Hallo again,
Have been going through the warmwell entries I missed while computerless - very shocked by the Willie Poole article from Saturday, and the news of the sheep being slaughtered in the Tyne Valley.
Here's an article from the States about appropriation of land from private owners using the excuse of "conservation"; also an extract from one I read some time ago, that seemed past believing - it says that huge tracts of America apparently set aside for environmental purposes are in fact being preserved as collateral for the national debt. Can this be possible? If so, could anything similar be happening here? Or is my mind becoming twisted through growing distrust of government and all its works? .................. articles below,


By Henry Lamb, World Net Daily

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 Dec. 20, while the media focused on Daschle's refusal to allow a vote on the economic stimulus package, while senators were racing to wind up business to get home for the holidays, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., 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 Oct. 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 can't 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 pigswill if it is sold in a green bucket. Government's 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 percent 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. 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 percent of the sources of production, does this mean that America is more than 40 percent 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. Sen. 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 more of the foundation of our freedom. When government owns the land, there can be no freedom - except that which government bestows. Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International




In the last 8 years, during what are supposed to be record setting good times, the Federal government has nearly DOUBLED its debt load. The estimated interest on the debt equals all the personal income tax paid by all Americans. Our government is so deep in debt that it cannot get out.

This brings us to the issue of collateral. We've borrowed so much money the lenders are getting nervous. Back during the Johnson administration Charles De Gaulle demanded the United States collateralize the loans owed to France in gold and started carting out the bullion from the treasury. This caused several other nations to demand the same and President Nixon had to slam the gold window closed or the treasury would have been emptied, since the the United States was even then in debt for more money than the treasury could cover in gold.

But Nixon had to collateralize that debt somehow, and he hit upon the plan of quietly setting aside huge tracts of American land with their mineral rights in reserve to cover the outstanding debts. But since the American people were already angered over the war in Vietnam, Nixon couldn't very well admit that he was apportioning off chunks of the United States to the holders of foreign debt. So, Nixon invented the Environmental Protection Agency and passed draconian environmental laws which served to grab land with vast natural resources away from the owners and lock it away, and even more, prove to the holders of the foreign debt that US citizens were not drilling, mining, or otherwise developing those resources.

From that day to this, as the government sinks deeper into debt, the government grabs more and more land, declares it a wilderness or "roadless area" or "heritage river" or "wetlands" or any one of over a dozen other such obfuscatorial labels, but in the end the result is the same. We The People may not use the land, in many cases are not even allowed to enter the land.

This is not about conservation, it is about collateral. YOUR land is being stolen by the government and used to secure loans the government really had no business taking out in the first place. Given that the government cannot get out of debt, and is collateralizing more and more land to avoid foreclosure, the day is not long off when the people of the United States will one day wake up and discover they are no longer citizens, but tenants.

The following map shows the current extent of all lands grabbed by the government under the guize of environmentalism.

(for map, see