VOLUME 6 NUMBER 3 - MARCH 20, 2001
More on the Bibb County, Alabama sovereignty
issue
Our last newsletter, V6 N2, "Bibb County, Alabama cedes sovereignty to a public/private partnership," dealt with two of
the three partners of the entity to which Bibb County residents and local government will, in incremental steps, relinquish
authority. The third partner is the largest landowner in the newly established "Cahaba River Wildlife Refuge - U.S.
Alliance Coosa Pines." This company is one of twenty two companies that have joined the "Alabama Sustainable
Forestry Initiative. (http://www.pfmt.org/sfi.htm) We might compare the "initiative" to a moth attracted to a flame. The
moth is mesmerized by the appealing light and cannot comprehend the danger until the heat of the flame has destroyed it.
The bright light in this case is the allure of certification of forest products. Government and media will tout that forest products from "certified" producers are socially conscious, which in part means they will preserve the environment and therefore their products are worth more. Next will come the vilification of companies that are not complying with the "voluntary" standards. Then, higher taxes and additional regulation will be applied to companies that do not fall in line. To see how one state has legislated coercion/extortion read The Mustard Seed, Volume 4, Number 5, dated Sept. 24, 1999, "Extortion: any undue exercise of power," It is apparent that Alabama is following in the same footsteps. The final steps are likely to singe the corporate wings of the participants.
Governments aren't the only route to sustainable wood products for the consumer. Home Depot is one of the major retailers that has endorsed the "sustainable development" mantra:
"As the largest retailer in our industry, we recognize our responsibility to provide environmentally friendly alternatives for our customers," CEO Arthur Blank said. "We're proud to lead the industry in changing the way wood products are produced and sold and to lead the charge in promoting the use of certified wood products."
"At present only about 1% of timber available on the North American market is certified; however Home Depot's move is widely expected to be the catalyst for much wider certification of suppliers."
"Home Depot's move to reduce and eventually eliminate unsustainable produced timber products comes as one of a long line of actions taken to make the company more sustainable, including other schemes such as waste reduction and reuse, and the marketing of alternative 'green' products."
The quotes were taken from The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development. (http://www.nzbcsd.org.nz/news2/newsletter/homedepot.html)
The pledge that the twenty two Alabama companies have made is described on their web-site in this manner :
"SFI (Sustainable Forest Initiative) is a commitment to practice responsible forestry, to recognize responsible wood suppliers, and to educate and inform people about sustainable forestry practices. It represents a partnership between loggers, landowners, and the forest industry.
"The focus of this program is to address concerns so that responsible forestry can continue. At the same time, this program recognizes the rights and concerns of Alabama's 214,000 private forest landowners."
The above quote implies that 'responsible forestry' can only continue under the guidance of the sustainable forestry ethic. Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI) is that new ethic.
The new ethic is embodied in two documents: (1) the 2001 Edition Sustainable Forestry
Initiative Standard .Principles and Objectives (SFI -- 2000), which can be viewed at (http://www.afandpa.org/forestry/sfi/Final_Standard.pdf). (2) the root of the this ethic is found in the United Nations Agenda 21 Forest Principles, which may be viewed at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-3annex3.htm
What are some of the sustainable ethical standards to which this new partnership will be expected to adhere?
"The following objectives are intended to provide measures for evaluating Program Participant's compliance with the Sustainable Forestry Principles. Compliance with the standard is a condition of continued licensing by, or membership in, AF&PA." (American Forest and Paper Association) 4 Sustainable Forest Objectives
A company's objectives no longer matter even though its actions are lawful. The company is, as the moth, circling the flame.
"Performance measures in this standard are written in the future tense to reflect the underlying premise of the Sustainable Forestry Principles, which is continual improvement." 4. Sustainable Forestry Objectives
Every aspect of sustainable development adheres to the 'continual improvement' premise. Raising the requirement each time the standard is attained is akin to emptying a glass of water by removing half of the contents with each effort - it can't be done. This, of course, results in ultimate failure for everyone.
"4.2.1.1.2
[companies will be] ....cooperating with existing state groups to promote the training and education of wood producers in:
" iv. Awareness of responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act and other measures to protect wildlife habitat;"
This clause ties each participant to every international treaty imaginable. The Endangered Species Act was not written because the citizenry demanded the legislature enact such laws, the action was undertaken because of the federal government's desire to comply with international law and treaties. Observe the following quote:
"Sec 2
(4) the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction, pursuant to-
Certainly 'other international agreements' would include "The Earth Summit" also known as Agenda 21. Lets briefly look at Agenda 21's Sustainable Forest Principles, which can be found on the web at: (http://www.icg.apc.org/habitat/Agenda21/forest.html)
"2 (b) Forest resources and forest lands should be sustainably managed to meet the social, economic, ecological, cultural and spiritual needs of present and future generations...."
How do we define the "social, economic, ecological, cultural and spiritual needs" of the present generation? To try to predict what future generations may need or require is tantamount to playing God.
"5. (a) National forest policies should recognize and duly support the identity,....." of "those land tenure arrangements which serve as incentives for the sustainable management of forests."
Plain English: if your land use plan does not fit the United Nations' understanding of sustainable land use, your land tenure (i.e. land ownership) may be in jeopardy.
"8 (e) Forest management should be integrated with management of adjacent areas so as to maintain ecological balance and sustainable productivity."
This clause does not exclude private land adjacent to the sustainably managed land. Private landowners should, by now, have the warm fuzzies.
We will conclude this article with the following list of Alabama companies that have climbed on this band wagon.
Public/Private Partnership - What is it?
by Don Casey
From the classroom to the forest and everywhere in between, the government is joining in partnership with organizations, labor, churches and businesses. If this new entity is to be understood a definition of government is required.
Government is (properly constituted) the transfer by the people of specific powers inherently endowed by God to an entity called government. Therefore, government cannot violate God's law if the rights of the people are to be protected. Nor can the people transfer a right which they do not possess. For instance, I have two neighbors, one poor, the other quite wealthy. The poor neighbor obviously needs help. The situation is easily remedied by taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor. If this action is undertaken by an individual it is called stealing. But for some reason when the action is undertaken by government it is referred to as 'providing for the needs of the poor.'
In America, the group of people that originally transferred certain specific rights to a federal government did so in a document called the Constitution of the United States. This document limited the actions of government and made it the agent of the people. The purpose of the agency relationship is stated in the Constitution's first paragraph. This relationship or agency status is much like hiring a lawyer. For a fee (taxes) he (the government) agrees to take action that are consistent with a written contract (Constitution). If the lawyer does not abide by the contract the people not only have the right to fire the lawyer (elect new representatives), but under God's law it is an obligation.
Does the Constitution grant the government the right to create a new entity such as a public/private partnership?
For the answer to this question we will consult with one of the founding Presidents, Thomas Jefferson. During Washington's Presidency, Jefferson was a member of the cabinet. Hamilton proposed to Washington that the nation needed a national bank. Washington submitted the question to the cabinet. In Jefferson's reply he stated:
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the State, are reserved to the States or to the people' .... To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.
"The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution."
Here the entity the government sought to form was a national bank. Jefferson held the minority view point. The bank was created, and within a few years it began to influence elections in the United States. Andrew Jackson, understanding the direction that the bank was heading, withdrew the Nation's gold from the bank causing it to collapse.
We face a similar situation. When government joins in a public/private partnership it transfers a portion of sovereign authority to the new entity. The transfer is not authorized by the people. The end result will be undue influence on elected governmental officials. The officials will answer to the partners rather than the people that elected them.
The definition of government began with "properly constituted". Government can, of course, be improperly constituted. First Samuel chapter eight is a prime example of the people rejecting sound government. God chose a group of people that were to be a light unto the world. The system of government that He chose for them (republic) established a judicial system with laws that He selected for them. When it became obvious that judges charged with punishing the evil doer (innocent until proven guilty) were taking bribes, the representatives of the people (chapter 8, v 4) went to Samuel not to ask for his help and intercession with God, but to cry out for an earthly king (chapter 8, v 6). Their rejection of God was acknowledged by Him in verse 7. He did not deny them the right to sin against him, but He told Samuel to explain to them the consequences of an earthly king. In verse 11 Samuel begins a list of the demands that an earthly king will require from his subjects. Of course, this resulted in the centuries of earthly kingdoms across the globe. Then in the 1700s a group of intelligent and wise men began to search God's word. Understanding His word took many years and great men of the pulpit with the strength to preach the truth. The results, can be seen in God's providential hand, working in the blessings that have been bestowed on this nation. It is amazing that a people who could once proclaim "no King but King Jesus" could in two hundred years pledge allegiance to a government that will not recognize the Ten Commandments.
Today's secular society is following in the footsteps of the representatives from Samuel's time. Dare we think the results will be different?!