Volume 4, Number 2 -- March 28, 1999
Ever since Rockefeller and Carnegie founded and funded the illegal, unconstitutional United
Nations NGO (non-governmental organization) in 1944, before the war had even ended, we have
had no peace. As a matter of fact, this socialist, pro-communist organization has waged upwards
of 200 killing wars in the name of 'peace'.
The predecessor to the UN was the league of Nations, another pet project of the Rockefellers and
Carnegies, which, fortunately, was exposed by Senator Lindberg as the tyranny is was intended to
be, and was dumped by the US Congress and Senate.
The pro-communists Council on Foreign Relations, the subversive organization pushing the UN
and world tyranny, now has almost three hundred of their subversives permeating the present
administration.
We need a major project of exposure of these criminals by name and by the positions they
presently hold in this government and they must be asked to resign from government, the military,
academia and the news media. They are all traitors to their country and to the people and are a
hazard to the entire world.
Yours truly,
Cliff Hume.
UNITED NATIONS - FRIEND OR FOE?
The United Nations is praised by the media, the public school system, and the Federal government
as "the last, best hope of mankind", an institution that will bestow upon humanity "freedom from
war"'. But a look beneath the surface reveals something entirely different tyrannical, grasping and
anti-human creature that seeks to largely depopulate the earth and permit the survivors to live
only in restricted areas. Strong words perhaps. Let's examine the charges one by one-then you
decide.
Tyrannical? The UN's Covenant on Human Rights is merely a list of privileges. Art. 13 permits
freedom of religion "subject to limitations prescribed by law." Art. 14 grants the privilege to
impart ideas "subject to certain penalties, liabilities and restrictions". Thus the concept of rights is
foreign to the UN, which was deliberately designed so as to concentrate all power in an
omnipotent government "for the good of humanity". Unfortunately unchecked power has been
shown to result in fatal consequences, in accordance with the "Power Principle: power kills and
absolute power kills Grasping? The UN has already laid claim to 43.6 million acres in the U.S.
under the Biosphere Reserve Program. It has also designated the Wildlands Project as the model
for "biological diversity." That project, promoted by a board member of the Sierra Club, is
working to return "at least 50 percent" of America to "core wilderness areas" where human
activity is barred. Core wilderness areas are to be connected by miles-wide corridors surrounded
by "buffer zones" in which limited human activity may be permitted. In both the core areas and
buffer zones "the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and
desires of humans." Thus human habitat will be mainly confined to 25 percent of the land. For
now the UN is content with the other 75 percent.
UN Bio-Diversity Maps: http://www.nwi.org/Maps/Wilderness.html
Anti-human?
In 1947 Julian Huxley, the first Director-General of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization, wrote, "Thus even though.. .any radical eugenic policy will be for many years
politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that... the
public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least
become thinkable. In other words the "educational" arm of UNESCO must condition the public to
accept the idea that life and death decisions should be made by the UN.
In a 1994 UNESCO publication Jacques Cousteau stated: "It's terrible to have to say this. World
population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so
horrible to contemplate that we shouldn't even say it. Thus authoritarian people hiding behind an
environmental mask wish to reduce the population by 125,000,000 per year. To put this in
perspective governments in this century have murdered 169 million people", exclusive of battle
dead, or 1.7 million per year on average. The UN's "scientific" arm is promoting the elimination of
sixty-five times that number for an indefinite period! Will our families be among them?
An indication of the UN's pitilessness was its 1990-96 ban on Iraqi oil sales. Denied the money
with which to purchase food and medicine an estimated 30,000 Iraqi children died per month. Not
quite Cousteau's 350,000 a day, but a start.
Who will protect the people from this monstrosity?
-The armed forces, won't they protect the people? No, for they are to be disarmed and replaced by
a UN Peace Force [standing army"; in fact U.S. soldiers are taking orders today from a Finnish
UN general in Macedonia.
-The National Guard? Totally federalized, it has been used against the people, as at Kent State
where guardsmen killed four students.
-The police? Federal police have remorselessly killed scores of peaceable Americans; local police
can be federalized, as were the Texas Rangers during the Waco incident.
If the government, the armed forces, the National Guard and the police either will not or cannot
protect the people, who will?
About seventy-five people from "sea-to-shining-sea" sacrificed their personal and professional
time to come to Washington, D.C. last weekend. Thanks to Competitive Enterprise Institute and
American Policy Center, a reception was held Thursday evening at the Hyatt. Friday, everyone
gathered at the Heritage Foundation to listen to several excellent panel discussions on a variety of
issues. Rep. Helen Chenoweth graced us with her presence and inspiration. We are all grateful to
Tom DeWeese for organizing this fantastic event.
On Saturday, everyone got down to business. A lot was accomplished in eight hours, but much
more remains to be done! Leadership was elected, committees were formed and chairmen
appointed, and whips assigned to our seven national regions. Immediately following the session,
the National Center for Public Policy hosted a reception. Thanks David Ridenour!
A few housekeeping items remain to be accomplished but, for the most part, the operating
structure of the PRC is in place. If you do not already subscribe to the PRC-Dgest, I suggest that
you log onto the PRC web site and sign up. It's at - http://www.freedom.org/prc
Be sure and check the PRC web site often to find out who has been elected to leadership
posititions and to volunteer for specific committees. Also learn who your regional whip is. This is
the person you will contact when any new property rights issues surface in your area that need to
be communicated to the leadership and the membership. A roster of names, addresses and other
contact information will be circulated among PRC delegates as soon as they become available.
Some folks asked that I supply a hard-copy of the James Fenimore Cooper quotes I read in my
opening remarks. They are from his book entitled "The American Democrat: Hints on the Social
and Civic Relations of the United States of America" and were originally published in 1838:
"The principle of individuality . . . lies at the root of all voluntary human exertion. We toil for
food, for clothes, for houses, lands, and for property, in general. This is done because we know
that the fruits of our labor will belong to ourselves, or to those who are most dear to us. It
follows, that all which society enjoys beyond the mere supply of its first necessities, is dependant
on the rights of property."
"The first great principle connected with the rights of property, is its inviolability in all cases in
which the laws leave it in possession of the proprietor." "The doctrine that any one 'may do what
he please with his own,' however, is false. One may do with his own, whatever the laws and
institutions of his country allow, and no more." "On the other hand, all who love equal justice,
and, indeed, the safety of free institutions, should understand that property has its rights, and the
necessity of rigidly respecting them."
"If left to itself, unsupported by factitious political aid, but sufficiently protected against the
designs and rapacity of the dishonest, property is an instrument of working most of the good that
society enjoys. It elevates a national character, by affording the means of cultivating knowledge
and the tastes; it introduces all above barbarism into society; and it encourages and sustains
laudable and useful efforts in individuals. Like every other great good, its abuses are in
proportion to its benefits."
"Property is desirable as the ground work of moral independence, as a means of improving the
faculties, and of doing good to others, and as the agent in all that distinguishes the civilized man
from the savage." I want to thank everyone for the honor of acting in the capacity of Speaker. I will do all that is
within my power to make the PRC a success. I look forward to working with each and every one
of you in the weeks and months ahead as we "go forward in our united strength."
Joanna Waugh
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?
Three bills have been introduced in Congress to authorize what the President calls his "Lands
Legacy Initiative" to preserve irreplaceable places. The legislation would create a perpetual fund,
beyond the reach of Congress, to spend up to $2.3 billion per year to expand the federal land
domain. The idea sounds reasonable enough, even desirable, until consideration is given to the
inevitable consequences of such a plan.
The land contains or grows the raw material for every product we use. The more land owned or
controlled by government, the less raw material is available for use in a free market. To put it
bluntly, when the government owns or controls the source of production, the market is no longer
free. Capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive; socialism, by definition, is government
ownership of the sources of production. No matter what high-sounding name may be applied to
the White House "initiative-of-the-week," the inevitable consequence of the Lands Legacy
Initiative is the eventual transfer of the sources of production to government.
The group assembled in Washington last week, formally created the Property Rights Congress to
be the vehicle through which individuals and grassroots organizations across the land can amplify
their voices to shout a loud, unmistakable message to the president and to the U.S. Congress: NO
NET LOSS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.
The Property Rights Congress is currently drafting legislation to prohibit a perpetual land
acquisition fund, and further, to require the federal government to dispose of land of equal
acreage and value, for any new land it may acquire. Moreover, the proposed legislation would
require the federal government to secure approval of the state legislature for any land it may wish
to purchase in any state.
The concept of no net loss of private property is endorsed by nearly 400 individuals and
organizations that have "signed-on" to a resolution posted on the PRC web site. The resolution is
the basis for the proposed legislation which is supported by a wide variety of interest groups, both
rural and urban.
How much is enough? The Constitution is quite clear; whatever is needed for buildings, military
training facilities, and other legitimate needs. All development in America, both government and
private, exists on approximately 5 percent of the land area. Every square inch of land taken out of
private ownership, not only increases taxes for the rest of the property owners, but takes the
nation a step closer to the threshold of government ownership of the source of production.
*********************
Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and chairman of
Sovereignty International.
Subject: Re: What are the UN's true Intentions for U.S. Land?
Douglas Walker
apta@discover.net
The Federal government? You decide: the Department of the Interior, USAID, the IMF and
World Bank (both US-funded) all work hand in glove with the UN; the State Department
alone has transferred $95.3 billion to that body, as of 1993.
March 19 - 21, 1999, saw the first meeting of the Property Rights Congress in Washington
DC. Joanna Waugh, whose web site "STOPwatch" may be accessed from our LINKS
page, has written a brief report of the meetings which we believe to be worth newsletter
space.
The first session of the Property Rights Congress was a success! And thanks to Henry Lamb's
foresight, it will never officially adjourn because the PRC will always be in session on the Internet.
In the weeks and months ahead, we must decide when and where we will all gather again. (It has
been suggested that next year's meeting be held outside of the Beltway.) Until then, however,
business will go forward on the PRC web site.
The following is an article written by Henry Lamb, a speaker at the Property Rights
Congress, for World Net Daily following the Congress.