil; Edison's light bulb was sufficient
to usher in a transformation of the energy industry. But the government is no longer willing to
let the free market force a transition to alternative energies. A tiny handful of arrogant elites
have decided that the world should no longer use fossil fuels. Instead, the world should be
powered by "alternative energy." Alternative energy ranges from solar power to human muscle
power - but does not include fossil or nuclear fuel.

Dozens of taxing schemes have been proposed to make fossil fuel cost more than alternative
fuels. The government, driven by the UN, seeks to shut down the coal and gas industry in order
to advance the solar, photovoltaic, windmill, horse, and bicycle industries.
When Timothy Wirth was asked how his proposed legally binding agreement to reduce carbon
dioxide emissions would impact the American economy, he shrugged his shoulders and said
"there will be some losers and some winners." He is wrong; there will be losers and there will be
losers.

If Wirth prevails in securing Senate ratification of the UN protocol to reduce carbon dioxide

78
emissions, the price of fossil fuel energy will skyrocket during the transition period. Consumers
will be forced to pay substantially higher prices for every product that relies upon electricity or
petroleum in the production process. Energy for home and personal use will be prescribed by
government and enforced through building permits and price-penalties for transportation. This
obvious economic disaster doesn't matter to Wirth, Clinton, or Gore. They are hell-bent on
implementing the UN agenda regardless of its consequences.

If, and when, there is a real need to shift to alternative energy sources, the market will provide
the way - if the market is free. Alternative energy, at its present level of development, is not a
better idea. The moment alternative energy becomes better, cleaner, more efficient, or offers any
real reason for its use, a free market would advance it. The government has chosen not to wait
for the free market to act. The government is attempting to manage the market to force the
acceptance of alternative energy sources by taxing conventional energy sources out of the
market, or banning its use altogether. The government has already banned the use of freon and
forced the use of more expensive substitutes. The government is managing markets, and is
rapidly moving to manage virtually every aspect of human life.































79
(199 October, 1996)
Propaganda Parade: Education

By Henry Lamb

Shortly after UNESCO was founded in November, 1945, Bertrand Russell wrote: "Every
government that has been in control of education for a generation will be able to control its
subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen...." Since 1942, the National
Education Association (NEA) has supported the idea of a global board of education. For 50
years, UNESCO has worked to become that global board of education. Robert Muller, 30-year
Deputy Secretary-General of the UN, basks in the title: "Father of Global Education." He is
credited with the development of the "World Core Curriculum." The first goal of Muller's World
Core Curriculum is to "promote growth of the group idea, so that group good, group
understanding, group interrelations and group goodwill replace all limited, self-centered
objectives, leading to group consciousness."

The World Core Curriculum Manual says further: "The underlying philosophy upon which the
Robert Muller School is based will be found in the teachings set forth in the books of Alice A.
Bailey, by the Tibetan teacher, Djwhal Khul, published by Lucis Publishing Company...." Lucis
Publishing was Lucifer Publishing until 1924, created expressly to advance the writings of Alice
Bailey who is widely recognized as a founder of the "new age" spiritual movement. Lucis Trust
was one of the first NGOs (non-government organizations) to be granted "Accredited" status by
the UN.

UN influence over American education was minuscule until the 1970s. The United Nations
Environment Program, created in 1973, adopted global environmental education as one of its
first projects. With the cooperation of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature,
the World Wildlife Fund, and a host of environmental organizations such as the National
Wildlife Federation, American schools were flooded with propaganda about the sanctity of
wildlife and trees and the horror of chain saws, bulldozers, profit and corporations. The
propaganda became institutionalized in textbooks, educational films and videos, and throughout
the entertainment industry. School-age children have been thoroughly indoctrinated with green
propaganda. The emergence of "Goals 2000" has taken the World Core Curriculum philosophy
several steps further. Muller's "group goodwill" is expressed as "global citizens," and children
are taught that nationalism is bad and globalism is good. Children are taught that individual
achievement is bad and "equity" is good. Children are taught that corporations are bad and that
government programs are good. Children are taught that the planet is at the brink of disaster and
only regulations imposed by government can save it.

A generation of Americans has now been educated under Muller's World Core Curriculum.
Every graduating class releases a new batch of "globalists" into the work force, the schools, and
into government. Many people born after 1960 really believe that government should be
responsible for the well-being of individual citizens. Many people really believe that national
governments are obsolete. Many people really believe that the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights are antiquated and should be updated to reflect the "new global realities."

80
Many people see no problem with the School to Work Act, which essentially gives the
government the authority to certify that a student has been "properly" educated. Students who do
not have the certification will not be eligible for certain jobs. It gives the government the
authority to direct students into prescribed curricula, rather than letting individual students and
their parents make those decisions. It further empowers government to direct the lives of
individuals - and many people really believe this to be progress.

Many people see no problem with allowing U.S. soldiers to fight under the command of the UN;
no problem with allowing the UN to send inspectors to observe the proprietary process and
patented secrets of our chemical industry; no problem with allowing the UN to impose global
taxes on American industry in order to redistribute and equalize the wealth in the world; no
problem with the surrender of national sovereignty to global governance.

These people have endured a generation of education under the control of the government.
Government control is tightening; education has been transformed into propaganda designed to
modify behavior to produce "global citizens." It is the government, working hand-in-hand with
NGOs that is pushing the global agenda down the throats of American citizens. It is possible
only because of the number of people who have now been brainwashed into believing the
propaganda that now passes for education.




























81
(200 October, 1996)
Propaganda Parade: The New Earth Ethic

By Henry Lamb

Dissent is a wonderful device to deter despotism. As inconvenient as it may be, dissent prevents
the majority from steam-rolling the minority and often softens a majority position into a better
position for more people than would have been possible had the majority prevailed without
dissent from the minority. James Madison, and his colleagues, recognized the value of dissent
and provided for equal airing of conflicting views to be resolved by a vote in which all could see
precisely how each representative voted. That process is called accountable representative
democracy. When the people represented are displeased with the vote cast by their
representative, they can hold their representatives accountable and replace them with new
representatives.

Dissent is a dilemma in the consensus process. There is no room for dissent. Dissent causes
deviation from the predetermined course of action and can alter the outcome. Dissent cannot be
tolerated within the consensus. Therefore, dissenters are discredited, excluded, and penalized.
Consensus is the process by which decisions are made at the UN. Consensus is the process by
which decisions should be made in America, according to the President's Council on Sustainable
Development. Consensus is the process embraced by the new "Earth Ethic." Individualism is
bad - collectivism is good; competition is bad - cooperation is good; personal responsibility is
bad - government responsibility is good; honest debate resolved by accountable vote is bad -
consensus is good - according to the new "earth ethic."

Consensus, as practiced by the United Nations, is nothing more than camouflage for despotism.
At the July meeting of the UN's Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Treaty, a
delegate from Venezuela spoke passionately of the need for subsidiary groups to present their
report to the full conference in writing to avoid any ambiguities or distortions. The presiding
officer, Chen Chimutengwende of Zimbabwe, listened to the request, and then announced that
the reports would be presented orally, and then summarized by his staff. No vote, no discussion
- just a ruling by the presiding officer.

Intrigue deepens upon understanding that it is within the subsidiary groups that the real work is
done. Selected delegates discuss whatever issue is on the agenda. No votes are ever taken. The
meetings are private. That is, no press nor visitors are allowed. The presiding officer reports
orally to the full conference whatever he wants to report as the result of the discussions. The
presiding officer determines what the consensus of his group is. That report is then further
refined by the staff of the presiding officer of the full conference before it is entered into the
official record. It is this record that justifies the "consensus" determination. The Executive
Secretary of the Conference told a press conference at Geneva that "Consensus is not unanimity;
it is very much up to the President." There is no accountability. There is no minority report.
There is no dissent.

When dissenters go outside the process, they are immediately branded as troublemakers, as

82
activists motivated by special or private interests. Dissenters are ridiculed and labeled as anti-
government or anti-environment rabble-rousers. The new "earth ethic" has no patience for
dissent.

The new earth ethic empowers government with the responsibility of solving all the problems
and imposes upon individuals the duty to support the government solution. Individuals who do
not support the government's solution are seen to be irresponsible and unworthy of the benefits
government can bestow. Dissenters are outcasts, and according to many UN documents, should
be penalized.

The new earth ethic is not new at all. It simply uses new language to disguise the collectivist,
statist philosophy that has failed every nation victimized by it. The UN openly and actively
practices this procedure under the guise of "consensus building." In America, the President's
Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), and departments throughout the Clinton-Gore
administration, are also actively practicing this new "consensus" process for decision making.
The PCSD final report is entitled Sustainable America: A New Consensus. There is no
consensus on sustainable development. There is only the declaration that a consensus has been
reached. It is on the strength of the declaration -- not of an actual consensus -- that public policy
is being formulated. The vast majority of people who had no say in the development of the so-
called consensus are nonetheless bound by the policies. The people have no recourse. There is
no accountability. Who voted for the so-called consensus? No one. The so-called consensus
was developed by appointees of President Clinton. Dissenters were excluded from the process
and are branded with all the usual labels. Dissent is not tolerated in the new ethic of global
governance.























83
(201 November, 1996)
The Information Age

By Henry Lamb

Americans are spoiled. We take free speech for granted. We grew up in a culture that holds free
speech, a free press, and the free flow of free information to be one of those unalienable rights no
politician dares mess with. The principle of free speech is enshrined in the First Amendment --
the first priority in our Bill of Rights.

But politicians are messing with free speech. The attack on free speech is not head-on as it is in
socialist countries, and at the United Nations. There is no such thing as free speech in the
socialist philosophy. In fact, to the socialist way of thinking, information is a privilege, granted
or denied by government, to achieve the government's purposes. The United Nations Covenant
on Human Rights says: "The right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas carries with
it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to certain penalties, liabilities,
and restrictions, but these shall be only such as are provided by law...."

In sharp contrast, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: "Congress shall make no
law...abridging freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In recent years,
politicians and bureaucrats have discovered a way to by-pass the First Amendment and impose
"restrictions" on free speech in order to achieve the government's purposes. One such discovery,
is the "consensus" process, pioneered ad nauseam by the United Nations.

The American way is simple: anyone can propose a public policy idea. Anyone can speak for or
against the ideas. Americans elect decision makers who ultimately decide by a public vote.
Those who vote are directly accountable to the people who elected them. That is the American
way. It's loud, rowdy, dirty, passionate, slow, and effective. The process produced the most
powerful, most prosperous nation on earth.

The consensus process restricts free speech, not by Congressional action, but by selective input.
Equally important, the consensus process removes the decision makers from accountability. The
decision makers are not elected, they are carefully chosen. The United Nations procedure is the
procedure that is now followed in America. At the United Nations, no one is allowed to even
attend the meetings unless they have been selected by the United Nations. The press is allowed
to observe only selected meetings; the negotiating sessions are closed to the press. It's not hard
to predict the outcome of a debate on policy when all the debaters have been hand picked.

Increasingly, in America, the consensus process is permeating the decision-making process. The
President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), in its "We Believe" statements, says:
"We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions; more rapid
change; and more sensible use of human, natural, and financial resources in achieving our
goals." The PCSD developed 154 action items that are now being implemented administratively.
Public policy decisions have been made and are being implemented without the benefit of

84
genuine public input, without public debate, without a public vote by elected decision makers.
When an individual discovers he cannot get a permit to build a new home unless he agrees to
situate his home as prescribed by government, use only materials approved by government, plant
only the plants in his yard allowed by government, to whom can the homeowner redress his
grievance? The building permit criteria is but one of the recommendations of the PCSD,
developed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which threatens to withhold
federal funds unless the criteria is adopted in the local community. To whom does the
homeowner complain? Elected officials had nothing to do with the building permit criteria.

Public policy is being developed in America on the basis of selective information restricted by
government. Free speech has been abridged on public policy issues, not by Congress, but by a
crafty process called consensus. There is virtually no accountability; affected individuals cannot
discover where the policies originated, who is responsible for them, or how the policy can be
overturned. Free speech, as envisioned in the First Amendment, is a deterrent to speedy
decisions, and nearly always modifies the original proposal. "Our goals," described by the
PCSD, would undoubtedly be modified were they subjected to the toss and tumble of free and
open debate. Such refinement, inherent in the American process of public debate, is not the goal
of the PCSD, nor of the United Nations.





























85
(202 November, 1996)
The Information Age: up close and personal

By Henry Lamb

About 60 reporters gathered in Salon III of the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, to
meet Michael Zammit Cutajar, Executive Secretary of the Framework Convention on Climate
Change (FCCC), and Chen Chimutengwende, President of the Conference of the Parties of the
FCCC. Cutajar, tall, distinguished, middle-age, bureaucrat from top to bottom, welcomed the
press, referred to the press-kits that had been distributed, and introduced Chen.

Chen had entered the room five minutes after the scheduled start-time, accompanied by an
entourage of 10 gentlemen who appeared to be recent graduates from the Million-Man-March,
and one secretary who could have stepped directly from the cover of Ebony. He is a robust man
in his early forties, the Minister of Environment and Tourism for Zimbabwe, obviously revelling
in the prestige of his new position. He made a few comments about the urgency of taking
immediate action to reverse human-induced global warming. After the opening remarks, there
was time for only a few questions.

A reporter asked why, in view of the controversy swirling around the scientific evidence, a vote
had not been taken to measure the strength of the so-called scientific consensus about the
existence of global warming? "Cutajar replied: "Consensus is not unanimity; it is very much up
to the President!" That ended the press conference. Thirty minutes; no more. The information
in the press kits was prepared by professionals, It was similar to a recruiting package a Chamber
of Commerce might prepare for a prospective new business. The information was hard sell stuff:
global warming had been proved by consensus of the best scientists in the world; the UN alone
could provide the remedy through the new Protocol the Conference of the Parties was in the
process of developing.

It was clear from the start that the policy decision had already been determined by the UN
officials. The purpose of the meeting was to get the decision written into international law and to
present the law to the public as an essential measure necessary to save the planet from certain
destruction. Dissent was not tolerated. Dissenters were ridiculed and discredited. More than a
hundred world-renowned scientists issued a statement challenging the global warming
consensus. Timothy Wirth, head of the official American delegation, (and co-conspirator with
the UN bureaucracy) said: "I'm not going to let a couple of revisionist scientists rewrite what the
rest of the world has decided." Cutajar implied that the dissenting scientists were on the payroll
of the fossil fuel industry. Dissent did not delay, deter, or even make a dent in the consensus
process.

The negotiating sessions of the three subsidiary groups of the conference were all private. No
press was allowed. In a general session that was opened to the press, a delegate from Venezuela
made a passionate plea to have reports from the subsidiary groups be presented in writing to
avoid any ambiguities. Chen, the presiding officer, listened to the plea and then announced that
the reports would continue to be made orally, and that the oral report would be summarized by

86
the UN staff for inclusion into the official record.

The meetings where the delegates express their positions is private, presided over by a person
hand picked by the conference president. No press is allowed. The presiding officer then makes
his report orally in an open session where no objections or corrections are allowed. Then the
report is summarized by staff and included as the official report, long after the delegates have
gone home. There is no way for the world to know what the delegates actually said or did in
their private meeting. There is no way of knowing how accurate the oral report, or the printed
report may be. The official record can reflect whatever the UN staff wants it to reflect, and the
world has no choice but to accept it.

That's precisely how information is developed at the United Nations. That's precisely the reason
the consensus process is used. There is neither free speech, nor free press. There is no free flow
of free information. There is instead, a free flow of managed information, shaped to present only
the information necessary to justify a previously determined policy position. Dissent is despised.
The information age at the United Nations means an age when information is managed, not free.
In America, the power brokers of government are taking a lesson from the United Nations.
Increasingly, information is subject to government manipulation, management, and downright
misrepresentation. The first principle of freedom -- free speech -- is being battered and bruised
in America, and rapidly becoming a privilege, to be granted or denied by government, as it is at
the United Nations.


























87
(203 November, 1996)
The Information Age: for your own protection

By Henry Lamb

Does the government need to protect us from information? Many say absolutely, then use the
clich that the government absolutely needs to protect us from someone who may scream "fire"
in a crowded theater. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...."
Constitutional purists contend that the First Amendment means exactly what it says. Others
contend that government should protect citizens from pornography and from bomb-making
instructions. Others believe the government should require television stations to air
"educational" programming and assure that textbook material is factual. What is the appropriate
role for government to play in the free flow of free information?

Is it permissible under the First and Fourth Amendments for government to require automatic
phone-tap capability on the telephone lines of every citizen in order to protect the public from
potential criminals? Is it appropriate in a free society for government to prohibit the use of
encryption schemes that cannot be decoded by government? Many people believe that these
abridgments of free speech are justified in today's society regardless of the First and Fourth
Amendment.

Such a belief is dangerously close to the belief expressed in the United Nations Covenant on
Human Rights: "The right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas carries with it
special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to certain penalties, liabilities,
and restrictions...." Such a belief is dangerously close to the principle embraced by Marxist-
Leninist philosophy which recognizes that the control of information is essential to the
advancement of the government agenda. America is moving rapidly toward a society in which
information is controlled by government.

Certain encryption programs have already been declared to be "munitions" and subjected to strict
government control. Al Gore has proposed, and is fighting for laws to require any user of
encrypted computer communications to provide the government with a "key" for unlocking the
encryption code. The much-heralded telecommunications act requires telephone companies to
provide equipment that will automatically tap into any telephone conversation that the
government may choose to invade. Supporters say not to worry, citizens are still protected by
the laws requiring a court order before use of the automatic system. The 900 citizens whose FBI
files were trucked to the White House were protected by similar laws that prohibit government
misbehavior.

The debate comes to this: information has always been, and will always be subject to use,
misuse, and abuse. Is society better off when information is unrestricted, and the responsibility
for sorting out the usable information left to the individual, or is society better off when
information is controlled by government in order to protect individuals from information that
may be abusive or harmful?


88
Unless individuals deliberately confront this decision, and take deliberate action to make their
decision known to their neighbors and to their elected representatives, the First Amendment will
be eroded bit-by-bit, and relegated to obsolescence. The federal government is actively
attempting to gain control of information. In a communist country, control is taken by force. In
America, control is being obtained, not by force, but by incremental acquiescence.

Americans are sold on the idea that government must protect children from information on the
Internet, that children must be protected from violence on TV, that children should see
"educational" material. Americans then acquiesce to laws that give the government the power to
control content on the Internet and control the content of television programming. Once the
government has the power to control these important vehicles of communication, what is to
prevent the government from expanding its protection to include protection from what it
considers to be harmful religious or political information?

There is no information more dangerous that information that has been screened and filtered to
meet official government approval. The federal government has not yet achieved the ability to
control information as completely as communist and socialist countries, but it is working
diligently to influence the dissemination of information it deems to be appropriate while limiting,
suppressing, or discrediting information it considers to be inappropriate. Nowhere is the
evidence stronger than in the information that is disseminated about the environment.



























89
(204 November, 1996)
The Information Age: environmental propaganda

By Henry Lamb

What does the government have to do with the information that is produced about the
environment? Most of the information from which Americans form their impressions about the
environment comes from television, movies, school books, and material published by hundreds
of environmental organizations. How does the government influence or control this
information? Let us count the ways.

During an 18-month period ending June 30, 1995, the Department of Interior awarded 1802
grants to 869 non-government organizations (NGOs) and individuals totalling $242,532,016.
Virtually all of the money was given to organizations for the purpose of producing information
about the environment that is acceptable to the government. This tactic allows the government to
get information before the public that the government wants disseminated, but without the
appearance of official government approved information. Turner Educational Services, Inc.,
received $61,225 for an "electronic field trip cablecast from Okefenokee to selected schools."
The information these school kids received did not appear to be official government information,
but it would not have been delivered to the schools had it not met the government's approval.

The Keystone Center in Boulder Colorado received five awards during this grant cycle, to
produce propaganda on biodiversity and ecosystem management. The information they
produced became the basis for public policy within the government and is widely referenced as
authoritative. It would not have been funded by the government, had the information not met the
government's approval. This tactic is not new. The government gets the information it wants
disseminated by paying people to produce it. Moreover, it prevents the dissemination of
information that it deems inappropriate by withholding funding from individuals and
organizations that may produce the wrong kind of information.

Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology wrote in a 1992 article for
ecologic, that he was personally aware of scientists who lost their funding because their research
data failed to support the global warming theory. Competition for research dollars is intense.
Americans want to believe that such grants are awarded on the basis of scientific integrity, but in
the real world, there is strong evidence to suggest that politics is a more important criterion.

The federal government has taken effective steps to influence the content of television
programming and is trying to control information on the Internet, ostensibly, to protect children
from information that the government deems to be harmful. On the other hand, the government
is providing children with information about the environment that is, at best, not supported by
science, and at worst, outright lies. Is government-sanctioned propaganda any less harmful to
children than commercially produced propaganda?

Government involvement in the production, dissemination, or control of information in any way,
shape or form, is hazardous to the welfare of every American. The information the government

90
presents should be limited to statistical data and actual records of events -- all of which should be
subject to independent scrutiny and examination by any American. The government should
never attempt to influence the outcome of scientific research, nor fund the production of
propaganda through non-government organizations. With each passing year, government acts
more as if it is the omnipotent protector of, and provider for the people, rather than the hired
servant of the people. Government has become an institution unto itself, controlled by people
who use the government to advance a social agenda which they believe is best for everyone.
That is not the function for which the American government was created. The American
government was created to protect the right of every American to pursue his own agenda without
the heavy hand of government holding him back.

Information is the stuff from which ideas emerge, and from which decisions are made, and from
which actions are taken. Information should represent all available knowledge and all available
interpretations and points of view. Individuals must retain the responsibility for sorting through
the information and making their own choices. If we allow information to become tainted,
distorted, screened and filtered through processes devised by government, we will not only
diminish our freedom, we will set this nation on a course through increasing social strife,
worsening economic stagnation, and on toward inevitable collapse. The government's role in the
production and dissemination of environmental propaganda is a major step toward government
control of information.



























91
(205 December, 1996)
The War on Automobiles

By Henry Lamb

Al Gore said in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance, that there should be an action plan,
coordinated globally, to completely eliminate the internal-combustion engine, in the next 25
years. That plan is in the final stages of negotiation by the Conference of the Parties to the
Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), meeting in Geneva, Switzerland in
December. Delegates from more than 150 nations have agreed to adopt a legally binding
international protocol that will effectively drive automobiles that use gasoline, off the highways.
Trucks that run on diesel fuel simply will not run. Even lawn mowers that whisper tiny puffs of
smoke - will not survive. These horrible inventions of greedy Americans emit carbon dioxide
that causes global warming that causes glaciers to melt that causes islands to sink -- says the
United Nations -- and therefore carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced by 50 to 70 percent to
stabilize emissions at the 1990 level.

An international law is now in the making to achieve that result. The final language of the
protocol will be presented next year. Depending on the final language, developed nations will
have eight years to meet the first reduction targets with even more stringent targets set for 2010
and 2020. According to Al Gore's plan, auto engines should be gone by 2017; according to the
UN plan, they will be gone -- in America. The protocol will not apply to developing nations.

Al Gore's appointees, namely Timothy Wirth and his staff, were in Geneva in July, and again in
December promoting the legally binding protocol. While the State Department is pushing the
UN agenda overseas, Al Gore's former employee, Carol Browner, now Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, is paving the road to implementation at home. The day
before Thanksgiving, she announced new air quality standards for America. The plan will
increase the number of non-attainment zones from 75 to 214. Non-attainment zones are
geographical areas that fail to meet the air quality standards and are, therefore, subject to more
severe restrictions which may be imposed administratively (without Congressional authorization,
approval, or oversight).

This declaration of war by the EPA on the American automobile was actually developed in May,
1994, but not released because of the pending mid-term election. When the Congress was swept
by Republicans, the plan was packed away until Bill and Al worked their way back to a second
term. Immediately after the election, the plan was retrieved, dusted off, and launched by EPA
field commander Browner.

Americans would never have known about the plan until they were attacked incrementally by its
39 components, except for the work of Congressman John Boehner (R-OH). He found the
internal EPA memo, dated May 31, 1994, marked for internal discussion only, and made the
document public.

What a nightmare for automobile owners. A 50-cent per gallon tax here, a 25-cent per gallon

92
premium there, here an ad valorem tax, there a carbon tax, every where a tax tax. That's right.
On top of the federal per-gallon taxes, the EPA proposes to require states to match federal
highway funds only with revenues derived from state gas taxes.

The plan is nothing short of a declaration of war on automobiles, and incidentally, will produce
an estimated $47 billion per year by the year 2000. The plan doesn't stop with taxes. New fuel
efficiency standards will add an estimated $4,000 to the initial cost of a car. New emission tests,
based on miles driven rather than on time, must be paid for by the vehicle owner, and will be
priced based on the volume of greenhouse gases emitted. Cost estimates by the EPA range from
zero for new high-efficiency (expensive) cars to "several hundred dollars" for old polluting
jalopies. New fees based on road usage, miles driven, and even special "congestion" fees for
driving in congested areas are among the soldiers standing at the ready, under the command of
Carol Browner, in Al Gore's war against the automobile.

These draconian measures -- and more -- are necessary to meet the legally-binding requirements
of the protocol now being developed by the UN. Al's henchmen have been in Geneva fighting
for the protocol so he can tell the American people that the war being waged by the EPA is
required by the UN treaty. And he is sure to make it feel better by telling people that the
sacrifice is necessary to prevent global warming.




























93
(206 December, 1996)
The War on Industry

By Henry Lamb

Automobiles are doomed -- at least those powered by internal combustion engines, thanks to the
army of new regulations waiting in the wings to wage war on the car at the command of Al Gore.
But automobiles are only one battlefield. Industry is the ultimate target.

If a tombstone were erected for every 18-wheeler that falls under Albert's gorey sword, the
truckers' "Arlington" would likely stretch from sea to shining sea. It will not be a sudden
slaughter. Yes, truckers will have to pay the increasing price for fuels, inspections, congestion
fees and all the rest. These costs will simply be added to freight bills which will be tacked on to
the price paid by the eventual consumer. As will the increasing cost of electricity be added to the
price paid by the consumer.

As much as 80 percent of the electricity used in America is generated by fossil fuels. The cost of
electricity can be expected to double, double again, and perhaps double again before the targets
for emissions reductions, required by the climate change treaty and the eminent protocol, are
reached.

Al's war may be declared on the automobile and industry, but the victims are the everyday
people who pay the bills. Most families already work more than 80 hours per week to make ends
meet. Their auto expense is about to skyrocket. Their home electric bill will soon start its
doubling act. Day care costs will increase to cover the increasing costs of the day care operator.
Food costs -- that arrive at the super market by truck -- will increase. Junior's clothes will cost
more. Houses, and virtually everything in them -- all manufactured with electricity and delivered
with gasoline -- will take an ever bigger bite out of the income of every family.

Families simply will be unable to maintain their standard of living. They will be forced to buy
less, drive less, have less, and make-do longer with what they have. When people buy less,
industry must produce less -- and lay off unnecessary workers. When factories produce less, it
takes fewer trucks to haul the stuff factories produce. Slowly, at first, the trucker's "Arlington"
will begin to grow.

People who own and operate factories are not stupid. They already know that most of the world
is beyond the reach of Al's war on industry and, in fact, not subject to the requirements of the
climate change treaty. Rather than stay in the suburbs of Sacramento and suffer the relentless
regulations of Al Gore's regime, why not move to South America or any of the other developing
nations. People work for peanuts; governments roll out the red carpet; people are hungry for the
stuff factories make -- and neither Al Gore nor Carol Browner will be there to harass them.

The thunder in the skys over America will be caused by the stampede of industry crossing the
bridge to the 21st century.


94
What happens to America?

Children who enter school before the year 2000 will graduate into a world with soaring
unemployment, taxes that could easily reach 60 percent of personal income, and international
obligations that require an ever higher tax rate to satisfy. The cost of living -- even at what is
now considered to be at the edge of poverty -- will be unaffordable for many, if not most,
workers. A vacation in the family van to Disneyworld -- out of the question. A drive across
town to the mall -- a thing of the past for all but the very rich.

This scenario is theoretical -- but quite probable. It cannot be more accurate because neither the
U.S. government nor the UN has bothered to perform economic analyses to accurately identify
the costs. Nevertheless, the U.S. has already committed to embrace the new international law.

The costs on which this scenario is based are just beginning to emerge from independent
economists around the world. The cost estimates must be based on assumptions since neither the
emissions targets nor the time frame have been established. Two conclusions, however, can be
inferred from the studies to date: (1) the costs will be astronomical to developed nations bound
by the protocol, and (2) there is likely to be minuscule reduction of emissions, if any, because
developing nations are not bound by the law and emissions will simply emerge from developing
nations rather than from the devastated nations.



























95
(207 December, 1996)
Who's Financing the War?

By Henry Lamb

There are 161 nations that constitute the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), a.k.a. the "Climate Change Treaty," or the "Global
Warming Treaty." The COP met in Geneva in July. It met again in Geneva in December. It will
meet in Bonn, Germany in the spring, and again in Kyoto, Japan next December.

Seventy-six percent (122 nations) of the member parties are entitled to send two delegates to the
meetings at the expense of the UN. The cost to send these delegates to each meeting, according
to a report issued by the UN in Geneva, ranges between $600,000 and $700,000. That means the
UN is paying each of the 122 nations, approximately $10,000 per year to send delegates to the
meetings. None of these delegates represent nations that are bound by the treaty's regulations.

All the costs of the Conference of the Parties are supposed to be paid from contributions from all
members levied by the UN according to a formula that ranges from .01% to 25% of the COP's
total budget. The assessments are to be paid by January 1 each year. As of December 6, 1996,
111 members ( 69%) had paid nothing. Nevertheless, 82% of the total anticipated revenue had
been received. The total budget for the year is $7,346,725, of which $6,055,869 was paid by 33
nations -- 25 of which are legally bound by the treaty. Only 8 nations that are not bound by the
treaty have made any payment at all. Their total contribution amounts to $126,661.

Does anyone see a problem here? The 34 nations whose national economies are subject to be
devastated are footing the bill for travel expenses and 82% of the total cost of bringing the
delegates together to formulate the regulations that promise to destroy the economies that
generate the UN's revenue. Many of the 111 countries that have paid nothing are in line to
receive the industries that will be driven out of the 34 developed countries by the new law.

While greenhouse gas emissions are being reduced in the northern hemisphere, they will begin
huffing and puffing from the new tailpipes and smokestacks that will blanket the southern
hemisphere. Prosperity in America and the other developed nations will diminish rapidly while
prosperity (and carbon emissions) flourish throughout the developing world. That's what the UN
calls "equity." That's what is meant by the UN pledge to "...ensure that all people equally share
the benefits of the earth's resources." The method chosen by the UN is to pay delegates to create
an international law that takes the benefits away from the people who earned them and give the
benefits to those who have not.

It is the UN itself, however, that receives the greatest benefit. It is the UN that creates the law,
oversees its implementation, enforces its mandates, and ultimately will control the flow of
prosperity as it flows from the developed nations to those that even now are licking their chops.

The UN is no longer the General Assembly and the Security Council comprised of official
delegates appointed by member states. That may be the image portrayed on the nightly news,

96
but it is wrong. The UN, in actuality, is a vast and burgeoning bureaucracy -- similar in many
ways to the bureaucracy of the former Soviet Union -- consisting of more than 130 organizations
and agencies, each with its own budget and agenda, working to implement a well-coordinated
plan to restructure the social order of the planet.

The plan is called Agenda 21, adopted by the heads of state from more than 100 nations in Rio de
Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 21 is the destination that lies across the bridge that Al Gore and Bill
Clinton are building to the 21st century.







































97
(208 December, 1996)
Is There A Better Way?

By Henry Lamb

Of course there is a better way. The only lasting way to elevate prosperity in developing
countries and solve the inevitable problems that will be confronted -- even the problem of global
warming, should it ever really occur -- is to build upon the experience demonstrated by the
nations that have achieved relative prosperity. America has certainly led the way.

The fundamental principles that underlie the great American success story are not difficult to
discern. They are, however, difficult to achieve and even more difficult to maintain. The
principles on which America was built include individual freedom; personal responsibility;
private property; and limited government empowered by the governed. Simple, straight-forward,
unfailing, and under constant attack.

Two world wars were unable to bring down the nation built on these principles. The current
attackers disavow bombs and bullets. Instead, the weapons of choice are deceit, propaganda,
treaties, and eventually triumph. Unsuccessful in previous efforts to overpower us to take our
possessions and control our lives, the new enemy's strategy is to persuade us to give up our
possessions voluntarily -- and then control our lives.

The principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility are being systematically
replaced by the concept that the good of the community is more important than the needs and
desires of the individual. And that in exchange for self-denial for the benefit of the community,
the community will take care of the needs -- not the desires -- of the individual.

The principle of private property is incompatible with the principle of "the good of the
community." The community must control property to ensure that the needs of all members are
met. Private property results in unequal distribution of the benefits produced by the community.
And, of course, the community is represented by its government. The government must make
the distribution of benefits, and its power to do so cannot be limited if the distribution of benefits
-- and work -- are to be equal. These fundamental principles upon which America was built are
being replaced little by little, every day, with little notice or concern by most Americans.

Those who have noticed and are deeply concerned must not only reaffirm their faith in those
fundamental principles, they must rethink the application of those principles to current realities.
They must articulate anew the value and benefits of each of those principles and demonstrate
convincingly why it is better to excel in every endeavor, rather than to simply "get by." They
must explain the personal benefit to be derived from taking demeaning work rather than to
accept food stamps, even though eligible.

For too many people, individual freedom is not worth the price of personal responsibility. We
have created a culture that is too willing to take a subsidy when available, rather than to earn or
create what we need. It is not the government that pays for the subsidy; government simply

98
takes wealth from those who have earned or created it to give to those who have not.

A far greater price is paid by those who choose the subsidy. Something-for-nothing is more
addictive than cocaine and produces similar effects. It dulls the will and dims the mind.
Something-for-nothing destroys the need to try, the opportunity to fail, and the joy of
achievement.

Nature requires us to feed ourselves. We come equipped with what we need to find and secure
our food. It is the quest for what we need -- and what we want -- that triggers our imagination.
It is our mind -- standard original equipment on all models -- which creates pictures of possible
solutions to our needs and pathways to our wants.

Failure is the university in which we hone our skills. The more we fail the closer we come to
success. And when it comes as the result of our own vision, our own effort, our own
achievement, it brings a rush higher than the Rocky Mountains, unmatched by any substance or
subsidy. Like love, the feeling that accompanies achievement cannot be described; it must be
experienced. A father cannot describe love to his son, but he can demonstrate it.

Achievement brings joy to living and lessons to those we love. Something-for-nothing steals
both.

Individual freedom, personal responsibility, private property, and limited government are
principles enshrined in our Constitution, which is perhaps, man's greatest achievement. Perhaps
our greatest achievement will be simply to defend it, which is a powerful lesson for those we
love.