1

Henry Lamb Columns in 2001

Contents
Clinton embraces International Criminal Court ...........................................................................4
Whats wrong with Sustainable Development? ............................................................................6
A tidal wave is coming .............................................................................................................. 11
Its Time to pull the plug on Kyoto............................................................................................ 14
The Transformation of America ................................................................................................ 16
A Sustainable Development Monster......................................................................................... 19
Energy or Kyoto? Not Both ....................................................................................................... 23
Hail to the Chief! ...................................................................................................................... 26
Dems dont debate, they demonize ............................................................................................ 28
Getting the policy right ............................................................................................................. 31
A Global Environmental Pep-rally ............................................................................................ 35
Bringing global governance home ............................................................................................. 37
Who needs earth day? ............................................................................................................... 41
Guns under siege ....................................................................................................................... 42
Kyoto Resurrected? ................................................................................................................... 45
POPs may be hazardous to your lifestyle ................................................................................... 48
Tightening the screws................................................................................................................ 51
U.N.U. calls for Global Governance .......................................................................................... 54
Is the U.N. committing suicide? ................................................................................................ 58
When SD comes to your town ................................................................................................ 60
New Internet treaty readied ....................................................................................................... 63
U.N. Gun Burning Just the Beginning ....................................................................................... 66
Repeal the ESA ......................................................................................................................... 69
Klamath Falls invisible foe ...................................................................................................... 72
Congress at its worst ................................................................................................................. 75
Kyoto: Revival of the Undead ................................................................................................... 78
Vertical Disintegration .............................................................................................................. 81
Fatally Flawed .......................................................................................................................... 84

2
The color of science .................................................................................................................. 87
Do you have xenophobia? ......................................................................................................... 90
Hogwash and horsespit! ............................................................................................................ 92
Global Taxation Moves Closer .................................................................................................. 95
Walking away from the U.N. ..................................................................................................... 99
Stay out of UNESCO .............................................................................................................. 102
Responding to tragedy ............................................................................................................. 104
Rebuild the WTC .................................................................................................................... 107
Reconciliation or Retaliation? ................................................................................................. 110
Surrender Sovereignty? Never! .............................................................................................. 113
Preparing to win ...................................................................................................................... 115
Exploiting tragedy ................................................................................................................... 118
Terror on the horizon .............................................................................................................. 120
Freedom: better than global governance .................................................................................. 122
No Ford in my future............................................................................................................... 126
Why do they hate us? .............................................................................................................. 128
Global governance glitch Part 1 ............................................................................................ 130
Global governance glitch Part 2 ............................................................................................ 132
Kyoto: creeping to completion ................................................................................................ 134
Taliban: a non-violent solution ................................................................................................ 136
U.N. opens in a changing world .............................................................................................. 138
Internet target of new treaty..................................................................................................... 140
Private property epidemic........................................................................................................ 142
NGOs: leading the parade ....................................................................................................... 144
Lies, lies, and more lies ........................................................................................................... 146
How Treaties erode national sovereignty Part 1 .................................................................... 148
How Treaties erode national sovereignty -Part 2...................................................................... 150
U.N. joins war crimes claim ................................................................................................. 152
A snowball bound for hell ....................................................................................................... 154
Thank God for Jesse! .............................................................................................................. 156
Take care of America First ...................................................................................................... 158

3
Caught in the crosshairs .......................................................................................................... 160
Like thieves in the night .......................................................................................................... 162









4
Col20010101
Clinton embraces International Criminal Court

By Henry Lamb
Just hours before the December 31 deadline, Bill Clinton gave the United Nations its most
significant victory so far, in its relentless quest for global governance: the International Criminal
Court (ICC). Clinton ordered David Scheffer, ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, to sign
the 1998 Rome Statute, just hours before the midnight deadline.
To be a world government, the United Nations needs three powers: (1) the ability to make law;
(2) the ability to enforce its laws; and (3) the power to levy taxes necessary to fund its
operations.
The U.S. endorsement of the ICC means that the United States accepts the principle of
centralized, global law enforcement, as superior to the principles of law enforcement contained
in the U.S. Constitution. Clinton said he signed the document to Reaffirm our strong support
for international accountability.
The new international Statute creates an Assembly of States Parties (ASP) consisting of one
representative from each nation that ratifies the Statute. The Statute goes into effect 60 days after
it is ratified by the 60th nation. The ASP will elect 18 judges who will serve 9-year terms. The
judges will be divided into three Chambers: (1) a Pre-trial Chamber, consisting of "not less than
six judges;" (2) a Trial Chamber, of not less than six judges; and (3) an Appeals Chamber,
consisting of four judges and the Presidency.
The Presidency consists of a President and two vice presidents elected by the judges, who
exercise the administrative authority of the court. The function of the Pre-trial Chamber may be
carried out by a panel of three judges assigned to a particular case, or by any one of the three.
Pre-trial functions include ruling on jurisdictional matters, issuing warrants or subpoenas,
determining issues of jurisdiction and admissibility, and the like. The Trial judges hear, and
decide the cases brought before them -- without assistance from a jury.
The new Statute also creates an Office of the Prosecutor who is elected by the ASP for a 9-year
term. The Prosecutor, a Deputy and their staff, are responsible for investigating and bringing to
"justice" any person accused of an international crime: "the crime of genocide; crimes against
humanity; war crimes; and the crime of aggression."
The ASP, in which the U.S. will have only one vote if the U.S. ratifies this treaty, will define
what actions constitute crimes against humanity...and the crime of aggression. At any time it
chooses, this body can expand its jurisdiction to include environmental crimes, or to define
violations of human rights and environmental treaties to be crimes against humanity.
The Office of the Prosecutor may investigate any crime within any nation - whether or not the
nation is a party to the treaty - without assistance or interference from the government of that
nation.

5
A single appointed judge from the Pre-trial Chamber can authorize such an investigation.
A victim brought before a single appointed judge in the Trial Chamber, may be tried and
convicted without having to be confronted by his accuser, or seeing the evidence against him, or
being tried by a jury, and with no guarantee against self-incrimination. Similarly, the appeals
process is essentially an administrative review, with no protections for the accused.
Clintons endorsement of this treaty may be the most egregious act of his entire tenure.
Simultaneous with the evolution of this ICC, the United Nations is working to establish a
standing army to enforce the courts decisions. The U.N. army is being promoted as a rapid-
deployment Peacekeeping force, to be used in response to, or as a preventive measure to avoid
aggression. Once in place, under the command of the U.N. Secretary-General, the army will
march to the drumbeat of the U.N.
To fully transform global governance to world government, the U.N. must have some form of the
Tobin Tax to supply the money required to fund its operations, and it must rid itself of the
troublesome veto power exercised by the permanent members of the Security Council. Both of
these objectives are being aggressively pursued - supported by some members of the U.S.
Congress.
Because each of these U.N. initiatives is promoted by a different constituency, proponents either
fail to see, or choose to ignore, the fact that each is an orchestrated part of the larger objective -
to transform global governance into world government. The plan was published in the 1995
report of the Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighborhood. Since then, we
have seen the plan unfold with amazing speed. The Presidents endorsement of the ICC is,
without a doubt, a most significant victory for the proponents of world government.
Whether or not the new crowd in Washington will have the inclination, or the political will, to
reverse this trend toward world government, is a question that only time will answer. It is
unlikely to do so, however, unless the American people demand it. Without a loud, persistent
outcry from the American people, world government will be Clintons legacy.










6
Col20010104
Whats wrong with Sustainable Development?

By Henry Lamb
Sustainable Development is a euphemism for managed development. The term arises from the
1987 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland,
then vice-chair of the International Socialist Party. The actual definition of the term, touted by
both the U.N., and the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development, is: ...to meet the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Who can argue with such a concept?
Whats wrong with the concept, is the process and the people who decide what is, or is not,
sustainable.
The concept of sustainable development was defined quite extensively in 1992, when another
U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, adopted Agenda 21. This
40-chapter document embraces every facet of human life - from the environment to education to
world trade - with very specific recommendations required to achieve a sustainable world.
Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of this conference, told the delegates that some nations have:
"developed and benefitted from the unsustainable patterns of production and
consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles
and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake,
consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels,
appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not
sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmental damaging
consumption patterns." ( Dixy Lee Ray, Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to
Common Sense, Regnery Gateway, Washington, DC, 1993, p. 4. )
Principle number 8 of Agenda 21, says that, To achieve sustainable development...States should
reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote
appropriate demographic policies.
To implement the recommendations of Agenda 21, the document calls on each nation to:
...promote an on-going participatory process to define country needs and priorities in
promoting Agenda 21" (37.3(a)), and to seek internal consensus at all levels of society
on policies and programs needed. This consensus should result from a participatory
dialogue of relevant interest groups... (37.5).
Here begins the list of whats wrong with sustainable development.
The United Nations has already defined what is unsustainable: high meat intake; frozen and
convenience food; fossil fuels; appliances, air-conditioning; and suburban housing. Sustainable

7
development is all about reducing or eliminating these patterns of unsustainable production
and consumption, and to re-educate the public to believe that this life-style change is necessary
to protect the planet from biological devastation.
Who says? Just because Maurice Strong says it, doesnt make it true. Just because the U.N.
propaganda machine says it, doesnt make it true. But what is true doesnt matter; what matters
is what people believe to be true.
To make sure that people know what to believe, and to create the on-going framework to
implement the recommendations of Agenda 21, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order
12852 in 1993 which created the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). This
institution establishes the model for developing public policy by consensus. It consists of
cabinet-level appointees of the federal government, executives from selected environmental and
social organizations, and a handful of token businessmen. This group consumed millions of
dollars and eight years, identifying Agenda 21 policies which could be implemented at every
level of government, without additional legislative authority. The process relies on NGOs (non-
government organizations) and government agencies.
Throughout Agenda 21, there are words promoting the idea of bottom-up decision-making,
developed by consensus. This is the new decision process proclaimed by the PCSD. It is the
process championed by the Clinton/Gore administration and used very effectively to implement
the recommendations of Agenda 21 while by-passing, most often, the legislative process. What
appears to be bottom-up, is actually top-down, and carefully manipulated to achieve pre-
determined objectives.
Agenda 21 presents a massive, comprehensive, set of policy recommendations to achieve a
utopian vision of how society should be organized and how people should live. To fully
comprehend this vision, it is necessary to study several U.N. publications that have evolved over
the last several years. The most important include:
1. World Conservation Strategy, 1980, (United Nations Environment Program (UNEP);
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); and World Wildlife
Foundation (WWF).
2. Our Common Future, 1987, (Report of the Brundtland Commission).
3. Caring for the Earth, 1991, (UNEP, IUCN, WWF).
4. Global Biodiversity Strategy, 1992 (UNEP, IUCN, WWF, and World Resources
Institute (WRI).
5. Agenda 21, 1992, (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development)

8
6. Global Biodiversity Assessment, 1995 (UNEP, with major cooperation from IUCN,
WWF, WRI).
7. Our Global Neighborhood, 1995 (Report of the Commission on Global Governance).
8. Community Sustainability: Agendas for Choice Making and Action, 1995, (U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.)
9. Sustainable America: A New Consensus, 1996 (Presidents Council on Sustainable
Development).
The vision of the world produced in these pages is staggering. It is so bizarre and comprehensive
that efforts to describe it fall short, but, nevertheless, are usually dismissed as too ridiculous to be
taken seriously.
Imagine a world with no political boundaries - no nations, no states, no counties, no cities.
Instead, the world is defined by bioregions, subdivided by ecosystems, and further subdivided by
watersheds. All life, as well as the environment in which life exists, is legally defined to possess
equal intrinsic value.
At least half of the land area is wilderness, where people are not allowed. Wilderness areas,
called Biosphere Reserves are connected by corridors of wilderness to provide unhampered
wildlife migration. Wilderness areas are surrounded by buffer zones, where some human
activity may be allowed, under the management of government. People live in sustainable
communities.
A sustainable community is one around which a growth limit has been established. No suburbs.
Within the community, people live in high-density, low-rise housing, built with public funds, and
managed by NGOs in a public/private partnership arrangement. Occupancy is integrated to
assure ethnic and economic equity. Housing is assigned on the basis of proximity to work, so
people may walk or bicycle to their job. Business permits are allowed based on community
requirements, to assure that food stores and other services are within walking and cycling
distance. Open spaces and rooftop gardens are used supplement food production.
In the buffer zones separating sustainable communities from wilderness, organic farming
produces most of the food required by the community, with any excesses shipped to larger urban
areas. Transportation between communities is a system of light rail vehicles that transport
people by day and freight by night. Automobiles are rare, small, expensive, and are powered by
something other than fossil fuel.
Government is conducted through a system of Stakeholder Councils, beginning at the lowest
level of community, coordinating with Watershed Councils, Ecosystem Councils, and
Bioregional Councils. The councils develop public policy within their jurisdiction and oversee
the executive agencies responsible for implementing policies. Each council consists of
individuals selected for their representation of an accredited NGO, or their position with an
executive agency. Stakeholder councils govern schools, police, garbage pick-up, and all other
municipal functions of the community. Watershed and Ecosystem Councils govern policy and
implementation at their respective levels. The Bioregional Council governs the entire bioregion.

9
Representatives from the Bioregional Councils represent their bioregions in global policy
development, and see that global policies are implemented throughout their bioregions.
Unreal. Never happen. Too far out. Not in my lifetime!
Perhaps - for those people who are over 50. For everyone else, this vision is unfolding. This
transformation is expected to take the better part of the century. It will not evolve smoothly, nor
with equal progress around the world. The transformation is much further along in Europe than
in America. In less developed nations, progress is fairly rapid, because of increasing money
supplies that are funneled through the United Nations for projects that are implemented by NGOs
in public/private partnerships.
People who are living as the 21
st
century begins, are witnessing the first stages of a global
transformation - a planned and managed global society. It is a concept few Americans are
willing to try to grasp. Many Americans, however, are already being affected by this
transformation. They just do not realize that their experience is a part of a much broader agenda.
Until the Clinton/Gore administration, new agency rules required public hearings and public
comment. This process has now been transformed into public dog-and-pony shows, and
orchestrated public comment accumulation. The purpose of public hearings is to gather opinions
from the people who are affected by a proposed rule. What agencies of government are now
calling a public hearing is actually a presentation of the governments position, complete with
multi-media propaganda.
Field hearings have been transformed into consensus-building sessions, conducted by trained
facilitators. These meetings produce results that are pre-determined - always consistent with
recommendations found in Agenda 21. When public opinion is actually solicited, it is to express
approval of one of several pre-determined options. This is the consensus process at work - the
new decision process called for by the PCSD.
The consensus process, conducted by trained government officials, produces public policy that
does not arise from the governed. When it is implemented administratively through Presidential
Declaration, Executive Order, or agency rule, consent of the governed is by-passed; there is no
direct accountability to the governed. Public policy must be made only by representatives who
are elected by the people who are governed by those policies.
Nowhere is there a more graphic example of Agenda 21 and sustainable development at work,
than in the land-use policies imposed during the past decade. Efforts to add two new U.N.
Biosphere Reserves to the 47 now in the United States failed, but the administration was
successful in converting millions of acres to wilderness through Presidential Declarations of
National Monuments. The lame-duck designation of 58 million more acres as roadless areas
extends the wilderness area even further, working diligently to achieve the 50% objective set
forth by the United Nations.
The nation-wide initiative to use public tax dollars to buy private property and development
rights, combined with the Sierra Clubs nation-wide initiative to impose growth limits on
communities, both are designed to implement recommendations set forth in Agenda 21.
Whats wrong with protecting open space? Whats wrong with community planning? Nothing.

10
Whats wrong lies in the purpose, the process, and the people who are doing it.
The earth does not need to be protected from the people; it needs to be protected for the people.
The people who can best protect the earth are the people who own it, who depend upon it, who
want to pass it along to future generations. The best way to protect the planet is to allow
individual citizens to own whatever they need, and can afford, to meet their own needs; they can
and will be responsible for passing it on to subsequent generations. This idea is heresy to the
advocates of Agenda 21.
Private property is not included in the concept of sustainable development. Neither is the idea of
individual freedom, or individual achievement. People are to be cared for by the government -
from cradle to grave - in a managed society that is educated to believe that the good of all is
more important than any individual achievement. Global equity is the ultimate goal - as
distributed by the central planning and enforcement mechanisms of a global government.
Sustainable development is managed development. The result is a managed society. It is the
outcome produced by Al Gores passion to reorganize society around the central principle of
protecting the environment - by government mandate, rather than by individual stewardship.
Whats wrong with sustainable development? It negates 225 years of building upon the strength
of individual freedom, achievement, and responsibility, and embraces the failed principles of
central command and control of a planned society.
















11
20020227
A tidal wave is coming

By Henry Lamb
All political debate arises from one philosophical conflict: two different views of how people
should live.
Seventeenth century philosopher, Thomas Hobbes illustrates one view in his observation that
when people live by their own devices, their lives are solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
His solution: The control of power must be lodged in a single sovereign, and no individual can
set their own private judgments of right and wrong in opposition to the sovereigns commands.
John Locke illustrates the conflicting view: ...every man has a property in his own person; this,
nobody has any right to but himself. The labor of his body and the work of his hands, we may
say, are properly his. Locke also believed that unowned things are now owned in common
under the authority of the sovereign, but that ownership of any unowned thing belongs to its first
possessor.
This is the conflict that underlies the debate between socialism and capitalism. It is the same
conflict that underlies the debate between individual environmental stewardship and
government-mandated environmental regulation.
Under Lockes philosophy, people have an inherent right to govern themselves, and benefit or
suffer accordingly. Under Hobbes philosophy, the sovereign - whether king, government, or the
United Nations - is omnipotent, with the power to compel people to do its bidding.
The people who followed Columbus to America were molded in the Locke tradition, fiercely
individual, who accepted the responsibility of their individual decisions. They created a
government under their control, with limited power, and specified that government power be
forever limited by the consent of the governed.
The people who gave birth to socialism, communism, and fascism, were molded in the Hobbes
tradition.
Fast-forward to the 21
st
century. The same philosophical conflict permeates political debate
today. The lines of distinction are obscured by efforts to resolve the conflict in what is frequently
referred to as The Third Way. This view of how people should live retains the Hobbesian
notion that the sovereign has ultimate power, but it allows individuals to participate in the
exercise of that power.
Global governance, as it is being constructed by the United Nations, is based on this Third
Way point of view. It is an effort to devise a system of governance in which individuals are
allowed to participate, without jeopardizing the ultimate power of government. It is thought that
citizen participation will make government more responsive to the needs of individuals, while
making government mandates more acceptable to the citizenry. Using the consensus process

12
for policy development, government is assured of the outcome it wants, while allowing
individuals to participate in the process.
This aspect of global governance may be seen clearly in the process through which the United
Nations has elevated the role of NGOs (non-government organizations) in both the policy
development, and policy implementation functions of the agencies of the United Nations. All the
U.N. treaties since 1992 require NGO participation in one form or another. The protest against
the World Trade Organization (WTO) by NGOs is not about free trade, it is about gaining a more
prominent role in the WTO process.
Since 1995, in compliance with a recommendation from the Commission on Global Governance,
the U.N. has been developing a Peoples Assembly, a formal U.N. institution that will provide
NGOs with a permanent platform for input into the policies of the United Nations.
Public/private partnerships is the term used to describe NGO involvement in policy
implementation. Through the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), and other funding
mechanisms, the U.N. is paying NGOs to administer various programs around the globe.
Many people see this process as a great compromise of the Hobbes - Locke philosophical
conflict. It is the process set forth in Agenda 21, and promoted through the Presidents Council
on Sustainable Development. The Clinton administration transformed the agencies of the federal
government to this model of public/private partnerships and the use of the consensus process in
policy development.
Most people are not aware of the subtle change taking place in our system of government. Fewer
people are aware of the consequences.
The Third Way is better than socialism, communism, or fascism, in that policies are not imposed
by military might. The outcome, however, is ultimately the same: a sovereign entity against
which no individual can set their own private judgments of right and wrong in opposition to the
sovereigns commands.
This new system of governance is not promoted as The Third Way. It is promoted as
Sustainable Development. It is defined as meeting our needs without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
It is a perfectly reasonable and even desirable objective - until we discover what the benign
definition really means. Throughout Agenda 21, and the Presidents Council on Sustainable
Development, the literature defines sustainable development to be: balancing environmental
protection; economic development; and social equity. Who is the ultimate arbiter of that
balance? The sovereign, to which no individual can set their own private judgments of right
and wrong in opposition...
John Lockes philosophy cannot survive under the rule of sustainable development. Capitalism,
free markets, private property, individual achievement - all perish under the rule of sustainable
development. What emerges instead is a managed society in which the sovereign balances
environmental protection with economic development in order to achieve social equity.


13
Most of the worlds people struggle simply to survive. The idea of social equity is extremely
appealing, especially as it is described by NGO employees administering some U.N.-funded
program. Most of the people who live in Europe, Russia, China, and Asia, exist in a long
tradition of some form of sovereign rule. They cannot comprehend a system of governance
founded on Lockes philosophy of individual rights and responsibility.
As unlikely as it may seem, the system of limited government produced by individuals following
Lockes philosophy, catapulted society forward, outstripping the creativity, productivity, and
prosperity produced by any other system of governance. This wonderful, uniquely American
system of government is at the brink of oblivion. Global governance is rising like a tidal wave,
to wash across our land while the people sleep.
The installation of the new Bush administration in Washington is a countervailing wind, that
may hold back the tidal wave for awhile, but it is temporary. For those who cherish the
principles of freedom that has made America great, there is little time to build defenses.



















14
Col20010210
Its Time to pull the plug on Kyoto

By Henry Lamb
It is a tragic story. Immature, if not completely irresponsible, a couple insisted on marriage.
Despite parental urging to delay a family, the newlyweds plunged into the task at the first
opportunity away from parental supervision.
Throughout the pregnancy, there were dreams of a beautiful child, with visions that one day, it
would become a responsible adult, contributing to society, and perhaps, even saving the world.
But the offspring was born prematurely; vital organs were not sufficiently developed. Doctors
rushed the child to intensive care, inserting tubes, monitors, and pumps. A respirator provided
artificial breathing; plastic bags supplied artificial mothers milk. Experts were summoned,
experiments were explored. Still, the child languished.
For a year, the protectors labored to save the child. But on its first birthday, it had not drawn a
single breath on its own. No progress; condition deteriorating.
Efforts to instill life intensified. For another year, the experts toiled over the lifeless infant. But
on its second birthday, it had not drawn a single breath on its own. No progress; condition
worsening.
As if by force of will, the experts announced that they would be able to bring the motionless
child to life in one more year. Expectations were raised. Doctors worked feverishly. But on its
third birthday, the child had not drawn a single breath on its own. No progress; condition
critical.
The doctors and family are now assembling to confront the inevitable question.
The Kyoto Protocol was conceived the first time the Conference of the Parties met without
parental supervision in Berlin, in 1995 (COP 1). The conception was announced in the Berlin
Mandate, which decreed that the Protocol would enter the world in 1997.
At COP 2, in Geneva, the proud parents dreamed dreams about the offspring growing in their
collective body. It would be beautiful, and grow up to save the world.
In a very painful birth, at the last possible moment, the Protocol popped out, just before dawn on
the day after COP 3 was supposed to be adjourned, in Kyoto, Japan. Although its arrival was on
schedule, it was premature. Vital organs were insufficiently developed. Immediately, the
Protocol was put on life-support. Experts were summoned, special meetings were arranged.
But on its first birthday, Cop 4, in Buenos Aires, the Protocol had not drawn a single breath on
its own. No progress; condition deteriorating.

15
On its second birthday, Cop 5, in Bonn, the Protocol had still not drawn a single breath on its
own. No progress; condition worsening.
As if by sheer force of will the Protocols protectors announced that one more year of intensified
resuscitation would bring the Protocol to a viable and vibrant life.
On its third birthday, Cop 6, in The Hague, the Protocol had still not drawn a single breath on its
own. Massive, extraordinary efforts in the waning hours of the last day failed to produce a single
sign of life in the offspring that has been prodded, poked, cajoled, and artificially nourished for
three years.
The parents and practitioners are now assembling to confront the inevitable question: shall we
continue to invest time and resources in this flawed, lifeless offspring, or shall we pull the plug?
Its time to pull the plug!




















16
Col20020216
The Transformation of America

By Henry Lamb
We have to come to grips with a reality nobody wants to admit: America is being transformed.
Its not that America is simply changing. Our history is one of constant change. In the past,
change has come spontaneously, the result of new ideas and new products shaping and reshaping
the way people live.
In the last twenty years or so, change has not been spontaneous. It has been planned. With
increasing effectiveness, the way people live is being determined by government policy, rather
than by new ideas and new products, which people accept or reject in a free and open market
place.
America is becoming a managed society; individual freedom is the victim.
The simple notion that in America, free people should be able to live anywhere they choose - and
can afford - was taken for granted for centuries. No more. Someone has determined that people
should not live beyond growth boundaries arbitrarily drawn around sustainable communities.
Someone has determined that people should not live in certain rural areas which should be left in
open space. Someone has determined that people should not even enter vast stretches of
wilderness which must be reserved for nature.
These decisions were not made by the people who are affected by them; they were made be
people who believe they know best how other people should live. These decisions were made by
those who believe a managed society is better than a free society.
Because these policies - developed by non-elected bureaucrats - have been wrapped in Madison-
Avenue descriptions, and implemented piece-meal around the country, there has never been a
full and open debate about consequences of the resulting managed society. It is time to engage
this debate.
Those who would manage society envision sustainable communities in which people live within
walking or cycling distance to their work places. These communities are surrounded by open
space, in which the necessary agricultural and industrial activities may occur - with government
approval and supervision - required to support the community. The rest of the land area is
protected for benefit of biodiversity.
To achieve this vision, there has been a steady expansion of land area designated officially as
wilderness which severely restricts human activity. The rash of National Monuments created
by the Clinton/Gore administration, and the recent Rule to virtually close another 58 million
acres by an administrative roadless policy, further expands that the area where people may no
longer choose to live.

17
For more than a decade, government policies have been developed and implemented designed to
drive cowboys off their ranches, loggers out of the forests, and miners off the land all together.
Someone - not those affected - has decided these people should not live where they chose to live.
Its not just in the west. In Ohio, nearly 500 families are threatened. Families whose land was
payment for serving in the Revolutionary War, are now told they should no longer live on that
land, which should be left as open space for the people who live in Columbus.
In West Virginia, people who own property along the New River, are threatened because the
government believes their homes are an eye-sore, that the area should be pristine to provide an
unspoiled viewshed.
In the Columbia Gorge, a special commission has been appointed to decide whether or not an
individual may build a home within the viewshed of the scenic highway.
Similar restrictions are being imposed by government in every community - and it is getting
worse.
Proponents of this managed society are convinced that the vast natural resources of America
must be preserved. People must be cajoled, coerced, or forced, to consume less, to travel less, to
want less - in order to preserve and protect biodiversity. For a decade or more, the proponents
of a managed society have been extremely successful in shaping government policy to bring their
vision to reality.
At best, this vision of a managed society is misguided; at worst, it is utter stupidity.
Natural resource should not be preserved. They should be used - wisely. Who can determine
what is, or is not wise use better than the owner of the resource? The Sierra Club, and similar
environmental organizations believe that government should make such determinations -
assuming, of course, that government policy makers are individuals who graduated from their
ranks, as was the case during the Clinton/Gore administration. Now that their graduates are no
longer in power, their position is changing to one which condemns government action that
impedes their vision.
Government does not own the land or the resources it contains - nor should it. The land and the
resources belong to the American people. The American people should determine what is, or is
not wise use of the nations resources. As the trustee of Americas resource wealth, the
government should provide no more than a fair and open mechanism through which the
American people decide how to use its wealth.
In recent years, government at every level has been persuaded to acquire more and more land,
expressly for the purpose of preserving, or protecting the land and its resources. This is
precisely the wrong direction for government to take. Government already has title to more than
40 percent of the nations land area - and grabbing more each day. Government should be
actively working to get land into private hands, not taking it away from private land owners.
If America is to remain the land of the free, the land must be owned by free people, who are free
to use their property for their own benefit. If the land and its resources continue to move from

18
private ownership, into the hands government, to be protected from use by the people who really
own it - how can any semblance of freedom survive?
The transformation has occurred because elected officials - at every level of government - have
allowed non-elected bureaucrats to usurp their policy-making function. The responsibility,
however, lies with private individuals who have let their elected officials acquiesce to the non-
elected bureaucrats. If the transformation is to be halted, and reversed, it will be the result of
ordinary citizens who get informed, involved, and in-the-face of their elected officials.
Once the land and its resources are locked away behind government title, it will be far more
difficult for our children to get it back. This transformation can be stopped, and reversed, but it
will take the best efforts of every American who wants their children to live in a land of freedom,
rather than in a managed society.





















19
Col20010220
A Sustainable Development Monster

By Henry Lamb
Regardless of the warm and fuzzy phrases that surround the concept of sustainable development,
in practice, sustainable development is managed development. The Columbia River Gorge
Commission is a classic example of how efforts to manage development result in the
management of people, which abolishes property rights, and destroys individual freedom.
Consider Brian and Jody Bea, who applied for, and were granted, a permit to build their dream
home on their 20-acre parcel of land in 1997. Just before the 4,000 square-foot home was
finished, the Gorge Commission demanded a halt to the construction, and told the Beas they
would have to move the structure because it was visible from the road. The Commission had
approved the permit more than a year earlier as a part of the original process for the building
permit. The Beas are still fighting the Commission - and are not living in their dream home.
Consider David and Beth Sauter, who lost their home to a forest fire in 1999, which started on
U.S. Forest Service land, and quickly spread to their 30 acre parcel in the Gorge. They were not
hurt, but their home turned to a pile of ash. They have been unable to rebuild because the Gorge
Commission refuses to allow it.
Consider Howard and Jeanette Johnston, who bought five acres in the Columbia Gorge two years
before there was a Gorge Commission. They obtained a permit for a mobile home to live in until
they could build their dream home. Enter the Gorge Commission in 1986. You guessed it, no
home yet. The Gorge Commission says no.
Consider Gail Castle, whose 90-year old home in the Gorge was about to collapse. She wanted
to build a modest home 10-feet away from the present structure, and demolish the old house.
The Gorge Commission said no. It took more than a year to get the Commission to finally
overturn their staffs decision, and allow her to finally begin construction.
The stories are endless. Who is the Columbia Gorge Commission, and where does it get the
power to over-rule County governments and the rights of private property owners?
The Columbia Gorge Commission is an example of sustainable development. Keep in mind that
sustainable development is managing the balance between the three Es: environmental
protection, economic development, and social equity. To achieve that balance, someone, or
some authority, has to decide what people may or may not do. The concept of sustainable
development is incompatible with the concept of individual freedom.
In the Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area, people are free do only what the Gorge Commission
says they may do.
The Gorge Commission is a model of what the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development
envisions in its We Believe statement number eight: We need a new collaborative decision

20
process that leads to better decisions; more rapid change; and more sensible use of human,
natural, and financial resources in achieving our goals.
The Gorge Commission is a new mechanism created to produce better decisions and more
rapid change toward the goals of sustainable development. The structure of this mechanism
warrants close scrutiny.
In 1986, Senator Mark Hatfield, and Congressman Dan Weaver introduced similar bills to create
this monster. The idea was not theirs; they were the willing pawns of several familiar
environmental organizations. The Sierra Club boasts on its web site that in 1986 they got
270,000 acres protected through the Columbia Gorge Scenic Area Act. The bill passed the
House by a vote of 252 to 138 on October 16, 1986, and was signed into law by President
Reagan on November 17. Since then, the people of the Columbia River Gorge have lived under
the dictatorial reign of the Gorge Commission.
The design of the structure is a stroke of genius: The federal government mandated that the
States of Washington and Oregon enter into a bi-state agreement to create and fund a
Commission designed by the feds. The 13 Commissioners are appointed by the two Governors
and by the County Commissions of the affected counties. Once in place, however, the
Commission is not accountable to any affected county, neither state, nor to the federal
government. The Commission writes its own rules of procedure, subject to review or approval
by no one.
The Commissions executive director, Claire Puchy, says: The Gorge Commission is not a
federal agency and therefore the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the Gorge
Commission. When challenged, the U.S. Attorneys office, James R. Shively, said: ...the
States of Washington and Oregon have established the Commission through an interstate
agreement. We believe the matter you wrote about [public disclosure] does not fall within the
federal governments jurisdiction.
The Oregon State Deputy Attorney General, David Schumann, however, says: The Commission
is not a public body subject to the Oregon Public Records Law. Instead, it is a bi-state regional
agency governed by federal law and an interstate compact.
Washington Governor Gary Locke hit the nail on the head. He said: Because of the interstate
nature of the Commission, no governing body presides over it.
So here we have a creature of government, consisting of 13 non-elected individuals, who
exercise the power of government, with government funds, affecting the lives of thousands of
people, who have absolutely no way to hold the monster accountable, nor even to see its records.
One of the fundamental principles of freedom is that government is empowered by the consent of
the governed. The Gorge Commission is not encumbered by this principle.
The Fourteenth Amendment says quite explicitly, that No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

21
The Gorge Commission is not even fazed by this awesome responsibility. David Cannard, a
former Gorge Commissioner, wrote in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper: The people of
the Gorge have a choice...if they dont like what were doing here, they can move out!
Cannards letter illustrates the arrogance that often accompanies government power that is
administered without the consent of the governed. But it is far more than arrogance.
Someone, somewhere far removed from the Columbia River Gorge, has decided that places such
as the Gorge should not be spoiled by people. No, the people whose families have lived in the
Gorge for generations were not consulted. The Commission was an experimental device created
to manage the people who live in the Gorge, with the long-term goal of getting the people out.
It has been quite successful.
The Sauters, whose home burned, have spent more than $70,000 fighting the Commission, and
have now bought land outside the Commissions jurisdiction.
Land acquisition is a major activity of the Gorge Commission. Currently, at least 36 parcels are
proposed for acquisition - using tax dollars to take private property off the tax rolls of affected
counties.
Remember Senator Mark Hatfield, who introduced the Senate version of the Gorge Commission
bill? He now is on the board of the Trust for Public Land (TPL), a tax-exempt foundation that is
especially adept at acquiring private property in the Gorge, and selling it to the U.S. Forest
Service at a handsome profit. In Klickitat County, the TPL acquired 22 parcels, sold them all to
the Forest Service, and realized a profit of $807,916. In Skamania County, TPL neted $549,590
in profits selling 15 parcels to the feds.
Some of the transactions are disgusting. For example, on May 7, 1999, TPL acquired four
parcels totaling 303.46 acres for $1.235 million. On the same day, the property was sold to the
Forest Service for $1.285 million - a cool $50,000 for shuffling papers. It gets worse. On
February 23, 2000, TPL acquired 159.23 acres for $137,250 which they held until April 27, then
sold it to the Forest Service for $366,000 - realizing a profit of $228,750 in three months.
Skamania County Prosecuting Attorney, Bradley Andersen, wrote to Secretary Bruce Babbitt,
Secretary Dan Glickman, and to President Bill Clinton, protesting the profiteering, and called for
an investigation. He might as well have been spitting in the wind.
The Government Accounting Office did eventually attempt to audit some transactions between
so-called environmental organizations and the federal government. When it came to the TPL,
they refused to submit the requested information, claiming privilege resulting from contractual
relationships.
This is sustainable development - and it is a monster. And it is spreading, multiplying, mutating,
and getting worse. Florida has recently created a special appointed commission to oversee
sustainable development there. The St. Louis area is developing a multi-county entity to have
the same kinds of responsibilities. Across the land, communities of every size are confronting
similar initiatives that will take the policy-making function away from elected officials and give

22
it to non-elected commissions and councils - all under the warm and fuzzy language of
sustainable development.
In every community, there are people like the Beas, the Sauters, the Johnstons, - being squashed
by the wheels of government rolling toward sustainable development - without a care for the
Constitution or the principles of freedom.
























23
Col20010317
Energy or Kyoto? Not Both

By Henry Lamb
Tension is rising in the Bush White House: meet Americas energy needs, or meet Kyoto targets?
The two goals are mutually exclusive. The United States cannot meet its energy requirements
without expanding the supply and use of fossil fuels; Kyoto targets cannot be met without
reducing the use of fossil fuels. The Bush administration is sending mixed signals about which
of the two goals it will pursue.
Energy Secretary Spence Abraham has made the rounds of Sunday talk shows, assuring the
nation that a new energy policy is being developed, which will feature expanded exploration and
utilization of American fossil fuel resources.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, however, told the
G-8 Summit ministers that the Bush administration is not backing away from Kyoto. She said
that Bush views global warming as the greatest environmental challenge that we face.
If Whitman is correct in her assessment of Bushs attitude about global warming, America is in
deep, deep trouble. We know that Whitman and Treasury Secretary, Paul ONeill, are influenced
more by global warming hype, than by global warming science. If the hype, and international
political pressure push Bush into accepting the Kyoto Protocol, get ready for Californias
blackouts to roll across the country, while gasoline and diesel prices plunge a roller-coaster
economy into chaos.
It went virtually unnoticed during the campaign, but even then, in a September 29 position paper
on energy, Bush said he would seek legislation to establish mandatory reduction targets for
emissions of four main pollutants: one of which is carbon dioxide.
Of course, carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than is oxygen. Both are natural gases upon
which all life depends. But if Congress or the administration declares carbon dioxide to be a
pollutant, then it becomes subject to EPA regulation under the authority of the Clean Air Acts.
Once government has the authority to regulate the emission of carbon dioxide, it has the
authority to regulate the production of carbon dioxide. This is precisely the goal of the Kyoto
Protocol.
A draft of Bushs budget speech was released the day before it was to be presented to Congress.
It contained a single reference to a multi-pollutant strategy. A barrage of phone calls and e-
mails to various Bush officials throughout the day on Tuesday, persuaded advisors to remove the
phrase before the speech was delivered.
Almost lost in the struggle to find ways to control the use of fossil fuel, is the reason controls
were thought to be desirable in the first place: to prevent catastrophic global warming. But after

24
more than ten years of intense scientific study and endless debate, there is little agreement on
whether the planet is warming or cooling, and whether or not the changes that are being observed
have anything at all to do with human activity.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released a summary of its Third
Assessment Report, which said that global warming followed an increase in atmospheric carbon
dioxide since the industrial revolution, and may be much worse over the next century than had
first been thought.
Almost simultaneously, the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) issued an appeal to
assist Mongolians who are experiencing their second consecutive disastrous winter known
locally as a dzud, or mass death of rural livestock herds.
Peter Harris, a consultant for the U.N. FAO, said This current dzud is very serious. It is the
most serious in 50 years. Temperatures are lower, and the snow is deeper. Temperatures as
low as minus 56-degrees F have been recorded.
When observable reality differs from the pronouncements of the IPCC, those realities are often
ignored, or incorporated into the IPCC propaganda as examples of anomalous climate change
caused by rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. Scientific evidence to support such claims,
however, is rarely provided.
The evidence presented by the IPCC in support of its claims, is not valid, according to many of
the scientists whose work is cited by the IPCC. One of the more outspoken critics of the IPCC
process is Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a lead author of the Third Assessment Report.
Lindzen says that the IPCC uses summaries to misrepresent what the scientists say in their full
report. The policy makers who write the summaries, deliberately use language that means
different things to scientists and laymen; exploit public ignorance over quantitative matters;
exploit what scientists can agree on while ignoring disagreements that may detract from the
global warming agenda; and exaggerate the scientific accuracy and certainty and the authority of
undistinguished scientists.
Lindzens stinging criticism of the IPCC process and work product, debunked the widely-held
view that the IPCC report represented a consensus of 2000 scientists. None of the scientists
were asked if they agreed with anything in the report, except for the one or two pages they
worked on, Lindzen said.
The IPCC isnt interested in getting the worlds best climate scientists, but rather getting
representation from 100 countries, only a handful of which do significant research. It is no
small matter, said Lindzen, that routine weather service functionaries from New Zealand to
Tanzania are referred to as the worlds leading climate scientists.
The IPCC report was carried by all the major media, and amplified through press releases of
dozens of environmental organizations - without reference to the criticism offered by Lindzen
and others.

25
Nor has there been recognition by the IPCC, or the main stream media, of three recent scientific
studies that shred the conventional global warming theory. A March 2000 report in the Bulletin
of the American Meteorological Society, demonstrates that the climate models used by the IPCC
have the cloud physics all wrong. We found that there were terrible errors about clouds in all
the models. If the clouds are wrong, theres no way you can get water vapor right. Theyre both
intimately tied to each other, the article concludes.
Another study published in Nature (February 8, 2001), says the IPCCs explanation as to why
the earth has not warmed over the last 100 years as the climate models say it should have
warmed, is all wet. The IPCC says that its models did not take into account the effect of
aerosols that reflect solar radiation. Were it not for the aerosols (black soot particles), the IPCC
says the planet would have warmed according to the computer models projections. The studys
author, Mark Jacobson, of Stanford University, says - not so. Black soot particles actually
absorb solar radiation, thereby forcing temperature upwards. Still, the observed warming in the
last century failed to conform to the climate models.
Heres the simple fact. If the computer models are adjusted to conform to the observed warming
patterns of the last century, there is no catastrophic warming projected for the next century. If
the computer models forecast catastrophic warming for the next century, those models overstate
the observed reality of the last century by several degrees.
Despite the IPCCs erroneous claim that a global consensus has been reached on global warming
science, no such consensus exists. Despite the IPCCs claim that the use of fossil fuels will
cause the earths temperature to rise by as much as 11 degrees F, the actual scientific studies fail
to support such claims. Despite the IPCCs claims of catastrophic weather events resulting from
rising temperatures, the actual scientific studies fail to provide evidence.
Nevertheless, the Bush team, at least Whitman and ONeill, are issuing statements suggesting
that they have bought into the IPCC claims, rather than the weigh the objective evidence offered
by Lindzen, Jacobson, and a host of other climate scientists whose credentials are above
reproach.
The U.N. has announced that it will resume the Kyoto Protocol negotiations in July. The talks,
which collapsed at the Hague in November, were on hold until the recent statements made by
Whitman. Apparently, the U.N. has been led to believe that the Bush administration will not
scuttle the talks when they resume.
With the Bush people, as well as Republican Senator Bob Smith, Chair of the Senate Energy
Committee, ready to support legislation to regulate carbon dioxide - whether it needs regulating
or not the Kyoto Protocol is far from dead. The Whitman - ONeill branch of the Bush team
appears ready to take control of carbon emissions, with or without Kyoto - exactly what the
Clinton/Gore administration tried to do.
Energy Secretary Abraham, Senator Murkowski, and others, are working to develop an energy
policy that will expand the use of fossil fuel to meet Americas needs in the 21
st
century.
Whitman, ONeill, Senator Smith, and others, are working to block the use of fossil fuel energy
in the 21
st
century. George W cannot straddle this fence much longer.


26
Col20010331
Hail to the Chief!

By Henry Lamb
Hooray! Finally we have a President who has the strength of character to do what needs to be
done, even in the face of emotional howls from environmental extremists, and criticism from
global-governance advocates.
The Kyoto Protocol is dead.
Actually, it was stillborn in Kyoto in 1997; the attending diplomatic doctors have been unwilling
to take it off life-support, that is, until now. With the United States walking away from the
document, there is little left to do, but bury it.
But what of global warming?
If the Kyoto Protocol can be put behind us, perhaps the world can take a new, unprejudiced look
at global climate, and determine what, if anything should be done to try to influence it.
More than 10 years ago, a small group of elite environmental extremists, decided fossil fuels
drive the prosperity engines of developed countries, which results in the degradation of the
environment and widens the gap between the haves and the have-nots. The global warming
scenario was pretty much manufactured to justify shutting off the energy valve in developed
countries, while keeping it open in developing countries. The real genius is the mechanism that
put the authority to control the global energy valve in the hands of a United Nations agency.
Had Gore won the White House, the United Nations would have taken control of the global
energy valve - as he described in his 1992 horror story, Earth in the Balance. The expressed
objective of the United Nations crowd who milk the global warming cow, is to reduce the
patterns of consumption in developed countries, and transfer technology and wealth to
developing countries.
The Presidents rejection of Kyoto may well be the most important result of the November
election. The world now has a chance to avoid a U.N. global energy czar, and let the ingenuity
of free people and free markets find ways to meet the worlds energy requirements with as little
negative environmental impact as possible.
First, we have to reject the global warming myth, and recognize that climate science is in its
infancy. We must continue our research and study of all facets of climate and weather - without
any preconceived notions about human influence. At the same time, we need to recognize that
energy is, indeed, the fuel that drives the prosperity engine. We should make every effort to get
abundant, affordable energy to every person on earth. We cannot, however, let any government -
including the United Nations - mandate that energy be supplied, or denied, as a matter of
political policy. We must insist that markets provide the mechanism through which supply
meets demand.

27
The President has assured those who will listen, that he is vitally concerned about potential
adverse effects of human activity on global climate. He has also said, rather emphatically, that
he is not willing to subject the people of the world to adverse effects of U.N. control of the flow
of energy in order to achieve some utopian vision of wealth redistribution.
Now comes the war. The environmental extremists have already begun to demean and discredit
the Presidents motives. Rather than acknowledge that the global warming myth is not supported
by global warming science, those who feed from the global-warming cash-cow seek to stir
emotional reactions and build political pressure against the President.
The grown-ups in the administration need to ignore the petty, self-serving howls of the
extremists, and pursue an energy policy for America that puts America first. The President
needs to recognize that the international politicians who are criticizing him, are, after all, far
more interested in their own country, than they are in America. Some of them are international
socialists actively promoting the idea of global governance. French President, Chirac, admitted
at the failed climate change talks in The Hague, that the Kyoto Protocol was essential to global
governance.
Without the Kyoto Protocol, global governance advocates will have to find another excuse for
the U.N. to control and redistribute Americas wealth.
Thank you, Mr. President, for your strength of character, your courage, your willingness to
consider whats best for America, and for doing what needs to be done. There are millions of
Americans who are ecstatic that once again, we can proudly sing Hail to the Chief!














28
Col20010401
Dems dont debate, they demonize

By Henry Lamb
Democrats have zeroed in on what they hope will become George Bushs Achilles heel: the
environment. As if orchestrated, Democratic leaders, environmental organizations, and the usual
TV-talking heads have launched a P/R blitz to characterize the President as the most anti-
environmental President in decades.
For eight years, these same people have run rough-shod over common sense, and all the
objections raised by those who disagree with their extremist vision of environmental reverence.
In truth, anyone who disagrees with their vision is labeled anti-environmental as a matter of
course. Civil debate of genuine disagreement is not in their arsenal. To prevail is the only
acceptable outcome, and whatever it takes to prevail is perfectly acceptable.
Take, for example, the television advertising campaign waged by the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC), which claims that this administration wants to destroy ANWR (Arctic
National Wildlife Reserve), and invites listeners to visit their web site where they will learn that
drilling in ANWR is a distraction, not a solution.
People who recall that it is this same NRDC that staged the CBS, 60-minutes Alar scare a few
years ago, would not expect the NRDC web page to contain information any more accurate than
their grossly exaggerated Alar report. The NRDC report claimed that Alar caused cancer in rats
- based on its interpretation of a 1977 study by Bela Toth. What the report did not say was that
the rats were fed massive doses, which, according to Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, Zoologist at the
University of Washington, were equivalent to an adult human eating 14,000 pounds of Alar-
treated apples, every day for 70 years.
Whatever it takes to prevail. Apple growers were devastated. The NRDC prevailed.
The NRDC web site continues its tradition of misinformation about ANWR. The site reports
that only 3.2 billion barrels of oil will be available from ANWR over the next 50 year period.
Hogwash! A 1998 U.S. Geological Survey study puts the estimated reserve between 5.7 billion
barrels (95% certainty), and 16 billion barrels (5% certainty), with an estimated mean reserve of
10.4 billion barrels. The 3.2 billion figure is widely known to be a misrepresentation of data
which probably originated from a 1987 Environmental Impact Study by the Bureau of Land
Management.

29
The point is, that rather than recognize that the nation is, in fact, in an energy supply crisis, and
work together to find the best possible solutions, the environmental extremists prefer to avoid
factual debate, and instead, deny reality, misdirect the inquiry, and demean those who disagree
with their vision of what public policy should be.
It is not just the NRDC. Both politicians and pundits of green persuasion are quick to denounce
ANWR exploration with sweeping generalities such as: Theres only about six months of oil
there; we cant ruin our last pristine wilderness for a few days of oil.
Hogwash, again! In the first instance, oil exploration and production in ANWR will not ruin
the wilderness. ANWR is 19 million acres - about the size of South Carolina - of which 17.5
million acres is permanently closed to exploration. Only 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain
area is available for exploration, and the footprint of the production site would be about the size
of Dulles Airport. ANWR oil could replace the million barrels per day that we are currently
importing from Iraq - for many, many years to come. Furthermore, both caribou and bears thrive
in the Prudhoe oil field. The idea that human presence in ANWR will somehow ruin anything,
is just another gross exaggeration.
The Sierra Club has been on television trying to convince people that there is no energy crisis in
California. The blackouts are attributed to greedy energy producers who are manipulating the
supply in order to rip-off the consumers. Their arguments contain the same phrases as those
found in NRDC propaganda. Suppose they use the same ad agency? Such deliberate
misinformation could give the First Amendment a bad name.
Then comes the criticism for blocking the last-minute Clinton clean-water regulations that would
reduce standards for arsenic in drinking water to 10 parts per billion. Obviously, Mr. Bush cares
more about his greedy corporate buddies than he does about the poor people who must drink the
water - so the environmental extremists would have you believe. The Sierra Club immediately
issued press releases eagerly carried by major media that referred to cancer-causing arsenic
in drinking water. See any similarity to NRDCs cancer-causing Alar scare? Use of half-
truths, emotionally-charged words, and a cooperative media - are all acceptable tactics to a
crowd that willingly discards principle in order to prevail.
Somehow, the American people have survived the current standards for the last half-century
and no standards at all before that and, during that time, somehow managed to increase life
expectancy for the average American by more than a decade. Surely, we can survive for another
year or two while scientists try to figure out what a more reasonable standard might be. One of
the major reasons for blocking the standard was that no one in the EPA could offer any scientific
evidence that the 10 ppb standard would make any difference at all to public health and safety.
Listen to the screams and howls about the Bush administration taking another look at the last-
minute Clinton regulations that have the effect of locking up nearly 60-million acres off limits
for human use. Clinton expected his land lock-up to be his legacy among the extreme green
promoters of the Wildlands Project and the un-ratified U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity.
Clinton didnt ask Congress, State Legislatures, local officials or the people who live in the
affected areas before he dictatorially issued his decrees.

30
The Clinton administration, the Democrats in Congress, the environmental organizations and
most of the media seemed to approve of Mr. Clintons dictatorial actions, lauding him as the
most environmental President since Teddy Roosevelt. Now that Mr. Clintons actions are being
questioned, it seems consistent for his defenders to once again defend Clintons actions by
attacking anyone including President Bush who dares to disagree.
Thank God for common sense, and a system of government that still allows the people to throw
out politicians who get carried away with their own vision of personal majesty. When any
politician, even those who graduate from environmental extremist organizations, is more
interested in seeing that his vision of public policy prevails, than in doing what the people want,
that politician must go.
Whenever an environmental organization is more interested in imposing their policy than in
providing factual information so the people can decide what the policy should be - that
organization no longer deserves respect or public support.
When the TV-talking heads and major media become more interested in advancing their own
extremist agenda, than in reporting the news and presenting all sides of a debate, then its time to
stop listening to the TV-talking heads and look elsewhere for news.
Time magazines, CNNs, and PBSs shameless support of the U.Ns global warming agenda,
while refusing to even acknowledge the substantial and growing counter evidence - abandons
any semblance of objective news reporting. Changes in the ratings over the last few months
suggest that people are changing channels -- or tuning out.
The environment is not George Bushs Achilles heel; Democrats, environmental extremists, and
certain TV-talking heads and media types, will misstate positions and misrepresent information
whatever it takes to prevail as long as it bears fruit.
We encourage the Sierra Club to keep on claiming that there is no energy crisis in California. Of
course, they may have to get a gasoline-powered generator to produce the electricity to power
their bull-horn. We encourage the NRDC to keep on misrepresenting factual information that is
easily verified. This does wonders for their credibility. We encourage the environmental
extremists to continue to claim that we dont need the oil and natural gas in ANWR, or the coal
and oil under the lands locked up in the Clinton fiasco. This will be a winning message during
the blackouts this summer, and while people fume about exorbitant prices for gasoline and diesel
fuel, and rising prices for all the goods delivered by truck.
The louder these extremists sing their orchestrated poppycock, the sooner they will become
irrelevant in the search for common sense solutions to energy and environmental problems.
Neither George Bush, nor his administration is anti anything. All of us need to realize that
honest debate among sincere people who disagree is the best possible way to devise public
policy that will win the consent of the governed. Policy imposed by any other authority is
nothing short of tyranny.



31
Col20010405
Getting the policy right

By Henry Lamb
No one is surprised that the Bush administration is recommending expanding the use of our own
natural energy resources. Nor should anyone be surprised by the howls of protest that are rising
from the environmental extremists. The energy crisis is forcing Americans to choose sides,
finally, in a philosophical tug-of-war that has been pulling at public policy for a generation.
On one end of the rope (the right end of the political spectrum), are those people who value their
individual freedom to choose where to live, what kind of car to drive; who want a full range of
goods and services available to purchase; who believe that free markets should determine price
and availability of all goods and services - including energy.
At the other end of the rope (the left end of the political spectrum), are those people who believe
that the earth, the air and water, and all resources, belong to all people who should share the
earths bounty equitably. While this is not a new idea, its power in domestic policy in the last
two decades is new. These people tend to view land and natural resources from a totally
different perspective than those tugging at the other end. The energy crisis will force lawmakers
to take action soon that reflects the power of the people at one end of the rope - or the other.
Its time for people to choose sides, and let their elected officials know which way to pull.
Before choosing, however, people should consider carefully on which end of the rope they
belong.
The energy crisis is occurring because the people pulling on the left end of the rope have pulled
public policy toward their philosophy over the last two decades. The impact on energy is just the
most visible consequence of this philosophy; other consequences lie ahead, should this
philosophy - which we will call extreme-green - ultimately prevail.
The extreme-green philosophy is rarely seen in its totality. Only glimpses are made available in
PBS documentaries that depict wild animals, and in environmental organization literature that
features cuddly panda bears. Wide open spaces and majestic mountains are presented as visual
symbols of this extreme-green philosophy - to evoke strong emotional response. It has been an
effective presentation.
When all the segmented glimpses are examined together which requires a great deal of work
the picture is less appealing. Perhaps the most comprehensive picture of this philosophy is
available in the 1140-page Global Biodiversity Assessment, a publication of the United Nations
Environment Program.

32
The extreme-green philosophy begins with the notion that all life forms have equal intrinsic
value. All species have a natural right to use other species - only to the extent required to
sustain life. They believe that because the human species has developed the technology to
destroy other species, well beyond that required to sustain life, the human species has, therefore,
become immoral, a cancer on the earth, as some extreme-greens have put it. This immorality
must be brought under control, and government is the instrument of choice to force human
behavior into compliance with their philosophy.
Locking up land away from human use is a way of protecting other species from the
immoral behavior of humans. The sales pitch used by the extreme-greens, claims to protect the
wilderness for future generations.
Think about it: by protecting the land and its resources through government-enforced wilderness
designations, future generations are prevented, as is the current generation, from any benefit of
the land and its resources. The lock-it-up, protectionist policies of the extreme-greens are, in
reality, to protect the various life forms from the immoral actions of current and future
generations of the human species.
The land and resource lock-up also prevents the immoral humans from getting to the energy that
allows the human species to multiply its muscle power in its rape of the earth. Keeping people
off the land and preventing access to energy is a double victory for the extreme-greens.
The extreme-green philosophy embraces the notion that government must manage and regulate
the behavior of humans in order to protect the helpless species that have been immorally
exploited by the greedy humans - especially Americans, who consume far more resources than
they actually need.
The extreme-green philosophy would have government manage and regulate human behavior by
locking people out of the nations forests, and oil and coal reserves, and by forcing them off the
grazing lands of the west. The extreme-green philosophy has been winning this public policy
tug-of-war.
In order to manage and regulate human behavior, the extreme-green philosophy would have
government intervene in the market place and require manufacturers to build only government -
approved automobiles, washing machines, homes, even clothing. Human behavior should be
further managed and regulated by forcing people to live in government-defined sustainable
communities, rather than in the suburbs. The extreme-green philosophy would also manage
human behavior by changing the curriculum in schools to make children believe that these
policies are necessary to save the delicate ecosystems on the only planet we have, which
must be home to all people on earth.
This is the philosophy pulling at the left end of the political rope.
At the other end, are those who rarely think about the planet earth, they just enjoy it. And thank
their Creator for it. They rarely think about the form of government that was designed to prevent
government from managing and regulating human behavior - beyond the policies to which they
have consented.

33
Typically, these people arise each morning, expecting nothing from anyone, thankful for another
opportunity to go out into the world and make whatever it is they need or want. They realize that
their intelligence and energy are gifts from their Creator, as are the resources which they convert
into the goods and services they need and want. They know, inherently, that the resources they
manipulate are the raw materials of prosperity. They know, instinctively, that the cultivation of
raw materials is the cultivation of prosperity. This knowledge constitutes a philosophy which
we will simply call right - that is being dragged into obsolescence by the extreme-greens.
These right people have been too busy cultivating prosperity to even notice the growing
number of extreme-green converts congregating at the left end of the political spectrum. They
are noticing now, only because the extreme-green philosophy has produced rolling blackouts in
California that threatens replication across the nation.
The extreme-green philosophy has prevented development of new energy reserves and energy
generating capacity in California, and elsewhere. Now that right thinking is suggesting the
cultivation of resources to produce more energy, the extreme-green crowd is recruiting more
people to tug on its end of the rope.
Energy, or the potential absence of it, is the immediate crisis attracting the attention of the
extreme-greens, and a growing number of right thinking people. The consequences of
government management and regulation of the people, as is the goal of the extreme-greens,
includes the abolition of such fundamentally right ideas as choosing where one wants to live.
So-called smart growth is managed growth, managed by government, to regulate human
behavior. Smart growth is not a right idea. It is a policy pulled into existence by the
extreme-greens tugging at the left end of the rope.
The prohibition of grazing on federal land is not a right idea. It too, is a policy pulled into
existence by the extreme-greens who reject the idea the people should live wherever they choose.
They reject the idea that resources should be manipulated - by unmanaged, unregulated
individuals to produce prosperity.
The prohibition of fossil fuel and nuclear energy is not a right idea. It reflects the extreme-
green philosophy of denying the human species the energy it needs to multiply its muscle-power
to manipulate the resources that produce prosperity.
The right philosophy values most, the freedom to use all the gifts provided by the Creator.
The right philosophy knows full well that abuse, or misuse of any of the gifts provided by the
Creator, results in certain, but absolutely appropriate, penalties.
It was the right philosophy which produced the system of government that prohibits arbitrary
management of people, and requires that no public policy be imposed without the consent of the
governed. It is the right philosophy that encourages the responsible use of all our resources. It
is the right philosophy that insists that people remain free to choose where they want to live;
free to choose how they want to live, and free to choose which end of the political rope to pull.
Those who subscribe to the right philosophy must take some time away from simply earning a
living and enjoying the gifts of the Creator. Real effort must now be expended pulling public
policy back from the abyss of the extreme-green philosophy.

34
The tug-of-war will get serious as the Bush administration offers its comprehensive energy
policy. The extreme-greens will pressure elected officials to vote no. The right thinkers will
pressure elected officials to vote yes.
Know that the vote on an energy policy is a vote on far more than keeping the lights on; it is a
vote on the philosophy that will guide our great nation, and the world, in the formative years of a
new millennium. The right philosophy offers the world the best hope of health, happiness, and
prosperity. The right people need to pull together, and theres plenty of room on the right end
of the rope.






















35
Col20010411
A Global Environmental Pep-rally

By Henry Lamb
Monday, April 16, 2001, begins a year-long count-down of events designed to produces the
biggest environmental pep-rally the world has ever known: the World Summit on Sustainable
Development.
For the next two weeks, the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development will be
conducting its 9
th
annual session in New York, measuring how well the world is progressing
toward the implementation of Agenda 21.
Agenda 21, and the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), are products of the
biggest environmental pep-rally the world has ever known - to date: the U.N. Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The next big pep-
rally is referred to as Rio+10.
Immediately following the adjournment of the CSD meeting on April 27, the first Prep-Com
(Preparatory Committee) meeting will convene, and continue through the weekend until May 2.
Subsequent Prep-Coms are scheduled for January, March, and May, leading to the gigantic pep-
rally to be staged in Johannesburg, South Africa, sometime between June and September, 2002.
The number of delegates and NGO (non-government-organization) representatives is expected to
reach 64,000, about 20,000 more than the number who attended the Rio event in 1992.
The highlight of this event was supposed to have been the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol.
President Bushs announcement that the U.S. would no longer pursue the Kyoto Protocol, has
left the U.N. bureaucrats scrambling for a new agenda. Have no fear, they will come up with an
extensive agenda, much of which will lambast the United States for its reluctance to support the
global governance agenda.
Heading the list of issues for the CSD in New York are: atmosphere; energy; NGO participation
in decision-making; and sustainable transportation.
The people who attend these meetings are employees of governments they represent, or
representatives of accredited NGOs. Each nation may send as many delegates as they wish,
although each nation gets only one vote, in the unlikely event that a vote is ever takes. Decisions
are customarily taken by consensus. NGOs and IGOs (inter-governmental organization - such
as employees of other U.N. organizations), have no vote at all. They are sometimes allowed to
make interventions (U.N.-speak for speeches).
One of the NGOs that has inordinate clout with the United Nations is ICLEI (pronounced to
rhyme with icky) which stands for International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.
This organization claims to speak for local government - all local government on issues before
the United Nations. According to their web site, the organization has 372 member cities and

36
local governments around the world, about 30 of which are U.S. cities and counties. There are
more than 3,000 counties in the U.S., and twice as many cities, most of which have never heard
of ICLEI. Nevertheless, this NGO speaks for all local governments on issues at the U.N.
ICLEI works closely with IULA, The International Union of Local Authorities. IULA is a
holdover from the League of Nations era, founded in 1913, with its headquarters in The Hague
since 1949. IULA boasts a membership of more than 100 associations of local governments, and
200 individual local governments. The 35th IULA World Congress will convene June 3 -6, in
Rio de Janeiro to advance the theme: "The Community Agenda".
Through these organizations, and their affiliated NGOs, Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 is being
implemented around the world. This is the process that brings global governance to the local
level. It is the process that will, in time, render local elected officials irrelevant. Through these
organizations, Sustainable Development is translated through Local Agenda 21 (LA21).
These LA21 projects are funded, in part, by the Dutch government, the European Union, and the
Open Society Institutes, (George Soros foundations).



















37
Col20010412
Bringing global governance home

By Henry Lamb
Every time you hear the word sustainable, as in sustainable development, sustainable
communities, sustainable forests, sustainable agriculture realize that it describes restrictions
and limitations to be enforced by government in order to comply with behavior patterns conjured
up by environmental extremists.
Sustainable development is the catch-all umbrella phrase used to describe almost any activity
which environmental extremists think government should control. It is a term conceived in the
international environmental community, and given birth by the 1987 U.N. World Conference on
Environment and Development.
The term means regulating the balance among the three Es: economic development;
environmental protection; and equity.
The mechanism for regulating the balance among the three Es, took five years to develop, and
was presented to the world in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, at the U.N. Conference on Environment
and Development (UNCED), in the form of Agenda 21. This 294-page, 40-chapter document
sets forth a series of recommendations that will result in the regulation of virtually every facet of
human life.
The recommendations are formulated at the global level, but implemented locally. This is the
essence of the slogan think globally; act locally. Or, as so eloquently put by Floy Lilley, Vice
Chair of Sovereignty International: think globally; act idiotically.
Implementation of Agenda 21 at the local level is the systematic replacement of the principles of
freedom by a sophisticated system of centralized command and control. The control part of the
mechanism is not yet completely constructed, but is certainly under development. The command
part of the mechanism, however, is extremely well developed and is spreading like wildfire
across the United States and around the world.
Agenda 21 provided recommendations for its own implementation: it called for the creation of a
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, and for the creation of national
councils on sustainable development. It also devoted Chapter 28 to the creation of a mechanism
to consolidate local authorities into a viable implementation tool.
In the United States, the Gore/Clinton administration rushed to create the Presidents Council on
Sustainable Development by Executive Order in 1993, which for seven years, restructured the
agencies of our federal government to implement the recommendations of Agenda 21.
Maurice Strong, the guru of the 1992 Earth Summit, organized the Earth Council, in Costa
Rica, for the purpose of coordinating all the national councils on sustainable development.

38
Two years before Agenda 21 was adopted, the U.N. realized that it would have to have a
mechanism to insure local implementation. In 1990, the United Nations Environment Program
transformed a loose-knit coalition called Local Officials for Social Responsibility, into a full-
fledged international organization called the International Council for Local Environmental
Initiatives (ICLEI - rhymes with sickly). The coalition was organized in the late 1980s to
promote local implementation of the U.N. treaty to ban CFCs, which the (Sr.) Bush
administration was resisting. (See detailed report in eco-logic, March/April, 1997.) ICLEI was
created expressly to promote the implementation of Chapter 28 of Agenda 21.
ICLEI is the official representative of all local governments at the United Nations. Although
only about 30 of the United States 6,000 cities are members of ICLEI, and only about 370 cities
in the entire world belong to ICLEI, this organization -- created by the United Nations speaks
for all the local governments in the world at the U.N.
In 1997, the Earth Council sponsored a special meeting in Rio de Janeiro, to see how well
Agenda 21 was being implemented. Appropriately called Rio+5, each of the nations that
signed Agenda 21 in 1992, sent a delegation to report their nations progress.
The U.S. report prepared during the Gore/Clinton heyday is a glowing declaration of
compliance, with several notable examples of areas where more work must be done. Gustave
Speth, former Clinton transition team member, and then head of the United Nations
Development Program, explained how sustainable development was the objective of global
governance.
Now its time for Rio+10. The shindig is scheduled for Johannesburg, South Africa, sometime
between June and September next year, 2002. It is already being heralded as the largest
environmental pep-rally the world has ever known, with more than 64,000 people expected to
attend.
The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development will conduct its 9
th
annual
meeting in New York, April 16-27, to be followed immediately by the first of four Preparatory
Committee (prep-coms) meetings to be held during the year, leading to the Rio+10 celebration
in South Africa.
The event was supposed to celebrate the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, seen by many
world leaders, including French President, Jacques Chirac, as the essential component of an
authentic global governance. Since President Bush turned a cold-shoulder to the global
warming pact, it will not likely become international law, certainly not in time to be celebrated in
2002.

39
According to the Earth Council, and its global network of National Councils on Sustainable
Development, the theme will likely be A Call for Urgent Action, around the following
propaganda:
Current analyses point to the fact the governments and people have not done enough to respond
to our crisis: the destruction of ecosystems, the degradation of land and soil, loss of forests,
fisheries, and biodiversity, air and water pollution, freshwater over-consumption, and the
linkages to increasing poverty, inequality, exclusion and alienation, and worsening health, social
conflicts and violence.
Rio+10 has already spawned several web sites and has become the focal point of NGOs (non-
government organizations), the U.N., and hundreds of national governments. It is designed to
give new impetus to Agenda 21, and the full implementation of sustainable development as
defined in the documents 40 chapters.
Here comes global governance.
First, the world is pictured to be in the last, convulsive spasms of human neglect and abuse.
Only urgent action can save the world for future generations. Governments have not done
enough therefore the people must act locally to do what governments will not do.
Next comes the local visioning process. A highly paid facilitator is engaged to lead a local
community in the development of an action plan that will lead to a sustainable future.
Surprise, surprise! The action plans contains precisely the recommendations contained in
Agenda 21.
Typically, the plan will embrace more than one political jurisdiction, often, an entire region.
This requires the creation of a new framework for governance. In metropolitan areas, traffic and
utilities provide ample excuse to create regional governance mechanisms. In rural
communities, economic development, or watershed, forestry, wildlife, even viewsheds are
concerns often used to justify the regional mechanism. The visioning process will always call
for the creation of some sort of council, or commission, consisting of appointed individuals, to
create, then to oversee the implementation of the action plan.
The commission or council created through this process is dominated by individuals who
embrace the sustainable development philosophy. Usually, the visioning process is begun by an
individual who is either a member of an environmental organization, or a government employee.
Those chosen to participate in the visioning process are most often individuals who are known to
be in agreement, or sympathetic to the goals of sustainable development, whether or not they are
even aware of Agenda 21.
As the action plan is developed, the consensus process assures that the end product will be
consistent with the recommendations of Agenda 21, with just enough variation and localization
to give the appearance of a local plan. All the plans, though, look very much the same. Some
of the common ingredients are: sprawl limits; brownfield infill; open space; public/private
housing partnerships (in which the fine print will require ethnic and economic equity
integration); discouraged automobile use; maximum public transportation use; bicycle and

40
walking trails; zoning that brings housing and workplaces within walking distance; and
awareness programs that promote sustainable development.
Action plans in rural communities also contain similar components: viewsheds; buffer zones;
conservation easements; open space; wildlife corridors; sustainable economic development;
and permitting and regulation of traditional land uses.
The essential ingredient in both rural and urban sustainable living is the appointed council or
commission that oversees the implementation of the action plan. There is no single method of
enforcement power. Whatever it takes to get the council or commission created is acceptable,
because it is a starting point for further development of enforcement power.
In some cases, such as the Columbia River Gorge Commission, federal law requires a bi-state
agreement that gives the appointed body total power to enforce its policies. In Florida, state law
authorizes, and sets the parameters of power for the commission that oversees the Sustainable
Communities pilot project. In other communities, the council is defined by the visioning plan
and operates initially as an advisory body. This appointed body, nonetheless, is the primary
instrument through which sustainable development policies (Agenda 21 recommendations) are
brought to the local community.
These councils provide the mechanism through which the so-called collaborative policy
decision process (called for in Agenda 21) can by-pass the traditional policy decision process:
elected officials who are accountable to the electorate. These councils or commissions most
often include one or more token elected officials, to give the appearance of official credibility.
It is through these councils and commissions that ICLEI and other Agenda 21 facilitators bring
global governance home to the local community.
Organizations such as the Sustainable Communities Network, and the Smart Growth Network,
both of which are facilitators of Agenda 21, are coalitions of environmental and social
organizations that provide a pipeline from the global agenda to the local community. These
NGOs, which must be accredited by the U.N. to participate, are playing an increasingly
important role in the implementation of global governance. Their representatives participate in
policy development during the prep-coms, and at U.N. meetings such as the Earth Summit in
1992, and the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development meetings in New York, and the
Rio+10 meeting next year.
These same NGOs (Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, Friends of the Earth, World Resources
Institute, and literally hundreds of others) then instigate local visioning processes, get appointed
to local councils and commissions, and promote Agenda 21 ideas and global policies at home.
NGOs, and government employees who attend these endless United Nations meetings, are
bringing home global governance, disguised as sustainable development. They have been
exceedingly successful so far, convincing most Americans that their vision is necessary for the
protection of the planet, and is far more important than any claim to private property rights or
individual freedom.


41
Col20020414
Who needs earth day?

By Henry Lamb
I have little patience for those pseudo-intellectual urban-environmentalists who get all worked up
over earth day. Like performing children anticipating goodies from Santa on Christmas,
Greenpeacers and their ilk, clamor to parks and podiums to sing praises to nature and curse the
greedy corporations and politicians in hopes of being rewarded by network news coverage.
Every day is earth day to the people who own and work the land.
We celebrate the first green mouse-ear that sprouts on a maple tree. Green spears rising through
last falls leaf crop, or the remnants of the last snowfall, promise yellow daffodil trumpets, which
herald another performance of the symphony of spring.
We get excited when the ground is warm enough to invest the first tomato plant; he who
produces the first Early Girl or Better Boy is the years champion in our neighborhood. (Earth
day practitioners will have no idea what this means).
When the hum of tractors in the distance precedes the rooster crows, and the woods are filled
with redbud and dogwood blossoms, and squirrels do battle with blue jays for the right to
natures bounty in a waking oak tree now here is celebration.
Watching the corn tower to tassel, then turn to Halloween tan, just to make the pumpkins pop
out; seeing the combines collect the cotton, and stack it into monstrous bales; feeling the nip in
the air that accompanies foggy mornings and a lazy sunrise these are my earth days.
As wonderful as they are, they are no better than those days when the snow falls, and wind
howls, and I can smell the chocolate-chip cookies browning perfectly in the oven while I watch
the Tennessee Titans kick-butt in Jacksonville. These are the days of this earth. These are the
days for living.
We dont need a single day to celebrate, or an excuse to pretend that we have some special
appreciation for Gods creation. In fact, April 22, earth day, has become something of an
embarrassment. There are always those would-be do-gooders, who think chaining themselves to
someone elses tree, or hanging a stupid banner from the top of a water tower is going to save
the planet.
Those who need this kind of celebration actually need to be re-tested, or to get therapy, or both.
Neither their words delivered from a podium, nor their antics delivered to the media, can help or
hinder the planet. They are simply activities that provide the practitioners some temporary
justification for their existence. I invite those people who get hopped up over earth day to get a
life. Invest a tomato plant in the land and it will yield dividends far beyond the fruit. Listen for
the hum of tractors on a distant hillside - setting the table for future meals around the world.
These are the champions of earth day every day.

42
Col20010415
Guns under siege

By Henry Lamb
Your guns are only a little safer with Republicans in the White House. If you own a gun any
instrument capable of propelling an explosive-powered projectile it is under siege.
The anti-gun lobby continues to push for abolition of civilian gun ownership. The effort is now
directed toward another U.N. Conference, leading eventually to another U.N. treaty.
The official name of the meeting is: United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small
Arms and Light Weapons in all its Aspects, to be held in New York, July 9 - 20. It is another
in a long series of meetings and conferences, working toward the eventual implementation of
global governance.
The Commission on Global Governance report, Our Global Neighborhood, says:
We strongly endorse community initiatives to protect individual life, to encourage the
disarming of civilians..., and calls for ...early negotiation on a convention on the curtailment of
the arms trade... (pp 129-134).
It could be just a coincidence that the same month the Commissions report was published ,
December, 1995, the U.N. General Assembly adopted Resolution 50/50 calling for the creation
of a panel of 16 experts to examine the small arms problem. A second panel of 23 experts was
created in 1998 by Resolution 52/38. As a result of the work of these two panels, the U.N.
General Assembly adopted Resolution 54/54 in 1999, calling for the July Conference in New
York.
The United States government has been an active participant in all the negotiations to this point,
and has a strong position to advance at the July meeting. The U.S. negotiating position is
essentially the same as it was under the Clinton regime, since the Bush nomination for this
section of the State Department, Lincoln Blumfield, Jr., has not been confirmed.
A U.S. State Department spokesman said the purpose of the July meeting was to negotiate an
important action plan, not a treaty. Among the objectives the U.S. wants included in the action
plan are: (1) transparency in arms sales; (2) secure military stockpiles; and (3) agreement to not
resell arms without approval of the nation in which the sale originated.
U.S. negotiators seem unconcerned about the agreement leading to a treaty, or control by the
United Nations over national gun laws. Speaking on background, the State Department
spokesman said the action plan addresses only military-styled arms, and has nothing to do with
hunting rifles or hand guns. In a 1998 essay, however, Dr. Herbert Calhoun, Senior Foreign
Affairs Specialist with the State Department, and a member of both of the U.N. Panels of
Experts, and a member of the U.S. negotiating team, define small arm this way:

43
Broadly speaking, small arms and light weapons include a wide variety of lethal
instruments, from handguns to man-portable air defense systems. While there is no
universally accepted definition of small arms, the term is commonly viewed as
encompassing man-portable firearms and their ammunition primarily designed for
individual use by military forces as lethal weapons. A typical list of small arms includes
revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, assault rifles, and light
machine-guns.
This definition clearly includes hunting rifles and hand guns.
The parties to the negotiation have different objectives and expectations from the series of
meetings. U.S. delegates point to the Memorandum of Understanding signed September 7, 2000,
by Albania, Norway, Germany, and the U.S., which resulted in the destruction of 130,000 small
arms collected from individuals in Albania as a positive example of small arms control that
may come from the July meetings. The small arms in Albania were among those stolen from
government arsenals in 1997, many of which were smuggled into Kosovo as well. Dr. Calhouns
report says that: Between 20 and 30 million deaths have occurred in the 85 wars since 1945,
nearly six million of which occurred in Africa.
Many of the delegates to the July conference want nothing more than a limited action plan that
would help prevent theft of small arms, and a means of recovering them when it becomes
necessary. Others may have a much more grandiose vision.
The United Nations community is actively working to transform the world from a system of
collective security, to a system of comprehensive security.
Collective security is a system in which the members of a group of nations (NATO for example)
renounce the use of force against each other, while pledging to defend any member of the group
that is attacked by an external force. Comprehensive security recognizes that threats from
hunger, homelessness, poverty, disease, environmental disasters, civil strife, and organized
crime, can be just as lethal as external military threats. The Commission on Global Governance,
hopes to eliminate threats from civil strife, crime, and external military attack, by eventually
giving the United Nations control over the manufacture, sale, and distribution of all munitions,
including small arms and light weapons. The New York meeting in July is to advance the
development of an international treaty leading to this control.
No one in the international community expects this control to be taken by force, or granted
easily or quickly by powerful nations, especially the United States. It will come one step, one
action plan, one agreement, and one treaty at a time.
To promote this gunless society, the U.N. helped to create the International Action Network on
Small Arms (IANSA), a global network of NGOs (non-government organizations) that agitates
for local gun-control laws and conducts gun-collection program around the world. IANSA
boasts 283 participating NGOs, 48 in the United States.
IANSA has been outspoken throughout the Prep-coms (January and March) and is pushing for
the strongest possible document in July. A World Council of Churches spokesman, Salpy
Eskidjian, (an IANSA participant), says ...the conference must produce legally binding
measures and a clear timetable of action....

44
On the other side of the question, is another network of NGOs, called the World Forum on the
Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA), which is opposing many of the recommendations
being pushed by IANSA. The Sports Shooters have about 40 organizations in their group,
including the National Rifle Association.
The advocates of a gunless society are relentless, and well funded (with tax dollars through the
U.N.). The July meeting will not produce success for them, but it will move the debate closer to
their goal. There will be more conferences, more action plans, more agreements, more treaties
and more U.S. administrations before the U.N. goal is finally realized.
Advocates for individual responsibility, individual freedom and the right to bear arms must find
a way to advance these principles in international negotiations and agreements, as well as in
domestic law. Compared to the chorus raised by the gun-control advocates, the voice of the
combined resistance is barely a whisper.




















45
Col20010420
Kyoto Resurrected?

By Henry Lamb
Stand tall Mr. Bush; the big guns are booming and they are aimed at you!
Jon Pronk, current chairman of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations, is in the United States
attempting to breathe life back into the climate change talks that appeared to have died when the
Bush administration announced that the U.S. would back away from the failed discussions.
He met with Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, on Tuesday, and Christie Todd
Whitman on Wednesday, and between the meetings, he held a press conference at the National
Press Club, all efforts to resurrect the Kyoto Protocol from diplomatic Hades.
Delegates to The Hague where the talks collapsed last November were far more concerned about
the latest development in the Florida ballot count than in the climate negotiations. In the halls
and at the coffee lounges, the delegate openly expressed their fear that George Bush might
actually become President of the United States.
Their fears were justified. Shortly after the inauguration, the Bush administration asked Pronk to
reschedule from May to July, a resumption of the failed Kyoto negotiations. Pronk said he
convinced the European Union and other nations to agree to the postponement. Then, the Bush
administration announced that it would no longer support he Kyoto Protocol negotiations.
The announcement caused and eruption of condemnation among environmental organizations,
and the entire industry that has grown up around the global warming debate. The press,
particularly the international press, has almost universally condemned the Bush announcement.
Pronks visit to the U.S. is a final effort to salvage ten years negotiations by salvaging the Kyoto
talks.
The Kyoto Protocol is not dead from my perspective, Pronk told the small group of reporters.
This language is no longer being used by the Bush administration, he said, but quickly added
that no one in the administration had said that the Kyoto Protocol was back on the table.
Pronk delivered a lengthy argument in support of the Protocol, and for the need to reach
agreement in July. He confirmed that the Protocols target date for entry into force is still 2002,
to coincide with the tenth anniversary of the U.N. Earth Summit II, held Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
A giant celebration called Rio+10, is being planned for Johannesburg, South Africa next year.
Realization of the Kyoto Protocol was to be the crowning achievement of the U.N. effort since
Rio, and the beginning of an authentic global governance, as described by French President
Jacques Chirac.

46
Despite the enormous pressure, the Bush administration should stand firm in its decision to
review the policy the U.S. has pursued in the past. The previous administration fully supported
the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol, differing only on issues of method and modality.
The previous administration like the global warming industry refused to even consider
information that seriously challenges the wisdom of the Kyoto policies.
Pronk said the U.S. must agree on two issue of paramount importance: (1) the science of global
warming is settled; and (2) a solution to the problem must be multilateral (meaning: under the
auspices of the United Nations). If the U.S. agrees to these principles, then the process will be
salvaged, even if the Protocol is not ratified on schedule.
Both of the principles must be rejected. The science is far from settled, and if there is a problem,
the solution must not be left to the United Nations.
Pronk and his cohorts insist that the science is settled, in hopes of excluding from consideration
the growing body of scientific evidence that discredits the premature conclusions upon which the
policies of the Kyoto Protocol were constructed.
Pronk said correctly, that there is consensus among the scientists within the U.N. family. He
also said that since the failed talks at the Hague, the U.N. scientific team had discovered new
evidence that global warming is worse than had be previously thought, and that it was
progressing at a more rapid rate.
Such reports from the U.N. family must be seen with a healthy degree of skepticism.
Observers of the global warming process know full well that the Third Assessment Report, the
actual IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report of the scientists included this
conclusion:
In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should
recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear system, and therefore that the prediction
of a specific future climate is not possible.
The press release referred to by Pronk, is not from the actual scientific report, but from a
summary written by bureaucratic policy makers, the U.N. family. It was a reinterpretation and
a restatement of old, selective science, designed expressly to ratchet up the emotional response
and increase the pressure on the Kyoto negotiators.
The U.N. family carefully ignores those scientists who produce results that are not consistent
with U.N. objectives. When scientific challenges do rise to public notice, those scientists are
often demeaned and discredited by the U.N. family.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
said the IPCC summary is, very much a children's exercise of what might possibly happen,'
prepared by a 'peculiar group' with 'no technical competence.
This condemnation of the U.N. familys so called scientific consensus cannot be ignored by
the Bush administration or the American people. Lindzen is one of an increasing number of

47
scientists who cannot accept the political declaration that the science is settled on global
climate.
An observation about which there is genuine scientific consensus, is the apparent increase in
atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last century. The U.N family is convinced that this
increase is the primary cause of global warming, which computers say will occur over the next
100 years. The same computer models, however, when applied to the known conditions of the
last 100 years, say that the global temperature should have risen much, much higher than it has.
Many scientists are joining in the speculation that increasing carbon may be a benefit to the
planet, since it is known that 98 percent of all plants grow faster, produce more, and use water
more efficiently, in direct correlation to the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere. Dr.
Sherwood Idso, a U.S. government scientist, has been monitoring plant growth in elevated
carbon environments for nearly 20 years. His research is impeccable.
Science does not yet understand all the factors that make the weather behave as it does for more
than a few days; it certainly does not know what makes the climate behave as it does over a
century. The scientific community should continue to study and try to understand the
complexities of the climate.
Should continued studies indicate that human activity is, in fact, causing a potentially
catastrophic problem, then competent governments should work together to find appropriate
solutions. If the United Nations has any role to play in the solution to any problem, that role
should be defined by member nations, not by U.N. agencies such as the IPCC or the UNFCCC
(United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).
Stand tall, Mr. Bush; dont let Jon Pronk, or the press that follows him around, talk you into
resurrecting the Kyoto Protocol, which has already claimed far more effort and energy than
reality can justify. Lets get on with taking care of America first.












48
Col20010426
POPs may be hazardous to your lifestyle

By Henry Lamb
Its official. In a Rose Garden photo op, April 19, the President, Secretary of State, and EPA
Administrator, announced the U.S.s intention to sign the U.N. Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs), in ceremonies in Stockholm, May 22-23.
The announcement, one of several recent pro-green initiatives, comes on the heels of massive
criticism of the Bush administration for perceived anti-environmental actions, especially for
walking away from the Kyoto Protocol deliberations. The POPs treaty has received very little
media attention and is potentially as destructive as the Kyoto Protocol.
Brooks Yeager headed the U.S. delegation that negotiated this treaty. Yeager served as Vice
President of Government Relations for the Audubon Society before joining the Clinton
administration in 1993. He was praised by the Bush administration for his good work.
The treaty identifies eight chemicals that are to be banned outright. Most are used in pesticides.
Chlordane and DDT, already banned in the U.S., are among the chemicals to be banned. Of far
more concern, are the four chemicals identified to be controlled. They are: PCBs,
Hexachlorobenzene, Dioxins, and Furans.
It is worth noting, that the common practice among extreme green policy makers is to get the
camels nose under the tent with any kind of bland policy mechanism, and then work to expand.
The Endangered Species Act was sold on the basis of protecting the bald eagle; now several
hundred odd-ball bugs are protected, and several thousand more are on the waiting list to be
protected.
The Vienna Convention on Ozone Depleting Substances was ratified on the basis that
compliance was voluntary, but immediately, the Montreal Protocol made it legally binding, and
required the banning of Freon and certain halogens.
The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change whizzed through the U.S. Senate, because
compliance was voluntary. But the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties produced the
Berlin Mandate to create a legally binding Kyoto Protocol.
The POPs convention bans only eight chemicals initially, and identifies four to be controlled.
The Conference of the Parties to this Convention will identify additional chemicals whenever
they wish, and will set the policies for controlling others.
Keep in mind that principle #8 of the Rio Declaration, from which Agenda 21 arises, requires the
reduction and elimination of ...unsustainable patterns of production and consumption ....
Agenda 21 is not legally binding; treaties are. The POPs treaty can be used to bring to a halt
patterns of production and consumption that the U.N. has declared to be unsustainable.

49
There is no single chemical named dioxin. The term dioxin applies to a family of about 75
compounds, many of which are produced when organic material is burned, and as by-products of
various manufacturing processes. Some of these dioxins are toxic in some concentration,
particularly TCDD (2,3,7,8-tetra-chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin); others are not toxic at all. The entire
family of dioxins, however, has been deliberately vilified, and painted by environmental
extremists, as brutal, cancer-causing killers.
The processes that produce PVC pipe, and most plastics, use chlorine. Chlorine is not on the list
of chemicals to be banned. Greenpeace, and the World Wildlife Fund, have been on an
unsuccessful crusade for years to ban chlorine. Because chlorine is used to purify about 98% of
the public water supply, and in the production of so many beneficial products, head-on efforts to
ban chlorine have had no success.
The POPs treaty has the potential to force an end to the use of chlorine, by using a back-door
approach; by controlling the production of dioxins, which the treaty authorizes and the public has
been conditioned to accept, the Conference of the Parties to the treaty can control chlorine. By
controlling what comes out the end of the pipe, the controller controls what goes into the pipe.
This is the system used by the EPA and environmental extremists to control which chemicals and
fertilizers farmers use on their crops. The TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) program is a
back-door way to control what farmers put on the ground. By regulating the maximum quantity
of a particular chemical that may be in a stream, the regulator can control the use of that
chemical by any one whose ground water drains into the stream.
Chlorine was targeted to be banned in the early 1990s by Greenpeace and the World Wildlife
Fund. The proposed method at that time was to list chlorine as one of the chemicals that could
not be found in municipal ground water runoff, under the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System) program. Then-Congressman Bill Richardson tried unsuccessfully in two
sessions of Congress to enact this legislation.
Environmental extremists are never defeated; they are sometimes delayed, but always come back
again with the same objective wrapped in a new program. The POPs treaty is far more potent
than the NPDES, or the TMDL programs in the U.S, as a weapon to end the use of chlorine, and
shut down industry to force a reduction or elimination of unsustainable patterns of production
and consumption.
Consider the loss of PVC plastics. It is almost impossible to comprehend a world without
plastic. Narrow the consideration to just PVC pipe - and try to imagine the world without it.
Before PVC, galvanized pipe supplied water to kitchens and bathrooms. The pipe itself was
quite expensive, and the laborers who installed it commanded premium wages. Were we forced
to return to galvanized pipe, the cost of homes would soar.
The metal required to make the pipe would not be available in sufficient quantities to meet the
demand because the environmental extremists have shut down nearly all mining operations.
Consider packaging, and medical supplies without plastic. Are housewives ready to go back to
waxed paper and aluminum foil? Look around the room at what you would have to do without
if plastics were banned. Environmental extremists know that the public would never allow a
head-on attack on plastic. But the public will allow a treaty to control cancer-causing dioxins.

50
Once the treaty is in place, the legal authority is established, and little by little, the noose can
(and will) be tightened around the production and consumption patterns around the world,
particularly in the United States.
The POPs treaty, by virtue of authorizing control over these four chemicals, gives to the
Conference of the Parties, the authority to set policies which can govern the production of most
coatings and paints, glues, lubricants, a wide range of construction materials, appliances,
household furnishings, medicines, medical supplies, pesticides, herbicides, and other products
that Americans have come to rely on.
The treaty will have to be ratified by the U.S. Senate, which has now perfected a process which
results in ratification without any debate, or a recorded vote. The previous Senate ratified 34
treaties in one fell swoop on October 18, by a voice vote and a show of hands. Included in the
package was the U.N. Convention on Desertification.
Proponents of the POPs treaty could well use this process again and get the treaty ratified with
virtually no opportunity to even register opposition or examine the possible negative
consequences. The treaty will become international law when it is ratified by 50 nations, quite
probably before the Rio+10 celebration in Johannesburg, South Africa in the Summer of 2002.
The Treaty will create a permanent Secretariat, with a permanent annual budget, that will grow
each year, as has every other treaty secretariat since 1992. The growing staff will have to
identify new chemicals to ban and control, and monitor to justify their existence. It is yet
another mechanism created within the United Nations to reach its tentacles out to control yet
another facet of human life.
This is the essence of global governance in progress.













51
Col20020501
Tightening the screws

By Henry Lamb
More than 1,400 farm families in the Klamath Basin have been targeted for economic extinction
by environmental extremists. Nearly 90% of the 210,000 acres of farmland will get no water
from Upper Klamath Lake because Steve Lewis, a biologist, rendered an opinion for the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, which said a sucker fish in the Upper Klamath Lake, and Coho
salmon in the Klamath River need the water more than the farmers. In an appeal, U.S. District
Judge Ann L. Aiken, agreed, saying ...while it is clear that the farmers face severe economic
hardship, the threat to the survival of the fish is greater.
A Bucket Brigade is scheduled for May 7, where thousands of supporters will physically lift
buckets of water from Klamath Lake and hand them, person-to-person, down the brigade, all the
way to an irrigation canal. The demonstration may draw attention to the farmers plight, but it is
not likely to change anything in the long run. The Klamath Basin is in the path of a coveted
Bioregion; the fish problem is simply a tool being used to achieve a much bigger objective.
The underlying legal authority is the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which has been used
excessively by environmental extremists to drive people off their land, and into economic
oblivion.
Ironically, the ESA was enacted in response to a very emotional appeal to protect the American
Bald Eagle; the decision to protect the Klamath sucker fish will deprive the Lower Klamath
National Wildlife Refuge the runoff from area farms, which will jeopardize as many as 1,000
Eagles that feed there.
Attorneys for the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund (formerly Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund)
are fighting for the sucker fish. This same extremist outfit sued the federal government in
behalf of the Coho salmon, then submitted a bill to the Justice Department for $439,053. Most
of the bill represented 931 hours by a single attorney at $350.00 per hour.
This fight, though, is not about attorneys fees, as obnoxious as they may be. This fight is not
about the sucker fish, as repulsive as they may be. This fight is about the land.
It would be a mistake to laugh off the vision held by some, to convert as much as half the land in
North America to core wilderness reserves, devoid of humans, connected by corridors of
wilderness, all surrounded by buffer zones. This vision was advanced initially in the United
States by Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!, founder of the Cenozoic Society, the
Wildlands Project, and recently, a member of the board of the Sierra Club.
Foremans vision was elevated into a legitimate plan when The Nature Conservancy and the
Audubon Society funded the efforts of Dr. Reed Noss, who actually drafted the Wildlands
Project plan. The United Nations Environment Program legitimized the vision when it published
the Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA), a massive 1140-page instruction book for

52
implementing the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity. Section 13 of the GBA is a detailed
description of how biodiversity should be preserved under the Convention (treaty), and on page
993 (Section 13.4.2.2.3), the Wildlands Project is named explicitly as being central to
successful implementation.
When the plan first appeared in 1992, it drew rave reviews from deep ecologists and
environmental extremists and rounds of robust laughter from everyone else.
Al Gore did not laugh. Bruce Babbitt did not laugh. Carol Browner did not laugh. Immediately
upon taking office in 1993, the Clinton/Gore administration began restructuring the resource
agencies of government around an Ecosystem Management Policy that elevated the protection
of ecosystems to the same level as human health, and considered humans to be a biological
resource. When the Democratically controlled U.S. Senate failed to ratify the Convention on
Biological Diversity in 1994, the shocked and bewildered administration decided to implement
the Ecosystem Management Policy anyway.
From day one, Gore, Babbitt, and Browner set out to impose and enforce every rule possible to
keep people from using federal land, and even private lands. A law suit filed by the Sierra Club
Legal Defense Fund to save the spotted owl, took out the loggers in the northwest and
eventually, in the southwest as well. A red-legged frog froze commercial activity on vast
stretches of land in California. Monument designation removed ranchers and prohibited mineral
production on nearly 2 million acres of the Escalante Staircase, and millions more acres in and
around Clintons rash of additional National Monuments.
On and on it goes. Following the Clinton/Gore administration around the United States is a trip
through tragedy for people who love the land and depend upon its natural resources.
Now it is the farmers in the Klamath Basin who must pay. They must pay with their land. Had
the federal government just ordered the farmers to move, there would have been a rebellion.
No, no. No one would be so brazen. A more subtle, indirect approach was contrived. In Ohio,
The Nature Conservancy, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would never force people off
their land; they would, instead, proclaim the virtue of a new wildlife preserve, and insist that the
farmland owned by nearly 200 families must be protected for future generations and therefore,
the taxpayers should buy the land from the residents of the Darby and return the land to its pre-
settlement condition.
In the northwest, there are several simultaneous, indirect tactics underway, all of which have the
effect of forcing people off the land, or severely limiting what people may do, who are allowed
to stay on the land. The Columbia River Basin has been a burning-barrel for tax dollars, wasted
in plan after plan to remove or control the people. The Columbia River Gorge Commission is a
classic example of government controlling peoples activity on their own private property.
The Y2Y project envisions wilderness from Yellowstone to the Yukon, and the Cascadia
Bioregion vision adds the forests and river bottoms from Washington to northern California
including the Klamath Basin. All across the land, policies and programs are being implemented
that have the effect of forcing people off their rural land to achieve some imagined
environmental benefit.

53
If the Klamath farmers get no water, they cant farm. If they cant farm, they will have to move
somewhere and find work. Its as simple as that. Sympathy will be dispensed, and tax dollars
offered, but in the end, if farmers cant get water, they cant farm. If they cant farm they must
move off the land.
Ask any Congressman or federal officer what the Klamath water decision has to do with the
Wildlands Project, and the reply will be an indignant nothing! Sadly, most of them will think
they speak the truth. The field officers of the federal agencies are just following orders. Their
bosses, however, were selected by the Clinton/Gore team directly from the very environmental
organizations that dreamed up and promoted the Wildlands Project. Many of the second and
third tier officials remain in the Bush administration.
The elected officials have little time to be bothered with wild, scatter-brained conspiracy
theories about U.N. land grabs. Hogwash, they say. Anytime the U.N. is mentioned in less
than glowing terms, elected officials tend to throw up the black helicopter defense and listen
no more.
Nevertheless, look around. If the Klamath farmers get no water, they must move. The loggers in
the northwest found that owls and salmon are valued higher than the needs of loggers , and they
were forced to close the mills and move off the land. The ranchers throughout the west are
finding it increasingly difficult to keep their herds at profitable levels because of ever tightening
rules and regulations.
Miners are now a distinct endangered species, but they are not on the EPA list for help. Private
land owners from Maine to Ohio to Florida are finding growth limits blocking economic
expansion and forcing land into open space instead of productive usage. Slowly, project by
project, law by law, rule by rule, the United States is being transformed into the bizarre vision
advanced by Dave foreman more than a decade ago, which, incidentally, is precisely the
objective of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity.
The screws are tightening now on the Klamath farmers. It is a sad day in the United States when
the government officially places the value of a sucker fish above the needs of its citizens. The
Endangered Species Act, as onerous as it is, does provide a mechanism for a so-called God
Squad to overrule the federal agency and the sucker fish.
It is worth noting that when the snail darter stopped construction of a major dam in Tennessee, it
was none other than Al Gore who demanded that the God Squad step in and overrule the ESA.
Of course, this was before Als green baptism, when he really was concerned about the people
who elected him.
The Convention on Biological Diversity was not ratified by the United States. Clinton and Gore
are no longer in charge. But the drive to drive people off the land continues, powered by
foundation and corporate-funded environmental extremist organizations and their former officers
who remain entrenched in government.
This foolishness must stop. Perhaps the new administration will listen to the people; the last one
certainly didnt.


54

Col20010504
U.N.U. calls for Global Governance
By Henry Lamb
Its getting serious. When the Commission on Global Governance (CGG) issued its 410-page
report , Our Global Neighborhood, in 1995, not a single ripple troubled the political waters in the
United States. The report is a detailed plan to achieve global governance, calling for such things
as:
1. Eliminating the veto in the U.N. Security Council;
2. Independent U.N. financing through the Tobin tax;
3. Creation of a Global Peoples Assembly;
4. Creation of an Economic Security Council; and
5. Establishing a standing U.N. army.
The very few Congressmen who would even listen to our concerns, scoffed at these ideas, saying
that the United States would never let any of these things happen.
When a coalition of NGOs (non-government organizations), funded in part by the U.N.
incorporated these recommendations into its Charter99" (Charter for Global Democracy), no
one seemed to care.
When the official NGO Forum included these provisions in its report to the Millennium
Assembly, with each of the five recommendations of the CGG was included, it drew a massive
ho-hum from officials and the media.
There was some concern was expressed by conservative organizations, but others felt the NGO
agenda was nothing more than a wish list compiled by radical socialist. Dont worry. Itll
never happen, was the response from the few officials who were even aware of the document.
Then comes the official agenda for the U.N. Millennium Assembly, which included all of these
recommendations in somewhat watered-down, diplomatic language. The Millennium
Declaration, adopted by the heads of state from more than 150 nations, included language that
embraced each of these recommendations.
The Millennium Assembly occurred in September, 2000, when the Presidential race was just
getting into high gear. No one was interested in what the U.N. was doing. What difference does
it make; they just blow smoke anyway. Right!

55
There was virtually no public resistance to these previously released documents. Now, the
United Nations University has issued a new, official, study, and a report that can be used to apply
political pressure for global governance on member nations. The massive report, entitled New
Roles and Functions for the U.N. and the Bretton Woods Institutions, is subtitled: Governing
globalization: dont wait for crisis before reforming key institutions.
Its time to make some ripples. In fact, its time to raise a tidal wave of resistance to the
relentless drive to global governance.
This study is not the product of a bunch of radical NGOs; it is the official Research Institute of
the United Nations University. The Institute is located in Helsinki. It has a research staff of 15
senior researchers, four Ph.D. interns, and a support staff of 14. The Institute includes staff from
nine United Nations organizations, among which are the IMF and World Bank.
The other documents containing these recommendation issued over the last six years, were
released by unofficial, but closely affiliated organization. Their releases were trial balloons, to
see how much public resistance would be generated. If the heat became too hot, the U.N. could
simply disclaim the documents, as the work of outside organizations.
Of course, the United States is the primary target. Most of the other permanent members of the
Security Council have already indicated their willingness to forego the veto - if the United States
follows suit. Why would they be willing to give up the veto? Simply because they can outvote
the U.S. anytime they wish.
The proposed new Security Council would have 23 members, appointed on a geographic basis.
Members would serve staggered terms. With about 188 member nations currently, the United
States would have a representative on the Security Council about every 8
th
term. If the terms are
two years (the term length has not been decided), the U.S. would have a representative on the
Security Council no more than two years out of every 16 years. So would every other nation.
This arrangement is fraught with the potential for bureaucratic abuse. The U.N. Secretariat
would be in a perfect position to ramrod virtually any policy through the Security Council by
controlling the information the members received, and because the expenses of the members
from more than half of the nations are paid by the U.N.
The new U.N. study says that Circumventing the veto...and enlarging the membership...are
imperative for the U.N.s continued credibility.
Elimination of the veto is one of five essential reforms necessary to give the U.N. absolute
control over the entire world. Independent financing is another essential reform. The Tobin tax
has been promoted for years as a way to fund United Nations operations. It is simply a tax on
the exchange of currency. Most estimates predict that the tax would produce about $1.5 trillion
per year. Thats trillion with a T - about 150 times more than the U.N.s current budget.
Picture this: the United Nations with nobody to veto its policies or actions, with $1.5 trillion per
year to fund is programs (and the power to set the tax rate to produce even more dollars). Not a
pretty picture.

56
To give the U.N. the appearance of legitimacy, the Global Peoples Assembly would meet
annually before the U.N. General Assembly (as the NGO Forum met before the Millennium
Assembly last year), and provide direct input from the civil society of the world.
Only NGOs accredited by the U.N. would be eligible to send representatives. Then, a committee
selected by the U.N. would actually choose which NGO representatives would attend a Peoples
Assembly. This is how the delegates to the NGO Millennium Forum were chosen last year. It is
the normal U.N. process for allowing NGO participation. To be accredited by the U.N., an NGO
must pledge to support the aims of the U.N. and produce proof of two years of activity in
support of the U.N.
The picture keeps getting better if you are a socialist.
Now comes the new Economic Security Council. It, too, would have (proposed) 23 members,
appointed in much the same way as the other Security Council. The difference is that this
Council would govern the consolidated global financial mechanisms: the IMF; the World Bank;
the Global Environment Facility; the U.N. Development Program; the World Trade
Organization; and several other agencies and organizations connected with finance and
development.
Under the auspices of this Security Council would come ...the system of governance for
transnational corporations, as the study puts it. These transnational corporations have rights
and responsibilities that only the U.N. can guarantee.
Here too, is where the cross-border movements of people could be authorized and monitored.
The International Labor Organization (ILO) could be integrated into this consolidated
conglomeration, since labor it is an economic activity.
How do these new rules and regulations get enforced? With the Voluntary Peace Force, of
course. The International Criminal Court is already a reality, having been adopted by nearly 150
nations, and awaiting ratification by only a couple-dozen more of the 60 nations required. This
new U.N. creature was also proposed back in 1995 by the Commission on Global Governance.
It was created in 1998, and is expected to enter into force next year.
With the court in place and functioning, and with $1.5 trillion per year to pay its Volunteer
standing army, and with no U.S. veto in the Security Council, the United Nations will, in fact, be
a world government. It will have the power to do whatever it wishes, and the United States will
be powerless to prevent it politically or economically.
Why did the U.N. choose to release this study now? To prepare for acceptance and adoption at
next years Earth Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa. The
Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, in 1992, produced Agenda 21. Next years event, nicknamed
Rio+10, is expected to draw 64,000 environmental enthusiasts the largest environmental pep-
rally the world has ever seen.
The Kyoto Protocols entry into force was supposed to be the highlight of this event, but with
Bushs withdrawal, this is not likely to happen. The U.N. advocates are stepping up their
agenda, looking to make the 10-year celebration of Agenda 21 as productive as possible.

57
Global governance is the goal. Its not black helicopter speculation; its hard, cold facts from
the official documents of the United Nations. If the reaction to this report is the same as the
reaction to the 1995 report, and the Millennium Declaration, we will have a world government in
short order.
Only the United States can prevent this global transformation. For the last eight years, there has
been no political will to stop the momentum. In fact, the United States promoted much of the
global governance agenda. We are truly about to see whether or not the political winds have
shifted. If the United States allows the recommendations by the U.N. University to be
implemented turn out the lights, the partys over.






















58
Col20010505
Is the U.N. committing suicide?

By Henry Lamb
1. Kyoto withdrawal
2. China stand-off
3. Defense shield (AMB Treaty w/Russia)
4. Russia take-over of independent press
5. U.S. resolution on China at Human Rights Commission
Is the U.N. committing suicide?
The United Nations has done some dumb things in its history. Not many outstrip the recent
rejection of the U.S. from the Commission on Human Rights for sheer stupidity. The vast
majority of people in the United States care not one whit what the U.N. does - or does not do. In
fact, most people are barely aware of U.N. activity at all, until some major issue makes it to the
evening news.
Payment of so-called past-due dues is one item that occasionally makes it to the Jennings or
Rather news shows. The Michael New flap got a lot of attention. Peacekeepers getting kicked
out of Iraq, or their tails kicked in Somalia with U.S. soldiers bearing the brunt of the damage -
are all events that leave something of a negative aftertaste in the minds of most Americans.
Now comes the Human Rights thing. The very idea of kicking the U.S. off the 53 member
Commission, and seating Sudan - where human slaves can be bought and sold for a couple-
hundred dollars. This has to be the height of stupidity.
The New York Times, and other liberal-leaning types, has been quick to blame the Bush
administration for foreign policy decisions as the cause for the U.S. rejection. Others point to
Bushs rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, and speculate that revenge might be the motive for
rejection of the U.S.
Who knows what mischief lurks in the hearts and minds of international misfits who would do
harm to the United States of America?
The result may well be a heightened awareness of this sleeping giant we call America. It is not
the New York Times, nor the Washington Post, nor the outspoken U.N. apologists in the
Congress - who will decide the fate of the U.N.
It is the people who would rather not even think about the U.N. or about Congress who will
ultimately decide. Sooner or later, there will be a showdown. The U.N. will either move
forward to impose the world government it has so cleverly disguised as global governance, or it

59
will commit suicide by raising the ire of those masses of people who will not be enslaved, even
by entrapment.
The Commission on Human Rights rejection is awakening a lot of people.
And that is a good thing.
























60
Col20010521
When SD comes to your town

By Henry Lamb
SD is Sustainable Development, and its probably already permeated your town, county, and
state. It was conceived at the 1987 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, and
entered the world at the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, in the form of
Agenda 21. Since then, it has infected nearly 150 nations, including the United States.
The symptoms are unmistakable. Tell-tale terms begin appearing in local newspapers and local
newscasts: urban sprawl; open space; brown fields; infill; bike paths; public transportation;
visioning process; consensus; and somethingorother-2000. Then there are reports about results
of visioning process. Finally, there is a plan. Suddenly, your town is a Sustainable
Community.
Typically, the plan for your sustainable community will be named Yourtown 2020, or
something similar, it will embrace several political jurisdictions, involve a commission or
council with some measure of authority to oversee the implementation of the plan, and it
will contain several components that are remarkably similar to all the other sustainable
communities around the country. Virtually all of the components come from recommendations
contained in Agenda 21.
The plan is designed to limit urban sprawl; preserve open space; infill dilapidated brown fields
with public/private partnership projects; provide bike paths and improve public transportation;
and do it all in a coordinated fashion with all the other political jurisdictions in the region.
What could possibly be wrong with this objective or the process that brings it about?
Much! To begin with, the concept of sustainable development and sustainable communities,
completely disregards a fundamental principle of freedom that has been honored in the United
States since before our country was founded: a person should be able to live wherever he chooses
to live. In a sustainable community, a person can live where he chooses to live - as long as it
meets the approval of the governing body.
Many sustainable community plans go much further than defining where a person cannot live;
they often define the size of the home, the type of materials that may be used to construct the
home and even the type of landscaping that may be used. These restrictions are imposed,
ostensibly, to protect the environment.
The individuals right to live wherever he chooses is rarely given any value at all. When the
question is raised, it is often disregarded in the belief that the so-called public good outweighs
the individuals rights.
This belief assumes that growth limits are a public good. We challenge this assumption. Growth
in a community is evidence of economic expansion propelled by a free market. If a person

61
chooses to live ten miles from town, he must acquire the land, build a home, provide
transportation, and whatever services he requires.
The argument in support of a growth boundary says that if the person is required to build within
the growth boundary, the public will be spared the expense of providing roads and utilities, and
the avoided travel will reduce the demand for fossil fuels and the pollution from automobile use.
This argument sells well, but is not valid. The roads and the utilities are paid for by the segment
of the public that uses them - not the public at large. If people choose to live ten miles from
town, they do so fully aware of the costs they must incur to satisfy their desire. Why should the
desire of these people be less valid than the desire of others who think they should not live where
they choose?
Open space is the great bugaboo. We have to preserve open space for future generations, is
the oft-quoted reason for growth limits. Open space is a wonderful asset for any town or
community. The park systems in Chicago and in many other cities can certainly be described as
a public good. But should a city or county own land that is not a public park, just land - owned
for no other reason than to insure that it is not developed?
The land acquisition fever that has descended upon federal, state, and local government is not for
the purpose of expanding parks and public areas; it is to insure that development cannot occur on
that land. This is an extremely dangerous practice.
The practice interferes with a free market in real estate, and thereby forces development to occur
only where the government thinks that it should occur. Once again, this thwarts the free choice
of individuals. More importantly, when land is acquired by government, it stops producing tax
revenue, and thereby increases the tax burden on the remaining private property owners. Whats
even worse, the only way a government can get the money to acquire land is to force tax payers
to pay for it.
From this perspective, tax payers are being forced to pay a higher tax than would otherwise be
required, to enable a government to buy the land which will no longer produce tax revenue,
insuring that the tax bill for the remaining private property owners will be higher than would
otherwise be required.
Land acquisition has many faces. In some cases, it is an outright purchase by the government
from a willing seller. In other cases, the government may use its power of eminent domain to
force a private owner to sell. Increasingly, governments are resorting to the purchase of
development rights, and conservation easements, and third-party arrangements with land
conservancy organizations. The result is still an interference with a free real estate market, a
reduction in tax revenue, and government-managed development.
A procedure that is said to be for the benefit of future generations is actually a pox on future
generations. The current generation of land managers is assuring that future generations are
unable to use the land as they wish or deem necessary.
Look a hundred years into the future with the current government land acquisition fever
unabated. Governments, which already own more than 40 percent of the total land area in the
United States, will own a much higher percentage that we, the taxpayers, have paid for. Perhaps

62
more importantly, is the quality of the land that is owned by government, or its surrogate land
conservancy organizations. The resources this land contains will be owned and controlled by
government. When government owns the sources of production, it is a de facto socialist society.
Land acquisition and land use policies embraced by sustainable community plans dictate where
people may or may not live. Sustainable community plans also seek to control how individuals
live.
Getting people out of automobiles and into public transit, or onto bicycles and foot paths is
another common component in the vision of a sustainable community. Using the flawed
argument that automobiles contribute to global warming, community planners feel compelled to
do everything possible to force people out of their cars. Thus, the urban boundary.
Many communities are using some variation of the Community Unit development concept.
This idea requires that any proposed development set aside a specified percentage of the acreage
in open space, sometimes as much as 50%, thereby doubling the price of the land for each
dwelling. This concept also requires the inclusion of specified businesses, often with access by
non-motorized vehicles, and quite often, even requires houses to be constructed of materials that
meet certain green standards. These unit designs can also prescribe the number of houses
that may be built within specified price ranges.
This is how governments are transforming what was a free society into a managed society and
call it a sustainable community.
The sustainable community process says that free markets have produced unlivable communities
and the visioners can design communities that are much better than the ones individuals have
created on their own.
Sustainable development, sustainable communities, anything activity preceded by the word
sustainable, means that some authority - not the private individual - decides what is or is not
sustainable. The word sustainable should be replace with the words government-managed
when considering any proposal.
Government-managed development and government-managed communities are not quite as
inviting as sustainable development and sustainable communities. They are the same, however.
You cant have one without the other.








63
Col20010630
New Internet treaty readied

By Henry Lamb
Unlike most recent international treaties, this new Internet Treaty was developed in relative
secrecy, not by the United Nations, but by the Council of Europe a 43 nation alliance, with the
United States, Canada, and Japan participating as "observers."
The treaty has been under development by a special committee of the Council of Europe since
1997, but their work was classified, until recently. The document evolved through 27 drafts
before being approved by the committee June 22, 2001.
The United States has been involved in the negotiations since the beginning. Representatives
from the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce have participated in the U.S. delegation.
The treaty seeks to control internet crimes by requiring participating nations to create a specific,
uniform body of laws to deal with unauthorized access, interference, fraud and forgery, child
pornography, copyright infringement. Racism and xenophobia are to be addressed in a separate
protocol to be added later.
The working title of the treaty is: "International Convention on Cyber-crime." It has three
primary objectives:
Harmonization of the national laws which define offences;
Definition of investigation and prosecution procedures to cope with global networks; and
Establishment of a rapid and effective system of international co-operation."
The treaty addresses these "crimes:"
Offences against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and
systems: illegal access, illegal interception, data interference, system interference, misuse
of devices.
Computer-related offences: forgery and computer fraud.
Content-related offences: production, dissemination and possession of child pornography.
A protocol is to cover the propagation of racist and xenophobic ideas over the web.
Offences related to infringement of copyright and related rights: the wide-scale
distribution of pirated copies of protected works, etc.
The text of the treaty contains 48 Articles and 11 endnotes.
According to the Council's press office:

64
The Convention embodies basic rules which will make it easier for the police to investigate
computer crimes, with the help of new forms of mutual assistance. These include:
preservation of computer-stored data,
preservation and rapid disclosure of data relating to traffic,
system search and seizure,
real-time collection of traffic data, and
interception of content data.
To protect human rights and the principle of proportionality, these rules are subject to the
conditions and safeguards provided for in the law of signatory states. Specifically, proceedings
may not be started except under certain conditions such as prior authorization by a judge or
another independent authority.
The enforcement rules discussed, say that "the legal authorities and police in one country will be
able to collect computer-based evidence for police in another ..." Articles 18 through 21 detail
how service providers must be compelled to provide subscriber information and data; collect
real-time data as requested by "competent authorities," and keep such collection confidential.
Article 19 authorizes search and seizure of equipment and data.
Information about this treaty, as limited as it has been, has caused an immediate response from
the Internet user community. An international coalition of 28 organizations from the United
States, France, Britain, Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Italy, South Africa, Austria, the Netherlands,
and Denmark has notified the Council of its opposition to the treaty.
In a letter to the Council, The Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC) claims that the treaty is
little more than a "wish list" for law enforcement.
The group is concerned that the U.S. Department of Justice is using the treaty process to force
Congress to enact laws to broaden police power that Congress has rejected in the past. "Police
agencies and powerful private interests acting outside of the democratic means of accountability
have sought to use a closed process to establish rules that will have the effect of binding
legislation," the GILC stated in its letter.
Questions arise about who exactly, will decide which content is "racist" or "xenophobic?" Will
internet service providers be held liable for the content on websites for which they serve only as
host? How can internet users' privacy rights be protected as required by the Fourth Amendment?
More to the point: should any governmental authority "police" the content of web sites? First
Amendment advocates recoil at the suggestion of a national, or an international police force to
examine internet content. The Council of Europe says it is necessary to catch crooks, and prevent
"hate speech."
The contrast between the U.S. and European standards of free speech is demonstrated in the
language of the First Amendment, compared to the language of the U.N. Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.

65
The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press ..."
The U.N. Covenant, on the other hand, which, incidentally, is referenced in the preamble to the
cyber-crime treaty, says in Article 19:
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom
to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers,
either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his
choice.
The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special
duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these
shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary ....
This treaty is not the first attempt by the international community to control the Internet. ICANN
(Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) has gone through a tumultuous process
attempting to gain some measure of control. WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization)
has also struggled unsuccessfully with measures aimed at controlling the exploding Internet
phenomenon.
An Internet systems administrator, identified as "h2odragon," who has carefully followed the
growth of the Internet for more than a decade, says that "these efforts are like trying to cap a
geyser. Every time a new control is proposed, the Internet blasts-off again and leaves the would-
be controllers scrambling for a new grip."
The current effort by the Council of Europe may gain some traction. Since the Council was
created in 1949, it has developed more than 170 treaties and international agreements that are
now in force.
The Council is not the same thing as the European Union. The Council was created to fulfill
Winston Churchill's dream of a "United States of Europe," which he advocated as early as 1946.
To bring the treaty into force, the draft must first be approved by the leadership of the Council of
Europe, then ratified by only five of the participating nations.
The United States has not yet officially signed the treaty. The U.S. delegation accepted the draft
finalized on June 22, with a noted reservation regarding Article 41, the "federal clause." If the
U.S. delegation can get its concerns on this clause satisfied, the Bush administration is expected
to send the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
The Council of Europe's 43 member states helped to prepare the text, and Canada, the United
States, Japan which have observer status and South Africa were also actively involved. They
will all be able to sign the Convention, which will cover most of the world's data traffic.


66
Col20010705
U.N. Gun Burning Just the Beginning

By Henry Lamb
Guns will be burned in New York Monday (July 9, 2001), in a major media dog-and-pony show
to draw public attention to the U.N. Conference on Small Arms. The official title of the event is
the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its
Aspects. The purpose of the conference is to advance the development of an international treaty
to control the availability of small arms and light weapons in warfare. This treaty is a significant
step toward the U.N.s ultimate goal, expressed in the report of the Commission on Global
Governance report, Our Global Neighborhood, of eventually controlling the manufacture, sale
and distribution of all firearms.
Shortly after the Commission on Global Governance report was released in 1995, the U.N.
helped to organize a coalition of NGOs (non-government organizations) to promote the U.N.s
goals around the world. The organization, called IANSA (International Action Network on
Small Arms), has been busy organizing gun collection and gun burning events in several
countries. They will be conducting workshops and other events during the U.N. meeting in New
York.
This is only one of several recent events that demonstrate an acceleration of the U.N.s global
governance agenda.
On June 22, a new International Convention on Cyber-crime was readied for ratification by
participating nations - including the United States. This treaty will require participating nations
to adopt harmonized laws that will compel ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to collect
information and data from their subscribers, without notification, and supply that information to
competent authorities. Governments agree to collect and exchange this information for each
other. The committee that prepared the treaty is already working on a protocol to control hate
speech and xenophobia.
With extraordinary effort, the U.N. has managed to snatch the Kyoto Protocol from certain death
after the collapse of negotiations at the Hague last November. Despite President Bushs
announcement that he would no longer pursue the Kyoto Protocol, he has agreed to pursue the
Kyoto process, whatever that is. It means that a delegation of Bush administration officials
will be in Bonn, Germany later in July to continue negotiations toward some kind of
international treaty related to reducing fossil fuel energy use in the United States.
On May 24, the Bush administration signed the U.N. Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs). The treaty bans outright, eight chemicals, and gives the U.N. control over
four others, including some used in the manufacture of PVC products and most plastics. (Dec
15, 2000).

67
On October 18, last year, The U.S. Senate ratified the U.N. Convention on Desertification to
complement the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity. The Convention on Biological
Diversity was not ratified. In the waning moments of the 104
th
Congress, Senator George Miller,
then Senate Majority Leader, withdrew the treaty from a vote because of the tremendous
pressure brought by the grassroots property-rights and resource-use organizations. The Clinton
administration, nevertheless, implemented the primary provisions of the treaty through executive
orders and its Ecosystem Management policies. The net result is that every square inch of
land in the United States, public or private, is subject to policies guided by international treaties -
ratified or not.
Hmm. Through international treaties, the U.N. is attempting to take control of small arms;
control the use of fossil fuel energy; control or eliminate the use of certain chemicals essential to
the manufacture of plastics; and control how both public and private lands are used. This
summary does not attempt to describe the U.N. influence on world trade, multi-national
corporations, international monetary exchange, education, human rights, or population control.
These are subjects worthy of several more articles.
In every facet of life, the United Nations is actively seeking to impose its vision of how
Americans, and everyone else in the world, should live. A very comprehensive picture of this
vision is available in the U.N. publication, Global Biodiversity Assessment, which endorses a
plan to convert at least half the land area in the United States to wilderness. It is no accident that
Representative Chris Shays (R-CT) has introduced HR488, that specifically calls for the creation
of such wilderness areas, connected by corridors of wilderness, in a massive five-state area in the
west. With 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves already in the United States, and the Clinton-mandated
road closures on nearly 60-million additional acres of the United States, we are seeing the U.N.
agenda implemented.
Its called incrementalism. Little by little, one policy after another, one law built upon another,
the goals of the United Nation are being imposed upon the citizens of the United States.
If the next ten year produce the steady march toward global governance that we have
experienced during the last ten years, what little land is left in private hands in America, will be
of little use without government approval. The freedom to move about the country in the
convenience and privacy of your own automobile will be a memory, except for the super- rich
and the politically well-connected. Gone will be the free flow of information through the
Internet. Many of the most useful, convenience products, made with plastics, will be outlawed.
Any gun that you may own will likely be illegal, unless it is registered, and approved by the
government.
The world is changing quite rapidly. The changes are consistent with Agenda 21, a book full of
policy recommendations adopted in 1992 at the U.N. Conference on Environment and
Development. Next year, in Johannesburg, South Africa, the United Nations will hold another
celebration called Rio+10, or the Johannesburg Summit.
More than 64,000 people are expected to gather there to measure and celebrate the progress
toward global governance. Far too many Americans fail to see any problem with this agenda,
and many are actively promoting it. Others see that national sovereignty cannot exist in a world

68
governed by a central global government. Nations must become administrative units of the
global governance machine.
Even a cursory review of the influence the United Nations has already exerted over domestic
policies in the United States, shows clearly how, through international treaties and agreements,
the United Nations is taking control over our lives. Few people yet recognize that the source of
control comes from the global governance regime. Most people blame Washington, but it is
bigger than Washington. Washington - Congress and the administration - must bear the blame
for yielding to international pressure, but make no mistake about it: the policies that most
constrict and erode our individual freedoms, originate in the international community.




















69
Col20010711
Repeal the ESA

By Henry Lamb
Someone has to say it out loud: the Endangered Species Act is a disaster. In fact, it may be the
stupidest law enacted since Prohibition. Like Prohibition, the ESA reflects the will of a powerful
minority, who prevail for a time, until the rest of the world realizes that the objective is
unrealistic, and that the medicine is more deadly than the disease.
The bottom-feeding sucker fish in Klamath Lake has brought this issue into focus more clearly
than the thousands of less prominent examples in recent years. The ESA declares that the sucker
fish has more right to water than 1,400 farm families who depend upon that water for sustenance.
How stupid is that?
Step back a moment from the sucker fish, the bald eagle, the grizzly bear, and the snail darter
(and from the thousands of species no one has ever heard of) and consider the idea this
powerful minority of environmental extremists has been able to force upon the world with the
ESA: Non-human species must be preserved no matter what the cost to humans.
This idea is even more stupid than the idea that government should prohibit humans from
drinking "intoxicating liquors." The ESA seeks to prohibit nature from ending the existence of
species.
Government could not stop people from drinking "intoxicating liquors"; it has no chance of
preventing species from becoming extinct. Attempts to do so give rise to massive investment in
unnatural processes that are destined to ultimate failure.
Suppose for a moment that the ESA were, or could be, successful. Would a better world result? I
don't think so. To preserve all the species that happen to be on earth at this particular time in
history would require an end to change. Progress would have to come to a screeching halt.
Would the world be a better place today, had the environmental extremists been in power, say
300 years ago, or a thousand years ago?
Suppose for a moment that in order to preserve the non-human species, as the ESA seeks to do,
progress had been halted by global decree in 1001. We would be looking at a life expectancy of,
perhaps, 40 years. If we were very lucky, we might have a horse to transport us to a tavern where
we might drink rot-gut whiskey to relieve the daily misery. Of course, we would still have the
pollution of the transportation system to deal with, as well.
Suppose progress had been stopped before Columbus arrived on this continent, which is the
destination to which modern environmentalists say we should return. We might expect to live 45

70
years. Our food would be a daily struggle, and our transportation system would still be polluting
by the shovel-full. Ah yes, a wonderful life for non-human species, perhaps, but a situation for
humans to which only environmental whackos aspire.
If the ESA could be 100 percent successful today, it would be a tragedy for all who come after
us. If we stop progress today, we condemn the people of future generations to the limits of our
knowledge and we have only begun to understand how wonderful life can be.
Nature intends for life on the planet to change. And it will with or without the ESA. Do you
think the ESA would have prevented extinction of the dinosaurs? Hardly. Change is progress.
Human intervention in that process cannot improve the result it can only slow the process.
The very idea of trying to save species flies in the face of the natural process. Environmental
extremists contend that species loss is "unnatural" as the result of the habitat destruction by
humans. This suggests that habitat modification by humans is not natural. How ridiculous. It is
perfectly natural for humans to modify their habitat in any way their intellect and energy will
allow. Inappropriate modifications bring natural consequences. Both human and non-human
species learn from those consequences. Those species that can adapt through the learning process
survive; those that fail to adapt, don't. Nor should they.
If the condor can no longer live in its environment or find another suitable environment so be
it. Such a thought sends shivers down the spine of PETA people, and others who hold non-
human life to be of greater value than human life. They would contend that the "web of life"
depends upon all species, and the loss of any species weakens the web that supports human life.
This argument has emotional sway, but fails the test of historic reality. This argument means that
our life today would be better if dinosaurs still roamed the earth. How silly. The "web of life"
lost a major chunk of its being when the dinosaurs departed the planet. I say good riddance; I'd
hate to have to compete with those guys for food and shelter.
The planet will survive if the condor doesn't. The planet may no longer need whales, grizzly
bears, or red-legged frogs. Believe it or not, the planet would survive even if the Klamath Lake
sucker fish bit the dust. But the farmers, whose lives depend upon the water that accumulates in
Klamath Lake, may not survive, if government continues its foolish effort to stop progress and
preserve every species that some environmental extremist says is endangered.
Philosophically, the ESA is a flop. But the ESA is not really about saving species, this is only the
sales pitch used to stir the emotions of humans who are suckers for a cuddly puppy dog, a kitty
cat, a panda bear, or an injured anything. Environmental extremists have exploited the natural
human compassion for animals, in order to use the law to torture humans whose behavior or
lifestyle is different from what the environmentalists think it should be.
Similar to the teetotalers who used the law to torture humans whose behavior included taking a
drink back in the roaring '20s, environmental extremists use the law to force other humans to
behave as the environmentalists think they should.

71
Logging is a sin to environmental extremists; use the ESA to end logging. Mining is a sin to
environmental extremists; use the ESA to end mining. Farming in the Klamath Basin is a sin to
environmental extremists; use the ESA to end the farming. An ESA industry has arisen, which
specializes in twisting the law to impose behavior modification on people who hold a different
view.
It is time to send the ESA, and the industry it has spawned, into extinction.
It took 13 years to repeal the 18th Amendment (Prohibition). We have suffered under the ESA
for nearly 30 years, but only in the last decade has it become the weapon of choice for
environmental extremists. If the American people, in their collective wisdom, can overturn the
extreme values of a powerful minority of teetotalers, the American people can overturn the
values of a powerful minority of environmental extremists.
Our children and grandchildren will applaud us if we do, and curse us if we do not. The world
will be a better place when we stop letting the extremists impose their views on the rest of us. It's
time to tell your elected representatives to repeal the ESA, the modern prohibition to progress.

















72
Col20010721
Klamath Falls invisible foe

By Henry Lamb
Is there any connection between Klamath Falls, Oregon and the town of LaVerkin, Utah? Very
definitely - but few people realize it.
The LaVerkin City Council adopted a U.N.-Free Zone on July 4
th
. The media and other
vociferous liberals have had a field day ridiculing the town officials for their black-helicopter
paranoia. But had Klamath Falls adopted such an ordinance some years ago, the farmers in the
Klamath basin might not be battling for their very existence today.
Yes, there is a connection between the two towns, and other towns and cities across the country.
That connection also includes Vancouver, BC, Rio de Janeiro, and other cities around the world.
The connection is the public policy which now places a higher value on a sucker fish than on
human beings. LaVerkin, Utah has good reason to try to protect its citizens from the intrusion of
similar policies that can disrupt and destroy their way of life.
Lets back up a moment. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is the legal authority by which
the federal government must withhold water from the farmers - to protect the bottom-feeding
sucker fish, which is said to be endangered or threatened.
There is a vigorous debate about the validity of the listing, since the listing came as an
emergency, which avoided any scientific review of the evidence, or any deliberate input from
those who are directly affected. But thats another battle.
The fish are listed. The farmers are denied water. And their land and their livelihoods are
literally twisting in the wind.
Why?
Section 2, paragraph (4) of the Endangered Species Act provides the answer. It says the law is
enacted pursuant to: the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora, and five other international treaties.
Most of the treaties were actually drafted by the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature (IUCN), in Gland, Switzerland. This IUCNs membership consists mostly of
environmental organizations, and government agencies. Six U.S. federal Departments maintain
independent membership in the IUCN, at an annual membership fee in excess of $50,000 each.
The same NGOs (non-government organizations) which, as members of the IUCN, helped draft
the international treaties, are on the ground in the United States, lobbying Congress to ratify the
treaties and enact laws such as the Endangered Species Act, to implement the treaties.
Klamath farmers are victims of public policy that originated in the international community.

73
Citizens of LaVerkin, Utah are directly in the path of public policy which threatens their land
and livelihoods. These policies, too, originated in the international community.
LaVerkin is in Washington County, Utah. So is Zion National Park, less than 10 miles from the
small town. LaVerkin is within 100 miles of four other properties inventoried for future
nomination as U.N. World Heritage Sites, according to a Federal Register notice of January 8,
1982 (Vol. 47, No. 5).
What does this have to do with anything? Ask the people who live within 100 miles of
Yellowstone National Park - a World Heritage Site. Throughout the early 1990s, a gold mine
near the park spent more than $30 million trying to satisfy federal permit requirements. Months
before the process would have been completed, environmental organizations, many of which are
members of the IUCN, petitioned the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which is also a member of
the IUCN, to declare Yellowstone to be a World Heritage Site in danger.
The World Heritage Committee, at the request of the Fish & Wildlife Service, sent a team of
international experts, one of which represented the IUCN, which has a consultative advisory
contract with UNESCO, to evaluate the park.
Surprise, surprise! When the team reported to UNESCO, the park was declared to be in
danger. The treaty, which the U.S. has ratified, requires that when a site is declared to be in
danger, the host nation must take protective measures, even beyond the boundary of the site.
One proposal advanced by the environmental organizations called for protecting 18-million acres
around the 2.9-million acre park, much of which was private property. The gold mine was not
allowed to mine the gold.
It is more than a coincidence that many of the environmental organizations which signed the
letter urging UNESCO intervention in Yellowstone also signed a similar letter to U.S. and
Mexican government agencies, urging that international standards be established to govern
water rights in the Colorado River. The Sierra Club and the National Audubon Society are
among the several organizations which signed the Colorado River letter and the Yellowstone
letter. Two Audubon Society affiliates, along with the Glen Canyon Institute, are headquartered
in Utah, and have an interest in the five sites near LaVerkin, as well as the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument, all of which are subject to land management policies that
originate in the international community.
The letter calling for international standards to govern water rights on the Colorado River, cites
as authority: the RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands; Agenda 21; the Convention on Biological
Diversity, and the Rio Declaration - all products of the United Nations.
It is especially significant that the Audubon Society is among the NGOs clamoring for more
international control. The Audubon Society, along with The Nature Conservancy, funded the
work of Dr. Reed Noss, known as The Wildlands Project.
This is the land management scheme that starts with core wilderness areas - off limits to humans
- connected by corridors of wilderness, surrounded by government-managed buffer zones,
which are surrounded by zones of cooperation. Each of these zones is designed to continually
expand as the result of restoration and rehabilitation, projects. Restoration means returning the

74
land to the same condition as it was before Columbus arrived. There are 47 such U.N. Biosphere
Reserves in the United States, and more than 380 around the world.
The Wildlands Project is described as central to the effective implementation of the
Convention on Biological Diversity, according to the U.N.s Global Biodiversity Assessment
(page 993).
The LaVerkin City Council is not afraid of black helicopters, or blue-helmets, or white tanks - as
shallow-minded media masters would like people to believe. LaVerkin officials have a genuine
concern about the silent, sinister expansion of U.N. influence over domestic land use policies,
especially as they relate to land in Washington County Utah.
The farmers in the Klamath basin do not know that the U.N.s policy on land, adopted in 1976 in
Vancouver, BC. says explicitly that:
"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the
pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal
instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to
social injustice; Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...."
The Klamath basin is an area that environmental elitists want to restore to its pre-Columbian
condition. The sucker fish, like the spotted owl, and the red-legged frog, is simply a surrogate,
an excuse to invoke the Endangered Species Act, to force people off the land.
Virtually every area of the United States is under siege, from policies that originate in the
international community, which are incorporated into law or rule, and imposed upon
unsuspecting citizens.
Hold your heads high, LaVerkin, you may prove to be among the wisest.
Hold on as long as you can, Klamath farmers, your courage is helping to reveal the sinister,
ulterior motives of the environmental extremists who think they know best how everyone else
should live.










75
Col20010722-cara
Congress at its worst

By Henry Lamb
CARA, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, also known as the Condemnation and
Relocation Act, may be the worst piece of legislation to come out of Washington in a
generation - or more.
The bill will create a $3-billion annual slushfund - for 15 years, primarily to buy up private
property.
Oh, there are a few other uses for the money, to maintain parks and the like, but make no mistake
about it, the primary purpose for the Act is to get more and more private property under
government control.
The spin doctors have done a magnificent job of convincing the public that the bill will
preserve open space, and protect the last great places. These are goals that everyone can
support.
The negatives dont make it into the press.
In the first instance, nowhere in the enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the
U.S. Constitution, can I find authority for the federal government to own one-third of all the land
area in the nation. Combined with state and local government land holdings, governments now
own more than 40% of all the land. My Constitution authorizes the feds to own and govern the
District of Columbia (ten square miles), and other land purchased from the states - with the
permission of the State Legislatures - now get this, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals,
dock-yards and other needful buildings (Article I, Section 8).
Congress and the courts have managed to turn a blind eye to this limitation of power, and are
refusing to even discuss Constitutional authority as it relates to CARA. Instead, they are
spreading the loot around to the states, and to powerful environmental organizations, so they too,
can share in your wealth.
Congress has overwhelmingly supported the bill because nearly every Congressional District and
State will share the bounty by taking money from the taxpayers and redistributing it to the states
that provide the greatest support. Alaska and Louisiana, for example, home states of the primary
sponsors get the lions share. But nearly everyone gets a piece of the action.
If this were not enough reason to reject the bill, consider the fact that every time private property
is sold to the government - or to a so-called conservancy group, the property taxes must
increase for the remaining property owners.
A decade ago, the Patagonia catalog printed a center-spread promoting the Wildlands Project.
It showed three maps of the state of Florida. At the time, about 10-percent of the state was

76
publicly owned and 90-percent was privately owned. The article boasted that in 10 years, nearly
half of Florida would be publicly owned, and that when the Wildlands Project was fully
implemented, a full 90-percent would be publicly owned. Thanks to your tax dollars, funneled
through the federal government to state agencies and to favored environmental organizations, the
State of Florida is well on its way towards public ownership. How will the owners of the
remaining 10-percent of the land support the budgets traditionally funded by property taxes?
If neither of these reasons has persuaded you to oppose CARA, think about your children and
your grandchildren.
Every time private property is sold to the government or to a conservancy organization - or when
the development rights are sold, or the land is placed in a perpetual conservation easement, The
heirs of the seller are denied their birthright - the privilege of using the resource to provide for
their families, and further their pursuit of happiness.
The government - and its surrogate environmental organizations - is buying up the best land,
around urban centers, along streams and highways. The government is buying up the land near
parks - the most valuable land, and the most desirable land.
If this land is ever used for productive purposes - and it will be eventually - who will benefit?
Not the heirs of the sellers, but the favored environmental organizations that are now using your
tax money to buy the land, and the government.
The government has no business being in the real estate business. Realtors and home builders
and contractors associations should be up in arms about the government moving in on their free
market place. The Farm Bureau and the Grange, and other agricultural organizations should be
storming Washington to protest CARA - the bill designed to fund the rural cleansing efforts now
underway at Klamath Falls, Oregon, and across the West.
The Oregon Natural Resources Council - one of the favored environmental groups - has already
proposed a buy-out of the 1400 farm families devastated by the government decision to withhold
the farmers water. This is precisely the kind of rural cleansing that CARA is designed to fund.
Every time the government steps in to solve what some pressure group perceives to be a
problem, the government just makes a bigger problem of it. While an open and free market
place may not be fair, or predictable, it is efficient and it is effective.
CARA is sold to the public as a means to save open space. There is no shortage of open space.
All development exists on less than five-percent of the land area. Were not going to run out of
open space. Let the cities grow - wherever the free market dictates. Let the farmers farm and the
ranchers ranch - wherever the free market dictates. The free market will limit growth.
Americans do not need the government - or environmental extremists - telling them where they
may or may not live.
Let the government be about the business of cleaning up its own house - figuring out how we are
going to meet the energy requirements of the next generation; finding the hundreds of millions of
dollars unaccounted for in the various federal agencies; and providing some leadership in the

77
international community which demonstrates faith in the free market system that made America
great.
CARA is nothing less than the nationalization of private property in America. Hitler, Stalin, and
Castro did it with brute force; Congressman Don Young, and his co-sponsors of CARA, are
more generous - they are allowing you to pay for the nationalization of America with your tax
dollars.
CARA is scheduled for a vote in the House Resources Committee Wednesday (July 25, 2001).
Those who vote to enact this horrible legislation should be required to cite the Constitutional
authority for their vote, they should be required to identify a source to replace lost property tax
revenue to local governments, and they should provide a written explanation that can convince
future generations that they didnt need private property anyway.




















78
Col20010728
Kyoto: Revival of the Undead

By Henry Lamb
The recent negotiations in Bonn, Germany, have breathed a semblance of life into the
monstrosity still-born in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997. Fortunately, President Bush understands the
dangers inherent in the monster and has chosen to keep the United States out of its grasp for
now.
You can be sure that had the election gone the other way last November, the U.S. would be
caught in the clutches of this maniacal global monster.
The 15-page agreement, which supposedly clears the way for ratification by the other 37 nations
affected by the treaty, is an excellent example of U.N. gobbledygook. Each of these declarations,
or agreements, produced at the end of each of these negotiating sessions gets increasingly
complex and incomprehensible.
The question of sinks (Kyoto Lands)
One of the major disagreements that caused the negotiations to collapse in The Hague last
November concerned the use of carbon sinks. Carbon sinks are nothing more than areas of
forests, rangelands, or other vegetated areas, that absorb carbon dioxide.
The U.S. wanted to count the carbon absorbed from the atmosphere by America's millions of
acres of forests and range land, toward its emissions reductions targets. After all, the United
States reasoned, if we have trees that absorb the carbon we produce, the result is the same as if
that carbon dioxide had not been produced in the first place.
Not so, says the European Union. If you get credit for sink sequestration, you won't have to
reduce your energy consumption nearly as much as the rest of us. The U.S. offered to count only
one-fourth of the carbon actually sequestered by sinks; the EU said OK, but Germany and France
said no. The negotiations collapsed.
The agreement reached in Bonn includes the use of carbon sinks sort of. The agreement creates
a new "Executive Board" with one member from each of the five U.N. Global Regions, two
members from developed countries, two members from developing countries, and one member
from small island states. This Executive Board will rule on LULUCEF (Land Use and Land Use
Change and Forestry) projects (gobbledygook) that may be considered in implementation of
"Clean Development Mechanisms." Article VII of the agreement says that LULUCEF will not
change the targets, and provides a chart assigning the maximum number of metric tons of carbon
each nation may claim as credits from sequestration.

79
Confused? Read the agreement and get more confused.
Use of carbon sinks as a part of the treaty could significantly ease the energy restrictions in the
United States. On the other hand, identification of forests and rangeland whether privately or
publicly owned as a factor in another international agreement, could give the government more
justification for restricting land use, and changes in land use. The inclusion of carbon sinks
applies only to the first commitment period. The next targets and commitment period will not
include sinks, according to the current agreement.
The language in this agreement is important, even though President Bush has said the United
States will not participate. Several Democratic Congressmen have said they are ready to ratify
Kyoto. Should the Democrats take the White House in 2004, you can expect the U.S. to jump at
the chance to surrender more sovereignty to the U.N.
The question of sovereignty
The new politically-correct attitude holds that national sovereignty must give way to
international authority. The Bonn agreement on Kyoto establishes three new international
authorities: The ten-member Executive Board discussed above, who will decide on what is, and
is not, an acceptable project considered in implementing the Protocol; a new 20-member "Expert
Group," which includes only seven members from developed countries, while the majority
including three representatives from "relevant international organizations" will dictate which
technology may be transferred from developed to developing countries; and a new nine-member
"Compliance Committee," consisting of only two members from developed countries.
Think about it. These three groups of un-elected, self-appointed bureaucrats will have the power
to approve or disapprove various transactions between the U.S., or industries in the U.S., and
other countries, should the U.S. ever ratify the Protocol.
Compliance, and penalties for non-compliance, was another disagreement that contributed to the
collapse of the November negotiations. The current agreement simply identifies the Compliance
Committee as a new entity it does not address the penalties for non-compliance. The agreement
agrees to consider the matter further in yet another gathering of the negotiators in Morocco later
this year.
The United States should never agree to acquiesce to a "Committee" of the United Nations, or
any of its various agencies. The U.S. has already made this mistake when it approved the World
Trade Organization. The United States has actually agreed to conform its laws to comply with
the dictates of an appointed committee of the World Trade Organization. Industries in the United
States have already felt the adverse impact of the WTO decisions. We should get out of this
arrangement and never again agree to submit to the authority of any U.N. agency.
While the rest of the world cheers the Kyoto agreement, and ridicules President Bush, they
lament the fact that the watered-down agreement will have little impact on the environment, but
eagerly await the new funds that the agreement promises.

80
Congressman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., announced in a press conference in Buenos Aires in
1998 that the Kyoto Protocol was not an environmental treaty. "This is an economic treaty," he
proclaimed.
The first four pages of the Bonn agreement deal extensively with "new and additional" funding
that is to be supplied by developed nations for distribution through the United Nations to the
developing nations. Four pages! New trust funds here, additional money to existing trust funds
there and, on top of the money, more technology all funneled through, and controlled by
various United Nations organizations and agencies.
He who hands out the money has the power. Remember the structure of the new boards and
committees discussed above: All are dominated by developing nations. These developing nations
are the recipients of the funds required by the agreement. How often will these developing
nations disagree with the agency that is providing all this new money?
It is a ridiculous arrangement from the American point of view. We are financing the loss of
our sovereignty. It is a perfect arrangement from the U.N. point of view. We empower the U.N.
to provide the incentive to the majority of nations to support whatever policies the U.N. wants to
include in its international treaties.
President Bush's refusal to be ridiculed into submission deserves great respect and much
appreciation. We need to realize that the Bush position only provides a window of opportunity to
educate the Congress, and those who will vote for the next Congress, that the Kyoto Protocol is
an inescapable trap once snared, escape will be nearly impossible.
The next few months will be critical. The president should rescind the United States' signature to
the Kyoto Protocol, and withdraw all funding to every U.N. agency that is involved with
advancing the Protocol: the United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change, the
Global Environment Facility; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and several other
agencies and organizations.
This would suck the life-blood out of the Kyoto monster and, perhaps, return it to the realm of
the really dead.







81
Col20010803-vd
Vertical Disintegration

By Henry Lamb
Vertical integration may be a wonderful strategy for business, where a central corporate
headquarters controls every facet of the stream of activity that produces revenue: from
acquisition of the natural resource; the processing; manufacturing; sales, and distribution. The
strategy seeks to squeeze out extra profits that might have been earned by other businesses that
supplied these services to the corporation.
Then why dont we run the government like a business?
Increasingly, we are. But we should not be. The object of government is not to maximize profit;
it is to protect our freedoms (or should be).
Since the New Deal of the 1930s, government has grown increasingly proficient at squeezing -
not extra profits - but individual freedoms from the very people they are empowered to protect.
By first taking our money in the form of taxes, the government then offers to return some of it,
but only if it is used for the purposes dictated by the government.
This is accomplished quite effectively by every department of government. More than half the
budget of the Environmental Protection Agency is spent in grants to schools, cities,
environmental organizations, and individuals - all with strings attached - which force the
recipients to do the bidding of the government.
Case in point: The EPA and other federal agencies want to expand the Southern Appalachian
Biosphere that already stretches from Birmingham, Alabama to Roanoke, Virginia.
Expansion, in this case, is not necessarily the addition of more geography, but the
transformation of the geography within the area to higher and higher levels of protection.
The EPA announced to the appropriate department within the Tennessee State government, that
it would like to see the purity standards elevated in a particular stream within the Biosphere
Reserve. Since the EPA provides a significant amount of money to this department, state
officials set out to raise the purity standards.
The new proposed standards would prohibit certain activities near the stream, activities such as
logging that might disturb the landscape. Many area residents rely on the logging industry for
their livelihood. Should their sources of income be prohibited, the folks would have to move off
the land, and into communities such as Chattanooga, which are being transformed into
sustainable communities, also at the behest of federal agencies using federal dollars.
Add to this vertically-integrated chain of command the fact that the Biosphere Reserve was
established to comply with a request from UNESCOs Man and the Biosphere Program, and we
see clearly that public policies that directly affect the lives of American citizens are made at the

82
International level, implemented through agencies of the federal government, down to the state
government, and all too often, on to county and city agencies.
What is not unique in this example is the fact that no elected official voted on this policy at any
level of government. The Man and the Biosphere Program was cooked up in the international
community. The United States got involved through a Memorandum of Agreement between the
U.S. State Department and UNESCO. The EPA (where no one is elected) initiated the request
for an elevated standard on its on. The state agency simply wanted to comply with the request of
the agency that provides much of its funding. Elected officials were completely unaware of the
initiative until local landowners appealed to their elected officials for help.
Vertical integration of government is not a chance happening. It is the result of strategic planning
and careful implementation from the international level, with cooperation from our federal
agencies which have the power (with their budgets) to coerce state and local governments into
submission.
Administrative agencies of government are staffed with professionals, who are supposed to know
how to do what they are hired to do. What they often forget, is that their job is not to make
policy; their job is to implement policies that are made by elected officials.
You dont have to talk very long to a professional urban planner, or any other professional
bureaucrat for that matter, to realize that they think their view of how things ought to be done is
far more valid than the view of any elected official, especially at the county and state levels.
Because elected officials have the authority to veto ideas, plans, and policy proposals of the
professionals, the professionals have devised a strategy to bypass the possible veto. Its called
stakeholders councils.
Stakeholder councils entered the world through Agenda 21, and matured under the guidance of
Bill Clintons Presidents Council on Sustainable Development. Participants in these councils
are carefully selected, not only for their expertise in a particular area, but for their political and
financial clout as well.
These councils are used to generate support for a particular policy proposal, which, when
approved by the council, intimidates elected officials into acquiescence. Woe be unto the lone
county commissioner who says no to a proposal that is supported by the bank president, Pastor
so-and-so, chairman of the board of the countys largest employer, and other big guns in the
community.
The big guns are added to the council of professionals for just this reason. Often they are too
busy to study the proposals; they accept a position on the council to add their prestige, or in
hopes that their prestige may be enhanced by association. The policies they eventually advocate
were developed long ago by professionals, way up the vertically-integrated food chain.

83
Incidentally, a stakeholder, according to Webster, is someone who holds the stakes when a
wager is made, and pays it to the winner. In a very real sense, private property rights are the
stakes at risk in the battle over who controls the land. Stakeholder councils are often selected to
assure that the stakes are turned over to the right party - the government.
Public policy must be made only by elected officials. Otherwise, the idea that government is
empowered by the consent of the governed, has no meaning at all. We consent to public policy
through the officials we elect. When policy is made by appointed bureaucrats, and imposed
through the political intimidation of stakeholder councils, the governed have no recourse;
appointed bureaucrats cannot be turned out at the next election.
Were swimming against the tide here. Almost every community, every watershed, every
bioregion already has stakeholder councils in place. They are becoming entrenched into the
system. Some elected officials see them as a way of diverting political heat, and welcome their
involvement. County plans and state Smart Growth legislation are writing into law, some form
of appointed council or commission to oversee the development and implementation of public
policy.
This is a dangerous detour from the destination envisioned by our nations founders. The
function of county and state government is not to become subsidiary administrative units for the
federal government. And the agencies of federal government are certainly not meant to be
administrative units for UNESCO, or any other international body.
But the strategic plan set forth in Agenda 21, and so skillfully implemented by its proponents is,
nevertheless, vertically integrating our governments.
There are no additional profits, nor even greater efficiencies, to be squeezed. In fact, more
bureaucracy costs more money and always results in a reduction in efficiency. What is to be
gained is tighter control at the top, and less freedom at the bottom.
We need a strategy to vertically disintegrate our government, and realize once again the
inefficiency of debate and disagreement between the various levels of government - once known
as checks and balances.










84


Col20010804
Fatally Flawed

By Henry Lamb
The concept of sustainable development entered the world, officially, through the 1987 U.N.
Commission on Environment and Development. The event was chaired by Gro Harlem
Brundtland, who once was vice-chair of the International Socialist Party, and who was appointed
head of the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1998.
The Commission's report said simply, that sustainable development is " to meet the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
The concept was given meaning in 1992 at another U.N. Conference on Environment and
Development in Rio de Janeiro. This conference produced Agenda 21, the instruction book for
implementing sustainable development.
Among the recommendations included in Agenda 21, was the call for each nation to create a
national council on sustainable development, which Bill Clinton did by executive order in 1993.
This President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) worked diligently to transform the
federal government to comply with the recommendations contained in Agenda 21.
Although the PSCD ceased operations in 1999, their work is continuing in almost every city and
every community through "Smart Growth" initiatives that flaunt names such as NH2020 in
Nevada County, California, or Region 2020 in Birmingham, Alabama, or St. Louis 2004.
Chances are extremely good that a similar initiative is underway in your community right now.
These efforts to create "sustainable communities" are destined to dismal failure because the
concept is flawed. The concept of sustainable development is constructed on the foundational
belief that government must manage the affairs of its citizens in order to balance the three-legged
stool of sustainable development: (1) environmental protection, (2) economic development, and
(3) social equity.
This is not a new concept it simply has a new name. The concept gained great popularity in the
first part of the 20th century; the last part of the 20th century witnessed the catastrophic collapse
of this concept when the Berlin Wall gave way to the quest for freedom.
The fatal flaw in the concept of sustainable development is the absence of the principles of
freedom.

85
Throughout the literature of sustainable development, words describe expanded freedom through
transparent democratic procedures. Proponents of sustainable development, however, consider
expanded freedom to be a more liberal government policy on what individuals may do.
This view contrasts sharply with the notion that individuals are inherently free, limited only by
government restrictions to which they consent through their elected officials.
The former view individual freedom dispensed by government has produced the former
Soviet Union in all its glory.
The latter view inherent freedom limited only by consent has produced the greatest society,
the most robust economy, the most envied nation in the history of the world.
Putting a new name on an old concept is like putting a coat of paint on the outhouse it may
look better, but the smell is the same.
Most, but not all, of the elected officials who yield to the sweet-sounding language of "Smart
Growth" proposals do not want to transform America into a collectivist state. They simply want
to protect the environment, or stimulate economic development or achieve social equity.
Nevertheless, the result is a quiet revolution that is, indeed, transforming America into a
collectivist state.
The result of Endangered Species protection is resulting in "rural cleansing" that is as effective as
the "ethnic cleansing" that took place in the Balkans. Growth boundaries imposed upon cities
result in government denial of a basic human right to live where one chooses to live.
Superstructures of regional commissions and stakeholder councils deny the fundamental
Constitutional right of every American to consent to the laws by which he is bound through his
elected officials. Policies and rules adopted by professional planners and appointed bureaucrats
leave individuals without recourse and no one to hold accountable.
Government ownership of land and its resources is a direct denial of opportunities for future
generations to have the "ability to meet their own needs." CARA, the so-called Conservation and
Reinvestment Act, is one of those sound-good polices that results in rural cleansing and the
confiscation of resources that will doom future generations.
This silent transformation must stop.
The only way that future generations will be able "to meet their own needs," is to have the
freedom and the resources to create whatever solutions may be required. Suppose for one
moment, that a hundred years ago, our forefathers had decided to let government decide where
people could live, what land could be utilized and which resources could be used. America
would have already collapsed even before the Soviet Union.
Freedom is the essential ingredient in any formula for successful future generations. And
freedom is what is being sacrificed in order to implement sustainable development.

86
Help may be on the way.
Two years ago, several organizations conceived the idea of a "Freedom 21 Campaign" to
"Advance the principles of freedom in the 21st century." At its recent Freedom 21 Conference in
St. Louis, the group issued a letter to the president, calling for the creation of a President's
Council on Sustainable Freedom (PCSF).
Just as Bill Clinton's PCSD conformed policy to the requirements of Agenda 21, the group is
asking President Bush to create a council that will conform policy to the principles of freedom,
as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.
Grassroots organizations from across the country are rallying around the idea of a positive
response to the negative impacts of "Smart Growth" and sustainable development policies as
they are implemented in local communities. No longer is it enough to simply identify the
problems, it is now time to take the offensive, and insist that the principles of freedom underlie
every policy adopted at every level of government!
It's really quite simple: America's greatness is the result of the freedom Americans have enjoyed.
If America is to continue its greatness, it is our freedom that must be sustained not the
centralized bureaucracies that exist to sustain development.
















87
Col20010810
The color of science

By Henry Lamb
Adolf Hitler believed that the Jews were inferior to Aryans, and felt perfectly justified to use the
power of his government to confiscate the property of the Jews for himself, his cronies, and for
his government. Hitler did not snatch his belief out of the air; it was a philosophy carefully
constructed by the European Eugenics Society throughout the first half of the 20
th
century.
Since hindsight is 20/20, today, few will deny that the so-called philosophy of the Eugenics
Society was little more than an effort by a few academics and scientists to provide an excuse for
the elite to control that segment of society they believed to be of less value than themselves -
using the color of science for justification.
The leader of the Eugenics Society was one Julian Huxley: the same Julian Huxley who
organized UNESCO in 1946, and became its first director; the same Julian Huxley who
organized the International Union for the Conservation of Nature in 1948.
These same two organizations gave rise to the notion that all species are of equal intrinsic
value, a so-called philosophy on which several international treaties are founded, particularly
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, and the Convention on Biological
Diversity.
In pursuit of these two treaties, not just the Jews, but all humanity has been designated of less
value than certain species of bugs and beetles. The now-famous Klamath Lake suckerfish has
been declared to be more valuable than the property of 1400 farm families, whose property in
their land and crops has been effectively confiscated, through the power of government, to
satisfy the whims of government policy based on the color of science.
At its core, is this policy different from Hitlers?
Have not a few academics and scientists constructed a belief system to lend the color of science
to policies that justify the confiscation of property to be held, or controlled by themselves, their
cronies, and the government?
The so-called science which underlies the Endangered Species Act, and the U.N. treaties which
spawned it, is at best, a stretch. No one can prove (or disprove) that human activity has, or will
cause biological degradation to the extent that human life will be jeopardized. It is an easy
stretch, especially when the precautionary principle is invoked, and when a lazy media would
rather regurgitate press releases from prominent environmental organization, than do the research
required to fairly present the actual scientific evidence.
The precautionary principle, adopted at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development
in 1992, by 179 nations, including the United States, says that where there is a threat of serious
or irreversible damage, policy action should not wait for scientific evidence. Who determines

88
when a perceived threat is serious or poses irreversible damage? The U.N. of course, often
upon the advice of its special consultant, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
So entrenched is this policy of government confiscation based on the color of science, that we
accept the sacrifice of the Klamath farmers. We say ho-hum, when the Bureau of Land
Management confiscates cattle from Nevada ranchers, Ben Colvin and Jack Vogt, the most
recent victims of property confiscation by the government. We pay little attention to the awful
practice publicized in the Federal Register, called mitigation, which requires Leslie Adams, a
resident of Bastrop, County, Texas, to pay $2000 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
expressly for the purpose of buying land for the Houston toad. This fee is required by the
government before Leslie is allowed to build a home on his own private property.
It may be called mitigation, but it is, in fact, extortion, theft, confiscation - call it what you will
- and it is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Some people will be offended by this comparison of Hitlers philosophy to the philosophy which
guides the U.S. governments environmental policy. There are, however, undeniable similarities.
The European Eugenics Society consisted of the most prominent scholars and scientists of the
day. They shaped their philosophy outside of government, but used government to legitimize the
philosophy through public policy. An elite few used the power of government to force people to
live (or die) to satisfy their view of how people ought to live.
U.S. environmental policy is shaped by, ironically, the grandchild of the same organization that
shaped Hitlers policies. Using the same techniques, this International Union for the
Conservation (read: confiscation) of Nature, lets the United Nations legitimize its philosophy
through international treaties, which the United States has been only too willing to implement.
What we have here, exactly as it was in Hitlers day, is an elite few, using the power of
government to force people to live (or perhaps, to die) in order to satisfy their own view of how
people ought to live.
Shame on us for allowing such a situation to exist!
Americans paid little attention when Hitler first began confiscating property of the Jews. We
chose to disbelieve the reports, as exaggerations of the ultra right-wing. It took years for
Americans to get convinced that Hitler was not only taking property, but the lives of human
beings - by the millions. But eventually, America did awaken - and woe be unto the culprit who
arouses the wrath of the American people. Hitler is history!
Woe be unto the culprit(s) who arouse the wrath of the American voters. Americans have been
slow to realize that their government has relegated them to a position just below the suckerfish
and the Houston toad on its value scale. They are awakening, however.
Its not just the Klamath farmers who are taking a stand on the Oregon-California border. Real
Americans are pouring into the area from all over the country taking turns hauling buckets and
constructing pipelines, and waving banners and signs. Dollars are arriving daily to help keep the
farmers alive so they dont have to sell their land at fire-sale prices. Even the main-stream media
can no longer ignore the injustice being imposed by government upon human beings, for the
benefit of non-human species.

89
When Senator Fitzgerald (R-IL) joined Senators Chaffee (R-RI) and Jeffords (I-VT) to defeat an
amendment which would have exempted the Klamath farmers from the Endangered Species Act,
he became an endangered political species; at least in the voting districts outside of Chicago.
Chaffee and Jeffords are not yet endangered, they are simply on the list of threatened political
species; their eastern constituencies are not yet awake enough to realize that if the government
can take land in Oregon, and cattle in Nevada, and dollars from a Texas homeowner - the
government can also take whatever it wishes from the people of Rhode Island or Vermont.
The whole idea that an elite few should decide how everyone else should live was rejected
soundly by another generation of Americans whose wrath was aroused. Now, like a
thermometer yielding to the inevitable summer, there is evidence that the heat is rising across
America, caused by the friction of excessive government restrictions. It may not be this year.
But as surely as fall follows summer, the time will come when once again the wrath of the
American people will make them see red - as red as the color of the science that underlies the
restrictive, collectivists policies promulgated by the elite few.
Americans are historically slow to anger, as, indeed, we should be. But when the injustice is
clear, and the cause is certain - woe be unto all who paint public policy the color of science.
















90
Col20010820
Do you have xenophobia?

By Henry Lamb
If you have xenophobia, you are the target of yet another World Conference organized by the
United Nations. This one gets underway next weekend (August 31, 2001), in Durban, South
Africa. What is xenophobia, you might ask? It is fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners,
according to Webster.
Not I, you say, but you dont count; it is the United Nations High Commissioner on Human
Rights that determines who is xenophobic. Entire nations are xenophobic, according to the
Commissioners preparatory committees who have been preparing the documents that will be
pawed over and jawed about next week in South Africa.
The draft document says that ...xenophobia, in its different manifestations, is one of the main
contemporary sources and forms of discrimination and conflict...
Oh, I see, you say, This has something to do with discrimination and racism.
Right. And much, much more. Consider just a little more of the draft document the attendees
are expected to adopt:
the continued and violent occurrence of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and
related intolerance, and the theories of superiority of certain races and cultures over
others, promoted and practiced during the colonial era, continue to be propounded in one
form or another even today; any doctrine of racial superiority is scientifically false,
morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous and must be rejected along with
theories which attempt to determine the existence of separate human races.
This should be enough to get the flavor of the stew being brewed in Durban. You may read the
entire draft document here.
This world conference has been planned for several years, and has be the subject of three
meetings of special Preparatory Committees charged with the responsibility of organizing the
conference, and drafting the documents the delegates are expected to sign. At this conference,
the Document will be a Declaration and Plan of Action, which is a non-binding policy
statement that expresses the policies which the U.N. expects each nation to implement.
These non-binding policy documents are most often followed by a legally-binding treaty. In
fact, another group of globalists are working on a treaty, the International Convention on
Cyber-crime , to authorize U.N. officials to prosecute people who use the Internet for a variety
of crimes. This group has already announced that it intends to add a protocol to the treaty which
would authorize the U.N. to go after people who use the Internet to promote xenophobia,
racism, and intolerance.

91
This new Durban document seeks to achieve two objectives: (1) advance the notion that all
people are one human family (thereby eliminating the need for national boundaries - and
national governments); and (2) establishing the foundation for economic restitution for those
peoples who have been victimized by xenophobia, racism, and discrimination.
The draft document is replete with calls for developed nations to compensate Africans, Asians,
and others, including descendants of these groups, for the racism and discrimination they have
been forced to bear in the past. What we have here is the formulation of a global affirmative
action program, operated under the auspices of the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights,
with its program enforceable as international law.
The International Criminal Court requires only about 20 more nations ratification (from the 129
that signed the treaty), to enter into force. This treaty is the first to claim jurisdiction over all
nations, whether or not the nation has ratified the treaty. In other words, the language of the
treaty authorizes the United Nations to prosecute Americans, within the borders of the United
States, for international crimes defined by the treaty. It is a very simple matter for the United
Nations to amend the treaty to include xenophobia, racism, and discrimination as an
international crime.
This observation will be pooh-poohed by the proponents of global governance. The International
Criminal Court is said to exist only to prosecute war criminals and international terrorists. There
is nothing, however, to prevent the Court from adding hate crimes, or environmental crimes,
anytime it wishes. And it will.
This is how the U.N. operates. First, it develops and adopts a non-binding policy document.
Then it gets an unobtrusive treaty adopted. Then it amends the treaty to include very obtrusive,
legally-binding protocol. Such is the case with the Declaration on Human Rights, followed by
the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the voluntary Vienna Convention on Ozone
Depleting Substances, followed by the legally-binding Montreal Protocol; the voluntary
Framework Convention on Climate Change, followed by the legally-binding Kyoto Protocol.
The process is clear; the result, inevitable.
This World Conference in Durban next week has escaped media attention. It will come and go
without a ripple in the awareness of most Americans. With it, however, the world will move one
more step toward the global governance so desired by the international community.
Progress toward this abhorrent goal of global governance has been made possible only by the
billions of dollars the United States continues to pour into the U.N. system. There is still time to
reverse this rush to global socialism: by simply stopping the flow of funds to the U.N. When the
United Nations acquires independent funding, as will be provided by implementation of the
Tobin Tax, it will be too late. There will be no way to stop the global governance juggernaut.




92
Col20010821
Hogwash and horsespit!

By Henry Lamb
Several of the more liberal media types have been having a blast reporting the latest polls for
Europe which show that George W. isnt very popular over there. No doubt, the Democrats will
take pleasure in repeating these poll results at every opportunity.
We should be proud that he is not high in the European polls at the moment: its impossible to
lead if youre just one of the crowd. What the world needs is a leader who will chart a course
away from the European crowd that thinks the future belongs to a system of global governance.
Having heard the cat-calls from the NGO (non-government organization) cheerleaders who
attend U.N. meetings and having heard the accusatory statements from U.N. delegates who
blame the U.S. for their poverty - I know it took great courage it took for President Bush to say
no to Kyoto.
He knew he would be criticized and ridiculed. He was, and continues to be criticized and
ridiculed, not only by Europeans, but by Americans who think the United States should
relinquish its national sovereignty for the benefit of the global village.
Hogwash and horsespit!
Its time for a real leader, even stronger than tear-down-this-wall Reagan. It is time to tell the
world that we will not submit to global governance, but will instead, lead the way to global
cooperation.
Bush is right in his decision to not further entangle the United States in the Kyoto web. He is
right to tell the U.N. Americans will not forfeit their right to own guns. He is right to challenge
the wisdom of yielding to the pressure of European globalists. The question is, whether or not he
will get the support he needs from the American people.
It is sickening to see Eileen Clausen - formerly a Clinton/Gore negotiator at the U.N. climate
change talks, now with the Pew Charitable Trusts Center for Climate Change - waging a
propaganda campaign to demean Bush and suggest that he needs to kowtow to the international
community. It is even more sickening to see Senators McCain and Lieberman team up to
force the United States to do what the international community wants the U.S. to do.
If there needs to be policy action related to global warming - and thats a very big if - the policy
action should be voluntary on the part of sovereign states; not forced by international law, and
enforced by a global police force.
The bigger challenge is the growing power of the United Nations system. The Kyoto Protocol is
only one of several noose-tightening measures foisted on the world by this power-hungry band of
world-government enthusiasts:

93
Our land is subject to use policies established in the United Nations system;
Our international trade is subject to approval by the World Trade Organization;
Our educational curriculum is heavily influenced by principles established by UNESCO;
Our chemical production is subject to international treaties;
Our use of the internet will soon fall under the scrutiny of another international treaty;
Our water is the subject of the U.N. Commission on water for the 21
st
Century;
Our speech is the subject of a World Conference on Racism next week in South Africa.
Our cities and towns are being transformed to comply with the U.N.s Agenda 21
There is no end to the interest the United Nations has in how Americans - and everyone else -
live their lives.
We need a leader who will say no!
The choice is not global governance or isolation; the choice is global governance or global
freedom. Most of the rest of the world has not yet learned the first principle of freedom.
The first principle of freedom is: government is empowered by the consent of the governed.
The concept of global governance pays lip service to this principle by allowing approved NGO
representatives to participate in the process, but it cannot accept the idea that government
officials must be held accountable through free and open election of all policy makers.
In the United Nations system, in most of Europe, and throughout the world, the prevailing
concept of government holds that government is omnipotent - and, therefore, may grant or deny
freedom to whomever it wishes.
Americas founders recognized that government is the creation of free individuals who have the
right and the power to limit government. This Constitutional limitation of power is exceedingly
inconvenient for those people who are in government. These people who are in government
have been working for more than 200 years in America, to weaken this limitation by finding new
ways to bypass the clear language of the Constitution. The Clinton/Gore administration was
masterful, using Executive Orders and Presidential Decrees to trash the Constitution - and
Congress was silent.
Throughout Europe, these limitations do not exist. Government sets its own limits, if any, and
allows those approved representatives from civil society to participate in what they call a
democratic process. Its not democratic if only the elite (those who agree with government
policy) are allowed to participate.
This is exactly how the United Nations operates, and calls the process open, transparent, and
democratic. To join the civil society elite, those who may be allowed to participate, an
organization has to not only declare allegiance to the aims of the U.N., but also produce a two-
year track record of activities which demonstrates that allegiance.

94
Americans need to know that President Bush cannot fight this battle alone. He will be devoured
by the media, the NGO propaganda mills, and the so-called progressives in Congress. Elected
officials at every level of government need to know that rank-and-file citizens want no part of
Kyoto, or U.N. gun control, or U.N. Internet control, or U.N. control of anything.
President Bush, and Secretary of State, Colin Powell, need to know that while we dont wish to
bash the U.N., we certainly dont intend to be bashed by it. Nor do we intend to sit idly by
while the U.N. wraps it tentacles around our sovereignty.
We need a leader who will say to the U.N. - and to the world - we have a better idea, and that
idea is freedom. We need a leader who will extricate the U.S. from the World Trade
Organizations supervision of our trade policy, and instead, hammer out trade deals that are
mutually beneficial, not deals designed to redistribute wealth.
We need a leader who will say to the U.N. - and to the world - we stand ready to cooperate, yes,
even to assist and aid, but we will never capitulate to the demands of a world government - by
whatever name it may be called.
George Bush is not this leader - yet. But he could become this leader. He has taken important
first steps, with Kyoto, and with the gun-control treaty. But he has also stepped backwards, by
signing the treaty to give the U.N. control over important manufacturing chemicals.
George Bush is a political creature. Regardless of where his convictions may direct him, he can
walk only so far on politically thin ice. We cannot expect him to move into policy directions
where there is no public support.
He has taken a few important first steps; the rest of the journey is as much the responsibility of
those of us who stay at home, as it is of the man whose first few steps have been challenged by
the world.











95
Col20010822
Global Taxation Moves Closer

By Henry Lamb
It will never happen, was the almost universal response to our first reports of global taxation
nearly a decade ago. The folks at the United Nations, however, believe that it will happen - and
soon. In fact, another World Conference is being planned for March 18-22, 2002, in Monterrey,
Mexico, to consider the recommendations of a special High Level Panel on Financing for
Development that has been working since the Millennium Summit last year.
The preliminary draft report of the panel is now public, and - surprise, surprise - global taxation
is among the recommendations. Their report is much more comprehensive than just global
taxation; it proposes U.N. control over all economic activity.
The entire report is available here, it is 72-pages long. The Executive Summary is enough to get
the flavor of what the United Nations wants, and intends to get - one way or another.
As an introduction, the report uses a quote from the Millennium Declaration:
We will...make every effort to ensure the success of the High-level International and
Intergovernmental Event on Financing for Development...".
At the time, many people dismissed this Declaration as just more hot-air expelled by ego-bloated
bureaucrats. In reality, since it was approved by the heads of state from more than 150 nations, it
is a blank check for the United Nations to do whatever it takes to achieve global governance.
The report contains 12 major recommendations, ranging from poor countries getting their
economic house in order, to a global taxing organization. We will examine only four of these
recommendations:
(1) assure that developed countries contribute 0.7 percent of GDP (Gross Domestic
Product) to development aid for developing countries, into a common pool for
distribution by the United Nations;
(2) create a Global Economic Security Council as proposed by the Commission on
Global Governance;
(3) create an International Tax Organization;
(4) establish an adequate international tax source, namely, the Tobin Tax on currency
exchange, and a global tax on carbon (the use of fossil fuels).
These four recommendations are only the skeleton of global economic control. Other
recommendations also call for closer coordination of such institutions as the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organizations, the United Nations Development
Program, and Partners from business, civil society, and other intergovernmental organizations.

96
Aid to Developing Countries
The first recommendation of concern has to do with the common pool for the contributions
made by the United States and other developed countries. The U.S., depending on whos doing
the accounting, is quite likely to exceed the .7 percent of GDP requested by the United Nations.
U.S. money now goes into so many U.N. pots that it is very difficult to learn just how much
money is going to U.N. agencies.
The amount is troublesome enough, but the idea of putting that money into a common U.N.
pool, for distribution by the United Nations, allows the U.N. to attach its strings, rather than the
U.S. It almost assures that U.S. dollars would flow to countries that the U.S. would not choose
to support. Cuba, for example, and the Sudan, and other favorites of the U.N., are not countries
that most Americans would want their tax dollars to support.
Moreover, if the money is coming from the U.N., the U.N. can be assured that the recipient
country could be counted on for its vote in favor of whatever policy the U.N. wanted to advance.
The United States should provide aid to developing countries according to its own agenda and
budget, and not let the U.N. coordinate the redistribution of our wealth.
Economic Security Council
To be fair, the High Level Panel on Financing for Development is rather vague about exactly
how, what it refers to as a Global Council, would function. It does, however, endorse the
recommendation of the Commission on Global Governance (CGG) on this point. Combined
with the other recommendations of the High Level Panel, it appears that despite its ambiguity, it
is the Panels intent to create a Council very much like the one suggested by the CGG.
The CGG report, Our Global Neighborhood, devotes more than 40 of its 410 pages (pp 157 -
196f), to a detailed discussion of the new Economic Security Council (ESC). It recommends 23
members, selected on a rotating basis, none with veto power, and no permanent members, and
prescribes the consensus process for decisions, rather than voting.
Under the auspices of this new U.N. creation, would be incorporated all agencies and
organizations that have any influence over the international economy. The CGG
recommendation goes into considerable detail about incorporating enforcement with
environmental treaties into the responsibilities of the new ESC and the World Trade
Organization.
All the financial exchange mechanisms would fall under the authority of this new entity, a
prerequisite to developing a mechanism for collecting global taxes from whatever source. Both
the High Level Panel report, and the CGG report, pay lip service to national sovereignty, with
language such as ...respect for sovereign states, but then proceed to make policy
recommendations that supersede the authority of sovereign states.
From a practical perspective, the new ESC, if created, would be little more than a rubber stamp
for U.N. bureaucrats. A 23-member council, that changes every couple of years, consisting of
representatives from countries to whom the U.N. is handing out money, is a prime target for
manipulation. The U.N. could do whatever it wanted to do, behind the veil of ESC approval.

97
The United States should not support this consolidation of U.N. economic power.
International Tax Organization
This proposed new U.N. organization is quite ambitions. Presented in language that suggests
there is some virtue in eliminating tax competition, the High Level Panel explains all the
wonderful benefits such an organization could provide. It could set international taxing policy,
for example, to ensure that everyone is getting taxed fairly, that the socialist countries, whose
tax rates run to 70 and even 80 percent, are not at a competitive disadvantage with the United
States where the tax rate is substantially less.
It has visions of such policies as requiring a foreign national who happens to be working in
America, to pay income tax in his country of origin, on income earned in America. It also has
visions of formulating a global income tax. This recommendation includes information
sharing among nations, coordinated through the United Nations, in order to track economic
activity of every person and every business. This proposed organization is on the agenda for the
March meeting, along with the other recommendations. This is real; it is not fantasy; and it is
being promoted by the worlds leaders.
Global Taxation
This proposal is not new. It has been around since James Tobin proposed it in the late 1970s. It
has floated around the edges of world government conversations, but did not really gain much
attention until the 1994 Human Development Report of the United Nations Development
Program, then headed by Gustave Speth, former member of Clintons transition team, and former
head of the World Resources Institute.
Speth, and his UNDP actively promoted the Tobin Tax as a way to provide the United Nations
with independent funding, free from the constant struggle with the United States, and other
countries who could withhold dues payment at will.
The Tobin Tax is a tax on the exchange of currency among nations. A tax of five basis points
(.05%) is estimated to yield approximately $1.5 trillion dollars annually - more than 100 times
the U.N.s current budget.
This tax is being presented as a way to slow or stop speculation on exchange rates. This is a
process by which the greedy earn profits that should, according to the proponents of global
governance, go to the poverty-stricken developing countries.
Also proposed, as an alternative, or as a supplement to the Tobin Tax, is a tax on the use of fossil
fuels - a carbon tax. This tax is said to be justified to force a reduction in the use of fossil fuels
in order to prevent global warming. The revenue it would produce is just an extra benefit of
doing the morally correct thing, or so the propaganda goes.
While all of these recommendations have been floated by various U.N. agencies over the last
decade, this is the first time they have come together in an official global conference, pursuant to
the mandate of the Millennium Declaration. Not all of these recommendations will be adopted
and implemented in one step. There is considerable disagreement within the various affected

98
agencies, and among several nations. The disagreement is not about the objective, but about the
methodology, and who will ultimately rule the economic roost.
There was a time when Senators said publicly that any effort on the part of the U.N. to secure
taxing authority would result in the immediate suspension of U.S. funds to the organization.
Now, there is a Resolution pending in Congress calling for U.S. Support of the Tobin Tax
(HConRes 301).
The recommendations contained in this report of the High Level Panel on Financing
Development provide for the consolidation of economic power required to finance global
governance. This is, perhaps, the most important unfinished step in the process. Once the
United Nations has independent financing, and an adequate stream of revenue to maintain its
own standing army, it will be the world government that has been the dream of globalists for the
entire century.
Much of the preparatory work done by this group enjoyed the full support of the Clinton/Gore
administration. In fact, Robert Rubin, Clintons Secretary of the Treasury, represents the United
States on this High Level Panel. The Bush administration has not made clear the position it will
take on these developments. Signals coming from the White House thus far, are mixed. While
opposing the Kyoto Protocol, President Bush embraced a treaty to give the U.N. control over 12
important industrial chemicals - including chlorine.
The jury is still out on which way the United States will go on the issue of global economic
control by the U.N. Most Americans will never know the issue is on the table until after the
decisions are made. The media is not likely to address the issue, nor is it likely to be a topic of
Congressional debate.
These events are taking place in other parts of the world, with decisions being taken by officials
who are not elected by anyone. No elected official in the United States has any authority to alter
or veto these decisions. The world is moving swiftly toward global governance.
At this late date, perhaps the only action that could halt, or even significantly slow the process,
would be a complete, immediate stoppage of all funds to the entire United Nations system.
Before any funds are reinstated, there should be a complete Congressional review of U.S.
participation in each and every U.N. agency to determine the appropriateness of U.S.
participation. Those agencies and organizations whose programs diminish national sovereignty
and ignore the basic principles of freedom as set forth in the U.S. Constitution - should be made
permanently off -limits for any U.S. officials.
A review of this type would leave very few international organizations eligible for U.S.
participation. American citizens are entitled to this thorough review by elected representatives.
For fifty years, the U.N. has been the playground of appointed bureaucrats, with the role of
Congress little more than that of a rich and indulgent uncle.
If Congress does not intervene, quickly and powerfully, it will be too late. If the U.N. gets the
independent financing it covets, and has designed in the report of the High Level Panel, the
United States will cease to exist as a sovereign nation. It will become nothing more than just
another state at the mercy of a world government.

99
Col20010908
Walking away from the U.N.

By Henry Lamb
The United States walked away from the United Nations Conference against Racism in Durban,
South Africa last week, which, along with the U.S. rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, demonstrates
more political backbone than weve seen in a decade.
Thank you Mr. Bush!
The walk-out brought immediate condemnation from the Islamic world, and from most of the
developing nations - and from Jesse Jackson, of course. Jackson claims that the U.S. is unwilling
to face up to its responsibility to pay blacks today, for the slavery in Americas past. The Durban
draft document included language to endorse reparations for slavery.
Canada and Israel joined the U.S. walk-out, saying that the language in the final draft of the so-
called Declaration and Plan of Action was unacceptable. Several paragraphs condemned Israel
as racist in its treatment of Palestinians. Of course, the U.S. is Israels strongest supporter, and
as such, the condemnation is targeted toward the U.S. as much as it is toward Israel.
Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA), a member of the U.S. delegation, said the conference had
been hijacked by Arab-Islamic extremists,
Strong anti-U.S. sentiment permeates almost all U.N. conferences. Usually, it is contained, not
reported, but present in the speeches, and certainly in the literature that is distributed by the
hordes of NGOs (non-government organizations) that hover around these conferences.
Why this friction exists between the U.S. and the international community runs much deeper
than the language in a single document. Much of the rest of the world sees the U.S., with all its
prosperity, as arrogant and uncaring, unwilling to do what the rest of the world thinks the U.S.
should do.
Most of the rest of the world has no concept of freedom, as it has been experienced in the United
States for two centuries. Americas prosperity is the result of exploitation and thievery,
according to the NGO propaganda that is fed daily to much of the world. Capitalism is seen to
be simply a euphemism for theft.
What the international community really wants is for the United States to be brought under the
control of an international authority in which they have a say. This is the global village, with
the United Nations serving as the village government.
The United States balked when this idea was first advanced in the League of Nations. The U.S.
refused to participate. The United Nations, created by many of the same players who created the
League of Nations, softened the language of the Charter in order to secure U.S. participation.

100
Three primary obstacles prevent the U.N. from having the authority it needs to control the U.S.:
(1) permanent veto power in the U.S. Security Council; (2) independent, adequate funding; and
(3) the military might to enforce its decisions.
The United States would have to agree before these obstacles could be removed. While there is
rampant resentment and criticism at U.N. conferences, the level of intensity usually stays just
below the threshold beyond which the U.S. will not tolerate. The Durban conference went
beyond the threshold, and the U.S. walked out.
The United States should walk away from every U.N. conference, and withdraw its financial
support from every U.N. institution. Immediately.
The United States Congress should initiate an investigation into the system of global
governance proposed by the United Nations, and determine if the United States is willing to
submit to the authority of the United Nations.
Global governance, in its totality, has not been considered by Congress. Global governance has
been nibbling away at our national sovereignty through individual treaties, agreements, and
policy documents. Conference by conference; compromise by compromise, the U.S. has already
yielded far more sovereignty to the United Nations than the U.S. Constitution allows. The U.S.
- through its elected representatives - should demand a complete review and reevaluation of the
U.S./U.N. relationship.
Globalization is inevitable. The question is: should the United States lead the world to individual
freedom and free markets, or should the U.S. allow the rest of the world to manage our markets,
and limit our freedom?
Every U.N. conference since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, has produced, at least, a
Declaration and Plan of Action, or some kind of international treaty. Each of these documents
cedes a little more sovereignty to the United Nations. The U.S. has agreed to all of these
documents.
President Bush walked away from the Kyoto Protocol, and he has now walked away from the
poison that infected the Durban conference. Its a good start, but only a start.
It is clear to U.N. watchers, that the international community is pushing hard to get its global
governance agenda in place in time to celebrate next year, the 10
th
anniversary of the Rio
conference. The International Criminal Court is expected to be in force by then, as is the Kyoto
Protocol. These new treaties, and the anticipated adoption of the Earth Charter, are all major
steps toward the realization of the global governance agenda. These are to be among the reasons
for the U.N. celebration in Johannesburg, South Africa next year.
This fiasco in Durban, together with the removal of the United States from the U.N. Human
Rights Commission, combined with the worlds reaction to the U.S. rejection of the Kyoto
Protocol, should be enough to make Congress question the U.S. role in the United Nations
system. Only a thorough review, U.N. agency by U.N. agency, will provide the evidence
necessary to determine whether or not U.S. participation is beneficial.

101
U.N. officials cannot be compelled to appear before Congress, but should they refuse, the
message would be louder than any words they might bring. The Human Rights Commission,
sponsors of the Durban conference, would be an enlightening beginning point, but other U.N.
agencies are far more important. The Financing for Development conference scheduled for
Monterrey, Mexico next March would be a more productive target.
The Declaration and Plan of Action from this conference is envisioned to be the roadmap to
independent, adequate funding for the United Nations, one of the three major obstacles still
blocking global governance.
So far, there has been no indication from the Bush White House that the administration will
abandon this conference. The Congress should step in and investigate the what, why, how, and
who of this upcoming event, and when the ultimate objective is made clear, Congress should
shut off the valve, stopping all money flows to this conference, and every other U.N. agency.




















102
Col20010910
Stay out of UNESCO

By Henry Lamb
President Ronald Reagan withdrew the United States from UNESCO (United Nations Education,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization) is 1984, because of gross corruption and mismanagement
of funds, a decided bias against the United States, and because UNESCO strongly supported
population control measures incompatible with American values.
President Bill Clinton declared that UNESCO had sufficiently cleaned up its act to justify re-
entry into the U.N. organization. Congress didnt agree. Clinton began sending money in
support of UNESCO programs anyway.
Now, the United Nations Association (UNA-USA), and Congressional friends of the U.N. are
urging President Bush to rejoin UNESCO at its 31
st
General Session, October 15 - November 3,
2001.
William Luers, President of UNA-USA has written Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and Senator
Richard Lugar, urging them to support U.S. re-entry into UNESCO. Powells reply was
typically non-committal, but his language causes deep concern:
We are also highly supportive of the managerial reforms and program focus that current
Director General Matsuura is implementing. We have a constructive relationship with
UNESCO, maintain an observer mission, and contribute about $2 million annually to
program activities. We share your view that UNESCO is on the right track....
UNESCO is not on the right track.
Of even greater concern is the fact that the House of Representatives voted 225 to 193 to
authorize re-entry. The Democratic minority convinced 27 Republicans to join them in this vote.
Congressmen Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Jim Leach (R-IA), and Henry Hyde (R-IL) carried the
debate against re-entry, but to no avail.
Representatives Elliot Engel (D-NY), Tom Lantos, and Sheila Jackson (D-TX), who said the
U.S. should rejoin because UNESCO ...promotes free press. It promotes education. It allows
us to promote cultural values.
The very idea that UNESCO can allow the United States to do anything is ludicrous. Ms.
Jacksons casual use of the reference is frightening: any Representative who does not recoil at
the thought of UNESCO being in a position to allow the U.S. to anything it chooses - should
not be in Washington!
Not only should the U.S. stay out of UNESCO, we should immediately stop sending U.S. tax
dollars to support its programs, and we should withdraw our observer team.

103
Among other items on the agenda for next months meeting, is a report from the EFA
conferences that have been going on around the world. EFA is the acronym for UNESCOs
Education For All campaign. Even a cursory examination of this program reveals that first, it
is a campaign to solicit money for UNESCO to pass out to nations

























104
Col20010912
Responding to tragedy

By Henry Lamb
We will never know about most of the individual acts of heroism that occurred this week, as
America endured the worst attack in its history. Some of these acts, we saw, as people rushed to
help strangers caught up in this unspeakable tragedy. We learned about other acts of bravery and
courage well after the fact: Barbara Olson, for example, hiding in the bathroom of flight 175, the
hijacked airplane destined to crash into the Pentagon, calling her husband on a cell phone to tell
him what was happening.
Jeremy Glick was on flight 93. He called his wife, Liz, when the hijackers took control. Liz tele-
conferenced the local 911 operator, and listened as Jeremy reported that three Arabs with knives,
and a red box, which they said was a bomb, had taken control of the plane. For several minutes,
Jeremy reported second-by-second activity. He said several passenger decided they had nothing
to lose by rushing the hijackers.... The phone went silent.
Flight 93 did not reach its target, because these heroes gave their lives.
Lizs uncle, Tom Crowley, who reported this event, lives in Atlanta. He and his family traveled
to New York to be with relatives who suffered directly at the hands of terrorists.
American heroes continue their work, giving blood, time, expertise - whatever it takes to recover
from the attack. The entire nation mourns. The entire nation will rebuild.
From this tragedy, many lessons are taken. Perhaps none is more important than the realization
of the fact that America is the primary target of a group of people who resent our success and
prosperity. The vicious attacks, executed in New York and Washington, are the tip of a political
iceberg that reaches beyond visibility, underlying the policies and actions of several nations.
This is not the work of a few deranged individuals, but the eruption of a volcano of attitudes
boiling beneath the surface of international relations.
Hasan Rahmon, a Palestinian officials, appeared on Fox News to condemn the terrorists attacks -
while on a split-screen, Palestinians were celebrating in the streets. Afghanistan officials called
a press conference to declare that Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with the attacks.
Right.
We may never know, for sure, the names of all the people who are responsible for this tragedy,
but we know it occurred, and we need to understand why it occurred in order to reduce future
threats.
Large numbers of people around the world want America to acquiesce to their policies and belief
systems. Most of these people choose less dramatic methods of persuasion than those employed

105
in New York and Washington. But the goal is the same: to force America to yield to their
system of values.
How we respond to this attack will determine the future of America, and, indeed, the future of
the world. In the end, there are only two paths our response can take.
One path would be to yield to the wishes of those who want to bring America under their control
- as responsible members of the global family - as it is often described. Reports from London
were filled with people who called for changes in American policies which caused the attacks.
One BBC reporter quoted an overheard conversation among British flight attendants who
predicted that Americas dumb-ass President would probably make thing worse.
On the other hand, Richard Courtney, who identified himself as a socialist in London, wrote to
ask that we assure the American people of the wholehearted support and concern from the
entire British nation following the terrorist atrocities in your country yesterday.
He also said ...the terrorists need to be told that the expertise of British Intelligence Services is
hunting them, and they already know the British SAS has the best assassins in the world.
Most of the governments in the world feel compelled to make strong statements in support of
America, and even stronger condemnations of the terrorist attacks. America must not be lulled
into complacency by these statements, but look long and hard at the actions of every nation.
The other path our response can take is the path we have taken in response to other attacks on
our freedom: find our enemies, and eliminate them.
But thats not enough. We must rebuild our defenses to assure that similar attacks in the future
are minimized. This strategy goes far beyond the security measures at our airports, and well into
our relations with other nations. America has become so entangled with treaties and agreements
and political deals that our identity is blurred. What we stand for is no longer clear. Even our
closest allies are suggesting that the United States should not mount a military response
unilaterally, but should let the United Nations deal with this situation.
Our response is not a concern of the United Nations. Our response is a concern of the American
people. We would hope that our allies are sympathetic and cooperative, but if they are not, then
their reactions should be noted for future consideration, while our response goes forward,
undeterred.
Terrorists - of whatever stripe - must know that attacks against American citizens will be met
with swift and certain consequences. Nations that harbor or aid terrorists must be treated as
accomplices to the attack.
This is but the first step along the path of American response. America should realize that our
freedom, and our future, is dependent upon us - not upon the wishes of other nations or the
religions or philosophies of other peoples, and certainly, not upon the United Nations. We need
to re-establish the principles of freedom on which this nation was founded, and re-evaluate every
international treaty and agreement to see where those principles of freedom have been infringed.

106
Every treaty and agreement that erodes our national sovereignty should be rewritten, or revoked.
America cannot lose its identity in the global village. We must honor the principles of freedom
in our domestic policy, and respect those same principles in our international relations.
We should not build a wall around America and withdraw from the world. On the contrary, we
should be a beacon of hope to the world, and offer to help any nation achieve its own prosperity
by promoting individual freedom and free markets in their own country. The only demand that
we can make on any country, is that they inflict no harm on America, while we assure every
nation that we intend them no harm.
While we exert our right to national sovereignty, we must grant this same right to every other
nation. This is equal sovereignty. We must never allow the United Nations to impose
sovereign equality under its authority - which is the essence of global governance, and the
ultimate objective of those nations who want to force the United States into compliance.
America is unique. It is unique because Americans possess a spirit of freedom, which most of
the rest of the world has never known. Our freedom allows us to achieve impossible goals, and
to recover from horrible tragedies. We have no asset more valuable than our freedom. Japan
could not conquer us; Hitler could not conquer us; terrorists cannot conquer us.
We, as a nation, have negotiated, we have talked, we have entered into lengthy agreements, and
we have offered measured response to previous attacks. Enough is enough. Terrorism is a tactic
of war, and terrorists are our enemies regardless of nationality or ethnicity. It is time to
identify our enemies who have declared war on us - and eliminate them.
(See other responses to the September 11 tragedy.)












107
Col20010915
Rebuild the WTC

By Henry Lamb
What better way to tell the world that America will not be intimidated by imbecilic acts of
suicidal maniacs? The moment the rubble is removed, excavation for the foundation of the new
World Trade Center should begin. Build it ten floors higher. To protect its new occupants, put a
radar-controlled missile defense system on the top. Put a similar system on top of Sears Tower
in Chicago, and on all our vulnerable landmarks.
Sure, it will cost a bundle. Fox news reported that in 1973, construction costs for the World Trad
Center exceeded $800 million. Today, four billion dollars might not cover the reconstruction
costs. Where will it come from?
Heres a thought. Each year, we give more than $2 billion to the various United Nations
organizations, making it possible for the Human Rights Commission to kick us off the
Commission, and then hold a world conference to condemn Israel as a racist nation, our chief
ally in the Middle East, and by association, the United States as well. Some of this money pays
for conferences where Castro and Saddam are praised, and the United States ridiculed.
Surely, they will understand that we have something better to do with our money for the next few
years.
Rebuilding the Pentagon goes without saying, as does the rebuilding of our national defense.
These are jobs for the government. The people, too, have a rebuilding job to do.
We need to rebuild the spirit of America, the spirit that says to the world - we mean you no harm,
but we will not tolerate threats to our people, or our nation. And we need to reorder our
priorities to make certain we can protect our people and our nation.
We must, absolutely must, develop energy self-sufficiency. This means energy from oil, coal,
and nuclear sources - within our borders. We have allowed unfounded, idealistic arguments
about the pristine tundra of Alaskas frozen north shore to delay oil exploration for more than a
decade. Get over it, Sierra Club - sink the oil wells.
We have allowed environmental zealots to convince us to abandon the use of coal, when we have
a 200-year supply of relatively cheap energy in our own country. President Bush, rescind Bill
Clintons designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument; free that massive
reserve of low-sulfur coal.
Get those nuclear power plants under construction. The fact that 56 percent of our energy is
imported, mostly from nations sympathetic to the people who invaded the United States on
September 11, is sufficient justification for launching an immediate top-priority campaign to
regain energy self-sufficiency.

108
It cant stop there. We need food self-sufficiency as well. We can grow what we need, if we can
get regulatory obstacles removed. More than 1400 farm families were nearly driven off their
land in the Klamath basin, to insure that a sucker fish had plenty of water. The Coho salmon, for
which the water was also reserved, never was endangered, according to a September 10 ruling
by Judge Michael R. Hogan. Environmental extremists filed law suits forcing the listing, with
which federal agencies, staffed by executives from environmental extremist organizations, were
happy to comply.
Americas security is far more important than the sucker fish, or the Coho salmon for that matter.
Our security requires adequate food supplies, produced in America. Our food supply can no
longer be jeopardized to appease the utopian vision of those who use the environment as an
excuse to stop resource production.
Nor can we let our zeal for global trade dilute our common sense. American farmers and
producers should not be forced to compete on an uneven playing field. Countries that export
products into this country should be required to meet the same production standards American
producers have to meet. America should set the rules of trade - not the World Trade
Organization.
This America first attitude is called jingoistic in the international community. This attitude
is precisely what the United Nations is trying to outlaw. In fact, most of this article borders on
hate speech, in the view of proponents of the global village.
I wonder how these same folks would label the speech made by the hijacker-invaders on
September 11.
These invaders were welcomed into this country. They were granted driving privileges. They
were extended all the freedoms that Americans enjoy - and they thanked us by killing thousands
of innocent people.
People who are not citizens of the United States may be in this country only on the conditions set
by our government. To live in America as a non-citizen is a privilege, not a right. This privilege
is being abused - badly - and we must rethink the conditions that govern non-citizen entry into
this country.
Some of the invaders who attacked our country were here illegally. If we need more people to
monitor visas, and deport illegals, then so be it. There is a procedure by which any person may
apply to become an American citizen. Those who wish to become citizens are welcome. Those
who wish to visit for a specified time, for a specified purpose, are welcome - so long as they
obey our laws. Those who harbor hate and plan destruction are not welcome, and must be
excluded from our society.
These views will not be popular among environmental extremists, or proponents of world
government. Tough. This is war. Make no mistake: it is not a war against Osama bin Laden, or
his network of terrorists, or any other group. It is a war against the underlying philosophy which
spawned them. Those poor misguided souls who believe they are going to heaven for killing
innocent civilians, are the victims of a philosophy that has many followers in many countries -
including the United States. Most of these people operate within the law, but what separates

109
them from the hijackers is only a matter of degree. They dont hate America quite as much as
those who blow themselves (and others) to kingdom come.
Gar Smith, editor of the Earth Island Journal, the official publication of the Earth Island
Institute, that great beacon of American environmental extremism, says that the solution to the
problem of terrorism ...would require the United States to give up its position as the worlds
reigning Superpower, He also says that it is time to move to a world beyond oil, beyond
repression, and beyond superpowers.
He and his organization are welcome to move on to Afghanistan, or anywhere else, besides
America. His attitude reflects much of the same philosophy that inspired the terrorists attacks
on America.
Its up to others to rebuild the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon, and our national defense.
It is up to us ordinary people to rebuild the spirit of America, through our neighborhoods, our
churches, our schools, our workplaces, and in our own minds and hearts.
Yes, we will protect the environment, but we will not be enslaved by it, nor by those extremists
who use it as an excuse to destroy productivity and property rights. We now have to decide: do
we want to remain free, independent, strong, self-reliant? Or do we want to acquiesce to the
politically correct global village nonsense that allows the leaders of the nations who harbor
terrorists to have more say in our domestic policy than we do?
Let not history record this generation as the one which gave away Americas freedom.














110
Col20010919
Reconciliation or Retaliation?

By Henry Lamb
An email crossed my screen this week, asking me to sign a petition to President Bush urging him
not to launch a war. The sender was not happy with my reply. This push now - to seek
reconciliation, rather than retaliation - is not only foolish, its downright dangerous.
In the first instance, war was declared on September 11, not by the United States, but by the
sponsors of this horrendous attack. Failure to retaliate, swiftly, and powerfully, is tantamount to
an invitation to the terrorists for a repeat performance.
Our response must be much more than a tit-for-tat retaliation for this single series of events. Our
response must root out the source, and strangle it.
The source, of course, is not Osama bin Laden. He is simply one of many terrorists, spawned by
a world view that cannot be reconciled with the values America cherishes. In America, we
believe all men are created equal, free, with the inherent right to life, liberty, and property,
granted by our Creator.
Those who seek to destroy us believe their God speaks through them, and that people who
choose not to convert to their view are worthy of death. Their freedom is granted by their holy
men, or dictator, as the case may be. They know nothing of a government limited by the
consent of the governed - and the holy men certainly dont want the governed to ever learn of
such a system. They know nothing of dissent, or of free speech.
Two Americans, Dayna Curry, 29, and Heather Mercer, 24, were arrested in Kabul, Afghanistan
in August, charged with preaching Christianity. A Bible and other Christian literature were
confiscated as evidence. Their crime could land them in jail; Afghans convicted of these charges
could be executed.
There is no reconciliation with such a world view. We cannot, nor should we, impose our values
upon these folks. But neither can we allow them to impose their values upon us. We would like
to leave them alone, but they wont let us. For years, we have negotiated, we have even
protected, we have responded to past attacks with measured, ineffective, tit-for-tat type
bombings.
No more. This attack was on American soil, and it killed thousands of innocent civilians. No
more.
The Bush administrations decision to consider those who harbor terrorists to be as guilty as the
terrorists themselves is a good beginning. Any nation that sanctions the kind of attack
perpetrated on America is not ready to join a civilized world. America is absolutely justified in
making sure that such a nation is denied the resources to harbor terrorists.

111
Afghanistan makes no apology for harboring Osama bin Laden and his network of murderers.
Other nations in the region are known to be sympathetic, if not helpful, to the terrorists. These
nations need to be dealt with firmly and definitively.
What will be more difficult, is sorting out how these terrorists use non-sympathetic nations to
further their cause. The United States hosted these murderers for months, providing training,
housing, communications, and the very freedom they required to do their dirty deeds. How are
we going to crack down on those who want to do us dirt, without infringing upon the freedom of
everyone else?
A good place to begin would be at our borders, and at our embassies. Anyone who wants to
enter this country should be required to have a very good reason - that can be documented.
Visitors should be required to report any change of address while in this country. Any visitor, or
non-citizen who is found to associate with any known terrorist organization, should be detained
and deported immediately. The point of entry into this country is where prevention begins.
We should begin a thorough review of every known visitor in this country, deporting those
whose visas have expired, unless there is sufficient reason to renew or extend their stay. We can
no longer allow people of unknown purpose to roam our streets as freely as American citizens.
Representative Gephardt (D-MO) is on the wrong track by suggesting that every American
should be required to have a federal identification card. We dont need to penalize our citizens
for this attack, we need to restrict non-citizens.
The time for reconciliation ended on September 11. Americas response is self-defense. We
attacked no one. What we do now cannot be considered an act of war; it is self-defense. We
choose to take the battle to their soil, rather than to allow them to bring the battle here - again. If
innocent people in Afghanistan, or any other country, are harmed, the blame lies with those
governments that harbor terrorism, not with the United States.
The attacks on America plunged the world into a new era. Never again, can we assume that we
are safe. Nor can we assume that terrorist attacks are the work of a few fanatics, with
horrendous, but limited tragedy. We must assume that the network of fanatics mean what they
say, when they call for the destruction of America. We must realize that biological, chemical,
and yes, even nuclear destruction are all viable tools in the arsenal of our enemies.
It appears that our government has accepted this new reality; it is less apparent that the American
people have. Despite the overwhelming outpouring of patriotism we have witnessed, there is a
significant number of people who support the ideas expressed in my email. Signs have begun to
appear at prayer vigils for the victims, who carry the reconciliation message.
These people are free to express their opinion, and the rest of us are free to express ours. In the
days and weeks ahead, we are going to be faced with real decisions that put into place the
policies that define our great nation. If we are to remain the worlds economic engine, the
worlds beacon of hope for freedom, the example for the world to follow to prosperity and peace,
we must defend those principles of freedom that made us what we are.
We must become self-sufficient in our energy and food production. And we must take control of
our borders.

112
We must reject, out of hand, those calls to submit this conflict to the United Nations. Our
response is not a matter for the United Nations; it is a matter for the United States. Our allies,
and all the other nations of the world are being invited to help with this effort to rid the world of
international terrorism. Those who step up and help are welcome; those who get in the way, do
so at their own peril.
If ever there was a time for the stars and stripes to stand tall and wave proudly for the world to
see, it is now. If ever there was a time for each American to stand tall and support those policies
which strengthen our self-sufficiency and protect our citizens, it is now. And it is not a weekend
task.
As we enter this new era, this new war on international terrorism, our opponents will try to make
Americanism a dirty word. There is no guilt in national sovereignty; there is no shame in self-
defense. Our response, whatever forms it may take, will be labeled by our foes as aggression,
while neglecting to acknowledge the aggression initiated on our soil. Let them say whatever
they will - while they can.
The Noble Eagle is sharpening its talons.


















113
Col20010924
Surrender Sovereignty? Never!

By Henry Lamb
An op-ed in Mondays (September 24, 2001) New York Times, says that clinging to American
sovereignty isnt just wrong. Its impossible.
Robert Wright, author of the piece, is dead wrong.
Wright asks: Would you rather that your office building face a remote risk of being searched by
international inspectors, or the risk of being blown up?
Neither is acceptable to Americans.
Wright contends that a U.N. inspection regime, such as that established by the Convention on
Chemical Weapons, would prevent terrorist attacks because the U.N. would have the authority to
inspect the buildings in all countries (including the U.S.), where such chemicals are
manufactured.
The U.S. rejected this treaty, much to Wrights chagrin.
Wright is not only wrong, his reasoning is wrong-headed.
Item: the U.N. Inspected Iraqs weapons-of-mass-destruction capacity. Mr. Wright may be
willing to accept the result, but the rest of the world has no assurance that Saddam has complied
with the no-production agreement he made to conclude the Gulf War.
Item: any U.N. inspection team is quite likely to consist of people who are either sympathetic to,
or members of the terrorist networks that target the U.S.
Item: there is no Constitutional authority for our federal government to submit to any foreign or
international regime; acquiescence to Wrights reasoning would be unconstitutional, at best, and
at worst - treasonous.
His suggestion that submission to U.N. authority might somehow prevent terrorist attacks is
ludicrous. It would enhance the possibility of attacks, by giving the U.N. the authority to provide
unrestricted access to the United States for international operatives - whether or not they meet
the U.S. requirements for entry. Never!
Finally, Wright says ...the question isn't whether to surrender national sovereignty. The question
is how carefully and systematically, or chaotically and catastrophically?
The events on September 11 were not a surrender of national sovereignty, they were an attack
upon it. Wright would have us relinquish our right to defend our sovereignty by giving the U.N.
the responsibility to defend our country. Never!

114
The United States has the right, the responsibility, and the power to defend our sovereignty, and
our citizens. It must do so. There is nothing that the U.N. can do, that the United States cannot
do better. We have no responsibility to even consult the U.N. Article 51 clearly recognizes our
right to take individual or collective self-defense action; by ratifying the U.N. Charter, we
agreed only to report the measures we take. Our nation was attacked; we must respond.
Our response must be an American response, not a U.N. response. The Bush administration is
correct in asking all nations to step up and declare whether they are with us, or against us. Those
nations that choose to continue to support terrorism must be considered as hostile nations.
The United States does not need the U.N., despite Mr. Wrights suggestion to the contrary. The
U.N. is an obstacle to the United States efforts to advance the principles of freedom. The U.N.
has no interest in advancing freedom or free markets; their interest is in advancing U.N. power
and control.
It is telling that two weeks after the horrendous attacks on New York and Washington, there has
been no public condemnation of the terrorists by the U.N. Earlier this month, meeting in
Durban, South Africa, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights - led by many of the same nations
that harbor terrorists - promoted a resolution condemning Israel. These are the people to whom
Mr. Wright would have the U.S. relinquish its sovereignty.
All the opinion polls since the September 11 events suggest that Americans cherish their
sovereignty, and want an American response. Americans overwhelmingly support the response
so far, as outlined by the Bush administration. Perhaps this American response will reveal the
bias, and impotence of the U.N., and cause the American people to seriously question the
wisdom of our continued support of this top-heavy, over-reaching, global-governance octopus.
Mr. Wright is not alone in his desire to see the U.S. submit to the global governance of the
United Nations. The U.N. Association boasts hundreds of thousands of members who are
continually bombarded with Wright-like propaganda. Thousands of non-government
organizations - accredited by the United Nations - are provided extensive funding through grants,
especially for education and building public awareness - both of which are euphemisms for
U.N. propaganda.
The United States could have a far more positive impact on the world if it were not entangled in
this pot of political stew called the United Nations. Were spending billions of dollars every year
on this system of international organizations, many of which share the hate America and Israel
view revealed by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Durban.
Without the United States, the U.N. would wither, as did the League of Nations, and the U.S.
could use its resources to promote the principles of freedom and free trade, without all the
encumbrances imposed by the U.N. bureaucracy.
Mr. Wrights suggestion that the U.S. must surrender its sovereignty is as out of place as Alger
Hiss in the U.S. State Department. Surrender our national sovereignty to the U.N.? Never!



115
Col20010925
Preparing to win

By Henry Lamb
Now comes the time to hunker down and prepare to win this war on terrorism. Government is
deep in its preparations, and we too, must be about our task.
The last Great War was won because the American people did what they had to do, to enable the
government to win. Our victory in this war is also dependent upon our willingness to do what
we have to do.
The last Great War required people to do without many of the products that make life
convenient. Ration books were the norm. Gasoline, sugar, coffee, milk, and a host of other
items were available only with coupons torn from little books issued by the government.
Victory gardens sprang up in every vacant lot and in the back yards of mansions and shanties
alike. And everyone bought Savings Stamps, which, when enough were accumulated, could
be exchanged for War Bonds.
Blackouts were terrifying, especially for small children: an ominous siren would shatter the
night. Parents would rush to the windows and pull down the shades. All the lights would be
turned off, except for a small candle, or the glow from the fireplace. Street lights went out. The
few cars on the streets stopped. The arch-topped Philco radio would sputter static and news.
The distant drone of a Piper Cub engine would make the parents anxious, waiting to hear -
hoping not to hear - a thud on the roof top. The Piper Cub would drop a sack of white powder on
the roof of any house where light was visible.
Everyone prepared. The men and boys who were able, went to war. Everyone else did what
they had to do to support them. America won.
We will win again. We are not likely to have blackouts. We should be able to avoid ration
coupons. But there are other responsibilities we must meet.
At the top of the list of our responsibilities is the need to rethink what it means to be an
American - and thank God for the privilege. Take a look back across history and marvel at how
much better the whole world is because America freed individuals to be whatever their talent,
will, and energy allowed them to be. America, and the light of freedom it promises to the world,
must never be extinguished by any foe. To keep this light burning for us, and the world, we must
do whatever it takes to win this war.
High on our list of priorities must be the determination to end our dependency on foreign sources
for our energy requirements. We are importing more than half of our energy from the very
nations that spawned the terrorist philosophy which has declared war on us. Some of these
nations are friendly - at the moment; many are not. It makes no sense to continue to rely on
these energy sources when we have abundant supplies within our own borders.

116
Environmental organizations will scream when we sink oil wells in Alaska, and roll back the
Monument designation of the Escalante coal reserves. Those who object to these prudent
measures need to sort out their values. It is a new world. Energy security means energy self-
sufficiency.
We can tap our own resources without destroying the environment, and every environmental
organization in the country knows it. It is our job, as ordinary Americans, - and as members of
many of these organizations - to realize that our first responsibility is to end our dependency on
foreign energy, and the attendant responsibility is to do it with as little impact as possible on the
environment. But we must do it.
While Victory Gardens may not be a requirement, a garden of any sort is a good project for
young people. Adults need to focus on becoming self-sufficient in our food supplies. Too many
people in this generation are concerned only about the inventory at the local supermarket - with
little understanding about how the inventory gets on the shelves.
The sad truth is that far too much of the food on our grocery shelves comes from outside the
United States. The so-called free trade agreements and the World Trade Organization have
been a boon for our international neighbors that export their products to America. But they have
been a near disaster for our domestic food production system.
American producers are required to meet strict government regulations imposed by the EPA,
USDA, OSHA, FEMA, and a host of alphabet-soup agencies - to protect our citizens. These
regulations add costs. Producers in Mexico, Argentina, and other exporting nations are not
required to meet these regulatory standards, nor pay these extra costs. Their products are
cheaper when they enter the U.S. American producers are going out of business in every state.
If the United States cannot require exporting nations to impose the same safety regulations on
food production that is required of American farmers, then perhaps these so-called safety
regulations are not as necessary as once thought, and should be reduced for American producers.
If unregulated food production from exporting nations is acceptable for American consumers,
why then should it not be equally acceptable for American food production to be equally
unregulated?
We, the people who are preparing for war, should not allow our country to be dependent upon
other nations for either energy or food. Our strength as a nation is tied directly to our ability to
provide for ourselves.
Finally, our preparation for this war, and for the long-term future of our great country, requires a
rethinking of the growing trend to hyphenate Americans. The warm glow of libertys torch
should melt the barriers that separate nationalities and races. Lady Liberty welcomes the
huddled masses yearning to breathe free. If this common desire for freedom is not more
important than ethnicity or nationality, then, perhaps, citizenship in America has not yet been
earned.
The hyphen between any race or nationality, and American, is a brick wall that separates the
bearer from full participation in the American dream. Those who insist on wearing a hyphen in

117
their name, are certainly free to do so, but in so doing, they delay the day when every American
is defined by character, rather than by skin color, or whatever precedes the hyphen.
Americans who have come from Arab countries may find this idea difficult to accept, now that
all Arab-looking people seem to be under suspicion. Yes, it is wrong to think that all people
from Arab countries are, or might be terrorists - but it is a natural reaction that takes deliberate
effort to avoid. Responsible Americans who happen to be from Arab countries are justified in
their anger at being held in suspicion because of their appearance.
This anger should not be directed at their neighbors, however. It should be directed at those
people who committed the atrocities on September 11 that caused suspicion to fall on all those
who share their national origin.
The best, and perhaps the only way, to rid the world of terrorism, is to supplant it with freedom.
People who are free to exercise their talent and energy to produce what they need to provide for
themselves and their family, have little inclination to blow up buildings in distant countries. The
ultimate target, for our war against terrorism, must be the obstacles that prevent people from
being free.
In America, we have our work cut out for us. We must be about the task. We must decide to
become self-sufficient in our energy and food supplies. We must insist that our government enact
those policies necessary to bring about a lasting security. Each of us, within our own hearts and
minds, have a lot of rethinking and sorting out to do, as we do our part in preparing for war.














118
Col20011003
Exploiting tragedy

By Henry Lamb
While the world is focused on the war on terrorism, rumors persist that sinister forces inside the
beltway are looking for ways to attach a train-load of pork to an emergency appropriations bill.
Don Youngs (R-AK) Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA -HR701), was horrible
legislation before September 11. So bad, in fact, that it has been dubbed the Confiscation and
Relocation Act by Americans who believe that the more than 40% of the land government
already owns, is far too much. CARA, if enacted, would give government agencies, and NGOs
(non-government organizations) such as The Nature Conservancy, about $15 billion over fifteen
years, much of which is to be used expressly for the purchase of more land.
Most of the pork would go to the two states, Alaska and Louisiana, represented by the bills two
primary sponsors, Don Young, vice-chair of the Resources Committee, and Billy Tauzin, chair
of the Energy & Commerce Committee. As chairmen of two important committees, these men
can do a lot of silent, behind-the-scenes arm-twisting. Each of these men can say to all others
something such as - Your bill would have a better chance of getting through my committee if
we had your support on CARA.
Of course, no Congressman would ever do such a thing, would they?
Even in the best of times, the bill should not become law. There is absolutely no justification for
the federal government to increase its real estate inventory; it cant manage what it now owns.
Why this urge for the government to own more land? To protect it. From what? People.
A notion has arisen in this country that people abuse the land when they build houses and
shopping centers, raise cattle and sheep, cut trees, plant crops, or extract minerals. To prevent
these abuses, government has to acquire the land and convert it to wilderness, or buffer zones.
Once safely under the protection of the government - or an NGO such as The Nature
Conservancy - this land can never be abused again.
Nor can anyone ever benefit from this land again.
All the development in the United States occupies less than five percent of the total land area.
Most of the 280-million Americans live in the developed areas. They need the products
produced on the remaining land area. As access to the resources on the remaining land
diminishes, one of two outcomes is inevitable: either the standard of living must decrease, or
products must be imported from other countries.
It is no surprise that Americas imports are increasing - dramatically. Our imports have
exceeded our exports every year since 1976, when our trade deficit was $6.1 billion. By 1992,

119
the deficit had grown to $36.5 billion. Since the World Trade Organization was created in 1994,
our deficit has grown from $96.7 billion to a whopping $375.7 billion last year. (Source)
We are not only exporting American jobs, we are rapidly becoming dependent upon other
nations for our standard of living. Every square inch of land taken out of production - to protect
it from people - increases our dependence upon other nations, and decreases our ability to take
care of ourselves.
In this time of terror, and the uncertain times ahead, every Congressman - including Don Young
and Billy Tauzin - should be looking for ways to improve our national self-sufficiency, not
reduce it. CARA is a bill that will take land out of production, and, therefore, will reduce our
self-sufficiency, and increase our reliance on nations that may or may not be our friends in the
future.
The idea that any Congressman might take advantage of expedited procedures to address the
September 11 tragedy, to slip through special, pork-barrel legislation, is at the very least,
repulsive. This bill should be buried - deep. And forgotten.
Instead of thinking about locking up more land, Congress should be finding ways to open the
land that has already been confiscated, either by purchase, or regulatory use restrictions.
Not since World War II has it been so clear that America must be prepared to take care of itself.
We can, and should be, engaged with the other nations of the world, but we must never allow our
nation to become dependent upon them.
We should do whatever it takes to achieve security in energy, and in food, and we must secure
our borders. Aside from rooting out the terrorists - including the home-grown eco-terrorists - we
have no higher national priority.
This notion that government must protect the land from the people is more silly politically-
correct non-sense, that this nation no longer has the time, or stomach, to indulge. Shame on any
Congressman who would exploit this tragedy in terror to further his own political or ideological
agenda.









120
Col20011018
Terror on the horizon

By Henry Lamb
So far, President Bush has resisted the calls to consolidate our response to September 11, under
the authority of the United Nations. The attack was against the United States, and the United
States should respond. Other nations that wish to help may do so, but only to the extent that their
help fits into our strategy. Response decisions should be made in the Oval Office; not in the
corridors of the United Nations.
So far, so good, but the pressure to turn over the war to the international community, will
continue to mount.
There are no less than 12 international treaties dealing with terrorism, and even more U.N.
resolutions on the subject. The United Nations has an Office for Drug Control and Crime
Prevention, with a staff of 350, in 22 offices around the world. Within this agency, there is a
Terrorism Prevention Branch. If this agency has prevented any terrorism, it is not public
knowledge; it certainly did not prevent the terror that struck the United States on September 11.
The primary reason the U.N. is powerless to deal with terrorism, is that it doesnt know what
terrorism is. The U.N. has been unable to draw a definitive line between terrorists and
freedom fighters. When a car-bomb explodes on a busy street in Israel, much of the world
sees it as the work of freedom fighters. The victims define it as an act of terrorism.
While every American recognized September 11 as an act of terrorism, Osama bin Laden saw
God Almighty hit the United States..., and his followers celebrated the freedom fighters in
the streets.
The United States cannot allow the nation to get bogged down in this quagmire of indecision.
We must maintain our own defense, and our own right to rid the world of any and all who would
plot to attack innocent civilians in America.
The United Nations has taken up the cause of terrorism with a new enthusiasm in the wake of
September 11. Kofi Annan has already called for a new comprehensive treaty on terrorism, a
treaty to give the U.N. power to end global terrorism. This new initiative will attract many
admirers, and, sadly, many of those admirers will be Americans.
The U.N. already has in place the bureaucracy to implement the treaty. The new International
Criminal Court (ICC) has now been ratified by 42 of the necessary 60 nations required for entry
into force. The ICC will be authorized to prosecute crimes against humanity, which is a vague
term, to be defined by the court. The world is very close to giving the United Nations the tools it
needs to enforce its vision of global governance. This new treaty on terrorism could provide the
public support the U.N. needs.

121
Whats wrong with this scenario?
The majority of the members of the United Nations consider Israels response to a Palestinian
car-bomb, to be an act of terrorism, not self defense. The masses of protesters in Pakistan
consider Americas response attack on the Taliban to be an act of terrorism, not self defense.
United States leadership in economic sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, and Iran, have repeatedly
been called crimes against humanity, by United Nations officials. Americas standard of
living - consuming 25% of the worlds resources for only 5% of the worlds population - has
been cited repeatedly at U.N. meetings, as a crime against humanity.
Make no mistake: the United Nations will target the United States the moment it has the power
to do so, to bring the U.S. under its control. After all, it is our economic, social, and foreign
policies that are said to be the injustice that caused the September 11 attacks. A new treaty on
terrorism and a reinforced bureaucracy for the Prevention of Terrorism, and a new International
Criminal Court - are major steps toward providing the U.N. with the power it needs.
The two remaining elements the U.N. needs to complete its global governance power grab are
also quickly being assembled: a U.N. standing army; and independent funding. Several nations
have already committed troops to the U.N.
Next March 18 - 22, in Monterey, Mexico, a world conference will assemble to hear the report of
the High Level Panel on Financing for Development. This panel will recommend a Global
Taxing Authority, a global tax on the foreign exchange of currency, and a tax on the use of fossil
fuels, - and a new U.N. Economic Security Council to oversee and implement the independent
financing for the United Nations.
All of these pieces of global governance have been under construction for years. They are all
coming together now. The events of September 11, and Americas response, will serve the same
purpose as World War II: providing justification for creating an international authority to end
war, or terrorism, as the case may be.
The United States is the only power on earth strong enough to prevent this terror on the horizon -
this last step toward global governance. So far, President Bush has resisted the pressure.
Whether or not the American people have the understanding - and the will - to stay the course of
independence and freedom, is the most important question our nation has ever faced. The
answer will unfold over the next several months.






122
Col20011011
Freedom: better than global governance

By Henry Lamb
While the choir of voices opposing global governance is growing, its loudest anthems are but a
whisper, compared to the orchestrated drumbeat guiding the world to domination by the United
Nations.
One month to the day after the September 11 attack on the United States, Kofi Annan
simultaneously addressed audiences in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles,
Minneapolis, Seattle, St. Louis and Tampa. The event was sponsored by the Better World
Campaign; the United Nations Foundation; the United Nations Association; the Business
Council for the United Nations; and the League of Women Voters. Walter Cronkite hosted the
event, and Secretary of State, Colin Powell offered these remarks:
...the United Nations is making a difference in the daily lives of ordinary men and
women all around the globe in a host of other ways - whether it's disaster relief,
peacekeeping, the worldwide fight against infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, TB and
malaria, the setting of technical and legal standards that underpin the international
system, or fostering good governance and sustainable development - all of these things
show what the U.N. is capable of doing."
The purpose of this event was to display the United Nations as the authority to deal with global
terrorism. Annan said:
"What the U.N. is able to do is to provide a basis for that broad international coalition
that we are putting together to fight terrorism,"
The United States does not need the U.N. to justify, define, or control the coalition the United
States has constructed. The United States, alone, should determine which nations it chooses to
include in its efforts. The U.N., and its supporters, are using the September 11 event to further a
much broader objective; transforming the absolute authority of national sovereignty into a new,
emerging concept of sovereign equality.
Global governance proponents contend that the equal sovereignty of nation states must be
transformed into sovereign equality administered by the United Nations. The idea that
sovereign nations are responsible for their citizens is no longer acceptable; the United Nations is
defining its role to include security for the people, regardless of the sovereignty of the nations
in which those people live.
Nation states, as sovereign entities, must change, according to the advocates of global
governance. Nation states must become administrative agents of a broader governing authority -
global governance - dispensed by the United Nations.

123
We have seen the transformation taking place for several years, but we have not recognized it.
We have not even suspected the magnitude of the transformation. Only since 1995 has the
United Nations admitted its quest. In recent days, particularly since the Millennium Declaration
in 2000, the quest has become a rapid-deployment imperative.
Our calls for withdrawal from the United Nations have gone unheeded. Our warnings have been
ridiculed as the ranting of right-wing extremists. Our examples of incremental power-grabbing
by the United Nations have been explained away as necessary to resolve a global problem -
whether or not a real problem exists.
We are losing our national sovereignty, and we are losing the battle against global governance.
Perhaps the reason is that we have failed to analyze the situation from the appropriate
perspective. We tend to react to global governance initiatives in the present, mostly by saying no
- to the Kyoto Protocol; to the International Criminal Court; to the World Trade Organization; to
global taxation; and to virtually all of the other initiatives that move the world closer to U.N.
domination.
Perhaps we should examine the situation from a much longer perspective; as have the proponents
of global governance. The threshold to global governance, on which we stand today, has been
under construction for a century. What will the world look like a hundred years from now?
It should be quite clear, that the world will be a disaster a century from now, if global
governance proceeds as it is envisioned. Understand that the concept of global governance is
fundamentally flawed, and cannot possibly survive the demands that will be placed upon it. The
concept of global governance is built upon a philosophy that holds government (the U.N.) to be
the supreme authority to regulate the activities of all citizens. In this way, government can
assure security for all, and prohibit aggression and violence, while ensuring equitable use of the
earths resources.
Global governance is nothing more than a dressed-up, sophisticated reincarnation of the same
philosophy that failed the Soviet Union, that failed Cuba, and that has failed every other society
upon which it has been imposed.
It will fail the world.
There is a better way to enter the new millennium: the pursuit of freedom.
The world will never be at peace, nor will the hungry ever be fed, until people are free to choose
what they will do with their time, their energy, and their talent. America is proof that free
people can not only solve staggering problems, but produce incredible prosperity while solving
them.
Free people in America have produced more in two centuries, than the rest of the world produced
in two millennia. It should be apparent that the first objective in the new millennium should be
to free people in every nation to do what they want to do.

124
It is absolutely inevitable that free people pursuing their own self interest will run headlong into
direct conflict. There are but three ways to resolve these conflicts: the stronger party imposes his
will upon the weaker party, the parties find a solution that is mutually acceptable, or a solution is
imposed, and maintained, by a third party.
The first method is primitive, and the method present in most of nature. Human beings have
finally begun to realize that the second method of conflict resolution is best. Global governance
is the imposition of the third method. The imposition of a solution by a third party is never more
than a temporary solution. The ethnic wars of Eastern Europe stand as tragic evidence.
By far, the best method of conflict resolution is a voluntary agreement between or among the
parties. This method, however, requires a degree of enlightenment that not all people have yet
achieved. A fundamental principle of freedom is this: any right that I claim for myself, I must be
willing to grant to all others.
As simple as this fundamental truth may be, it is ignored, or deliberately rejected by many
people. For example, if I claim the right to choose the religion that satisfies me, I must be
willing to grant to all others, the right to choose a religion that satisfies them - even if it is
different from mine. Many religions demand exclusivity. Osama bin Ladens interpretation of
Islam justifies the slaughter of infidels who reject his interpretation of Islam.
Conflicts between individuals or nations who do not share the common belief of equal rights can
rarely be resolved by mutual agreement, and never permanently resolved. Therefore, the
solution must be imposed by the stronger party, or by a third party exercising a greater power
than either of the parties in conflict. Our challenge is to educate people to understand that the
freedom granted by our Creator applies to all people, and that to enjoy the benefits of that
freedom, we must respect the rights of all others.
In America, as we grew and learned, many conflicts were resolved in the primitive fashion, using
Winchester rifles - and worse. Eventually, we learned that we could reach agreement in
principle - law - and employ people to enforce the laws that we made. If we found the law to be
too restrictive, or producing unanticipated consequences, we could change the law. If the people
we employed to enforce the law failed to administer the law equitably, we could fire the
employee and hire another. We, the people, were free to control both the law, and its
enforcement. We, the people, remained free.
It is not so, in most of the nations of the world. Most people live under some form of totalitarian
government, over which they have little influence, and no control. Global governance seeks to
create a mechanism that will impose laws upon those people. The people who live under such
totalitarian rule would simply trade their present ruler for rule by the United Nations.
The United States is a particularly thorny problem for global governance. American people
value the freedom to elect the people who make laws, and the power to un-elect, and fire the
people they employ to administer the law. Global governance has no room for such impudence -
such freedom. Better than allowing the United Nations to gain the power to impose its will upon
all nations, particularly upon the United States, would be the deliberate decisions by all nations
to confront conflict in recognition of the most fundamental principle of freedom: any right a
nation claims for itself, must willingly be granted to all other nations.

125
Many nations in the world, though not all, have matured to the point that we can agree to resolve
conflict by mutual, voluntary agreement. This method of solving problems and resolving
conflict is more desirable, more effective, and more durable, than allowing the United Nations to
impose and maintain a solution. Only when we, as individuals, or as nations, can confront our
problems and conflicts head-on, with mutual respect for each others equal rights, can we begin
to realize permanent peace and prosperity.
The United Nations should be a facilitator for discussions among sovereign nations. Nothing
more. Agreements between and among nations should be voluntary - not legally binding, and
enforceable by an International Criminal Court, World Trade Organization, or some future
enforcement agency.
Nations that enter into agreements, and then default, will suffer the same kind of consequences
individuals face when they default on an agreement. Sooner or later, nations, like individuals,
can learn how to cooperate to the mutual benefit of all parties.
Among the fundamental principles of freedom granted by our Creator, is the right to self defense.
The instinct to survive is our strongest instinct, and we are free to use all means at our disposal to
prevent the taking of our life. Nations too, have this right. Until the world reaches a much
higher level of enlightenment than has yet been displayed, this right of self defense must be held,
by all nations, as the highest priority. When the life of a nation is jeopardized by another nation,
or any external power, it has the right to use all means at its disposal to protect itself and its
citizens.
To relinquish this right to a third party is nothing short of stupid.
Some nations do not have the resources to defend themselves. They need the help of voluntary
agreements such as NATO, to help them. They do not need a United Nations with the military
might to impose its solution - with or without the voluntary agreement of any nation.
Global governance is in the near future for all people, unless there is a dramatic awakening of the
American people. It will probably take a few generations, at least, to deplete the resources and
the initiative of free people, and begin to crumble under its own weight as did the Soviet Union.
Crumble it will, however, because there is no way that people can be regulated and forced to take
care of those who cant or wont care for themselves.
How much better it would be if we could avoid a century of global experimentation with a
system of governance that is known to be flawed, and will inevitably fail. We dont have the
solutions to all the problems and conflicts that will arise in the future. Neither does the United
Nations. Those problems and conflicts will come, whether were ready or not.
We still have a window of opportunity to meet those problems and conflicts as a free people in a
free society, free to utilize our ingenuity and energy in the best way we choose. Or we will be
bound to meet those problems and conflicts with policies dictated by people who are elected by
no one, whose interests may or may not coincide with our own, and whose values do not include
the concept of freedom, except as it may be dispensed by the United Nations.


126
Col20011018
No Ford in my future

By Henry Lamb
My first car was a 1949 Ford, bought in 1956 for $200. Had it been a Chevy, my firstborn could
have arrived in the back seat, but my sleek, two-door coupe raced through the streets and arrived
at the hospital in the nick of time.
My most recent automobile purchase was a Ford, a monstrous, gas-guzzling van, complete with
a television and a touch-of-the-button back seat that becomes a comfortable bed. Despite my
satisfaction with Ford vehicles, I'll never buy another one as long as Bill Ford is in the driver's
seat at the Ford Motor Company.
William (Bill) Clay Ford, Jr. was an impressionable teenager at a prestigious Grosse-Pointe prep
school when the first Earth Day happened. He spent his weekends on the sidelines at his father's
Detroit Lions football games. As a school project, he helped "clean up the river," by participating
in a litter campaign. He is a perfect example of just how effective the green propaganda machine
has been at shaping the Clinton-Gore-Ford generation.
In a speech to Greenpeace's Business Conference in London (October 16, 2001), Bill said:
"We're at a crucial point in the world's history. Our oceans and forests are suffering, species are
disappearing and the climate is changing around the world."
Pure propaganda right out of the environmental extremists' handbook.
Bill graduated from Princeton in 1979 and from MIT in 1984. Then he went to work for Ford.
Had his last name not been Ford, he would not have been appointed to the Board of Directors in
1988, but it is, and he was. In January, 1999, Bill became chairman of the Board of Ford Motor
Company, bringing with him his new-age philosophies based on Zen, Tibetan and Vipassana
Buddhism and a green mind-set based on environmental propaganda.
"I began by initiating a process of stakeholder engagement," Bill told his Greenpeace audience.
What that means in work-a-day talk, is that he called in Greenpeace, Oxfam, Friends of the Earth
and other towering giants in the world of industry, to find out how to convert Ford Motor
Company into the Ford "Sustainability" Company.
He immediately withdrew Ford from the Global Climate Coalition, an industry group which
almost single-handedly prevented the U.N. from imposing the Kyoto Protocol on the world. He
has made Ford the first major corporation to bring all of its 140 facilities in 26 countries into full
compliance with the U.N.'s ISO 14001 environmental management regulations. Ford is now
requiring all its suppliers to meet the U.N. standards by the end of 2001. When you are a $154
billion per year gorilla, you can make the little monkeys do what you want.

127
Young Bill's environmental bent, combined with the Ford Foundation's environmental grant
making, has enraged a large and quite significant portion of Ford's market. In response to Bill's
speech to Greenpeace, Howard Hutchinson, director of the Arizona-New Mexico Coalition of
Counties, fired off a letter advising young Bill that his board of directors has issued a call to all
member counties to:
... review their purchasing policies for all Ford products. We also call upon our
respective state governments' and agencies' to review their purchasing policies in this
regard. We also call upon all counties in the nation to examine Ford Motor Company's
contributions to our mutual destruction, and act accordingly.
Hutchinson also told Ford, "Your speech to Greenpeace demonstrates your total ignorance of
local, national and global environmental issues."
Jay Walley, of the New Mexico-based Paragon Foundation, has launched an all-out war against
Ford's philanthropy, urging his readers to call members of the board, and other officers, to
protest the company's giving practices.
Ford recently gave the Audubon Society five million dollars. Audubon and The Nature
Conservancy, funded the infamous "Wildlands Project" promoted by Earth First! founder Dave
Foreman, and Dr. Reed F. Noss. This plan seeks to convert "at least half" of the lower 48 states
to "core wilderness areas" which are off-limits to humans, and surround those areas with "buffer
zones" managed by government for "conservation" objectives.
This plan, consistent with the un-ratified Convention on Biological Diversity, became a high
priority for the Clinton-Gore administration's Ecosystem Management Policy. These policies
have shut down logging, mining and ranching operations across the west, and continue to
threaten the livelihood of farmers and rural people across the country.
Rural people are among Ford's strongest and, heretofore, most loyal customers. Young Bill has
completely ignored this customer base and, instead, turned to his Ivy-League, soccer-mom,
SUV-driving environmentalist buddies for advice. He is betting that they outnumber and can
outspend the working-class, pick-up-driving common folks. The jury is still out.
Bill is taking the Ford Motor Company off the well-paved American road and is charting a
course into the global village using a map drawn by utopian internationalists who use
environmental hyperbole to whip up emotional responses to manufactured crises. America
doesn't need such nonsense, especially now. As for me, I don't plan any more emergency runs to
the maternity ward, so there will certainly be no Ford in my future.





128
Col20011020
Why do they hate us?

By Henry Lamb
Pictures of people protesting in the streets of Pakistan leave Americans in bewilderment; why do
they hate us so?
They hate us because they have been taught to hate us.
For generations upon generations, they have been taught that we are infidels, responsible for all
the evils in the world, responsible for all thats wrong in their country, responsible for the
poverty and suffering they are forced to endure.
Thats what happens under totalitarian rule. When government controls what people are allowed
to learn, people learn only that which serves the interests of government. The principles of
freedom are not in the interest of any totalitarian regime. Consequently, these people who burn
the American flag, raise their fist in rage at America, and readily offer to sacrifice their lives in
suicide missions of jihad, are to be pitied more than scorned.
They have never known a government empowered by their consent. They know only that
government is the realm of the most powerful. Thats why blood flows when government in
totalitarian regimes changes. Thats why civil war preoccupies, and drains many nations of their
resources. Thats why these people are destined to a life of poverty and suffering.
But they are told that their plight is the result of our prosperity, which was stolen from them.
And the people have no other source of information. They are taught from birth that people who
live outside their narrow belief system are infidels - instruments of Satan.
They cannot comprehend the first, most fundamental principle of freedom: any right that I claim
for myself, I must grant to all others. They are taught that those who do not accept their belief
system have no rights at all. Not even the right to exist. They are taught that they are doing
Allahs will when they rid the world of infidels.
How do we respond to this totalitarian travesty?
We rely upon, and exercise the principles of freedom.
We can, as a nation, recognize that any right we claim for ourselves must be willingly granted to
all other nations. This means that our brand of freedom cannot be imposed upon any nation. But
it does not protect any nation from our determination to defend our citizens. We seek no new
territory, nor do we wish to inflict harm on any neighbor. But any nation that seeks to do harm
to our citizens is a legitimate target.
Our best opportunity to display the benefits of freedom, as opposed to the tragedy of
totalitarianism, will come after the military action wanes. Afghanistan, and perhaps other
nations, will be in turmoil. Former, hate-mongering leaders will be dead, or hiding in caves

129
somewhere. A new crop of would-be leaders will be vying for dominance. We, as a matter of
policy, will be confronted with three options.
We can walk away and let the most powerful emerge as the next totalitarian regime; or we can
turn the whole mess over to the U.N., and let a more civilized and more expensive, totalitarian
regime emerge; or we can offer help to those who want to help themselves.
There will be great pressure to let the U.N. sort it out, and oversee the rebuilding that will be
required. This option only postpones another inevitable, much broader confrontation between
freedom and totalitarianism.
We should try to identify those prospective leaders who are willing to experiment with the first
principle of freedom, leaders who are willing to believe that if they claim the right to embrace
Islam, they must grant to us, and to all others, the right to embrace any other religion. Until there
are leaders in Afghanistan, and all other countries who are willing to take this first, fundamental
step toward freedom, all else is an exercise in futility.
There are those in every nation who would be willing to take a chance, if they realize that this
principle is the foundation of freedom. Once this tiny spark of truth is ignited, the flame of
freedom can flicker, and people can warm to other ideas, such as an uncontrolled media, and the
truth that legitimate government power arises only from the consent of the governed.
This option is the only way to replace the hate in the hearts of the protesters. This option is the
only way to end the cycle of totalitarian dictators that have kept much of the world in poverty.
While we rightfully bomb bin Laden and his buddies into the pits of hell, we need to be planning
a strategy to put an end to the hatred that produced them.













130
Col20011023
Global governance glitch Part 1

By Henry Lamb
While the national media is preoccupied with anthrax and Afghanistan, the wheels of global
governance continue to roll. Two important, but unreported, events have occurred since the
September 11 tragedy: a Preparatory Committee meeting of the High Level Panel on Financing
for Development (FfD), at the U.N. in New York, and the 9
th
negotiating session of the Free
Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
The FfD group is working on a document to be adopted next March, at a World Conference in
Monterey, Mexico, which will pave the way for the United Nations to impose its own tax, create
a new Global Taxing Authority, and a new Economic Security Council. The FTAA is working
on a document that will essentially expand NAFTA, to all 34 democracies in the Western
hemisphere, no later than 2005.
Both of these initiatives are squarely in the cross-hairs of the protesters who disrupted the WTO
meetings in Seattle, the G7 meetings in Genoa, and a variety of other meetings that focus on
world trade and high finance. Ironically, these vocal, often riotous, protesters come from both
the political left and right. How often is Pat Buchannan on the same side of an issue with the
Rainforest Action Network, and the Foundation for Deep Ecology?
Both the left and the right oppose the goals of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and so-
called free trade, but for very different reasons. The left sees these initiatives as capitalist-
driven mechanisms to further divide the haves from the have-nots, while the right sees these
initiatives as an impediment to commerce, and a threat to national sovereignty.
At the risk of over-simplification, heres the problem. Suppose you want to buy a new chair.
Sears has what you want, priced at $100. Wal-Mart has an equally acceptable chair priced at
$75. You, of course, are free to choose where you will buy the chair, presumably at Wal-Mart.
Some people call this price difference competition. Others call it unfair, because the
manufacturer of the Wal-Mart chair paid its workers less than was paid to the workers who
manufactured the Sears chair. Therefore, government is asked to step in and force the
manufacturers to pay the same wages, resulting in justice for the workers, and an equitable
price to the consumer.
At the level of the FTAA, 34 governments are creating a bureaucracy to enforce a broad range of
measures that will force an equitable price on all goods traded throughout the region. At the
WTO, and the FfD (international) level, the United Nations is creating a new global economic
system that will regulate the flow of both goods and money around the world. One of the first
guiding principles of the FTAA, is to produce an agreement that is consistent with the rules of
the WTO.

131
It is easy to see why the political right opposes the U.N. meddling in international trade, and
certainly, the efforts to regulate international trade, and forced global taxation. Why the left
opposes these initiatives is less clear.
Remember, the left sees these international monetary mechanisms as being driven by capitalism,
particularly by the United States. This view is reflected by the NGOs who protest so
aggressively.
It is their belief that the price of your chair should include what they consider to be a decent
wage for the workers, as well as the cost of environmental externalities, and the social
justice costs required to bring the have-nots of the world to economic par with the haves.
(Externalities: the tree that was cut to make the frame for your chair can no longer absorb carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere, which causes global warming to increase. The societal costs of
increased global warming should be reflected in the cost of your chair.)
Capitalism - free markets - do not require social and environmental equity as an element of price.
This is why the NGOs on the political left oppose the direction and goals of the WTO, G7, and
other capitalist-driven measures to broaden world trade.
The leftist NGOs do not oppose globalization, or global trade; they oppose capitalist-driven
globalism. They avidly support globalization and global trade regulation that incorporates their
social and environmental agenda.
Sergio Bontempelli, was quoted by the Washington Post during the protests in Genoa: We don't
like to be called anti-global. We're just the opposite. We're pro-global: globalization of human
rights, of opportunity, of free movement for everyone"
The demands made by these groups include as a high priority, NGO presence in the decision
process of international financial institutions. Institutions such as the WTO, the International
Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and others, have resisted NGO participation. Almost all other
international organizations and agencies have opened their doors and provided a red carpet to
selected NGOs.
The NGOs on the outside of the international financial decision-making process are the ones
organizing the protests. They are the NGOs who are now targeting the FTAA and the FfD as
these two important initiatives near completion.
Part II will examine some of these NGOs, and their targets.






132
Col20011023-trade-2
Global governance glitch Part 2

By Henry Lamb
Among the NGOs at the core of the protests against the World Trade Organization, and other
international financial institutions, are: Peoples Global Action Network, and its Continental
Direct Action Network, the International Forum on Globalization, the Global Exchange, the
Rainforest Action Network, and the Foundation for Deep Ecology. There are hundreds of other
NGOs affiliated in one way or another with these, who act in concert to protest or promote the
events or issues dictated by the funders.
These are the organizations through which the funding flows for the protesters to train and travel
to Seattle, to Genoa, to Washington, or wherever they can disturb a meeting and distort the
media. Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute, reported in The Washington Times
(August 7, 2000), that Doug Tompkins, founder of the Foundation for Deep Ecology, provided
$200,000 to each, the International Forum on Globalization, and to Rainforest Action Network.
These organizations claim to be non-violent and to promote only civil disobedience. The fact is,
however, that at these meetings, a hard-core group of protesters who wear masks, are armed with
hammers and other tools, and go about systematically breaking windows, destroying property,
and sometimes, looting.
They have been extremely effective in distracting media attention away from the meeting being
protested, and at disturbing these meetings by blocking entrances and storming the corridors.
They are serious about reversing what they perceive as capitalist-dominated development and
U.S. influence in international financial mechanisms.
These protests are street theater which reflect the age-old conflict between capitalism and
socialism. These NGOs would welcome global control of trade - so long as the trade is
regulated by a central authority over which they have substantial influence, and whose goals
included the social and environmental objectives they believe to be necessary to a just and
sustainable world.
On the other side of the coin are organizations such as Sovereignty International, that claims the
World Trade Organization already infringes national sovereignty by having the power to
penalize nations that fail to conform their laws to WTO rules.
The Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), first proposed in 1994 at Bill Clintons
Summit of the Americas in Miami, and the recommendations of the High Level Panel on
Financing for Development (FfD), which originated in 1997, are both entangling agreements that
ultimately strengthen global governance, further eroding our national sovereignty.
The FfD negotiations, which concluded the 3
rd
Preparatory Committee meeting October 19, are
replete with socialist ideas, including a global tax on currency exchange, a global tax on fossil

133
fuels, a Global Taxing Authority, and a new U.N. Economic Security Council. But a new voice
is stirring in these negotiations.
Delegates from the United States initially rejected the draft document, saying that the three
fundamental prerequisites for development: [are] peace, freedom, and capitalism. He said that
the purpose of the meeting should not be to negotiate changes in the capitalist system but to
integrate countries into it.
These are unfamiliar words by U.S. delegates at U.N. meetings. The United States is represented
on the negotiating bureau by John Davidson, of the Permanent Mission to the U.N. Some
delegates chortled at the U.S. position, one saying that he hadnt heard language like this on
capitalism since Brezhnev was alive.
This language has softened wording in the negotiating document from the report issued at the
end of the June meeting. Nevertheless, the key elements, called for in the Millennium
Declaration, are all contained in the carefully worded draft document.
While it is encouraging that the U.S. is speaking up at these meetings, in the end, the U.S. has
only one vote at the U.N. U.S. clout comes from the money it can withhold if things do not go
our way, and from our veto in the Security Council. If the U.N. gets the power to tax, and create
its own independent revenue stream, the U.S. will lose much of its influence. The new
Economic Security Council will not offer veto power to any nation.
This initiative is carefully being guided to avoid the need for Security Council approval, where
the U.S. has a veto, and possibilities are being explored that could achieve the desired result
without the need to amend the U.N. Charter, therefore avoiding the need for Senate ratification.
This World Conference is scheduled for March, 2002, in Monterey, Mexico. The political right
will oppose the proposal because it goes too far toward giving the U.N. economic control. The
political left will oppose it because it does not go far enough in the elimination of capitalism.
Whatever the outcome of the March meeting, the issue will not go away. The U.N., and the
well-organized NGO machine, will continue to amass control in a central authority under the
control of the U.N.
If the draft document is adopted in a form even closely resembling the present form, it can be
implemented with or without U.S. approval.







134
Col20011106
Kyoto: creeping to completion

By Henry Lamb
It would be hard to find an American who does not know that Arizona beat the Yankees in the
World Series. It would be even harder to find an American who knows that the United Nations
is pushing the Kyoto Protocol forward, despite President Bushs withdrawal from the treaty.
Two-thousand delegates from 165 nations assembled in Marrakesh, Morocco on October 29 for
two-weeks of intense negotiations to bring the fatally flawed treaty into force as international
law.
The United States has more than fifty delegates participating in the meetings. They may be there
to try to keep the treaty from becoming reality, but there is little evidence of this purpose. They
may be there to provide justification for the administration to change its stripes in the future,
claiming that the U.S. has been able to correct the flaws, and make the treaty acceptable.
While the outstanding issues cover a wide range of subjects which are extremely complex, there
is one fundamental issue that makes the treaty unacceptable: compliance.
The U.S. has already ratified the Convention on Climate Change, which calls for voluntary
reductions of greenhouse gasses. But since its very first meeting in 1995, the U.N. body charged
with implementing the treaty has been working to make the treaty legally binding - enforced by
the United Nations.
The Kyoto Protocol, adopted by the U.N., and signed by the United States in 1997, converts the
voluntary treaty into the legally-binding international law the treatys proponents have lusted
after since before the original treaty was drafted.
Writing in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, Jessica Mathews
reported that the original treaty was drafted in the twinkling of a diplomats eye by NGOs
during work-up to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. It is no accident that those same
NGOs are present in overwhelming numbers at each U.N. meeting to lobby the delegates to
move their vision forward.
In Marrakesh, as at virtually every other negotiating session, NGO representatives are
everywhere. Of the 189 NGOs represented, only six can be identified as non-supporters of the
Protocol. They are industry groups that are constant targets for ridicule by the other green
extremist organizations. Green NGO extremists equal or outnumber the delegates, and their
activity is as well organized and orchestrated as were their protests in Seattle and Genoa.
At the climate change meetings, the Climate Action Network (CAN), consisting of dozens of
environmental organizations, schedule a variety of demonstrations, conduct one-on-one
lobbying, and produce a daily newspaper for the delegates. These NGOs present themselves as

135
representatives of civil society; the public. They proclaim that their views are the views of the
world. They have enormous influence on the outcome of the negotiations.
They do not reflect the view of the world. It would be difficult to find one in ten-thousand
Americans who even know the meeting is taking place, or what the issues are.
These NGOs are present only because the U.N. wants them to be there, and because they are paid
to be there. Opposing voices are stifled, if not by denying accreditation, by limiting access, and
by the sheer expense of participating. It costs, on average, about $5,000 per person to attend
these meetings. There are nearly 2,000 NGO representatives in Marrakesh, registered to
organizations such as Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, and the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
These are three of the same NGOs who benefitted from the $808 million in grants from the
U.N.s Global Environment Facility reported in last weeks column.
The World Wildlife Fund is proudly listed as one of the sponsors of the daily newspaper
produced for the delegates by the CAN.
These NGOs claim that the original treaty is a failure because it is voluntary, and insist that the
Kyoto Protocol must be legally binding, have compliance penalties, and be enforceable by the
U.N.
This is precisely the provision that will give the U.N. authority to limit the emission of carbon
dioxide in the United States. To limit the exhaust is a backdoor way of limiting input. It is
similar to telling a homeowner that he may use as much water as he wishes, but may dispose of
no more than five gallons a day through his sewer system.
The governing authority that controls what comes out of the end of the pipe, automatically
controls what goes into the pipe.
The United Nations must never be allowed to control what goes into, or what comes out of the
energy pipe that fuels our economy and enables our lifestyle.
Kyotos proponents are so eager to control the use of fossil fuel energy, that they ignore, or
ridicule, the continually unfolding science that demonstrates that the climate change that we are
able to observe is well within the range of normal variability.
The ferocious storms that have already hit the Northwest, and the thickening layers of ice in
Antarctica, may be a reminder that Jimmy Carters new ice age may be closer than Al Gores
global warming.






136
Col20011107
Taliban: a non-violent solution

By Henry Lamb
All the ingredients for a perfect, non-violent solution to the Taliban problem are on the table.
We need to gather them up, put them in a bowl, stir vigorously, and let it bake.
Ingredients:
1. Afghanistan - a large stretch of undeveloped land, occupied largely by indigenous
people.
2. Environmental organizations - thousands of organizations working to preserve land
and resources.
3. Wealthy foundations - that provide billions of dollars to environmental organizations.
4. U.S. Government - that provides supplemental funding to environmental organizations
that work to buy, or otherwise preserve the land.
5. United Nations - that extracts millions of dollars from the U.S., and others, to promote
its Man and the Biosphere program.
Solution: Designate Afghanistan as a U.N. Biosphere Reserve.
Seriously. The United Nations has used all manner of intrigue and untold billions of dollars to
create nearly 400 Biosphere Reserves around the world, 47 of which are in the United States.
Surely, it could simply declare Afghanistan to be a Biosphere Reserve.
All the money now funneled into thousands of environmental organizations would be more than
enough to buy the entire country of Afghanistan. Im told that there are some fantastic real estate
buys in the suburbs of most all the major cities. In the cities, there is also a rapidly growing list
of handy-man specials for those environmental activists who will want to be there to oversee the
re-construction of sustainable communities.
The Taliban are likely to be willing sellers; the U.S. government has become expert at making
willing sellers out of people who previously were perfectly content to live in peace on their own
land.
The Taliban, however, have lost their revenue from the dope trade, and governments around the
world are locking up bank accounts and other revenue sources, so it stands to reason that they
would be eager to consider offers of U.S. dollars for almost any reason.
Congressman Don Young, the architect behind CARA, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act
(or the Confiscation and Relocation Act, if you are not a willing seller), should be appointed
head-honcho to oversee the acquisition of land. The Nature Conservancy could easily, with its

137
billion-dollar assets, and years of experience in land acquisition, handle all the detailed paper
work involved in dispossessing the locals.
If necessary, the EPA and HUD could assign overseers to insure that the World Wildlife Fund
and other selected, U.N.- accredited NGOs herd the dispossessed into the new sustainable
communities, and assign them living accommodations in public-private-partnership housing
units. Of course, the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development would have to coordinate
the whole thing.
Those who lust after global governance could build their utopia in Afghanistan. Funds for the
new light-rail transportation systems and the wind-energy farms could be readily available by
cancelling about half of the U.N. world conferences and other useless meetings scheduled for the
next year or two.
The NGOs could set up their stakeholder councils all over the place, and select representatives
from each to serve on the Bioregional Council, which, with its U.N. accreditation, could
represent the civil society of the Afghan Biosphere Reserve in the Peoples Assembly of the
United Nations.
A few conditions should be imposed, however. Congress should insist in law, that no more U.S.
tax dollars can be used to fund environmental groups to buy land in the United States. The
federal government can buy no more land that is not explicitly authorized by Article I, Section 8
of the U.S. Constitution.
Environmental organizations that get grants from the U.S. Government would have to use that
money to send their employees to Afghanistan to help build the sustainable communities and
protect the Biosphere Reserve.
To completely solve the problem of the Taliban, and prevent future uprisings, Osama bin Laden
should be held up as the universal example of leadership. When he is captured, he should not be
killed, this would make him a martyr. He should not be imprisoned for life. This would make
his release the ransom price of constant kidnapping around the world.
Osama bin Laden should be granted a free sex-change operation and forced to live as a woman in
the Taliban chiefs harem.









138
Col20011101
U.N. opens in a changing world

By Henry Lamb
All agree that the world changed on September 11; no one yet knows the extent, or the ultimate
shape of the change. The change is now in progress.
Law enforcement agencies seized upon the event to persuade Congress to enact laws that ignore
basic Constitutional protections, claiming the war on terrorism justifies turning a blind eye to the
Bill of Rights. This is bad enough, but as long as we elect our Congressmen, we have a chance
to correct our mistakes.
Of greater concern is the reaction in the international community. World leaders are seizing the
U.S. tragedy as an excuse to hasten global governance as the way to control and end international
terrorism.
In a recent WND article, Peter Sutherland says it is time to accept the concept of shared
sovereignty. He says it is time to strengthen multilateral institutions (read: the United
Nations) to combat such a global threat.
Sutherland is Chairman of BP and Goldman Sachs International, and a former director-general of
GATT and the WTO. He also chairs the European branch of the Trilateral Commission.
His view was echoed by speaker after speaker at the opening session of 56
th
U.N. General
Assembly in New York.
In addition to accelerating the negotiating pace of a new U.N. Convention on Terrorism,
Secretary-General, Kofi Annan pointed to two meetings scheduled for next year that promise to
strengthen multilateral institutions to the point that it can force the sharing of sovereignty and
thereby become the world government in charge of global governance.
The all-important meeting of the High Level Panel on Financing for Development, scheduled for
March, is expected to recommend a Global Taxing Authority to provide the U.N. with funding
independent of any member state, and other measures to empower the U.N. to effectively
regulate international commerce.
The other meeting Annan is awaiting is the World Summit on Sustainable Development,
scheduled for next Fall in Johannesburg, South Africa. This meeting, the tenth anniversary of
the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, plans to hail the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol,
and the International Criminal Court, and quite probably, the adoption of the new Earth Charter.
A new Convention on Environment and Development, already prepared, may also be introduced.
This treaty essentially converts Agenda 21 into binding international law.
These events are the culmination of years of preparation by the international community to
achieve global governance, administered by the United Nations. For more than a decade, the

139
United States has quietly pushed this global agenda. There are signs, however, that the Bush
administration may be having second thoughts.
Bushs withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol was a powerful statement to the U.N. His statement
to the opening session of the General Assembly was also encouraging. He is walking on a very
thin wire, balancing the need for international cooperation in the coalition against terrorism, with
the determination not to yield national sovereignty to an international body.
He told the U.N. that the United States would help with rebuilding Afghanistan, and with the
other problems around the world to which the U.N. is dedicated. But he also told the General
Assembly that the U.N.s credibility is in jeopardy when the Commission on Human Rights seats
member nations that are guilty of the worst abuses of human rights.
Bush made it clear that the U.S. welcomes and appreciates the help of other nations, and that the
U.S. can be counted on to help them. But he skillfully avoided any indication that the U.S. is
willing to wait on the U.N., or be guided by its decisions.
The political pressure will continue to mount. The president of Brazil said that he did not aspire
to world government, but then called for the very policies that are the essence of world
government. He called for greater regulation of international trade, saying that the would cannot
rely upon the vagaries of the market place.
As the pressure mounts to join the rush to global governance, Americans must realize that the
philosophy which underlies it is based on socialism: regulated trade; regulated lifestyles;
regulated education; regulated everything - from each according to his ability; to each according
to his need, as decided by the U.N.
This is precisely the wrong direction for the world. The hope of the world rests upon the
principles of freedom. These principles transcend race, religion, creed, ethnicity, and apply
equally to all people everywhere. Our challenge is to defend these principles in America - with
whatever it takes - while offering to help other nations discover them.











140
Col20011115
Internet target of new treaty

By Henry Lamb
As promised, the Council of Europe has now authorized a Protocol to its Convention on
Cybercrime, designed to eliminate hate speech on the Internet.
A report prepared for the Council by the Estonia Socialist Group, claims The 11 September has
shown that hate speech can become an action of horrendous magnitude..., therefore, modern
technology has to have safeguards, and one of those is to ban hate speech on the Internet."
The report identifies 4,000 web sites that promote hate speech, of which, 2,500 are in the U.S.
where they can hide behind the protection of the First Amendment.
Both Canada and the United States participated in the development of this treaty.
Controlling speech is essential to effective socialist control. Public Order Act 1986 already
forbids the publication of material in England that is likely to incite racial hatred. The United
Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, proclaims in Article 19(2), that everyone shall
have the right to freedom of expression, but Article 19)(3) says that under certain
circumstances, this freedom may be subject to certain restrictions.
This U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been around since 1966. No one has been
particularly concerned, because the U.N. has never had the power to enforce it. This is no longer
the case. The International Criminal Court has the authority to prosecute crimes against
humanity, a term that is as ambiguous as hate speech.
The question is: who will determine what is a crime against humanity, or hate speech.?
The U.N. is moving systematically and rapidly toward the consolidation of its control over the
flow of commerce. With the adoption of the recommendations of the High Level Panel on
Financing for Development, the U.N. can be in a position to not only levy global taxes, but to
exert considerable economic pressure on countries that fail to adopt and enforce U.N. policies.
The Convention on Cybercrime was developed during the Clinton era; and we have not yet
heard the Bush administrations view. We have heard administration support in general for the
twelve U.N. treaties dealing with terrorism, one of which is the Convention on Cybercrime. It is
not yet clear whether Bush will withdraw from the Cybercrime treaty, as he did with the Kyoto
Protocol, or whether he will let his determination to end terrorism blind him to the danger of
giving the U.N. the authority to control free speech on the Internet.
Should the U.N. gain this power, look out, its just the beginning.
Article 20 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights outlaws war propaganda. The U.N.
could well consider recruiting ads by the U.S. military to be hate speech, or war
propaganda.

141
If the U.N. gains control over Internet content, what is to prevent it from moving next to control
content of television or radio programs?
These concerns are not new among U.N. watchers; however, they have been rejected out of hand
by most members of Congress, and by the American public. The U.N. Association, and a host of
U.N. supporters, ridicule such concerns, and counter with the notion that the United Nations is
the worlds only hope for a peaceful future.
The United Nations is building a global system of socialist rule, which is 180-degrees away from
the system of governance envisioned by the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment says that
Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech. Period. This fundamental
principle of freedom has been redefined by the U.N. to mean: you are free to speak, so long as
what you say is acceptable to our central governing authority.
The principles of freedom, as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, are the only hope for a peaceful
future. The followers of Osama bin Laden are victims of controlled speech. They know only
what their central governing authority allows them to know. Their attitudes and behavior are
shaped and controlled by a central governing authority. They know nothing of freedom.
Only when all people are free to speak their own minds, make their own choices, pursue their
own dreams, achieve and accomplish their own goals - will there be any hope of a peaceful
world.
The United States has an enormous responsibility to defend and protect the freedom our
forefathers fashioned for us, and to never let any military force take our freedom, or any
political force coerce or persuade us to surrender our freedom to an international body of well-
meaning, but misguided, globalists.













142
Col20011119
Private property epidemic

By Henry Lamb
In 1976, the United Nations adopted its policy on private property, which says, essentially, that
there should be none.
Apparently, this U.N. decree outweighs the U.S. Constitution in the mind of at least one
professor who is teaching college students. In an article prepared for Environment News
Service, Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D., says private ownership...has reached epidemic
proportions....
The professor says that discussions of private property go astray, when they include the U.S.
Constitution and the words of James Madison and John Adams. He contends that it is their
attitude which insured that land would remain the domain of the wealthy elite. He says that no
trespassing signs are the new badges of achievement for the affluent. He says property rights
organizations find legal ways to deny public access, and teach their members how to
manipulate the Constitution....
The object of the professors article is to bemoan the diminishing access to beautiful places,
beaches, riverbanks, and other vistas. His solution is public ownership.
Public ownership of land is not a solution; it is a major problem that brings far worse
consequences for society than the inconvenience of diminishing access to beautiful places.
Of course, there should be some public land, parks, nature reserves, and the like. The people in
each community who want open space within their community have always required their
elected officials to use their local tax dollars to provide such places. The federal government,
too, has provided millions of acres for national parks such as Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon,
and countless other beautiful places. In fact, federal, state, and local governments already own
more than 40 percent of all land in America. More than a thousand conservancy organizations,
such as The Nature Conservancy, also own vast stretches of beautiful places. How much more
is needed to satisfy the professor and others clamoring for more government land acquisition?
Nothing less than total control of the land will satisfy supporters of the U.N. policy, because, as
the U.N. document says, Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation
and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice.... Only when the
United Nations controls the distribution of wealth, and can insure that all people enjoy the
benefits of the earths resources equally, will these folks be satisfied.
Should such a condition befall us, freedom - as envisioned in the U.S. Constitution - could no
longer exist.

143
Private property ownership, including the right to use the property, and to exclude others from
it, is one of the fundamental principles of freedom that has made America rise to the height of
prosperity, power, and prominence we now enjoy.
While we applaud Americas prosperity as a celebration of human achievement, others see this
same prosperity as greed, indifference to the worlds poor, and theft and exploitation of the
earths resources that are rightfully the property of all people.
The professor and those who subscribe to the U.N. policy on land disagree with the founders of
the United States. They are teaching a generation of students that our founders were wrong, that
their philosophy contributes to the problems that now confront society; that we should reject the
very principles that make our country great, and adopt the same philosophy that failed in the
Soviet Union, and virtually every other society based on collectivism.
Private ownership of land, subject to the vagaries of the market, is the only way to forge long-
term solutions to resource use, open space, traffic, and all the other problems that confront a
growing civilization. The marketplace - where willing buyers trade with willing sellers- is a hard
arbiter. There is nothing fair about it, nor are there any guarantees. But it is efficient and
effective, and it will ultimately reflect the desires, ability, and energy, of the people who engage
in it.
Government has moved to make the market more fair, which has benefitted many people. Every
effort by government to make the marketplace safer and more fair brings with it a corresponding
loss of efficiency. The work of our government since its creation has been to try to balance the
marketplace between safety and efficiency.
There is a point where government regulation to provide safety and fairness, overwhelms the
efficiency of the market. For many property owners, especially in the ranching, logging,
resource use, and development businesses, government regulations have already reached this
point, and they have lost the ability to engage the market, or to pursue happiness, as is their right
under the U.S. Constitution.
The professors analysis is wrong: there is no epidemic of private property. There is instead,
an epidemic of government-owned public property, which, with every new land acquisition,
destroys a little more of the foundation upon which America stands.








144
Col20011126
NGOs: leading the parade

By Henry Lamb
Agencies of the federal government gave $137 million last year, to 20 major environmental
organizations, according to Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, Tom Knudson.
Among the organizations claiming the bulk of the prize are The Nature Conservancy, and the
World Wide Fund for Nature (World Wildlife Fund). Both of these organizations are also
members of another international NGO (non-government organization), to which the U.S. State
Department generously gives more than $1 million per year - the IUCN (International Union for
the Conservation of Nature.
In addition, six federal agencies are members of the IUCN, paying annual dues totaling nearly
$300,000.
If tax payers are surprised to learn that their hard-earned dollars are being turned over to
environmental organizations, they will be shocked to learn that this direct transfer is dwarfed by
the amount of money funneled to environmental NGOs through the United Nations.
These same three NGOs, along with Greenpeace and the World Resources Institute, are
identified as executing agency, or collaborating organization on 46 projects which received
grants totaling $808,537,000, as reported in the June 30, 1999 Operational Report on GEF
Programs (GEF = Global Environment Facility).
The United States contributes substantially to the GEF.
Environmentalism is a multi-billion dollar business, led by giant not-for-profit corporations
whose offices and executive salaries dwarf those of struggling, for-profit corporations that are
often the targets of environmentalism.
The Nature Conservancy, whose assets exceed a billion dollars, is known primarily for
protecting land by direct acquisition, or the purchase of conservation easements or
development rights. It also serves as a real estate agent for the federal government, reselling
many of its acquisitions to federal agencies, for tidy profits..
Whenever land is acquired by the government or one of these organizations, the property taxes
generated by the land vanishes, or is reduced dramatically. The remaining tax payers are thereby
forced to pay higher taxes to replace those no longer produced by the protected property.
This land acquisition fever, promoted in the name of environmentalism, is an essential element
of the global environmental agenda developed over the last few decades that is being
methodically implemented by this NGO-U.N.-government partnership.
The IUCN first proposed the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1981, a proposal developed
by its members which includes these NGOs and six federal agencies. When the treaty was

145
finally adopted in 1992, even though it was not ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1994, these NGOs
and the six federal agencies, continued to implement domestic policies to achieve the objectives
of the treaty.
Biosphere Reserves, a program of UNESCO, are a key ingredient of the Convention on
Biological Diversity. The State Department, using The Nature Conservancy as the local
promoter, instigated the nomination of the Ozark Biosphere Reserve in Missouri and Arkansas.
Local activists, who knew the threat these Biosphere Reserves pose to private property rights,
opposed the project so effectively that it was abandoned.
The Nature Conservancy is the big-dog in the fight which has continually worked to expand
the wilderness areas and lock up more land in the Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve, one
of 47 in the United States.
The World Wildlife Fund originated the debt-for-nature swap in South America, that resulted
in exchanging poor country debt for vast stretches of land - at rates as low as ten-cents on the
dollar. This organization has also led the campaign to eliminate the use of chlorine, used to
purify 98 percent of all public water supplies. PVC pipe and most plastics would be eliminated
if they are ever successful in their quest.
Our tax dollars are being used to support and finance these activities.
The IUCN, a private, not-for-profit corporation headquartered in Switzerland, beyond
accountability to any U.S. government entity, maintains special consultative status with the U.N.
It was a scientific advisor from the IUCN who accompanied UNESCO officials to
Yellowstone National Park to declare it a World Heritage Site in danger, which triggered U.N.
treaty authority to require protection beyond the border of the site.
These NGOs develop the environmental policy through the IUCN, which is legitimized by the
U.N. through treaties and side-agreements with government partners, then lobby law makers to
implement the policies through law, and then promote the policies through TV ads, so-called
educational material provided to school children, and frequently, through law suits.
These NGOs should not be receiving tax dollars. Congressional hearings have demonstrated
abuse of these funds, but the funding continues. So powerful is the environmental lobby, that
our tax dollars continue to fund the very organizations leading the parade to global governance.








146
Col20011128
Lies, lies, and more lies

By Henry Lamb
Chicken Littles the sky is falling story taught a generation of children not to make up stories
that are untrue. Unfortunately, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and many other environmental organizations, failed to
learn the lesson.
Why anyone would pay attention to what these organizations say, or contribute money to support
their disinformation campaigns, is beyond comprehension.
The NRDC orchestrated, with the help of a high-priced public relations firm, the near-destruction
of the U.S. apple industry, by producing a report used by CBSs Sixty Minutes, to declare that
Alar (a chemical preservative used on apples) was a powerful carcinogen that caused cancer in
lab animals. Schools dumped apples, grocery stores took apples and apple sauce off their
shelves and in a matter of days the apple industry was devastated.
Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, a biologist from the University of Washington, former Governor of
Washington, and former head of the Atomic Energy Commission, later reported that in order for
a human to be exposed to Alar in doses comparable to the lab animals used in the NRDC study, a
person would have to eat 28,000 pounds of apples each day for 70 years. She also noted that the
NRDC report failed to mention that when the dose was reduced for the lab animals to the
equivalent of 14,000 pounds of apples per day for humans, the lab animals had no ill effects at
all.
In other words, the NRDC knew full well that Alar was not harmful to humans in any
conceivable dosage. Nevertheless, they arranged for scary, false information to be broadcast to
the American people. Should this episode not destroy the credibility of the NRDC?
Greenpeace has perfected the art of disinformation for profit. This organization raised a ton of
money using a video of hunters clubbing baby seals, and slogans that promised to stop the
brutality if only people would send money to their organization.
Magnus Gudmundsson, a researcher who lives in Iceland, later revealed that Greenpeace had
staged the event and actually paid actors to club the seals to produce the desired level of
brutality. Gudmundsson produced his own 43-minute video including interviews with the people
who were paid.
Greenpeace produced another film depicting brutality to dolphins, using paid actors to stage
events that were presented as actual dolphin harvests. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of
Greenpeace who has jumped ship, says that these efforts to stop seal and dolphin harvesting
never had anything to do with endangered species, as was claimed at the time, but were about
promoting the idea that no animals should be used as resources.

147
More recently, Greenpeace decided to wage war on chlorine. In a special report issued shortly
after Clinton was elected, Greenpeace said ...all uses of chlorine must be phased out...,
claiming that it caused all manner of illnesses, from breast cancer to shriveled penises.
Bill Richardson, who became Clintons U.N. Ambassador, and Energy Secretary, introduced the
"Chlorine Zero Discharge Act" (HR2898), in cooperation with EPA Administrator, Carol
Browner, who proposed to require [and not issue] permits for the discharge of water runoff that
contained chlorine. Chlorine is used to purify 98% of public water supplies. Fortunately, the bill
failed.
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) jumped on the band wagon with Theo Colburns, Our Stolen
Future, which goes to great lengths to scare readers with what might or could happen to
people who are exposed to chlorine. As usual, the evidence to support the claims was sketchy,
incomplete, and overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community. Theo Colburn was an
employee of the WWF; Al Gore wrote the foreword for the book.
In support the Greenpeace and WWF, claims, Stephen F. Arnold, a researcher at Tulane
University, produced a study that said the effects of industrial chlorine use were a thousand times
more potent than use of the chemical alone. Carol Browner praised the report: "I just can't
remember a time where I've seen data so persuasive The results are very clean looking," she
said. This report brought about new EPA regulations and screening programs that cost $10
million per year.
The federal office of Research Integrity ruled that Arnold had intentionally falsified the research
results, then covered up his lies. His penalty is a five-year ban on receiving federal grants.
The EPA screening programs remain in place, despite the fact that Arnolds study has been
thoroughly discredited.
Neither Greenpeace nor the WWF have slowed their quest to ban the use of chlorine; they have
now moved to the United Nations to achieve their objectives. The Bush administration has
announced its support of a new U.N. treaty to ban certain chemicals. Chlorine is not among the
eight chemicals banned by the treaty, but it is among four others that are identified for special
study for future banning.
Chlorine is used, not only for water purification, but also in many industrial processes including
the production of PVC pipe and a wide range of plastics.
Regardless of the endless studies, reports, and exaggerated claims of these and other
environmental extremist organizations, the sky is not falling. Nevertheless, these folks continue
to say, and do whatever it takes to impose their belief system on the rest of the world.
See: Why Chlorine should not be banned a special report.)




148
Col20011130
How Treaties erode national sovereignty Part 1

By Henry Lamb
International treaties come in a wide variety of sizes and shapes, with varying powers to erode
national sovereignty. Few people are aware of the extent to which our domestic policies result
from international treaties. Many, if not most, erode our national sovereignty to some extent.
There are bi-lateral treaties, between two nations; multi-lateral treaties, among several nations,
and then there are U.N. treaties - the most dangerous to national sovereignty. Most U.N. treaties
are called Conventions, as in the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity, or Covenants, as
in the U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
A Convention is an agreement reached by the delegates to an assembly; a Covenant differs
only in that it is supposed to be a Solemn Agreement reached by the delegates to an assembly.
All treaties specify the time and conditions required to enter into force, or, in other words, to
become international law. They also specify the time and conditions under which a Party may
withdraw from the treaty. Many U.N. treaties also create what is called a Conference of the
Parties (COP), to administer and/or enforce the treaty.
A treaty begins life officially, when the U.N. General Assembly, or a special conference or
commission created by the General Assembly, adopts the final draft of a proposed treaty. The
draft is then available for signatures. Official delegates from participating nations sign the
document, indicating the nations intention to ratify the treaty.
The signature alone, does not bind the nation to the terms of the treaty, but it does obligate the
nation to take no action contrary to the treaty, according to Michael Zammit Cutajar, Executive
Secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. A treaty becomes binding
upon the United States only when it has been ratified by two-thirds of the Senators present.
Until 1992, the Senate often ratified treaties with reservations and/or understandings,
attached. The ratification resolution would specify which portion of the treaty would not be
agreed to, or how a particular clause is interpreted by the Senate. The U.S. ratification of the
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has such reservations attached.
Since the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on
Biological Diversity, U.N. treaties contain a clause which prohibits reservations.
Is a U.N. treaty the supreme law of the land? The U.S. Constitution says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land....

149
This statement does little to answer the question. Legal arguments have flourished on both sides
of this question. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court has to decide specific questions relating to
specific treaties. Of more practical importance, is how U.N. treaties are implemented in the
United States, whether or not they have been ratified.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 was enacted pursuant to six international treaties which
are listed by name. The World Trade Organization (WTO) actually requires that member
nations conform their laws to the decisions of the WTO, or face fines and other penalties
stipulated by the WTO. These are only two of many examples.
When U.S. law is drafted to conform to requirements of a U.N. treaty, or when any international
organization has the power to levy fines and penalties against the United States, the sovereignty
of the international organization is superior to the sovereignty of the United States.
To many people, this situation appears to be unconstitutional, if not treasonous. The fact is, that
it becomes unconstitutional only when the U.S. Supreme Court declares it so. So far, the
Supreme Court has been silent.
U.N. treaties rarely require specific action. Instead, they are written with broad, generalized
objectives in language that is warm, fuzzy, and deliberately ambiguous.
For example, the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity is only 18-pages. It contains a
provision (Article 8) that says all Parties shall create... a system of protected areas. The
instruction book for implementing the treaty, the Global Biodiversity Assessment, is 1140-pages,
about 300 of which describe in great detail, that the system of protected areas should be designed
like the Wildlands Project, published in the U.S. in 1992 by Reed Noss, which requires that at
least half of the land area be encompassed in core reserves off limits to most human activity.
This treaty was not signed by the United States until Bill Clinton took office. The Senate did not
ratify this treaty. But since the Clinton administration wanted the treaty implemented, Al Gore,
through his re-invention of government program, restructured the resource management
agencies of the federal government to implement the goals of the treaty through an
administrative policy called Ecosystem Management.
In this instance, national sovereignty was eroded by the influence of an un-ratified treaty because
the Executive Branch agreed with the treatys objectives, and chose to implement them without
specific Congressional authorization. Many of the members of the Clinton administration were
former executives of environmental organizations who had actually participated in the
development of the treaty before they became the government officials responsible for
implementing it. Well see how this happens in Part 2.






150
Col20011130
How Treaties erode national sovereignty -Part 2

By Henry Lamb
In the United States, public policy should be made only by elected officials. This is the method
our founders devised to ensure that government would remain under the control of the people.
Should elected officials enact laws to which the people do not consent elected officials can be
replaced on election day.
U.N. treaties are not made by elected officials. When public policy is enacted to satisfy the
requirements of U.N. treaties, not only is our national sovereignty eroded, but there is no one
accountable who can be replaced on election day.
In Part 1, we saw that U.N. treaties begin their official life with the U.N. General Assembly.
They are conceived, however, many months before they are born, and often under circumstances
that are less than public.
Environmental treaties, for example, most often are conceived by the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN). This is a highly specialized non-government organization
(NGO). Thats right an NGO is writing U.N. treaties that are implemented in the United States
as public policy with the force of law.
Membership in the IUCN is limited to other NGOs, such as The Nature Conservancy, the
Audubon Society, World Wildlife Fund, and other environmental organizations, and agencies of
national governments. Six agencies of the federal government are members of the IUCN.
Dozens of Clinton-era administrators came from environmental organizations that are members
of the IUCN. Jay Hair, once President of the National Wildlife Federation, became President of
the IUCN, and was also a member of the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development.
As members of the IUCN, they participated in the drafting of several treaties, including the U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The
environmental organizations from which these administrators came provided enormous public
relations support and lobbying expertise to get their treaties ratified. And as government
officials in the Clinton administration, they found ways to implement policies to achieve treaty
objectives whether or not the treaty was ratified.
Treaty ratification is only the beginning. The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) was ratified in 1992, with little opposition. While broad objectives were established
- to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000 - compliance was
voluntary.
Like most, this treaty created a COP (Conference of the Parties), which is a separate assembly of
delegates responsible for implementing and enforcing this particular treaty. The treaty also

151
authorizes the creation of a Secretariat, which is the bureaucracy necessary to conduct the
meetings and do all the work. The Secretariat consists of employees of the United Nations.
At the COP, each nation may have as many delegates as it can afford to send, but each nation
gets only one vote, if ever a vote is taken. At the U.N., decisions are reached by consensus.
At the first meeting of the UNFCCC COP, in Berlin in 1995, it was no surprise when the
delegates decided to amend the treaty with a Protocol that would make the treaty legally
binding and set specific emissions limits for certain nations. At this first COP, and every other
meeting since 1995, NGOs have been accredited by the Secretariat to attend and lobby the
delegates to enact the rules of implementation that the NGOs specify.
The same procedure was used to convert the Vienna Convention on Ozone Depleting Substances
from a voluntary agreement to a legally binding treaty. The same NGOs use the same procedure
to promote their policies through virtually all environmental treaties.
These same NGOs promote their policies to the public, and to Congress, and with increasing
frequency, fund this activity with government, or U.N. grants to raise public awareness. Some
NGOs get grants to implement programs required by the treaties that they create.
The poor voter who elects representatives to enact public policy has no chance to hold his
representatives accountable. Elected officials are often the last to know that policies
implemented by the Executive branch are designed to meet some international obligation,
required by a U.N. treaty.
Every treaty that authorizes employees of the United Nations to preside over a COP, requires the
surrender of some measure of national sovereignty. Hundreds of these treaties are already in
place, and at least a dozen more are near implementation. The World Trade Organization in
1994, the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, followed by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998,
each represent an increasing consolidation of power by the United Nations. The ICC claims the
power to enforce its provision in every nation on earth - even those that do not ratify the ICC
Charter.
Visualize our national sovereignty as a truck, moving through history, carrying an egg for every
law that has been enacted since our founding. Every U.N. treaty is a brick thrown into the truck.
Eventually, our truck will be carrying a load of bricks - until the weight of the load crushes the
truck.







152
Col20011203
U.N. joins war crimes claim

By Henry Lamb
It didnt take long for the anti-American voices to blame the U.S. and the U.K. for war crimes.
The Times of India reported December 3, that allegations of war crimes against the U.S. and
U.K. [are] coming in thick and fast for ignoring the Geneva Convention on the treatment of
prisoners of war.
Kate Allen, director of Amnesty International, was joined by Mary Robinson, U.N. High
Commissioner for Human Rights, in calling for an urgent inquiry into the carnage resulting
from the recent uprising at the prison near Mazar-i-Sharif.
According to Oliver August, with The Times, London, CIA agent, Mike Spann, and his
colleague, identified as Dave, caused the riots. Oliver says that Spann was aggressively
interrogating foreign Taliban prisoners, asking Why did you come to Afghanistan, when a
prisoner jumping forward, announced Were here to kill you.
Spann pulled his gun, according to August, and his colleague shot three prisoners. Then all hell
broke loose. Spann was kicked, beaten, and bitten to death, according to the reports, and more
than 500 people died before it was over.
No one will ever know exactly what happened to cause the riot. It is certain that the riot would
not have occurred had the Taliban-supported, al-Qaeda-idiots not attacked innocent civilians in
the United States.
Spann was a hero for volunteering to be there in the middle of that mess. The fact that the
Taliban and al Qaeda soldiers were in prison, instead of hell, is evidence of the U.S. forces
desire to limit the carnage. Neither the Taliban, nor al Qaeda can be accused of similar
humanity. Still, our enemies ignore the initiating cause of the problem and the inhumane actions
of the perpetrators, and point an accusative finger at the United States.
Get real, Kate Allen! Wake up and smell the coffee, Mary Robinson! These self-appointed,
power-hungry, pseudo-saviors of the earth poked the wrong giant in the eye. Some of them
pretended to surrender in an earlier battle, then pulled concealed weapons and slaughtered their
would-be captors. Those who pretended to surrender, and were rounded up and imprisoned, had
no more respect for human life than did those 19 deranged men who slaughtered 4,000 innocent
people September 11.
Perhaps the only way to deal with these people is to remove one of the words from George
Bushs Wanted Poster.
These events signal the importance of a much broader perspective on U.S.-U.N. relations. There
are now 12 U.N. treaties making their way toward international law, all of which deal with some
form of terrorism, to prosecute crimes against humanity. The International Criminal Court

153
(ICC) is expected to enter into force early next year. Its purpose is to prosecute war crimes,
and crimes against humanity. This outfit, carrying the Clinton administrations signature of
approval, claims the authority to prosecute offenders in any nation - whether or not the nation
has ratified the treaty.
Americans have not paid much attention to the U.N., or its claims, because in the past, it has
never had the muscle to enforce its desires. Thats changing rapidly. Next March, the U.N. High
Level Panel on Financing Development, will present its recommendations, which include the
creation of a Global Taxing Authority, and the implementation of the Tobin Tax, a tax on
currency exchange, and a tax on the use of fossil fuels. These taxes will provide an estimated
$1.5 trillion dollars per year to the U.N.
This amount is about 100 times more than the current U.N. budget, and will be more than enough
to finance the U.N. standing army, already approved.
Now revisit Mary Robinsons call for the U.N. to investigate the U.S. and the U.K. for so-called
war crimes at the prison near Mazar-i-Sharif. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights made
similar noises about the U.S. involvement in Kosovo. Remember that the U.S. was kicked off
the Human Rights Commission, and Sudan was given a seat. Realize that of the more than 180
members of the U.N., only about thirty can be considered friendly enough to vote with the
United States. There is no veto on the Human Rights Commission, or on the International
Criminal Court, or in the U.N. General Assembly. The U.S. veto applies only to decisions of the
U.N. Security Council, and the ICC is not subject to the decisions of the Security Council.
The anti-American voices in the world will be quieted in one of two ways: (1) by imposing
social and economic equity, which is the expressed goal of sustainable global governance or
(2) by allowing the people in poverty-stricken nations to experience individual freedom to
develop free markets, and governments empowered by the consent of the governed.
Global governance is built on the socialist principle: from each according to his ability; to each
according to his need. The U.N. intends to take from America, and give to its favorite
needy.
The United States cannot let this happen. We cannot be intimidated by Mary Robinson, anymore
than we can be intimidated by Osama bin Laden. We must take strength from those principles of
freedom that made us a great nation, practice patience, compassion, and charity to all - except to
those who deliberately poke us in the eye, and attack our citizens. They should feel the wrath of
war for their crimes. The terrorists in the prison at Mazar-i-Sharif felt our wrath. Whos next?

154
Col20011208
A snowball bound for hell

By Henry Lamb
Like a snowball barreling down a mountainside, the WSSD is gathering momentum, size and
power, racing toward its ultimate destination - hell.
WSSD is the acronym for World Summit on Sustainable Development. It is scheduled for
September 2 - 11, 2002, in Johannesburg, South Africa. It is a celebration of the 10
th
anniversary
of the UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development), held in Rio de
Janeiro in 1992.
A major objective of WSSD is to create the machinery for IEG - International Environmental
Governance. The fourth in a series of meetings that attracted more than 200 Intergovernmental
Ministers from various nations, concluded December 1, in Montreal. Their task is to consolidate
dozens of global environmental initiatives into a single, comprehensive mechanism capable of
creating global environmental policy - and enforcing it.
Their task is no small order. There are literally hundreds of environmental treaties, most of
which have an existing implementation and enforcement and bureaucracy. There are dozens of
U.N. and Intergovernmental agencies, such as the United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP); United Nations Development Program (UNDP); U.N. Commission on Sustainable
Development (CSD); to say nothing of the Conference of the Parties (COP) of major conventions
such as the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change; the Convention on Biological
Diversity; the Convention on Desertification, and many others.
Each of these agencies has its own staff and network of implementation and enforcement
processes. None are eager to submit their operations to the control of another, higher layer of
international governance; several believe the global agenda should be incorporated under their
control.
Thus, the Global Ministerial Environmental Forum (GMEF) is trying to alphabetize the various
components and organize them into an effective International Environmental Governance
scheme, to be adopted at the WSSD.
Throughout the world, other international agencies and organizations are meeting, preparing
their portion of the WSSD agenda in an effort to declare that meaningful Global Governance has,
indeed, arrived.
The U.N. High Level Panel on Financing Development will present its plan for financing global
governance at a conference in February; the International Criminal Court is expected to be fully
ratified and in force before the September shindig; the Kyoto Protocol is expected to be in force.
The plan of action recommended in Agenda 21, adopted in Rio in 1992, has reached sufficient
levels of implementation to empower the United Nations to proclaim its governance of the
planet.

155
There will be hell to pay.
Global governance is management of the global economy to ensure protection of the
environment, while enforcing equity in the distribution of benefits from resource use.
Any way you slice it, global governance means that those who produce wealth will have it taken
away and given to those who produce less - or nothing at all. Incentive to produce will vanish,
and economic production will necessarily diminish, as it has in every other collectivist society.
Hell will be paid first, by those who lose their freedom to produce wealth. Those people who
have never known this freedom will enjoy the benefit of the work of others as they bask in the
new prosperity delivered by their global governors.
In time, as productivity diminishes, as it inevitably will, there will be less wealth to redistribute,
and all people will be reduced to the lowest common economic denominator. There is always a
direct correlation between diminishing prosperity and increasing oppression by those who
control the distribution of goods.
The last people to enter into the gates of hell are those who control the distribution of goods and
the oppression of the people. Is it not true? Look around the world. Even in Afghanistan, where
the citizens have suffered for years, those in control prosper.
But in the end, even those in control must fall, because the gates of hell cannot prevail against
the truth: that hunger for individual freedom creates whatever it takes to break any shackles that
constrain it.
It may take a generation or two, for the loss of freedom to weigh heavily enough upon the
shoulders of society to produce a new crop of heroes. Perhaps it is necessary for the whole
world to undergo a total economic collapse in order to rid the world, once and for all, of the
notion that a handful of self-appointed elite can manage the affairs of everyone else. When the
new heroes begin to emerge, they will look back at America and realize that the only valid
government is a government empowered by the consent of the governed - a concept rejected by
those now preparing the WSSD agenda.
There is precious little time to avoid this global governance scenario; it can be avoided only by
swift, definitive action by the United States. The U.S. withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol was a
start. The U.S. withdrawal on December 7 (2001) from U.N. negotiations on a Protocol to the
1972 treaty on germ warfare, is another step in the right direction. But it will take far more. It
will take a total withdrawal of all funding of United Nations activities - now, before the U.N.
gets independent taxing power, to stop, and melt the snowball now rolling toward global
governance.





156
Col2001-1210
Thank God for Jesse!

By Henry Lamb
Just minutes before the December 31 deadline last year, President Bill Clinton signed the
onerous International Criminal Court (ICC) agreement, fashioned by the United Nations at a
Rome conference in 1998. His signature does not ratify the agreement, but it does obligate the
United States to take no action contrary to the goals of the agreement.
Senator Jesse Helms is having none of it. He introduced the American Service Members
Protection Act shortly after the agreement was reached in Rome. The bill languished. He
reintroduced the Bill (S1610), which was referred to the Foreign Relations Committee - which he
no longer chairs.
He didnt give up. When the Senate was finally forced to pass the Defense Appropriations Bill,
it included much of the language contained in the American Service Members Protection Act.
His amendment was adopted December 7, by a vote of 78 to 21.
Whats shocking is that 21 Senators voted against limiting the power of the ICC. Senator
Christopher Dodd (D-CT) tried to short-circuit the Helms amendment with one of his own. The
Dodd proposal would have only required the President to suggest what Congress might do to
protect U.S. interests from the ICC. The Helms amendment takes the bull by the horns.
The ICC is designed to prosecute war criminals and crimes against humanity. Its charter
claims jurisdiction in all nations, whether ratified or not by any particular nation. Critics of the
Helms amendment claim the ICC is the appropriate venue for prosecution of terrorists such as
Osama bin Laden. Mary Robinson, head of the U.N. Human Rights Commissions, has labeled
American soldiers as potential subjects of prosecution for their war crimes and crimes against
humanity in Afghanistan.
Helms says humbug! His amendment blocks U.S. cooperation with the ICC, and prohibits any
U.S. funding of the enterprise, and bars the sharing of classified information. His amendment
prohibits the use of U.S. forces in any nation which will not exempt U.S. troops from ICC
jurisdiction by signing accords preventing the delivery of American soldiers to the ICC.
Moreover, his amendment would stop the flow of foreign aid to any country that refuses to sign
such accords.
Senator Dodd, in arguing against the Helms amendment, said the U.S. has to be a player in the
ICC. A spokesman for Human Rights Watch called the vote a low point in the U.S. Senates
commitment to international human rights.
The vote is a high point in protecting national sovereignty and limiting the rapidly expanding
power of the U.N.s global governance tentacles.

157
The Senate measure must be reconciled in conference with the House bill which has no language
similar to the Helms amendment. The House, however, has expressed approval of limiting the
ICC by a vote of 282 to 137, when language similar to Helms was included in a State
Department Authorization bill last May.
Its far too late to block the creation of the ICC. Forty-seven of the necessary 60 nations have
already ratified the Charter, and it is expected to be fully in force before the big blowout in
Johannesburg next year, the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
It should have been blocked during the Clinton administration, but instead, the U.S. was a major
force in its creation, thinking that special provisions would be included to protect U.S. citizens.
In the final days of the conference, the rest of the world pulled the rug out, and would not allow
any special provisions for the U.S., and Clinton delegates were forced to vote against the final
document - one of only seven nations voting against the measure. But for some strange reason,
minutes before the deadline, less than a month from the end of his term, Clinton signed the
document.
The ICC gives the United Nations a mechanism through which it can prosecute individuals in
any country for any infraction it may include in its definition of war crimes or crimes against
humanity. I have heard U.N. officials describe Americas pollution coming from our
extravagant life style, as a crime against humanity. I have heard U.N. officials describe
Americas involvement in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq, and now Afghanistan - as war crimes.
Make no mistake. Many people in this world see the United Nations as the only hope of
controlling the United States. The ICC is a new and important tool available to those folks who
want to control us. They will not hesitate to use it the moment they have the power to do so.
Sadly, there are some in Congress who are willing to let this happen. Jesse Helms is not one of
them.
Thank God for Jesse!











158
Col20011216
Take care of America First

By Henry Lamb
Could a plumb-bob be dropped from the truth about ANWR, it would never touch the statements
made recently on national television by Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle. ANWR, of
course, is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
With his best impression of South Dakotan sincerity, he looked straight into the camera and said
that we should not destroy our last pristine wilderness for six months of oil. This statement
arises not from truth or fact, but from the propaganda mills of environmental extremist
organizations.
Two issues: (1) will drilling for oil in ANWR really destroy ANWR, and (2) is there only a six
month supply of oil there? The answer to both questions is a resounding NO!
ANWR is 19 million acres. The Coastal Plain, where the oil is, consists of 1.5 million acres.
The area affected by proposed drilling is about 1500 acres. If Mr. Daschle had a trust fund of
$19 million dollars, I doubt that he would consider it destroyed if he chose to spend $1500 on a
water well on his own property in order to reduce his dependence on water from sworn enemies.
Daschles six months supply is based on the low end of the range estimated by the U.S.
Geological Survey of 5.7 billion barrels to a high of 16 billion barrels. Were the actual amount
of oil in ANWR to be no more than 5.7 billion barrels, the most we could extract would be two
million barrels per day because of the pipeline capacity. At that rate, the minimum estimated
reserves would last 25 years.
The most probable quantity of ANWR oil is over 10 billion barrels, using todays extraction
technology. Now were talking about a 50-year supply, pumping at maximum capacity.
How can the Senate Majority Leader make such a misleading statement? Environmental
organizations have twisted logic to divide the total daily U.S. oil consumption by the minimum
estimated ANWR reserves, and concluded the supply would last only six months, totally
disregarding the reality that there is no way to extract and distribute a supply to equal the total
U.S. demand from any single source.
The fact is that we are now using only about half the capacity of the Alaskan pipeline, due to a
diminishing supply of oil from Prudhoe Bay. We are also importing a million barrels per day
from Iraq, and more than 56% of our total oil requirement from other foreign sources. The
ANWR reserves would allow us to replace the oil we now buy from Iraq, and reduce our
dependence on foreign sources. This should be done now, as a first step.
In view of the September 11 attack, the environmental arguments offered to block ANWR
drilling in order to protect .00007-percent of a 19-million-acre wilderness, ring hollow indeed.
Moreover, opening ANWR would provide up to 750,000 jobs at a time when our economy needs

159
them. Most important, it would help reduce our reliance on countries that are infested with
followers of Osama bin Laden.
Americas priorities changed on September 11. While our military pursues its top priority, we at
home must pursue ours: improving our domestic security. Energy self-sufficiency is essential to
domestic security. Utilization of ANWR, and other oil and coal reserves, should no longer be a
matter of debate. We can do what we need to do with minimum environmental impact, and we
will. To refuse to use our own resources in order to protect a bug, beetle, or open space, is just
plain misguided.
Several national organizations, working through the Freedom 21 Campaign have called on the
President to take responsible action to utilize our domestic sources of coal, oil, and nuclear
energy, as the first step to achieving domestic security.
Senator Daschle and Representative Gephardt continue to wave the banner of their special-
interest contributors: environmental extremist organizations. Their alternative is to force
Americans into a different life style. Gephardt wants to use tax incentives and disincentives, to
force people to buy higher mileage automobiles, which have proven to be more deadly than
larger, less mileage-efficient vehicles.
Environmental extremists want to force an end to the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy
altogether. They are quite willing to force tax payers to subsidize exotic wind and solar energy
sources, and penalize tax payers for using the vehicles, and other products of their choice.
Alternative energy sources should, and are being developed as rapidly as possible. They should
be developed, however, by a free market place. Government does not know best; markets do.
Government has no business trying to shape the behavior of its citizens or the market place.
Neither Mr. Daschle, nor Mr. Gephardt agrees with this statement. They apparently believe that
it is their duty to dictate how everyone else should live.
They, and those who share their view, continue to block passage of legislation that will allow us
to get on with the task of improving our domestic security by reducing our dependence upon
foreign oil. They are willing to distort the facts and misrepresent the truth. We no longer have
time for this foolishness. We must take care of America first.









160
Col20011219
Caught in the crosshairs

By Henry Lamb
No one should be surprised by the fact that employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the U.S. Forest Service planted fake evidence of Canada lynx in the Gifford Pinchot and
Wenatchee national forests. What is surprising is that they were caught.
Radical environmentalists have long demonstrated the belief that the end justifies the means.
Stories about environmental extremists mishandling the truth are legion. Sadly, there are many
environmental extremists still among the employees of the federal government.
When Bill Clinton and Al Gore took control of the White House, the red carpet was rolled out to
environmental extremists. Many of the top jobs went to former executives of environmental
organizations.
Bruce Babbitt left the League of Conservation Voters to become Secretary of the Interior;
George Frampton left the Wilderness Society to become Chief of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
More than 20 of the top jobs in the resource management agencies went to executives from
environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund; World Resources Institute; Sierra
Club; Audubon Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and others.
These management officials were free to hire whomever they chose. They didnt hire people
from the property rights, or resource-use movement. They hired their friends and colleagues
from environmental organizations. The top people were replaced when George Bush took office.
But many people in mid-management and the field staff, stayed on. Some have civil service
protection. The not-so-surprising result is a continuation of the effort to use the power of
government to implement the agenda of extreme environmental organizations.
The seven unidentified government employees caught red-handed planting hairs from captive
lynx in the national forests had a great explanation: they were testing the laboratory that was
conducting DNA tests on the evidence.
As Don Amador of the Blue Ribbon Coalition says, this is like bank robbers saying they robbed
the bank to test the security system.
A widely published goal of environmental extremists is to end logging and motorized recreation
in national forests. Had the federal employees been successful in their deception, these two
national forests could have been designated as critical habitat, for an endangered species. This
designation would trigger expanded authority for the federal agencies to outlaw logging and
motorized recreation in these forests.
The question that begs an answer is: how many times has this kind of deception been used in the
past to impose no-use restrictions on other land? In every state in the nation, land, both private

161
and public, is being locked up on the pretext of protecting some exotic species. Rarely is the
science on which these lock-up decisions made subjected to objective, peer-reviewed science.
Throughout the Clinton years, an environmental organization needed only to petition the federal
government to list a species as endangered or threatened, based on allegations of questionable
authenticity. Friends in high places within the government were only too eager to oblige their
friends and take restrictive action.
Nearly 1500 farm families in the Klamath Basin had their water rights denied because a sucker
fish and a Coho salmon were listed as threatened or endangered. U.S. District Judge, Michael
Hogan, ruled that the Fish and Wildlife Service erred in their listing, but when challenged by an
environmental organization, the decision was overturned by the 9
th
Court of appeals.
The scientific evidence on which the salmon was listed is, at the very least, questionable. Coho
salmon are, in fact, so plentiful, that the Fish and Wildlife Service actually club hatchlings to
death so the hatchlings will not mix with the Coho salmon in the streams. There is no genetic
difference between those hatched in captivity, and stream-hatched salmon. Nevertheless, 1500
farm families have suffered enormous economic and psychological damage because of the
actions of environmental extremists.
These same extremists now want the federal government to buy the farmers land at $4,000 per
acre, rather than to delist the species and allow the water to flow to its rightful owners. The
objective of the environmental extremists is to get the farmers off the land - not to protect a
species that needs no protection.
The forests where the bogus lynx hair was planted are in a high-priority area for environmental
extremists who want to return as much as 50% of the nations land area to pre-Columbian
wilderness - off limits to humans. These folks have demonstrated, time and time again, that they
will resort to any means necessary - including the burning of a ski resort, and destroying private
property from one end of the country to the other - to achieve their objectives.
We applaud the officials who caught the culprits, and urge all agencies of government to be on
the lookout for holdovers from the Clinton-Gore era who are more concerned about their own
radical agenda than about the law, ethics, or the rights of all other Americans.









162
Col20011225
Like thieves in the night

By Henry Lamb
Like thieves in the night, a handful of U.S. Senators have set into motion a new law that can steal
the property rights from private owners in the name of protecting wildlife.
Late in the evening of December 20, while the media focused on Daschles refusal to allow a
vote on the economic stimulus package, while Senators were racing to wind up business to get
home for the holidays, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) called for unanimous consent to pass S.990
- The American Wildlife Enhancement Act of 2001. The bill passed.
Who voted for and against this bill? No one will ever know. Was there even a quorum present?
No one will ever know.
This is the same tactic used on October 18, 2000, the result of which was the ratification of 34
international treaties, including the controversial U.N. Convention on Desertification - without
debate, without a recorded vote. This is the kind of shenanigan that takes place at the end of
every session, to enact legislation that cant stand the scrutiny of public debate and public
opposition.
This particular bill should have been entitled Screw-the-landowner Act of 2001." It is one of
several proposals to provide tax dollars and authorization to convert even more of the rapidly
diminishing private property in America to government inventories.
This bill provides $600 million per year for five years for the acquisition of an area of land or
water that is suitable or capable of being made suitable for feeding, resting, or breeding by
wildlife. With this broad purpose, no land anywhere is safe from condemnation and
acquisition by an agency of government. The money can also be given to environmental
organizations for land acquisition. Moreover, this bill explicitly exempts land deals from
scrutiny or oversight required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Apparently, the U.S. Senate will use our taxes to buy pig-swill if it is sold in a green bucket.
Governments push to purchase private property in recent years goes far beyond wildlife
enhancement. Those who vote for such measures may think that the objective is wildlife, or
open space protection, but those who promote wave after wave of these proposals have a much,
much bigger agenda: total government ownership, or control, of land use in America.
It is time for the federal government to confront, debate, and decide this question: how much
land should the government own or control?
Presently, federal, state, and local governments own more than 40% of the total land area in the
United States. Once, our federal government believed that land should be owned by private
parties, and that the only land the government should own is that land specified in the U.S.

163
Constitution. Now, just the opposite is true. Our federal government is using our tax dollars to
buy the land it cannot legitimately control through regulation. Where will it end?
The push for government ownership and control of land comes from environmental
organizations. In the 1930s, the Wilderness Society openly called for the nationalization of all
forests. Of course, socialism was popular then. Now, their arguments for government ownership
and control downplay the goals of socialism and promote the idea of wildlife enhancement,
and open space.
How much land should the government own?
If this question remains un-debated and undecided, the government will eventually own it all.
This is the goal of the environmental agenda. Land, and the natural resources it contains, is the
source of all production. When government owns, or controls all the land, and its natural
resources, government will control the source of production - which is the classic definition of
socialism. Since governments now own more than 40% of the sources of production, does this
mean that America is more than 40% socialist?
If America is to become a socialist nation, as is the objective of global governance, then it should
be a deliberate action authorized by the people who have had opportunity to disagree, debate,
and ultimately vote the issue up or down.
Shrewd bureaucrats and politicians, however, are unwilling to address the issue head on.
Instead, they keep inching their way to total government control, with regulatory measures, and
stealth maneuvers that accomplish their goals incrementally - out of the view of a trusting public.
This legislative agenda is not limited to the Democrats. Senator Reid had help from Republican
Bob Smith of New Hampshire, and a handful of others. Any Senator could have prevented the
unanimous consent caper by simply objecting. Whether they were unaware of the schedule, or
unwilling to go on record opposing the bucket of green swill, we will never know.
The fact remains that once again, like thieves in the night, a handful of Senators have pushed
through a bill that erodes a little more of the foundation of our freedom. When government owns
the land, there can be no freedom - except that which government bestows.