Thomas Jefferson once said -
Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (adminstrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery.
In the article bellow Joan Veon masterfully exposes the systematic plan of reducing us to slavery through phony environmentalism. Enjoy and pass it on!
Tyranny by Another Name - Protecting the Environment The State of Maryland Paving the Way for the Demise of the Constitution
by Joan M. Veon
Most children have a favorite object which provides some type of security blanket for them. Many times it is just that, a blanket or favorite stuffed animal. For most Americans, the flag is our security blanket-- we feel safe when we see it flying above because it stands for what we believe is good and right with America. It is a symbol of all that our Forefathers fought for when they sacrificed for a greater vision of a place to live than one of oppression which both their former homelands and British rule offered. Today, our flag has more tears and rips than most people realize and if they understood the reason behind those tears and rips, they would not feel safe sitting at home and watching television when vigilance is required to preserve our way of life, values and country.
To those working to replace the Constitution with another form of governance, the flying of the American flag, i.e. the security blanket, affords them the cover necessary in order to tear down the laws which guarantee the inalienable rights our forefathers set in place with their new and "creative" laws which will change all that the flag stands for without replacing it. When the writer speaks of the flag, she refers to the national and state flags which together confirm our Constitutional and inalienable rights.
Background
Since its birth in 1945, the United Nations has been working to "harmonize" the laws and peoples of the world in an effort to achieve world peace. In the 1970s they sponsored a number of global conferences in the areas of the environment, cities, population, human rights and food. These conferences provided necessary framework from which to build a powerful global agenda which was basically unveiled at their second set of global conferences in the 1990s. With the goal of protecting the environment, in 1968, the United Nations Economic, Scientific and Cultural Organization-UNESCO, held a conference on the "Conservation and Rational Use of the Resources of the Biosphere" which was the first major global conference to address the concept of protecting the earth's resources by placing certain parks, heritage and historic sites in protected areas called "biospheres."
Man and the Biosphere Program
Since the conference, the U.N. Man and the Biosphere Program was instituted on a global basis. The United States has their own Program which is located in the U.S. Department of State and called "The United States Man and the Biosphere Program-U.S. MAB." In America there are currently 47 biosphere reserves and 20 World Heritage Sites, as designated by the United Nations. The counties
surrounding the biosphere reserves/World Heritage Sites are "buffer zones." At some point there will be no human activity in the biospheres and the buffer zones are to protect the biospheres where there will be limited human activity. On the following page is a listing of both of these which is provided by Dr. Michael Coffman of EPI. If you look at Yellowstone National Park, as a World Heritage Site it is number 5 and as a biosphere it is number 47. Little by little the people who live in the buffer zone are being forced to leave so that at some point, no one or very few people will be left. Where will they go? What are their alternatives? How much will they be paid for their home, ranch, farm or business? What does this elevation of the earth above the rights of humans do the inalienable rights of the Constitution?
The Rio "Earth Summit"
In 1992 at the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development-UNCED in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the UN unveiled a radical environmental agenda which is a philosophical inversion of the values reflected in the U.S. Constitution. Based on the Bible, our Forefathers created a document and laws which put man at the center of the universe and animals, plants, trees and forests under his domination. In Rio, at what is now called "the earth summit," a foreign concept was introduced which inverts our Constitutional values by putting the environment-- the biodiversity--anything which lives, other than a human, at the center with man and human activities causing the alleged environmental problems of the world--such as global warming, biodiversity, and over-population. This inversion is known as Gaia Worship or the worship of the earth. People who adhere to this belief include Vice President Al Gore, Under Secretary for Global Affairs Timothy Wirth, to name a few of the many in the U.N., leading non- governmental organizations, and other global bodies in powerful positions. The Programme of Action or the agenda in Rio, known as "Agenda 21," was 300 pages long and very complex. In addition it referred to another document called the Global Biodiversity Assessment which is over 1100 pages. Both change all of the absolutes we have known and substitute them with biological diversity, i.e. bio-diversity, that is any living organism, forest, river, stream or fish other than man has precedence over man and man is the cause of all of the environmental problems we are said to have.
Habitat II
While each one of the U.N. mega-conferences of the 1990s are lethal to Christianity and the U.S. Constitution, the key conference which needs to be addressed here is the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, Habitat II, held in June, 1996. Habitat means "dwelling place," and refers specifically to cities--it is where we live. This conference unveiled how the world would be expected to live once the environmental agenda was put in place. Habitat II is extremely radical as its Programme of Action incorporates the whole environmental philosophy and its form of "environmental governance" into all of life for the whole of planet Earth. The first Habitat conference in 1974, specifically identified property ownership as a threat to peace and equality. At Habitat II, there were, as usual, numerous surprises.
The first was the fact that instead of the President or Vice President of a country giving their speech as to how their country was going to conform to the principles of the conference and implement the agenda in their country, the Secretary of Housing, who at the time was Henry Cisneros, gave the speech. If the president or prime minister gives the speech, you have the head of that country speaking on behalf of his country. When you think about what it means to have the Secretary of a department speak, as well as all of the secretaries of other countries, it is the equivalent of a departmental meeting on a global basis. Therefore, if the U.N. is world government, then the fact that the Secretary of Housing gave the speech would fit in with the fact that it was a global housing meeting as each country presented what they were doing to come into conformance with the Habitat agenda, including the U.S.
Two, the United Nations General Assembly passed a number of rules, Rule 61, 62 and 63, in the 1995 session which now permit the local level of government and governmental organizations, civil organizations and individual citizens to now participate DIRECTLY in the preparation of a U.N. document. This writer interviewed Mayor Kurt Schmoke, Mayor of Baltimore, Maryland, who along with the Mayors of Chattanooga, Tennessee and Columbus, Ohio, were on the U.S. Delegation to Habitat II. Mayor Schmoke, when asked about his presence on the delegation, remarked that he saw the direct participation of people in the creation of a U.N. document as "the new wave of the future." The writer sees it as a direct bypassing of the Constitution, that is going from the local to the global level without permission from our government.
Three, there were a number of workshops, apart from the normal activity at other U.N. conferences, which were on transportation, citizenship, water, energy, transportation and infrastructure, to name a few. The underlying theme in several of these was that people of the world would have to pay a tax for the usage or depletion of a resource in addition to the service provided. Therefore, if you pay $1.00 per thousand cubic feet for water consumed, they are then saying that they want you to pay another $1.00 for the depletion of the water used! While this may sound far fetched, it is based on the underlying environmental concept of sustainable development. Sustainable development basically says there are too many people on planet earth, we must reduce the population and preserve and conserve the resources and that the United Nations is the only global body in a position to do so. This philosophy incorporates the concept of production and consumption. What the World Bank-WB and International Monetary Fund-IMF are working on is to find a formula to measure how much a person produces at their job and at home. From that amount they would then subtract out how much of the earth's resources they use such as water, energy, food, material, heat, etc. If the net figure is a plus, the person is adding back to the earth's resources. If it is a negative, he is taking away from the earth's resources and is therefore a bad global citizen. This is basically Marxist/Leninist economics being adopted on a world-wide basis. Many people would be shocked to know that this philosophy is being incorporated in many programs which the U.S. promoting. In other words, our worth will be determined on how much we produce and how little we consume--the ultimate perversion of the freedoms in the Constitution.
Public-Private Partnerships
Lastly, there was a new term, "public-private partnerships" which the writer first heard at Habitat II. Because the U.N. never defines the meaning of words, many were puzzled by its use. Public/private partnerships is just what it says it is. First, it is a partnership which is a business arrangement and sealed by a formal business agreement. Two or more parties sit down and agree to certain terms which will vary according to the goal or project. The partners can be both public, i.e. local government such as the city or town itself, a department of the city such as water, waste or the school board and/or private which could include corporations--local, domestic or multinational, community activists, non- governmental organizations such as Planned Parenthood or The Nature Conservancy or others of those types and non- profits such as "land trusts."
The whole Habitat II document used many phrases to describe public-private partnerships. The following is taken from the Programme of Action dated April 6, 1996:
3. ...The sooner communities, local governments, partnerships among the public, and private and community sectors join efforts to create comprehensive, bold and innovative strategies for shelter and human settlements, the better the prospects....
5. ...Democratization has enhanced such access and meaningful participation and involvement for civil society actors, for public-private partnerships, for decentralized, participatory planning and managements, which are important features of a successful urban futures...
145 bis. These innovative approaches should also include new forms of cooperation and partnerships between multilateral and bilateral assistance agencies, [the World Bank, IMF, and other UN organizations] on the one hand, and civil society organizations and local authorities, on the other, based on the principle of 'decentralized cooperation.' This implies recognition of the capacity of local authorities to develop international relations and cooperation, within the existing legal framework of each country....
158 bis. Governments have the primary responsibility of implementing the Global Plan of Action. Governments as central partners will create and strengthen effective partnerships with families, communities, local authorities, the private sector, non- governmental organizations, women, youth, the elderly,
vulnerable groups and indigenous people in each country....Local authorities should be supported in their approach to implementing this Global Plan of Action inasmuch as local action is required. All appropriate participatory mechanisms including local Agenda 21s, should be developed and employed. (emphasis added)
The U.S. National Committee for the Man and the Biosphere Program on July 26, 1995 adopted the following: "The mission of the United States Man and the Biosphere Program (U.S. MAB) is to explore, demonstrate, promote, and encourage harmonious relationships between people and their environments building on the MAB network of biosphere reserves and interdisciplinary research. The long- term goal of the U.S. MAB Program is to contribute to achieving a sustainable society early in the 21st Century. The MAB mission and long term goal will be implemented, in the United States and internationally, through public- private partnerships and linkages that sponsor and promote cooperative, interdisciplinary research, experimentation, education and information exchange on options by which societies can achieve sustainability." This goal reflects the Rio Earth Summit Agenda 21, the Biological Diversity Treaty which has not been ratified by the Senate as of February, 1997 and the Habitat Programme of Action.
The key phrase which describes the modus operandi by which life in America will change is, "The MAB mission and long term goal will be implemented, in the United States and internationally through public-private partnerships...." (emphasis added) which is how government is going to change in the United States!! As the U.S. Constitution is collapsed through various attacks here and there that reduce its power and authority--freedom of speech, work permits, teenage identity cards to buy cigarettes, the Mayor of Baltimore who feels that direct participation in the preparation of a global document not being in violation of the Constitution, the seizure of property by the National Park Service because a value could not be agreed to which the seller would accept (please see The Washington Times, February 12, 1997 "Rejection owner's price, government grabs land Move unites isle within national park,"), the inability of Americans to visit Yellowstone Park on a year- round basis because visitation is now being restricted so as not to harm the biosphere--public-private partnerships will fill the void. With it, comes great heartache for Americans who will lose more and more of their freedoms with the establishment of every public-partnership which is set up.
Maryland State Legislature Paving the Way for the Environmental Agenda Nationally
When this writer attended Habitat II in June, 1996, it was not clear how this agenda would "come down" to the people of the United States....that is until she became aware of several crucial bills in the Maryland State Legislature. The following are those bills which will change our Constitutional rights forever if allowed to pass not only in Maryland, but across the United States. The above was provided so that the reader could understand more fully the reason behind what has been introduced in Maryland. What the writer sees is that these bills are the enactment of the Habitat II Programme of Action which is an embodiment of ALL of the UN mega-conferences of both the 70's and the 90's. There are two major bills and a number of ancillary ones which interface with the major bills to provide, in one fell swoop, the total destruction of the United States Constitution and personal property rights in America.
The first major bill is Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation - Rural Legacy Program (Maryland SB389) This is a very comprehensive bill which will set up the infrastructure necessary for "land and environmental conservation" designed for rural areas and local communities. (emphasis added) The new structure will guide the devolution of state governmental power and the shift in constitutionally mandated personal property rights. This shift will occur when a particular parcel of land is determined to be strategic to conserving the environment. It is at that time that private property rights may or will be altered or amended to come into adherence with the bills goals of "environmental resource protection for future generations."
As part of the environmental infrastructure, a "Rural Legacy Board" will be set up who will administer the grant program which will be funded by a State Transfer Tax (another ancillary bill) in addition to the sale of Maryland (municipal) General Obligation Bonds-GOB. Interesting enough those that purchase the GOBs will not have the slightest clue that their investment proceeds will be used to alter personal property rights as found in the State and Federal Constitutions!! How many bonds do you think Maryland--or any other state--would sell if people understood this?
In addition, power will be shifted from the Rural Legacy Board (the State) to the Advisory Committee which is comprised of nine members from NGO's as well as business and government, the actors in "public/private partnerships." Both the Rural Legacy Board and the Sponsors, who may be a local government or a group of local governments and the Land Trust, will administer grants to purchase farms and properties designated by the Land Trust or other sponsors. On the following page is a flow chart of this bill.
You will note from the flow chart that the (public-private) partnerships are on several levels: (1) the Rural Legacy Board which is comprised of three of Maryland departments which are sharing power on the State level, besides shifting power to the Advisory Committee and the Sponsors, (2) the Advisory Committee which is appointed by the Governor and is comprised of nine people, several of whom will be from non-profits. Interesting to note, the Governor appoints all of these people and therefore there is no balance with another party--in some countries this is considered a parliamentarian form of government, and (3) the Sponsor which is comprised of a local government or a group of local governments and a land trust. These three entities will then work out grant agreements as far as identifying and purchasing land to buy and preserve/conserve for environmental purposes.
Let us take a look at some of the actors empowered by this public-private partnership. The Advisory Committee will be comprised of several people from the environmental side of things which includes a non-profit land conservation
organization. One of the most visible non-profit land conservation organizations is The Nature Conservancy, a nationally known group or perhaps one specifically domiciled in Maryland. The Nature Conservancy, for example, has net assets of over $1B which includes 5 million acres of private land in the United States and 20 million acres of land in South America through "debt for equity" swaps which is a slick way of buying land for ten cents on the dollar in cash-poor third world countries and exchanging equity (theirs) for land which they then own. Another technicality to look at is these are "non-profits" as they pay no social security tax on the wages of their employees. People who contribute get a tax-deductible receipt! It should also be noted that more than 1000 foundations contribute monies to environmental groups. This includes Rockefeller, Mellon, Dupont, Amoco, Exxon, Allied-Signal, Pew Charitable Trust, to name a few as well as major corporations such as Exxon, Dow, British Petroleum, J. P. Morgan, Philip Morris, Baltimore Gas, Tenneco, etc. - Big money and big power. How will that play out on a board comprised of "local people?"
The next question is "How will this public-private partnership be financed? Where will the monies come from to fund its operations? The State will be empowered through State Transfer Taxes, a small percentage, as well as General Obligation Bonds, estimated at $35 million. Other monies could come from bank loans or perhaps even loans from corporations, as part of the public-private partnership arrangements. Again, a partnership is a business arrangement and the terms are left to those making the arrangements. If they do not have business savvy and are up against a major corporation or environmental group for funding, the terms the community receives may not be as favorable as they need to be.
The purpose of the Rural Legacy Program will be to identify properties and move them into a "Land Trust." A Land Trust, according to an Internet document by The West Coast Environmental Law Association, "are local, regional, or statewide non-profit conservation organizations directly involved in helping protect natural, scenic, recreational, agricultural, historic, or cultural property. Land trusts work to preserve open land that is important to the communities and regions where they operate....They purchase land, acquire land through donations, secure conservation easements on land and monitor the terms of these easements and work in partnership with private and governmental conservation agencies. Land trusts vary greatly in size. 63% of land trusts buy land for conservation. 70% of the funds for purchases come from contributions from members and individual donors in the community. Other finds come from government agencies, foundations, and corporations. Land trust also borrow money from banks, foundations, and individuals to buy land. More than half of the nearly 2000 land trusts in the United States have been formed within the past 15 years. Of America's nearly 900 independent land trust, [they] help protect 2.7 million acres, own 437,000 acres, hold conservation easements on another 450,000 acres, have acquired, protected, and transferred 668,000 acres to other organizations and agencies [and] have used other direct methods to help protect another 1,159,000 acres." Apparently the State of Maryland would either form a land trust or they would use an existing land trust to move monies into.
The second bill is "Smart Growth" and Neighborhood Conservation - "Smart Growth" Areas (Maryland SB389). This bill is an enhancement of the Economic Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act of 1992 which is not known to the writer but was previously passed in order to begin the planning for this bill which is critical along with the above bill. It basically limits State funding to only certain areas called "priority areas" which have been pre- determined by the 1992 Act as well as restricts where State monies can be spent. The bill specifically states, "The State Policy provides that 'development shall be concentrated in suitable areas' and that 'in rural areas, growth shall be directed to existing population centers and resource areas shall be protected" thereby saving Maryland from millions of dollars which would have to be spent on new infrastructure. It further states that "monies need to be spent efficient and effectively to best preserve existing neighborhoods and Maryland's fields, farms and open spaces" (a previously passed bill).
What these two bills are basically describing is the Agenda 21 Programme of Action from the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development-UNCED in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This agenda can be found in a companion book called Global Biodiversity Assessment, published by Cambridge University Press. On the following page is a map by Dr. Michael Coffman with regard to how he sees the biodiversity plan from Agenda 21 and how it would restructure America. This map corresponds to what the Maryland bills will do. They limit growth to existing neighborhoods ( the white areas of the map) and restrict funding of infrastructure ("Smart Growth") so that the community will have no choice but to seek out public- private partnerships if they want to fund a project which is not part of the State Policy guidelines and agreed upon projects.
The Rural Legacy Program sets in place the gray areas which are the buffer zones and corridors around the protected areas--where man will not be allowed to habitat or live. Maryland already has 300,000 acres of farmland which they have purchased or hold development rights on. Now they are establishing the buffer zones around those areas and restricting State monies for infrastructure to only designated areas.
In the testimony heard with regard to the benefits of these bills, it was plainly stated that the construction of these bills has been under consideration for a number of years. In addition, there are over a dozen of ancillary bills which feed into the infrastructure of the above two bills. Testimony also revealed that once these bills are approved in the State of Maryland, they will be used as model legislation for the other 49 states!!!!
In summary,
1. By setting up the Rural Legacy Program and the related environmental infrastructure, Maryland would be changing the principles of government from which it derives its power. A shift from the Constitution to what the environmentalists call "environmental governance" is occurring.
The environmental agenda is one of inverting the position of who or what is important. In the history of the United States, and the world, for that matter, man has always subdued the earth--forest, land and animals for food, etc. Under the environmental philosophy, the Earth is given prominence and precedence over man. Man is seen as evil and a threat to the biological diversity which means all types of life and growth in the trees, foliage, land, water, soil, etc. This inversion will make man a slave to the earth as he/she is no longer dominant over the Earth. According to the Global Biodiversity Assessment, man will be relegated to "human islands" and not be allowed to step outside of those confines while the rest of the land would be protected areas and corridors. These arrangements are called ecosystems or biospheres. Quoting from their material:
Agenda 21 - Rio Earth Summit in 1992
"Principle 1: Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.
Principle 7: States shall cooperate in the spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth's ecosystem.
Principle 15:2 Our planet's essential goods and services depend on the variety and variability of genes, species, populations, and ecosystems. Biological resources feed and close us and provide housing, medicines and spiritual nourishment. The natural ecosystems of forests, savannahs, pastures...contain most of the Earth's biodiversity. Farmer's fields and gardens are also of great importance as repositories....The current decline in biodiversity is largely the result of human activity and represents a serious threat to human development."
From Global Civil Society & Global Environmental Governance by Lipschutz and Mayer, SUNY, 1995, p. 15: "The creation of common-pool property resource systems through, for example, restoration projects or bioregionalism, involves the construction of new institutions for governance. These institutions may or may not have the blessing of government, but they do regulate the use of the place or ecosystem with which they are concerned."
2. The Rural Legacy would be the giant step forward in the devolution of power of the State. Elected officials would be reduced to paper pushers as the real source of power will lie in the public-private partnership being set up. This is the equivalent of "dying with dignity."
The Rural Legacy Program calls for public -private partnerships whereby the State Government works with local government, and accredited UN non-governmental organizations. Other organizations pushing the concept of public-private partnerships include the World Bank and Prince Charles and his Prince of Wales Business Forum, who, since 1990, when he conducted his first city conference in Charleston, North Carolina, has amassed over 5,000 multinational and national corporations whom he works with in setting up public-private partnerships. It should be noted that there is no real check on who starts to amass power in these partnerships which automatically set up a power-play between the various entities---the foundations, NGO's, corporations and local government. Obviously money speaks and they who have the most speak the loudest.
The foundational cornerstone concept to the whole environmental agenda is sustainable development. It was The World Commission on the Environment and Development, chaired by former Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland called Our Common Future which provides the official definition of sustainable development. In their report, they write, "Sustainability requires the enforcement of wider responsibilities for the impacts of decisions. This requires changes in the legal and institutional frameworks that will enforce the common interest. Some necessary changes in the legal framework start from the proposition that an environment adequate for health and well-being is essential for all human beings-- including future generations." (emphasis added)
The above describes collectivism, a nice socialist concept which robs people of individual freedoms. In an interview with Mayor Kurt Schmoke from Baltimore, who lobbied for Smart Growth and Rural Legacy, when the writer asked him about personal property rights, he said, "I think that like all rights that we have in this country there has to be some compromise because individual rights run up against collective rights...the local prerogatives really will have to be compromised to a certain extent in order to deal with the greater good." In order to implement the environmental agenda, changes will be required on all levels. In war this kind of change would be described as revolution..... In the state of Maryland, it is called "Rural Legacy" and "Smart Growth."
3. The Rural Legacy Program is a loss of personal property rights. Any time you change or define the inalienable rights and the structure as found in our Constitution, you change the meaning and with it, goes the right of Americans to live where they please as that will not be possible when the environment has precedence over man.
According to Land Use in America, by Diamond and Noonan, Island Press, 1966, p. 172, "We have also developed a new kind of "institutional ecosystem" by which our environmental and economic objectives can be met. In acknowledging the legitimacy of these linked goals, we have opened the planning dialogue to all stakeholders and transformed the roles of government and the private sector."
In summary, in order to understand the danger, the odds of the battle and the repercussions to both Marylanders and Americans if these bills are passed, our Forefathers when fighting for our freedom used one phrase which said it all, "THE BRITISH ARE COMING!"
