Return to Home Page
Will the U. N. Someday dictate
where you live and how you use
your private property? It is
happening now! Read on . . .
Dear CWA Member,
I am writing you today because of what CWA staff has uncovered in an extensive investigation into U. N. Control of U. S. Property. The deeper our investigation, the more serious, we have discovered, is the threat.
For example, did you know that families in small towns along Ohio’s Cuyahoga River Valley have had to move from their privately owned property because of U. N. Regulations?
Also, a special U. N. Committee is working to stop a business in the western United States from a legitimate use of its land.
And equally alarming is the fact that 68 percent of America’s national parks, wildlife preserves, and historic monuments are now regulated by the United Nations. This includes such national treasures as:
The threat to our national sovereignty and right to private property has reached a truly dangerous point.
This is happening because the Clinton administration is quietly implementing U. N. "land use" programs without the approval of Congress or voters like you and me.
If this does not stop soon, you and I will see a collapse of our national sovereignty and right to private property – one of the constitutional protections most fundamental to our liberty as American citizens.
Our Founding Fathers knew it was impossible to have a free society if citizens’ property rights weren’t protected. That is why the U. S. Constitution strictly limits our government’s ability to take away your property or deny your control over it.
But in the name of "saving" the environment, the Clinton administration and liberal environmentalists, in concert with the U. N., are trampling your property rights underfoot.
--------------
Over the past 25 years, the United States has signed U. N. Treaties and enacted federal laws to protect the environment. These treaties include the U. N. Biodiversity Treaty, the U. N. Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, and others.
The idea behind such agreements is that protecting land areas like Yellowstone and monuments like the Statue of Liberty is of vital interest to the entire world.
Therefore, the U. N. Assumes that nations cannot be trusted to protect these lands and monuments on their own. The U. N. – a "world body" -- must do it through various agreements. These agreements set limits on how the United States (and other countries) can use designated lands and monuments.
For instance, the U. N. Biodiversity Treaty, although vaguely written, supports the Wildlands Project, which has identified vast tracts of land, comprising 50 percent of U. S. Territory, that must be turned into "wildlands." Environmental groups wrote the Wildlands Project to reflect their view of how America should look. It is one of their pet causes.
The vision of this U. N. Treaty is to have huge biosphere reserves, where wildlife can freely roam as it did before people came and supposedly corrupted the environment.
People would not be allowed to live on the land or use it in any way. Families and individuals who live in those areas would be forced to move so as not to interfere with the animal and plant life there.
I believe that every family that currently owns property in an area to be turned into "wildlands" should be legitimately concerned about losing their right to live on and use their own land. In fact, all Americans should be concerned about losing their property rights, no matter where they live.
Even though the Senate has not approved the U. N. Biodiversity Treaty, President Clinton has ordered federal land management agencies to implement many of the treaty’s provisions.
Federal authorities have already classified 47 national parks as biosphere reserves or sanctuaries. These reserves cover an area bigger than Colorado, nearly 51 million acres! [This includes the Land Between the Lakes]
Yellowstone, for instance, is a biosphere reserve. It is also a "World Heritage Site." Because the World Heritage Treaty was ratified by the U. S. Senate, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has already traveled to Yellowstone to "study" whether or not the New World Mining Company can operate a gold mine outside the park.
The environmentalists fear that the mine will somehow hurt the Yellowstone environment, even though it is miles, and one entire mountain range, away! It is outrageous that UNESCO can keep a private company from a legitimate use of its own property here in the United States.
I firmly believe that these U. N. Treaties will ultimately deny the United States the right to exist as a sovereign nation that can determine how to use its own land. And with each new treaty and environmental law, more and more authority is given to the U. N. To deny citizens and businesses their private property rights.
How have we come so close to handing half of the United States’ land over to the control of the U. N. And radical environmentalists? I believe it is happening, in part, because of Vice President Al Gore. Despite his clean-cut, businesslike image, he is a radical environmentalist to the core. As he wrote in his book, Earth in the Balance, "We must make the rescue of the environment the Central organizing principle for civilization."
I’m sure you don’t agree with that statement, and neither do I! While I believe we should be good stewards of God’s creation, I refuse to accept a pagan worldview in which the environment and animals are elevated above God and man. It is wrong to make the environment an object of worship and reverence. But liberals want to eliminate any human activity that interferes with the environment.
If that means limiting your right to own and control your own private property, so be it! If that means handing control of U. S. Lands – even the Statue of Liberty or Yellowstone – to some faceless U. N. Committee that, because the United States is not a member of UNESCO, is made up of totally of non-U. S. Citizens, so be it. these extremists have nothing but contempt for the individual rights of Americans.
Maurice Strong, recently appointed by U. N. Secretary General Kofi Annon to lead U. N. Reform, is a vocal spokesman for the U. N. Environmental agenda. He is perhaps the single most influential environmentalist in the world. At the U. N. Global Conference on the Environment, which was held in Rio de Janeiro, Maurice Strong told the gathering that industrialized countries have:
"developed and benefited 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 workplace air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns."
In other words, it’s time for the U. N. To step in and stop you and me from working hard to improve or sustain our standard of living. Must we turn our back on the American work ethic? Not eat meat or frozen foods? Turn off our appliances and air-conditioning? Not own cars that use fossil fuels (like gasoline)? Most ominous of all -- suburban housing is "not sustainable," regardless of you right to private property.
Does this mean the U. N. Wants to force American citizens out of their suburban homes and herd them into cities to live in crowded highrise apartment buildings? I do not believe this is a far-fetched idea at all. If the goal is total control of people, having them together in one place certainly would make the job easier. If animals are more important than people, it doesn’t matter where people live as long as animals can be free in their "wildlands."
John Davis, editor of "Wild Earth" and a director of the Wildlands Project, advocates forcing people to move if their land is designated environmentally "at risk." But he says that people would not be required to relocate if they would "refrain from any use of motors, guns, or cows." The problem here is not so much people as it is their "damnable technologies."
Incredibly, this is the view of the Clinton administration, which is implementing new and prior U. N. Treaties without voter approval or congressional oversight or approval. This is in direct violation of the U. S. Constitution, and it must be stopped immediately. But it will not be stopped unless you and I get involved. We must work to see strong laws passed that will force the Clinton administration [or any other administration] to seek congressional approval before implementing any U. N. Treaty.
----------------------
[Environmental groups] feel current U. S. Laws are inadequate to "save" the environment. So they want to ignore the democratic process, go over the head of the American people, and have the U. N. Enforce its extremist environmental agenda. And the shocking fact is that the Clinton administration supports this course of aciton!
---------------------
We must draw the line here and now on this issue. It’s that important to our survival as a free nation and to your rights as a citizen. . . .Please uphold our work in your prayers.
Thank you, and may God bless you.
Sincerely,
Beverly LaHaye
Chairman
For Further Information About the World Heritage Organization
As of April 30, 1997, Land Between the Lakes was not yet listed as one of the sites.
