Freedom Week

The Wise Use movement, as well as the Property Rights movement, emerged to oppose excessive intrusion by the federal government. Hundreds, if not thousands, of groups have organized to oppose restrictions on logging, grazing, mining. Other groups oppose excessive restrictions on the use of private property imposed by the Endangered Species Act, federal wetland policy, and the Ecosystem Management policy. Groups have been formed to oppose the expansion of Biosphere Reserves and so-called Heritage Areas. Thousands of groups are opposing a myriad of government regulations that are transforming America from the "land of the free" to the home of the enslaved.

A wise and wonderful old grey-haired philosopher once said, "you never get ahead by always being against." It is time that Americans who love "the land of the free" get ahead. To do so, we need to not only be "against" those policies which infringe freedom; we must also advance those principles which ensure our freedom. Freedom Week is an effort to identify, celebrate, and reinstate those principles into public policy at every level of governance.

Why freedom is at risk

The explosion of federal, state, and local regulations in recent years is not the result of elected officials responding to the expressed desires of their electors. It is instead, the manifestation of the reappearance and emerging ascendancy of a system of governance that America knocked off track nearly a century ago. Our little victories, such as the defeat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the defeat of the last three nominations for Biosphere Reserves, are but temporary annoyances for those who no longer embrace the principles of government on which America was founded.

To get ahead, and ultimately to prevail, it is essential that we understand who and what the enemy actually is. The enemy is not the "liberals," or the UN, or the federal government, or the "green" NGOs. They are simply the instruments through which the real enemy facilitates its system of governance. The real enemy is much more elusive; the real enemy is an idea. Throughout the 20^th century, this idea, or concept of a system of governance, has struggled to gain ascendancy in the world. Throughout this century, this system of governance has appeared, with varying degrees of success, in different places, at different times, and described by a variety of names. American freedom is at risk because this concept of governance is now emerging around the world, called by a new set of names, but constructed on the same principles that America has so emphatically rejected in the past. The proponents of this system of governance are committed, dedicated, smart, and rich. They are succeeding in America, and around the world, where their predecessors failed. American freedom is at greater risk than at any time in its short history. To get ahead, and to ultimately prevail, we must understand who and what the enemy is, and how the enemy operates. Then we must develop a new strategy so strong that even the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Understanding the enemy

The idea in conflict with American freedom is a concept of governance in which there is no war, no suffering, no struggle for survival. It envisions a world of "equity" in which all people share equally in the earth's bounty -- and in the toil required to produce it. It is a compelling idea for many people, especially for those who must constantly struggle for survival, who see it as "unfair" that some people prosper while others suffer in poverty. It is a concept that is particularly appealing to people who have been the innocent victims of war.

To achieve this utopian system of governance, there must be a central regulating authority to decide the quantity of natural resources that may be used without endangering biodiversity. A central authority must decide how much greenhouse gas may be emitted without endangering the global climate. A central authority must have the power to prevent war by disarming all nations, and all people. A central authority must decide how many people the earth can support, and have the power to keep population within safe limits. A central authority must have the financial resources to enforce the "right" of all people to "a full stomach," health care, and decent housing. A central authority must have the power to take "from each according to his ability," and redistribute to "each according to his need."

There is nothing new about this system of governance -- except the modern names used to describe it. It is the system of governance enjoyed by kings and dictators throughout history. It is the system of governance championed by Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Milner, who modified the concept to transfer authority and power from a single sovereign, to a sovereign institution christened by Colonel Mendell House as The League of Nations. Reflecting the views and values of their electors, the United States Senate knocked the concept off track when it refused to ratify the League's Charter. The League withered, but the concept of governance did not. Marx, Lenin, and Stalin rekindled the concept with more modifications and a new name. For 70 years, central authority and power was held in a Politbureau that regulated every aspect of every human life throughout eastern Europe.

The Rhodes-Milner-House version of the concept differed slightly from the Marx-Lenin-Stalin version. The latter group believed the use of force was necessary to coerce cooperation; the former group believed that education was the source of cooperation, with force available to be used for the uneducable. The United Nations was created by the remnants of the Rhodes-Milner-House group in 1945. Convinced that education was a more effective tool than military might, the reincarnation of the old League set out to educate the world about the benefits of its concept of governance. When the Marx-Lenin-Stalin version of the concept collapsed, the United Nations was well-positioned to move in and fill the vacuum. The world has now been sufficiently "educated" to embrace the benefits offered by the concept of governance which promises no wars, no suffering, and no struggling for survival.

How the enemy operates

Identify a problem -- real or perceived -- and offer a reasonably credible solution. This is the underlying operating principle used to "educate" people about the benefits of the old concept of governance all dressed up in new names. "Communism," and "socialism" are both tainted terms in much of the world. The new all-encompassing name for the old concept is "Global Governance." Proponents of the old concept are quick to declare that global governance is not world government. And here is revealed another important operating principle: "a rose called by any other name...." A pile of cow manure can be described as a "biodiversity enhancer," but it still smells like, and is, a pile of cow manure. Global governance smells like, and is, world government. The United Nations is consolidating authority and power to regulate every aspect of every life by "educating" people about the benefits of "sustainable development" and the dangers of global warming, over-population, economic disparity, and international terrorism.

The education campaign has been incredibly successful. In hardly a generation, the values of "sustainability" have permeated public schools and pushed aside the principles of personal responsibility and individual freedom. The idea of national sovereignty is described as obsolete, promoted only by right-wing radicals. The idea of free markets is described as corporate greed that ignores the "rights" of workers and rapes mother earth and ravages her resources to produce products for the rich while ignoring the needs of the poor. Land, and the resources it contains, are assets held in common by all people, to be administered on the basis of need as determined by a central authority. These ideas are now accepted as the norm among many, if not most, Americans. These are the ideas that drive public policies such as the Endangered Species Act, the Ecosystem Management policy, the School to Work Act, and national and personal disarmament. These ideas are the enemy. Our strategies must not only rail against the institutions of government that implement these ideas. Our strategies must fight fire with fire; ideas with ideas.

The ideas of governance on which America is founded represent, perhaps, man's greatest achievement. The idea that government must be empowered only by the consent of the governed, is the most powerful idea about governance ever conceived. At the end of the day, it is the idea, and the system of governance, that will guide all people to healthy, happy, and prosperous lives. But there is little to prevent the world from suffering through another century, or millennium for that matter, of the inevitable oppression that results from self-empowered government that grants, or denies, freedom and wealth to its citizens.

New strategies - Freedom Week

Without reducing our resistance to every manifestation of global governance advanced through federal policy, we must also develop a strategic offense. We must not only be "against," we must be "for." We must be for those principles of self-governance which inspired the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. We can no longer be content to fly a flag and light fireworks on the fourth of July. We must do more -- a lot more.

Freedom Week is conceived to be a week-long celebration of the principles of self-governance that empowers America. Its purpose is to focus public attention on just how wonderful it is to be an American, and more important, exactly what makes it so wonderful. It is conceived to be a week-long, national "teach-in" through which communities around the country participate in a range of activities which educate and appreciate the fundamental principles of American self-governance. Composition contests in writing, music, and electronic communications, can inspire thousands of students and church goers to think about, and perhaps rediscover, the values and principles that define America. Parades, concerts, study-groups, town hall meetings, all focusing on the values and principles of American self-governance, conducted in every community in America, sponsored by grassroots organizations can have a profound effect on whether or not our nation is consumed by global governance.

The United Nations is planning a stupendous celebration for the year 2000. A new United Nations Institution will be established: the Assembly of the People. Three-hundred to six-hundred selected representatives of accredited NGOs will represent the interests of the world before the UN General Assembly. It is a millennium celebration, celebrating the "Sustainable Millennium."

People who cherish American values of self-governance will not be selected to participate. Grassroots organizations that promote such values are rarely accredited by the UN. We have time to plan and develop our own celebration during Freedom Week in 1999, and by Freedom Week in the year 2000, we can generate enough enthusiasm across America to enlist the rest of the world into helping make the new millennium a "Freedom Millennium," in which every nation seeks to create a government empowered only by the consent of the governed -- before the end of the 21^st century.

The Freedom Week Campaign begins July 4^th, 1998. Organizations have a full year to plan, organize, and prepare for the first Freedom Week Celebrations during the first week of July, 1999. By the year 2000, every non-socialist organization in the country should be involved in Freedom Week activities.

How Freedom Week works

Every organization is encouraged to adopt the Freedom Week Proclamation, and register the adoption on the Freedom Week web site. By so doing, individuals and organizations around the world can see how much America values the principles of self-governance discovered and defined by our founders. Organizations are encouraged to get every unit of local and state government to adopt the Freedom Week Proclamation, and register the adoption on the web site.

Every organization is encouraged to sponsor, or help sponsor, local composition contests in schools and churches, with cash prizes awarded at the local level.

We will try to recruit an organization in each state to serve as state coordinator, to provide a state prize to be awarded from among the local winners, and to promote adoption of the Freedom Week Proclamation in the state legislature. The activities planned by local and state organizations may be reported electronically, and compiled by state on the web site. As the year progresses, we should see steady growth in the number of organizations that adopt the Proclamation, as well as the kinds of activities that are being planned for Freedom Week, 1999. The web site will be a world-wide advertisement for those principles that make America great.

The purpose of all the contests and all the activity is to concentrate on and direct attention to the fundamental principle of government empowered only by the consent of the governed, and expressed exclusively through the officials elected by those who are governed. In America, and throughout the world, individual freedom should never be restricted by policies created or imposed by non-elected officials. This principle needs to be rediscovered, reinvigorated, and applied to every public policy that is proposed. Freedom Week should find 10,000 ways to make this principle real in every community and every unit of local, state, and federal government. This principle is the foundation of individual freedom. It is what makes free markets possible. It is the power of individuals to limit and control their government, that when expressed collectively through their government, that is the essence of national sovereignty.

Freedom Week is a coordinated strategic offensive, that when coupled with the existing aggressive defense, should give sufficient backbone to our elected officials that once again, America can reject the concept of governance by a central, all-powerful authority, whether it's called global governance, or sustainable development, or "biodiversity enhancement."

Visit the Freedom Week web site at <http://www.freedom.org>. Get your organization(s) to adopt the Freedom Week Proclamation, and register your organization on the web site. Get involved. Get creative. Get every organization in your community to help keep America the "land of the free and the home of the brave."

Freedom Week Proclamation

Celebrating Human Achievement

Whereas, individual freedom is among mankind's highest aspirations, and

Whereas, individual freedom is secured by private property acquired by individual effort, and

Whereas, America's founders, recognized that unlimited government power is the greatest threat to individual freedom, and

Whereas, those founders, exercising their freedom, designed a new system of self-governance, and

Whereas, That system is based upon the belief that government governs best when it is empowered only by the consent of those who are governed, and

Whereas, the courageous exercise of that belief has resulted in the discovery of a universal beneficial principle of self-governance, and

Whereas, the Constitutional Republic created by and built upon that principle is a towering monument to that principle, and

Whereas, that discovery and the system of self-governance it produced is among mankind's highest achievements, and

Whereas, the government created by the consent of those who are governed reflects the individual sovereignty of those who are governed, and

Whereas, there is no earthly power higher than the collective sovereignty of those individuals whose consent empowers government, and

Whereas, the first responsibility of that government is to protect, defend, and celebrate the sovereignty of the nation created thereby, now

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. Henceforth, the first week of the month of July shall be known as

FREEDOM WEEK: A Celebration of Human Achievement

2. That (this organization) shall encourage and conduct activities which celebrate individual freedom, private property, free markets, and national sovereignty during FREEDOM WEEK.

3. That (this organization) shall encourage its members, as responsible citizens in the exercise of their individual freedom, to support public policies that enhance and advance the values that flow from a government empowered only by the consent of those who are governed -- and to reject all others.

Adopted this the _______Day of _______________, 199_

________________________________________________

(Authorized Signature)

________________________________________________

(Organization Name)

How to participate in Freedom Week

Every organization in America can, and should, participate in Freedom Week. It is designed to focus attention on the human values which produced the understanding that self-governance means: government empowered only by the consent of the governed. Freedom Week is a celebration of the discovery of those principles of self-governance so eloquently expressed and forever enshrined in the American Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. No American can be offended by such a celebration; every American should enthusiastically participate in it.

Adopt the Freedom Week Proclamation

Each participating organization is encouraged to get every unit of local government and every other organization within their sphere of influence to also adopt a Freedom Week Proclamation, and register each organization's adoption in our master directory. On our web site, we will accumulate a state-by-state directory of all participating organizations so all the world can see how enthusiastically America celebrates its freedom.

State Coordinators

Freedom Week Activities

Composition Contests

Contests may be structured any way a local participating organization wishes. To qualify for state and national prizes and recognition, the following guidelines are offered:

Writing: Written compositions may take the form of an essay, short story, one-act play, or research paper. A 1000 word maximum limit should be targeted for all submissions.

Music: Music entries may include compositions for soloists, choirs, or ensembles without respect to style or genre. Entries should include both the written manuscript and a recorded performance.

Electronic: Electronic entries may include up to six (6) linked web pages; a 15-minute video tape; or a 15-minute audio tape.

A national winner will be selected from the winners chosen by the State Coordinators. National winners will receive a minimum $500 prize in each category. (The prize value will likely increase as additional underwriters are identified). State and local sponsors are encouraged to secure local underwriters to provide money prizes for winners of local and state contests. Additionally, national winners will see their work published nationally in a variety of formats made available by participating organizations. State and local sponsors are encouraged to provide opportunities for recognition of local and state winners through local and state-wide media, conferences, and other events.

Participating organizations may sponsor contests in any or all of the categories. Sponsorship should include the responsibility of obtaining permission from local school authorities, promoting the contests(s) within the local school(s), and securing prizes and recognition for the winners. Minimum prizes of $100 (school level), $250 (state level), and $500 (national level) should attract student participation. Prizes do not have to be uniform, and should reflect the maximum that can be secured from local and state underwriters. The words "Prizes provided by..." is wonderful, low-cost advertising for any business, and can be developed into a significant incentive for student participation.

Each sponsoring organization is responsible for developing its own system for judging winners. The overall criteria should be originality, creativity, and effectiveness in communication. Every activity undertaken by every participating organization should be reported for incorporation into the National Directory of Activities.

Churches may sponsor contests within their own congregation. Winners from a church may be submitted to the State Coordinator for consideration in the state-wide judging, which automatically qualifies for participation in the national contest.

Other Activities

Civic Club Presentation: Every community has a variety of civic clubs that are constantly in need of speakers. A participating organization might develop a presentation and/or a speakers bureau and schedule a series of presentations for all available civic clubs.

Build a float: Many communities sponsor a Fourth-of-July Parade. A participating organization might wish to build a Freedom Week float that depicts some scene from American History that focuses attention on the values of freedom. (Paul Revere's ride, the Liberty Bell, Washington crossing the Delaware, etc.)

Community Teach-in: This kind of activity offers outstanding opportunities to educate and recruit new members and additional participation. Organizations could schedule a series of "Teach-ins" around the Freedom Week theme, to be conducted either before, or during freedom week. The format is unlimited. The events could be as informal as a picnic in the park, with music and a few speakers on a planned theme, or it could be a series of structured workshops. It is an ideal opportunity to relate local issues and current events to the broader principles celebrated by Freedom Week. The cost of these activities ranges from zero to minimal; opportunities to educate, motivate, even inspire, are limited only by available gumption. (Gumption: the determination to do it).

Churches

Aside from participating in state and national contests as a sponsoring organization, churches have an outstanding opportunity to promote Freedom Week activities in a variety of ways.

Freedom Week Services: The Sunday before July 4 would be an ideal time to present church winners of the various sponsored contests. The entire service could be constructed around the Freedom Week theme, using the choir and congregational singing to support sermons that stress religious freedom as a compelling force in the creation of America.

Youth Activities: Young people can be recruited to present special reports on important individuals who are America's "Founding Fathers" as a part of Sunday School activities. For the month prior to Freedom Week, or monthly during the year, a class member could present a character profile of different people who helped create America. A special worship service could be devoted to sharing these profiles with the entire congregation.

Study Course-Revival: Church members could benefit greatly from a week-long series of meetings with a structured curriculum that focuses on the relationship of religious freedom to the principle of government power limited by the consent of the governed. Such a program could be enhanced by reports from missionaries who have worked in nations where government power is not limited by the consent of the governed. Such services could inspire greater dedication to religious commitments as well as to the values Freedom Week celebrates.

There is no end to the ideas that can make Freedom Week a year-long celebration of the principles of self-governance on which America was built. The more people who are involved, the greater the celebration. And more importantly, participation in the celebration may help people become aware that these principles are in great jeopardy of being overwhelmed by a changing paradigm that sees individual freedom as a reward to be granted, or denied, by government in exchange for support of government-dictated policies.

Every organization can participate to some degree. Every organization should participate to whatever degree may be appropriate. The campaign will begin July 4, 1998. Through the remainder of the year, participating organizations will be planning their local contests and other activities for the year, leading to a crescendo of events during Freedom Week, 1999, which will be the beginning point of planning activities for Freedom Week, 2000. The event can be an ongoing celebration of individual freedom and human achievement which can build upon itself to become a beacon to the rest of the world.

When the program is launched, an enrollment form will be on this web site to provide an easy way to enroll your organization in the Freedom Week celebration. Check this site at least weekly to see new information about Freedom Week!

Sign up for Freedom Week

Yes! We want to participate in Freedom Week. We understand that our organization will be listed on the Freedom Week web page, along with the activities we plan for Freedom Week 1999.

Organization:__________________________________________________________________

Contact person:_______________________________________________________________________

Address:______________________________________________________________________

City:____________________________________State:______________________Zip:_______

Phone:______________________Fax:____________________email_____________________

web site address:______________________________________________________________________

Our organization has has not adopted the Freedom Week Proclamation.

Proclamation adopted on (Date) _____________________________

As we plan our Freedom Week activities, we will keep ECO informed so our efforts can be publicized on the Freedom Week web site.

Please make a photocopy of this page, complete it and return to:

Environmental Conservation Organization

P.O. Box 191

Hollow Rock, TN 38342

Phone: 901-986-0099 Fax: 901-986-2299

e-mail: freedom@freedom.org

Agenda 21 has never been debated or adopted by the Congress of the United States. Nevertheless, it is being vigorously implemented by the administrative agencies of the federal government, and by other nations around the world. More than 150 nations, including the United States of America, are participants in the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). America's participation is not the result of an international treaty, ratified by Congress. America's participation is the result of George Bush signing Agenda 21 at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio, and the current administration's desire to implement its objectives.

Participating nations voluntarily submit an annual report to the CSD. In April, 1996, another massive gathering in Rio, evaluated the progress toward the implementation of Agenda 21, five years after it was adopted. Staggering progress has been made world wide, and particularly in the United States. The following chart indicates progress made toward 32 specific Agenda 21 objectives. The solid lines indicate the percentage of participating nations that have programs in place to achieve each of the objectives, or activities, listed on the left. The striped lines indicate the percentage of participating nations that are currently developing such programs. Look carefully at the program activities, and the percentage of nations that already have active programs in place for each activity; Global implementation of Agenda 21 is much very close to reality. In the United States, programs are already in place to achieve each of the objectives. The United Nations rates as "very good" the progress of the United States in each of these categories.

The UN's analysis of each nation's report is available on the UN web site. A closer examination of what the UN has to say about the United State's implementation of Agenda 21 is most revealing. One of the 32 specific objectives of Agenda 21 is to create a "National Coordinating Body" in each nation. Of the more than 150 participating nations, 73% already have such a body, and an additional 9% are in the process of creating a National Coordinating Body. In the United States, the National Coordinating Body is the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). The United Nations report says:

"In the United States, the PCSD was conceived to formulate recommendations for the implementation of Agenda 21."

The UN report was prepared from information supplied by the U.S. State Department. The report says further:

"The fundamental objective of the Council was to forge a consensus among the various stakeholders (government, business and industry, private citizens, non-profits, labor, etc.) and create a viable sustainable development strategy that articulated the interests and concerns of all groups."

In America, the Constitution requires that consensus on public policy be hammered out in public by elected officials, not by 28 appointed individuals, carefully selected because of their known support of the principles expressed in Agenda 21. This UN description of the PCSD is found in a section of the report entitled "Integrated Decision-making," also known as the "consensus" process. All federal agencies have now adopted this "consensus" process to by-pass Congress and other elected bodies, to build consensus on Agenda 21 activities at the local, state, and national levels. The UN report describes America's progress in each of the activity areas in glowing terms. The report boasts that:

"The government has included representatives of NGOs in the National delegation to every session of the Commission on Sustainable Development as well as at other major international meetings."

NGOs play a vital role in the consensus process. Through the new "partnering" programs of all federal agencies, selected NGOs are funded to generate support for specific objectives, then provided a seat on the official U.S. delegation to UN meetings to demonstrate "civil society" support for UN and Agenda 21 programs.

"Most family planning interventions are conducted by NGOs such as Planned Parenthood. In preparation for the International Conference on Population and Development, public meetings were held throughout the U.S. to facilitate the participation of NGOs and individuals."

According to the report, the U.S. spent $25 million "on the development of new contraceptive methods." The U.S. Department of Human Services is credited with changing America's attitude about contraceptives:

"In other words, policy has shifted from discouraging contraception on the basis of age and marital status to promoting it to all who do not have access to service."

"Sustainable Development in School Curriculum" is one of the 32 specific objectives of Agenda 21. This objective has been achieved in 63% of the participating nations, and in process in another 17%. In America,"The national strategy on education is prepared by the Department of Education and includes such programmes as Goals 2000 and School to Work. The Biodiversity and Ecosystem Network (BENI) was launched in October 1994 to utilize electronic communication networks to foster collaboration among partners in ecosystem management. The Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) was initiated to enable elementary and secondary school students to collect environmental data...through the Internet." (Emphasis in original.)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a major conduit through which Agenda 21 programs and policies flow into the United States, without the benefit of Congressional debate or decision. Many of the initiatives are introduced by NGOs, funded by the EPA through their "Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program." In 1996, the EPA reported the following Challenge Grants.

Source: State Department report to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development.

In 1997, the EPA reported 42 "Challenge Grants," but chose not to report the name of the organization that received the money or how much money was awarded. A description of the funded projects is available on the EPA web site at the following address:

(http://134.67.55.16:7777/DC/OSECWeb.nsf...bbd9a46d3f852565f7004d3f16?OpenDocument)

Honest! Some of the program titles are: Fish for the Future (Oregon); Kansas City Area Sustainable Land Use Initiative; Coastal Georgia Greenway; Building a Sustainable Community from the Ground Up (Kentucky): San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners (SLUG); Community Bicycle Shop (Washington).

Social Aspects of Sustainable Development

As early as 1976, the UN adopted a policy relating to land use and population distribution:

"All countries should establish as a matter of urgency a national policy on human settlements, embodying the distribution of population...over national territory. Such a policy should be devised to facilitate population redistribution to accord with the availability of resources." (Recommendation A.1, HABITAT I, Vancouver).

The Commission on Sustainable Development's report laments "The U.S. does not have an official population policy.... The U.S. also has no specific policies to modify the spatial distribution of the population." The report applauds, however, the U.S.'s expenditure of $25 million "on the development of new contraceptive methods," and the $144 million spent on "all aspects of population research."

The UN report says that in America, the Department of Health & Human Services operates an Office of Population Affairs (OPA) which serves nearly 5 million people through a network of 4,800 clinics to provide "contraceptive services and supplies." Moreover, USAID works through the United Nations Population Fund to provide population control assistance in 60 countries. The report says that in America, "policy has shifted from discouraging contraception on the basis of age and marital status to promoting it to all who do not have access to services."

Education

Education is a key ingredient in the transformation to a sustainable society. The UN Commission on Sustainable Development reports that in America, "the national strategy on education is prepared by the Department of Education and includes such programmes as Goals 2000 and School to Work" (emphasis added). The National Environmental Education Advisory Council to the Department of Education consists of eleven individuals appointed by the EPA Administrator and includes representatives of women, NGOs, and local authorities (visioning councils). The U.S. State Department reported to the UN that:

"At the primary school level, school curricula have already been reviewed and revised, and at the secondary school level, the revision of school curricula is being undertaken currently to address environment and development as a cross cutting issue."

The State Department also told the UN:

"The U.S. has been involved in several awareness raising programmes and activities aimmed at the population at large (Earth Day, industry supported campaigns, Ad Council, Program KAB, Arbor Day, GLOBE Program, Discovery Channel, National Geographic programmes, CNN, ZooQ, As it Happens, and water clean-up programmes."

While land use and zoning regulations are still considered to be a matter of local control, "the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) operates a Land Use Systems Technology Program, and a Sustainable Communities Development System" (emphasis in original). The programs are aimed at "providing overall policy and technical purview of technologies affecting all dimensions of the ecological, land, natural resources, industrial, and development aspects of urbanization." The report says that "The U.S. played an active role in HABITAT II. USAID's urban programming approaches promote the principles of sustainable human settlements." (See cologic, July/August, 1996 for comprehensive reports on HABITAT II).

Agriculture

The transition from free-market agriculture to managed sustainable agriculture is well advanced in America, according to the UN report. Sustainable agriculture is defined in American law (Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 - 7 USE 3101) to be:

"an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will, over the long term, satisfy human food and fiber needs; enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agriculture economy depends; make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls; sustain the economic viability of farm operation; and enhance the quality of life for farmers and members of rural communities, and society as a whole."

To achieve sustainable agriculture in America, the U.S. Department of Agriculture works "in concert with the President's Council on Sustainable Development" to implement several programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EPUIP), and the Farmland Protection Program, which was created to purchase development rights on up to 137,600 ha of private property. The Conservation Reserve Program has an additional 36 million acres of private property out of production, at least temporarily.

Atmosphere

The USDA also funds the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN) to provide information and advocacy to NGOs and the public. Other USDA programs in place to promote sustainable agriculture include the Integrated Farm Management Systems; Integrated Pest Management; Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas; and the Alternative Farming Systems Information Center. The Soil Conservation Service has been transformed into the Natural Resource Conservation Service with agents in virtually every county "to assist landowners with resource planning." A revolving loan fund has been established to assist farmers in becoming sustainable through the development through the development of "non-food, non-feed, non-traditional agricultural products" such as the "manufacture of paper from straw; manufacture of high-quality furniture from low-quality logs; the use of kenaf as a mat for seeding lawn grass making newsprint and fiberboard; and the use of milkweed as a filler for pillows and comforters."

America's efforts to achieve Agenda 21's objectives relating to the atmosphere are rated as "good." The State Department report to the UN boasts that the EPA, the Department of Energy, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are "full-fledged" members of the President's Council on Sustainable Development. "The President's Climate Change Plan includes nearly 50 initiatives..." according to the report. The U.S. supports the "conservation and enhancement" of carbon sinks, which is biomass and forests (bioregions), whether publicly or privately owned. The report boasts that the U.S. spent $31.9 billion on air pollution abatement in 1993.

Biodiversity

Interestingly, the Convention on Biological Diversity is described as "signed in 1993, but not yet ratified." Nevertheless, the report says "Cooperative efforts involving various levels of government and the private sector are underway to implement the biosphere reserve concept in several regions." The Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Program (SAMAB), and the International Sonoran Desert Alliance, "a cluster of biosphere reserves in northwestern Mexico and Arizona," are identified as example of implementation of the objectives of Agenda 21. The Nature Conservancy is particularly identified as having "pioneered" biodiversity conservation.

To achieve the objectives of Agenda 21, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, the report identifies several federal initiatives, including: the National Biological Service; Interagency Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources; Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force, and the Ecosystem Management Initiative.

"Ecosystem management strategies have been adopted by the Department of Interior, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, EPA, and NOAA. In some cases, broad-scale organizational frameworks are being implemented. For example, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in the Department of Interior has defined approximately 50 ecosystem units across the country as a basis for future planning related to sustainable management...."

The report says that USAID provides funding to the Biodiversity Conservation Network, which coordinates NGOs and "private sector partners," as well as to the Indonesia Biodiversity Foundation, the Mexican Conservation Fund, and a $3 million grant to Conservation International.

Forestry

"Forest legislation has recently been revised to help combat deforestation envisaged under chapter 11 of Agenda 21 and includes The Forest Stewardship Act of 1990; the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1990; America the Beautiful (1990); an the National Indian Forest Resources an Management Act," according to the State Department report to the UN. The President's Forest Plan adopted for the Pacific Northwest region is described as "the best example of policy following the UNCED [Agenda 21] forest principles.

The report says that the "American Forest an Paper Association, which represents 95% of the industrial forest land in the U.S., approved a set of Sustainable Forestry Principles and Guidelines. With the help of NGOs which continue "to draw attention to disparities between sustainable goals and current practices," and plans developed at the state level, "resource plans will ultimately bring millions of hectares of nonindustrial private forest lands under stewardship management."

Conclusion

While by no means complete, this summary of the United States's report to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development should put to rest any doubt that the Clinton/Gore Administration is, in fact, deliberately implementing Agenda 21 in America. Where laws have been revised, Congress has not been told that the purpose of the revision is to comply with the mandates of Agenda 21. Where policies can be implemented administratively, Congress is not even consulted. At the state and local level, elected officials are deliberately by-passed until local support can be generated by a "stakeholders" council, led by NGO professionals, funded by the federal government or by foundations in "partnership" with the federal government.

Agenda 21 embraces virtually every aspect of human life; it is being implemented aggressively in the United States. Congress has never examined the totality of the Agenda. >Instead, Congress is fed only bits and pieces in the context of "protecting the environment." The ultimate objective of Agenda 21 is to establish "international norms" of personal behavior that are dictated by a handful of the world's enlightened elite who believe they know best how people ought to live. The UN Commission on Sustainable Development is not the result of a treaty ratified by the Senate. America participates in the UN organization by Executive Decree. Through the Clinton/Gore Administration, America is actually driving the agenda globally, and making it possible for the UN to dictate, not only in America, but around the world, how all people must live.

In a September 2, 1997 letter to New Mexico Congressman, Joe Skeen, Alan D. Hecht, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said:

"I would like to emphasize the Border XXI Program is not controlled by any UN program...."

On April 1, 1997, the U.S. State Department reported to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development that the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation under NAFTA (the agreement through which Border XXI was developed) is a "major agreement" relevant to the implementation of Agenda 21.

Mr. Hecht is technically correct in that the UN does not legally "control" Border XXI. But he is less than forthcoming in describing the extent that Agenda 21 is incorporated into the Border XXI Program, while, at the same time, the State Department is pointing to Border XXI as an example of Agenda 21 implementation.

Mr. Hecht's letter responded to several of the Congressman's questions with the same kind of bureaucratic doublespeak. For example, to the question "Why were elected officials not included in the development of Border XXI?" Mr. Hecht replied:

"A major project like Border XXI cannot be accomplished without the assistance of state and local agencies. (Note that Hecht avoids responding to the question regarding elected officials.) Many state agencies participated in the development of Border XXI...."

Among the 17 state agencies Hecht listed as participants, three were from New Mexico.

Robert Castillo of the New Mexico Trade Division prepared a report of the meetings Hecht referred to, for Walter Bradley, Lieutenant Governor of New Mexico. The report says, in part:

"With the exception of Arizona, the other states agreed that they had little contact with the meetings of EPA/Border XXI and made no input into the 1996 Framework or Implementation Documents, even though EPA has noted their (our) participation and consequent "consensus." In fact, it was indicated that when invited they were asked to attend as auditors only and in some cases not allowed into the meetings."

Again, Congressman Skeen asked:

"How does Border XXI tie into the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, the Presidents's Council on Sustainable Development, and the implementation of Agenda 21?"

Mr. Hecht replied:

"There are no found links to the UN or PCSD...."

EPA Document #160-R-96-003, "US-Mexico Border XXI Program Framework Document," October, 1996, says on page L1 and L2:

"The principal goal of Border XXI is to promote sustainable development in the border region.... Agenda 21, a series of international environmental objectives, which emerged from the United Nations Conference on Environmental Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, provides guiding principles for sustainable development on a global basis. In accordance

with these concepts, Border XXI promotes sustainable development in the border region...."

Border XXI is an excellent model to examine to see how the Clinton/Gore Administration is effectively by-passing Congress and elected officials at every level of government to implement Agenda 21. The process is a demonstration of the "new decision process" called for by the President's Council on Sustainable Development. The result is the transformation of the federal government into an administrative unit of the United Nations.

The technique is brilliant, and provides a public relations shield that is difficult to penetrate. While claiming that the process is designed to "decentralize" authority, garner input into the decision-making process from all affected stakeholders, and to get the policy decisions made at the lowest possible level, just the opposite is true. The policy decisions are made at the UN through more than 130 UN organizations. Those policies are being implemented administratively through public/private partnerships that carefully avoid scrutiny by elected officials.

Decentralization of authority, or returning decision-making authority to the states, does not mean returning authority to the elected officials of the state, county, and city governments. It means striking an agreement with the agencies of state, county, and city governments, in which agency bureaucrats participate with NGO representatives in what are called "stakeholder" councils, recognized to be the "local authorities." These local authorities are represented at the United Nations by an international NGO called the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). Appendix V of the Framework Document, discusses the need to create a network" of these local authorities to coordinate the implementation of Border XXI throughout the region.

A similar structure is being developed for the northern border under the auspices of the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation.

Fortunately for the people of New Mexico, one elected official has taken the time to learn the facts, and has the backbone required to take a public stand. Lieutenant Governor Walter Bradley has taken a forceful position against Border XXI, and is working to educate elected officials in the other border states. His position is made quite clear in his letter to Texas Governor George Bush, dated June 11, 1998. Here is that letter in full:

"Thank you for allowing me to meet with your representatives on May 15, 1998, in Sante Fe regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Border XXI initiative. At the request of the EPA, I met with agency representatives before any other meetings. It appears that I've been the only elected official of the four border states that EPA has met with, and that New Mexico is the only state to take a position on the Border XXI initiative.

"The Assistant Administrator for International Activities, Mr. William Nitze, and several staffers met with me privately. Mr. Nitze and Mr. Jerry Clifford, Deputy Regional Director for EPA stated that Border XXI is an oversight program, and all agreed that it is not legally binding on the states. Mr. Nitze mentioned that it is designed to oversee and coordinate existing programs.

"A lunch meeting was held with state representatives from California, Arizona and Texas. It became apparent that most everyone have [sic] relied on briefs/summaries for the program and have not fully read the Border XXI documents. In reading the documents, I quoted several agenda items that clearly go beyond oversight and coordination. Appendix V of the Framework Document is an example of this. In fact, all through the documents, many definitions and established programs are mentioned such as "What is Sustainable Development?" This is yet to be clearly defined.

"In discussing these issues, it is clear that no state policy makers, or cabinet level personnel are, or have been, involved in the writing of these documents. In fact, both Texas and California representatives pointed out that their people had attended EPA meetings and were not allowed by EPA to give their input.

"In obtaining advice from our legal staff, it was stated that once Border XXI documents are published in the Federal Register, if no state takes a position on any portion or all of the documents, then by consensus, the documents are deemed accepted by the border states. Since New Mexico policy makers have not been involved in the creation of these documents, New Mexico's position will remain not to participate in Border XXI. We will continue to participate in existing border environmental/health programs, as we always have in partnership with existing federal, state and local entities executing these programs.

"It is my hope that the US and Mexican Governors will review in depth the intent, content and merit of this plan. Anything less than full exercise by the states of their own constitutional responsibilities is tantamount to a waiver of state sovereignty. It is on this basis that the Border XXI Implementation Plan is not acceptable.

"Attached is proposed language that New Mexico Congressman Joe Skeen and California Congressman Jerry Lewis have proposed to insert in the Fiscal Year 1999 appropriations for Border XXI. This language would allow state elected officials in their states to have control of what federal activities will occur with taxpayer money.

"If Border XXI is intended to provide oversight and coordination, then states (policy makers) must be involved in the development of the founding Border XXI documents.

"In closing, I would like to state that since I initiated these meetings, I will be glad to visit with you or your representatives in further detail regarding any information or alternatives you may have. Thank you once again for your time on this important matter."

Walter Bradley

Lieutenant Governor

Border XXI is only one of dozens, if not hundreds, of programs being implemented by administrative agencies of the federal government, all designed to implement the recommendations contained in Agenda 21. Neither Congress, nor the state legislatures, nor the county commissions, nor city councils have considered Agenda 21 in its totality. No body of elected officials anywhere in America has adopted Agenda 21. Nevertheless, it is permeating public policy across the nation through the new, collaborative decision-making process by which "consensus" is proclaimed without genuine input by the public or by elected officials. Perhaps other elected officials will be inspired by Walter Bradley's example, and stand up and say "no more" to the administration.

Bonn

World

Concerns

The Science Won't Stay Settled!

Only a blind and deaf person would continue to walk directly toward the edge of a bottomless pit when thousands, perhaps millions, of people around him were shouting warnings of certain catastrophe. The credibility of the FCCC COP appears very much like a blind and deaf person, oblivious to the warnings of the broad scientific community, the United States Senate, and hundreds of citizens groups which represent millions of affected individuals around the world.

Most of the world now recognizes that the claims of catastrophic global warming from man-made causes are not supported by scientific evidence. They realize too, that the policies required by the Kyoto Protocol would do little or nothing to reduce emissions, but would instead, create another mechanism for the redistribution of wealth. In the real world, people recognize that unfounded claims of environmental disaster have frequently been used in attempts to justify radical social policies. Perpetrators of these deceptions inevitably destroy their own credibility. In a free society, facts cannot be fictionalized forever. The scientific facts about global warming have now overtaken the fictionalized fantasies of the doom-and-gloomers.

More than 4,000 scientists worldwide have now signed the Heidelberg appeal which warned of the inadequate scientific basis for the FCCC. Nearly 150 climatologists and meteorologists have now signed the Leipzig Declaration, which says there is insufficient scientific justification for the FCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. Now, more than 15,000 scientists have spoken publicly:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

More than 10,000 of these scientists hold advanced degrees in the pertinent scientific fields of atmospheric physics, meteorology, oceanography, geology, biology, agriculture, and in relevant engineering specialties. Some of the signers actually participated in the IPCC's work, which clearly demonstrates the absence of a "consensus" among the IPCC scientists. These scientists are not organized around a political agenda, as is the Union of Concerned (Confused?) Scientists. They are independent scientists, responding to an independent survey conducted by an independent scientific institute. And their response is overwhelming: abandon the political agenda the Kyoto Protocol promotes.

Sovereignty to the world

In addition to 15 hours of live radio broadcasts from Bonn to the United States and 80 other countries, World Concerns and daily news reports are posted on the Internet at <http://www.sovereignty.net>.

The COP's First ResponsibilityThe FCCC COP has one overriding responsibility: "to achieve...stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" Before that responsibility can be met, a fundamental question must be answered: "at what concentrations do greenhouse gases cause "dangerous" interference with the climate system?" Strangely, no one knows, nor does the COP seem to care.

No one challenges the fact that certain greenhouse gas concentrations have increased during the last century, nor the apparent correlation between the increase of carbon dioxide and industrial growth. The significance of that increase, however, is severely challenged.

It is an indisputable fact that global temperatures have fluctuated widely over historic time, as have concentrations of carbon dioxide. Human activity could not possibly have influenced those fluctuations. A thousand years ago, during what scientists call the Medieval Climate Optimum, the global mean temperature was nearly two degrees C higher than the current temperature, and even higher two-thousand years ago. Four hundred years ago, the world was in the throes of what scientists call the Little Ice Age. Is it not possible that the .6 degree C increase experienced during the last century is nothing more than evidence of nature's continuing climatic fluctuations? Is it not possible that the General Circulation Model's projections for the next century describe nature's return to what science and history call the "Climate Optimum?" Probably not. The current cycle of natural climate variability will probably not return the world to the "Climate Optimum." The scientific fact is that for the last half of the century, the global mean temperature has been declining slightly (0.07 degrees C per decade). Perhaps nature will yet vindicate Stephen Schneider's and Lester Brown's "scientific" opinion from 20 years ago when they warned of "floods and droughts" caused by man-made global cooling.

Global temperature aside, why has the FCCC COP assumed that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide should be reduced before determining whether or not the increase represents a "dangerous" interference with the global climate system? The scientific fact is that there are measurable benefits to rising carbon dioxide levels, and so far, no demonstrated dangers. Plants and vegetation grow faster, larger, and require less water when exposed to increased concentrations of carbon dioxide, and grain yields are substantially improved. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide appear to be nature's way of invigorating biological production to balance both the climate and ecological systems.

At what concentrations do greenhouse gases become "dangerous" to the climate system? No one knows. What is known is that over geological time, carbon dioxide concentrations have been much higher than now, perhaps as much as 20 times higher than the present. During the 18^th century, the Little Ice Age, concentrations of carbon dioxide were much lower than at present. What is known, is that 82% of this century's increase in carbon dioxide occurred during the last half of the century, while temperatures declined and vegetation growth increased.

The FCCC COP cannot ignore the now overwhelming evidence that neither current levels of greenhouse gas concentrations, nor the levels likely to accumulate in the foreseeable future, are not "dangerous" to the climate system. Indeed, there is strong evidence to suggest that a doubling of current levels would enrich biological fecundity and help continue the improved health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people everywhere.

(Those who wish to know the facts should see "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," by Arthur Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson. <http://www.oism.org>.)

The Legacy of the FCCC COP

The FCCCCOP appears destined to join Paul Ehrlich and Thomas Malthus among the world's most prodigious prognosticators of scientific misunderstanding, misstatement, misinterpretation, and general mischief. "By 1985," said Ehrlich in 1969, "enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people." Ha! He said that by 1980, life expectancy in the United States would drop to 42, and that the U.S. population would drop to 22.6 million by 1999. Ha ha! Despite Ehrlich's doom-and-gloom predictions, Americans, and the rest of the world as well, continued to get richer, fatter, and more numerous.

Paul Ehrlich has become a laughingstock, even among the students at his Stanford University. A March 10 article in the Stanford Review, written by Mike Toth, says, "unfortunately for the world, Ehrlich made it his task to bring Malthus' dead-wrong ideas back to life."

"Polar caps will melt, sea-levels will rise, coastal cities will be inundated, and deserts will replace lush forests," all sound like a modern version of the "dead wrong" Malthus-Ehrlich dogma of doom. By the way, who was it that said rising carbon dioxide concentrations would cause the global temperature to rise? As scientific fact and actual experience continue to nullify the claims and projections of the global-warming prophets of propaganda, it becomes increasingly clear to the real world that the high purpose of the FCCC has been hijacked to serve the aims of the social engineers.

It will probably not take twenty years for students at Stanford and the other universities around the world to recognize that the rhetoric of the global-warming enthusiasts has about the same level of credibility as the rhetoric of Malthus and Ehrlich. Their forays into foolishness were self funded; The FCCC COP is using money earned by hard-working individuals, taken by various governments, and given to the FCCC to continue to build a "dead-wrong" legacy.

Listen to the people

Unlike many nations, in America, government is empowered by the consent of the governed. Should government officials adopt a policy -- or an international agreement -- with which those who are governed disagree, then those who are governed are free to remove and replace those government officials in the next election.

While free people can, and often do, disagree on policy proposals, action on those proposals is delayed until convincing evidence, presented openly, persuades a majority to vote one way or the other. Each officials's vote is a matter of public record, and those who are governed can hold each official personally responsible.

In America, the people -- those who are governed -- are speaking out robustly about the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. Senate -- elected by those who are governed -- has already responded to their electors by adopting a Resolution that sets forth the minimum requirements any Protocol to the FCCC must contain if it is to have the support of the American people. The Kyoto Protocol fails to meet those requirements.

Transparency?

To be effective, any public policy must have the support of the people who will be affected by it. Legally binding international agreements are certainly "public policies" that must have public support. Therefore, the FCCC COP should strive to open the process widely to any and all participants who care to spend their time and resources to observe, participate, and report to their various constituencies.

Current discussions regarding NGO participation appear to be heading in the opposite direction -- to limit public participation.

It may well be inconvenient to have NGO representatives clammoring for documents and competing for space to present their point of view. It is an indispensable part of the policy-building process nevertheless -- if the policy is to be supported by the people who are affected. Policies adopted by non-elected officials, without regard for the wishes of those who are affected by them, can only be implemented by force and coercion. Individual freedom is the cost of such policies. When such policies are the work of international bodies, the cost expands to include national sovereignty.

Jessica Mathews, a former appointee to the U.S. State Department, recognizes that the Kyoto Protocol "will penetrate deeper into national sovereignty than any previous pact." China, and the G-77 countries apparently recognize that fact and have refused to make any commitment that infringes their national sovereignty. Those people whose national sovereignty is infringed will not likely stand idly by and let the rest of the world dictate policies that cost both individual freedom and national sovereignty. Nor should they!

Will 1998 be the warmest year on record?

Expect to hear that 1998 has begun with a global-warming bang; do not expect to hear that the cause is related to the largest solar flares in history. On January 20, 1998, CNN reported a "Coronal Mass Ejection" that knocked out Telstar 401 Communications. On April 8, 1998, CNN reported solar flares "the likes of which scientists have not seen before."

According to Art Poland, senior scientist with the Solar and Heliosphere Observatory (SOHO) at the Goddard Space Center, the flares sent a "shock-wave" toward the earth that takes only two days to reach the earth's atmosphere. NASA reported that the explosions produced plasma temperatures in the range of 1 million to 1.5 million degrees.

The highest global temperatures ever recorded by the satellites correlate directly to the solar flares observed by scientists around the world.

The correlation between solar flares and fluctuations in global temperature comes as no surprise to the scientific community, though largely ignored by the propagandists who promote "human activity" as the primary cause of global warming.. Note the correlation between the temperature (dark line) and the solar flare activity (light line) over the last 250 years. According to Arthur Robinson, et al, "It is clear that even relatively short, half-century-long fluctuations in temperature correlate well with variations in solar activity." The current surge in global temperature is nothing more than verification, again, of the "natural" variability of global temperatures.

This year, 1998, may well be the warmest year in recent history, but is unlikely to return the world to the Medieval Climate Optimum, and certainly not to the temperatures that plagued the earth 3000 years ago. Interestingly, during a period when there is much recorded history, there is no evidence of melting polar caps, unusually intense storms, or flooded coastal cities.

During a time when the known temperatures were as high, or higher than those projected by the alarmists, life on earth progressed, even prospered. If the FCCC COP is really concerned about future warming, perhaps a Protocol banning

Rome

World

Concerns

Moral Hazards of a Global Court

The moral hazards of IMF and World Bank bailouts have sent Asian markets reeling. Questionable loans were easy to justify when you knew you would be bailed out of your own bad decisions. You would not be held accountable. The international money suppliers would not let you fail.

Similarly, broad authority by an International Criminal Court may create disincentives for States to handle problems that are their responsibility. Political and financial heads will be as willing to pass the penalty as they are willing to pass the buck. No one wants, on their watch, the negative exposure that tough decisions bring.

Once responsibility is separated from action, many may find they are free to meddle in others' affairs without paying any pound of flesh. Because this global court will be about individuals, not just nation states, the scene is set for mischief.

Will "crimes against humanity" be clearly defined and understandable to all? Or will they, like the infamous Commerce Clause in the United States' Constitution, be stretched like spandex to whimsical and arbitrary jurisdictions? Will they, as that clause has done in American courts, haul the deepest pockets and the richest assets into a world redistribution system thinly veiled as "justice?" Will the Court become yet another tool of global social engineering, an expanded forum for global legalized plunder?

Inquisition-like, will witch hunts root-out "undesirables" such as those whose "patterns of consumption" are not the mandated behavior of the obedient global citizen?

These are not the rhetorical questions of an alarmist. These are the reasonable questions of a lawyer who knows all too well that the devil is in the details and that the other nations who would be party to this statute do NOT have the cultural backdrop of a rule by law wherein the individual is the fountainhead of his own inalienable rights.

By one perspective, the United Nations is 53,744 bureaucrats in search of causes. By ANY perspective, the fresh opportunity to haul individuals before a global court is an opportunity ripe with moral hazards.

"... Not to be superseded UNNECESSARILY"

UN Secretary-General Annan promotes the concept of a permanent war-crimes court as a "bulwark against evil." Will these words "... not to be superseded unnecessarily" be the entire bulwark of a nation state's sovereignty? Those words are the only promise proposed by delegates in response to real world concern about the sovereignty of nation states.

Is this author paranoid and 'touchy about sovereignty' to feel discomfort with that blandishment? Is it paranoid of France and the U.S. to work to limit the reach and independence of such a tribunal?

Let me see. The core of human nature has never been a pretty sight. Basically, if a person CAN, he will attempt to prosper at the expense of others. The LAW may be the common force to protect persons, liberties, and properties, but human nature will attempt to pervert the law by stupid greed and false philanthropy.

Could this happen? Slavery and tariffs are concrete historic examples of law being perverted into an instrument of injustice and an instrument of plunder. Legislators and lawyers viewed both these issues as ones in which it was NECESSARY to supersede the sovereignty, the rights, of the individual. So, they did.

Thus, human nature and its own heart of darkness is at the heart of the big-power dispute on jurisdiction. Of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, only Britain supports a completely independent court. So far, the United States wants cases referred to the court's prosecutor by the Security Council alone, where the U.S. wields (currently) one of five vetoes.

"Global Court Is No Done Deal" was an article in The Washington Times, p.A15, 15 June 1998, that addressed squarely this difficult issue of sovereignty. Author Betsy Pisik wrote, "The question of sovereignty -- of, say, an American soldier being brought before an international court -- is a major issue. ...Sen. Jesse Helms, North Carolina Republican and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has said that if any chance exists for an American to be tried before the court, the treaty will be "dead on arrival" when it comes before his committee for ratification. Sen. John Ashcroft, Missouri Republican and a possible presidential candidate in 2000, announced Friday that he was forming a coalition of more than 50 conservative groups to oppose the court's creation. "In its current form, the proposed [International Criminal Court] neither reflects, nor guarantees, the protections of the Bill of Rights. ...James Madison would be appalled," said Mr. Ashcroft. "When Americans learn more about the ICC, they will be. too."

Sen. Jesse Helms is no ordinary U.N. watcher, so it is best to heed where his lines in the sand are drawn. Helms does not want the U.N. dismantled, he wants it saved by successful reform. As Helms wrote, "Successful reform would achieve the twin goals of arresting U.N. encroachment on the sovereignty of nation-states while harnessing a dramatically downsized United Nations to help sovereign nations cope with some cross-border problems." He added, "U.N. reform is about much more than saving money. It is about preventing unelected bureaucrats from acquiring ever-greater powers at the expense of elected national leaders. It is about restoring the legitimacy of the nation-state." [Foreign Affairs, p. 4-5, September/October 1996]

So, we are back to human nature and its insatiable appetite for MORE legalized plunder through any newly unleashed, never accountable, bureaucracy. Of course, each violation of sovereignty will be NECESSARY. Certainly, the 174 pages of the draft statute reveal the potential for bureausclerosis at an advanced stage early on in the disease. When you remember that this bureaucracy will all be staffed with lawyers, heart seizures may strike first.

Pursuit of Punishment

"End to impunity" has replaced "paradigm" as overworked rhetoric at the codification conference in Rome. So, what is this "impunity?" "Impunity" says Webster's is "exemption from punishment, penalty, or harm." Thus, delegates are calling for an end to exemption from punishment. They call for the pursuit of punishment. It is bound to be easier to achieve than the pursuit of happiness, but will it be objective or will it be capricious?

In April, the world saw how the U. N. focused its energies when it came to murder and the pursuit of punishment.

The United Nations "reported that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had executed at least 1,500 last year, including political foes whose families had to pay for the bullets used before they could collect the body." [Murder and the UN, Wall Street Journal, 21 April 1998] The U.N.? They are not pursuing punishment.

But the U.N.'s highest judicial body did attempt to intervene in a single execution scheduled in the state of Virginia. This accused man had claimed Satan made him rape a woman before stabbing her in the neck five times. THIS was the "international cause" that the U.N. pursued. One death penalty drew fire. 1,500 deaths drew a yawn.

Such focus does nothing to encourage confidence in U.N. handling of greater judicial scope. Now that the United Nations Charter has been reinvented to promote the security not of states but of citizens, will the name change to United Citizens? Is EVERYMAN now a potential criminal before the global court?

With no jury trial and no due process, will the real global terrorism become that of judicial activism? Like mafias interested in fatted economies, judicial activists have no interest in the man with the shallow pocket or the independently impoverished.

The pursuit of punishment might look very much like the old, familiar pursuit of power.

The Demise of National Sovereignty

National sovereignty cannot co-exist with an International Criminal Court. Gianfranco Dell'Alba, a delegate from the European Union, got it right when he said:

"One thing is absolutely clear; any establishment of the court will require cession of some aspect of sovereignty. We can't have a court without states giving up part of their sovereignty."

The European Union delegate continues with the admission that "After 50 years, we are ready to give up sovereignty in Europe." Delegates assembled in Rome need to know that Americans are not ready to give up their sovereignty.

Because in America, government is empowered by the consent of the governed, expressions by appointed bureaucrats must be seen as nothing more than the wishes of the administration; consent must come from the people through their elected representatives. The people of the United States will never allow their elected Senators to ratify any version of an International Criminal Court that supersedes or compromises the U.S. Constitution.

Americans are as eager as anyone else to bring to justice perpetrators of genocide, and international terrorism. Americans are not, however, ready to surrender national sovereignty to an international body of appointed bureaucrats who may define those terms to serve political objectives. The UN Security Council now has the power to create ad hoc tribunals to prosecute such crimes. There is no need for a permanent body to do what may be done already.

It is clear that the proponents of the ICC envision a broader purpose for the permanent body than simply the prosecution of war crimes. At the Preparatory Committee meeting in Geneva, Ms. Mona Rishmawi, UN Independent Expert on Human Rights, revealed her vision for the ICC when she said:

"The whole reason we need an international court is that national courts have not done enough, particularly to protect the rights of the woman and girl child."

Professor Abasaad, from the former Yugoslavia, added his view:

"Here lies the great potential of the ICC: international law has created a huge body of norms, but no means of enforcing them. The ICC will finally present a mechanism for enforcement of those norms. The ICC would determine what the elements of various new crimes are, and then set about enforcing these newly defined crimes."

Every nation should be outraged by the idea of an international body of appointed bureaucrats assuming the power to define international norms and crimes for which citizens of sovereign nations may be prosecuted. America's system of justice is set forth in the U.S. Constitution, which does not provide any authority for an International Criminal Court. People who have not yet realized the freedom that arises from a system of government empowered by the consent of the governed, may be willing to trade enslavement to a national dictator for enslavement to a global dictator. America will accept neither.

World Government?

The ICC is an essential building-block in the transition from global governance to world government. The Commission on Global Governance is quick to deny that global governance is, in fact, world government, but when all the building blocks are viewed together, no other conclusion is reasonable.

The World Trade Organization is already empowered to impose trade sanctions upon sovereign nations. The Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change will empower another collection of UN bureaucrats to regulate energy usage in developed nations, and to dole out dollars from developed nations to the developing nations that behave themselves according to the dictates of the international bureaucrats. The Convention on Biological Diversity, the Commission on Sustainable Development, and the Convention on Desertification establish policy, or "international norms" that can potentially govern the most intimate detail of the lives of every citizen in every sovereign nation.

The International Criminal Court is the instrument needed to give the force of law to all these policies and international norms.

Government is defined by its ability to create laws, impose taxes and enforce laws. The UN has created a massive body of international law. It is working diligently to expand its power to impose taxes. The ICC will provide the power to enforce its laws. The UN's vision of global governance is, in fact, world government.

Moreover, it is a government that is not empowered by the consent of the people, but instead, it is empowered by its own "enlightened" vision of how the world ought to be. Every human being is born free, and almost immediately, enslaved by some form of government. The UN should be working to help people realize individual freedom, not working to enslave

them..

Does the world really need a permanent court?

Speaker after speaker has risen to affirm the need for a permanent International Criminal Court, and then proceeded to describe a methodology in direct conflict with the previous speaker. Igvar Raig, of Estonia says "There is no doubt that we need a permanent court...," and then says the prosecutor should have authority to proceed "on his own initiative" against "complaints from the widest possible number of sources."

Bill Richardson, from the United States says that the creation of an International Criminal Court is "the real aspiration of the past fifty years," and then says that "granting a prosecutor the right to initiate investigations...is unrealistic and unwise." These sharp differences of opinion exist on virtually every one of the thousand brackets that remain in the draft proposal. Perhaps the delegates should revisit the first and most fundamental question: does the world really need an International Criminal Court?

Many, if not most, of the speakers so far, have referred to the ad hoc tribunals created under the authority of Article VII of the UN Charter such as the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, and pointed to their success at prosecuting "war crimes." If such crimes, described as "core crimes" of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, are the object of prosecution by the new court, why should there be a permanent court when ad hoc tribunals have served the purpose in the past?

If the objective is limited to the prosecution of "core crimes," there is no need for a new, cumbersome, expensive, permanent UN bureaucracy; "core crimes" can be prosecuted under existing authorities with proven procedures. Such ad hoc tribunals avoid all the dangers that are inherent in the creation of any new bureaucracy, especially one endowed with the expansive authorities proposed in many of the bracketed draft proposals.

Who will define "crimes against humanity," for example? Will some future ICC Commission consider carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles in America to be a crime against the citizens of Small Island States? Will some future gathering of international delegates decide that Mexico's drug exports are a crime against inner-city humanity? Is it a crime against humanity to force pregnancy termination in overpopulated China? Or will it become a crime at the discretion of future, nameless, unaccountable bureaucrats? Environmental organizations already claim that harvesting timber from the rainforests of Brazil is a crime against humanity. Is it now -- or will it become -- a crime to employ teen-agers in a soccer-ball factory in Asia? Who will make these decisions in the future? To whom will those decision-makers be accountable?

The most casual reading of the bracketed proposals clearly reveals that many delegates want, indeed, expect the ICC to become -- if not initially, in the near future -- the enforcer of all international norms. All nations should think twice before surrendering their national sovereignty to a group of UN bureaucrats who have the authority to dictate the behavior of national citizens.

War crimes can be prosecuted without risking a runaway bureaucracy, already eager to impose its views on the world without regard for the consent of those who must comply.

On the lighter side

A History of the World

By Richard Lederer

(Editor's note: This wonderful piece was discovered and submitted by Charles Bakke, an ecologic reader in Anniston, Alabama. Thanks Charles, Everyone will enjoy this.)

(Author's note: One of the fringe benefits of being an English or History teacher is receiving an occasional jewel of a student blooper in an essay. I have pasted together the following History of the World from certifiably genuine student bloopers collected by teachers throughout the United States, from eighth grade through college level. Read carefully, and you will learn a lot.)

The inhabitants of ancient Egypt were bundled mummies. They lived in the Sarah dessert and traveled by Camelot. The climate of the Sarah is such that the inhabitants have to give elsewhere, so certain areas of the dessert are cultivated by irritation. The Egyptians built the Pyramids in the shape of a right triangular cube. The Pramids are a range of mountains between France and Spain.

The Bible is full of interesting caricatures. The first book of the Bible, Guinesses, Adam and Eve were created from an apple tree. One of their children, Cain, once asked, "Am I my brother's son?" God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on Mount Montezuma. Jacob, son of Isaac, stole his brother's birth mark. Jacob was a patriarch who brought up his twelve sons to be patriarchs, but they did not take to it. One of Jacob's sons, Joseph, gave refuse to the Israelites.

Pharoah forced the Hebrew slaves to make bread without straw. Moses led them to the Red Sea, where they made unleavened bread, which is bread made without any ingredients. David was a Hebrew king skilled at playing the liar. He fought with the Philatelists, a race of people who lived in Biblical times. Solomon, one of David's sons, had 500 wives and 500 porcupines.

Without the Greeks we wouldn't have history. The Greeks invented three kinds of columns -- Corinthian, Dorie, and Ironic. They also had myths. A myth is a female moth. One myth says that the mother of Achilles dipped him in the River Stynx until he became intollerable. Achilles appears in the Illiad, by Homer. Homer also wrote the Oddity, in which Penelope was the last the last hardship Ulysses endured on his journey. Actually, Homer was not written by Homer but by another man of that name.

Socrates was a famous Greek teacher who went around giving people advice. They killed him. Socrates died from an overdose of wedlock.

In the Olypic Games, Greeks ran races, jumped, hurled the biscuits, and threw the java. The reward to the victor was a coral wreath. The government of Athens was democratic because the people took the law into their own hands. Thee were no wars in Greece, as the mountains were so high that they couldn't climb over to see what their neighbors were doing. When they fought with the Persians, the Greeks were outnumbered because the Persians had more men.

Eventually, the Ramons captured the Greeks. History calls people Romans because they never stayed in one place for very long. At Roman banquets, the guests wore garlics in their hair. Julius Caesar extinguished himself on the battlefields of Gaul. The Ides of March murdered him because they thought he was going to be made king. Nero was a cruel tyranny who would torture his poor subjects by playing the fiddle to them.

Then came the Middle Ages. King Alfred conquered the Dames, King Arthur lived in the Age of Shivery, King Harold mustarded his his troops before the Battle of Hastings, Joan of Arc was cannonized by Bernard Shaw, and victims of the Black Death grew boobs on their necks. Finall, Magna Carta provided that no free man should be hanged twice for the same crime.

In midevil times most of the people were iliterate. The greatest of the time was Chaucer, who wrote many poems and verses, he also wrote literature. Another tale tells of William Tell, who shot an arrow through an apple while standing on his son's head.

The Renaissance was an age in which the individuals felt the value of their human King. Martin Luther was nailed to the Arch door at Wittenberg for selling papal algences. He died a horrible death, being excommunicated by a bull. it was the painter Donatello's interest in the female nude that made him the father of the Renaissance. It was an age of great inventions and discoveries. Gutenberg invented the Bible, Sir Walter Raleigh is a historical figure because he invented cigarettes. Another important invention was the circulation of blood. Sir Francis Drake circumcised the word with a 100-foot clipper.

The government of England was a limited mockery. Henry VIII found walking difficult because he had an abbess on his knee. Queen Elizabeth was the "Virgin Queen." As a queen she was a success. When Elizabeth exposed herself before her troops, The all shouted "hurrah." Then her navy went outand defeated the Apanish Spanish Armadillo.

The greatest writer of the Renaissance was William Shakespear. Shakespear never made much money and is famous only because of his plays. He lived at Windsor with his merry wives, writing tragedies, comedies, and errors. In one of Shakespear's famous plays, Hamlet rations out his situation by relieving himself in a long soliloquy. Inanother, Lady Macbeth tries to convince Macbeth to kill the king by attacking his manhood. Romeo an Juliet are and example of a heroic couplet. Writing at the same time as Shakespear was Miguel Cervantes. He wrote Donkey Hote. The next great author was John Milton. Milton wrote Paradise Lost. Then his wife died and he wrote Paradise Regained.

During the Renaissance America began. Christopher Columbus was a great navigator who discovered America while cursing about the Atlantic. His ships were called the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Fe. Later, the Pilgrims crossed the Ocean, and this was known as Pilgrims Progress. When they landed at Plymouth Rock, they were greeted by the Indians, who came down the hill rolling their war hoops before them. The Indian squabs carried porpoises on their back. Many of the Indian heroes were killed, along with their cabooses, which proved very fatal to them. The winter of 1620 was a hard one for the settlers. Many people died and many babies were born. Captain John Smith was responsible for all this.

One of the causes of the Revolutionary Wars was the English put tacks in their tea. Also, the colonists would send their parcels through the post without stamps. During the War, the Red Coats and Paul Revere wasthrowing balls over stone walls. The dogs were barking and the peacocks crowing. Finally the colonists won the War and no longer had to pay for taxis.

Delegates from the original thirteen states formed the Contented Congress. Thomas Jefferson, a Virgin, and Benjamin Franklin were two signers of the Declaration of Independence. Franklin had gone to Boston carrying al his clothes in his pocket and a loaf of bread under each arm. He invented electricity by rubbing cats backward and declared, "A horse divided against itself cannot stand." Franklin died in 1790 and is still dead.

George Washington married Martha Curtis and in due time became the Father of Our Country. Then the Constitution of the United States was adopted to secure domestic hostitlity. Under the Constitution the people enjoyed the right to bare arms.

Abraham Lincoln' became America's greatest President. lincoln's mother died in infancy, and he was born in a log cabinw which he built with his own hands. When Lincoln was President, he wore only a tall silk hat. He said "La onion there is strength." Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address while traveling from Washington to Gettysburg on the back of an envelope. he also freed the slaves by signing the emasculation Proclamation, and the Fourteenth Amendment gave the ex-Negroes citizenship. But the Clue Clux Clan would torcher and lynch the ex-Negroes and other innocent victims. It claimed it represented law and odor. On the night of April 14, 1865, Lincoln went to the theater and got shot in his seat by one of the actors in a moving picture show. The believed assinator was John Wilkes Booth, a supposingly insane actor. This ruined Booth's career.

Meanwhile in Europe, the Enlightenment was a reasonable time. Voltare invented electricity and also wrote a book called Candy. Gravity was invented by Issac Walton. It is chiefly noticeable in the Autum, when the apples are falling of the trees.

Bach was the most famous composer in the world, and so was Handel. Handel was half German, half Italian, and half English. He was very large. Bach died from 1750 to the present. Beathoven wrote music enen though he was deaf. He was so deaf he wrote loud music. He took long walks in the forest even when everyone was calling for him. Beathoven expired in 1827 and later died for this.

France was in a very serious state. The French Revolution was accomplished before it happened. The Marseillaise was the theme song of the French Revolution, and it catapulted into Napoleon. During the Napoleonic Wars, the crowned heads of Europe were trembling in their shoes. Then the Spanish gorillas came down from the hills and nipped at Napoleon's flanks. Napoleon became ill with bladder problems and was very tense and unrestrained. he wanted an heir to inherit his power, but since Josephine was a baroness, she couldn't bear children.

The sun never set on the British Empire because the British Empire is in the East and the sun sets in the West. Queen Victoria was the longest queen. She sat on a thorn for sixty-three years. her reclining years and finally the end of her life wee exemplatory of a great personality. Her death was the final event which ended her reign.

The nineteenth century was a time of many great inventions and thoughts. The invention of the steamboat caused a network of rivers to spring up. Cyrus McCormick invented the McCormik raper, which did the work of a hundred men. Samuel Morse invented a code of telepathy. Louis Pasteur discovered a cure for rabbis. Charles Darwin was a naturalist who wrote the Organ of the Species. Madman Curie discovered radium. And Karl Marx became one of the Marx brothers.

The First World War, caused by the assignation of the Arch-Duck by a surf, ushered in a new error in the anals of human history.... Local leadership rises

(Editors note: Some members of a local chapter of a national Garden Club have become concerned about the direction of their national organization. Here are excerpts from a powerful five-page letter sent to the national President. Names have been withheld.)

We are all in favor of conservation, but there is a vast difference between conservation and environmental activism. Traditional conservationists believe that the most important natural resource is the creative genius of human beings, whose responsibility is the good stewardship of nature's bounty. The application of man's innovative use of science and technology is the best hope for civilization, as well as the conservation of the natural world. Environmental activists believe that nature must be sustained in an unaltered state, preserving all of its parts in a natural balance within ecosystems, which can only be achieved without human interference. Theirs is a hypothesis only. (Objective science tells us that nature's true personality is unpredictable and chaotic and cannot be preserved in a preconceived natural or "balanced state.")

The national organization has formed coalitions with a number of environmental activist organizations, i.e. (We see a direct link with the Natural Resources Defense Council.) which are funded by tax free foundation money and staffed by formidable legal defense teams. They saturate the media with threats of impending crises such as "global warming" and "species extinction." In order to "save the planet," the public is gradually convinced to accept the following drastic measures to achieve the environmental activist's political agenda -- government control of natural resources, centrally planned limits on industry and technology, and the regulation of private property and public lands at the discretion of the government for the good of society.

There is no cause so just that it can afford to impede a search for truth. It is intellectually dishonest and morally wrong to manipulate public opinion by misrepresenting the facts in order to advance the agenda of environmental activists.

Environmental activism seems to be the subject that dominates the agenda of the national organization -- our statement of purpose has been changed incorporating the word "action" which may account for the aggressive political activity of the last few years.

The environment is much better served by free market incentives than by command and control regulations with enormous costs and dubious benefits. Many of these regulations are based on questionable science, conceived and enforced by non-elected unaccountable federal bureaucrats, circumventing the Congress and undermining the Constitution. The use of independent scientists in evaluating risk assessment and cost benefit analysis, exemptions for small business, local permitting plans and protection of property rights, are much more effective in encouraging the public to use sound conservation measures. State and community governments are far more successful in handling environmental problems in their own areas, rather than depending on an inefficient centralized environmental bureaucracy.

It appears that the national organization has subscribed to the Biocentric world-view, which is the foundation of the theory of Biodiversity. Throughout modern history, science, government, and matters of faith have moved somewhat respectfully along parallel paths. Those who subscribe to the Biocentric world-view attempt to converge these three powerful forces in the creation of a new paradigm which will seriously compromise all three and will lead us on an uncharted course, touching the lives of every American. For this reason we are uneasy about the educational material which might be included in the Teacher's Resource Manual, which will be distributed all over the country to promote the theory of Biodiversity for students in grades K - 12..

Far from a figment of the imagination, the Global Biodiversity Assessment is an 8 pound, 1100 page document produced by the United Nations Environment Program and published by Cambridge University Press. Within its voluminous pages a blueprint for "sustainable development" is described in excruciating detail, including social engineering, population control, land management, regulation of natural resources, human activity, and private property, and intricate schemes for imposing energy taxes for the purpose of redistributing wealth worldwide.

Also included in the Global Biodiversity Assessment is a reference to the "Wildlands Project," founded by Dave Foreman and Conservation Biologist, Reed Noss, as the ideal plan for preserving Biodiversity in the United States. This elaborate design calls for a network of wilderness reserves, human buffer zones, restricting human activity, and wildlife corridors encompassing 40% of the landmass of North America. The "Wildlands Project" was suggested reading in

[our national publications.]

The culmination of all this is the Biodiversity Treaty presented to the Earth Summit in 1992. It was signed by President Clinton in 1993, but has not been ratified by the Senate. When the advocates of the theory of Biodiversity succeed in convincing the public that this treaty is the only way to prevent human activity from destroying the world, it will be ratified.

Considering the seriousness with which we view this subject, we felt it worth the effort to bring it to your attention. This is a reflection of four years of observation and research. We are genuinely concerned for the future of our country and the policies of the organization. Since you are charged with the responsibility of leadership, we hope you will search your conscience for fairness in your resolution of this issue.

Check it out!

http://www.freedom.org

Our web site is brand new and already reaching thousands of people. During the week of the UN Climate Change Meetings in Bonn, Germany, as a direct result of the 15 hours of radio broadcasts, we recorded nearly 90,000 hits and served more than 600MB of data to visitors from 18 countries. Interestingly, several government agencies spent considerable time reviewing our information. Freedom.org actually hosts four different sites:

Sovereignty International: (which may also be accessed directly at <http://www.sovereignty.net>. This site contains massive information about (1) Climate Change; (2) Land Use Control; (3) Sustainable Development; (4) Global Governance; and (5) NGOs-Civil Society. Behind each of these issue areas, dozens of documents and articles are available for reviewing and downloading. Information about the organization is also available.

ECO: (also accessible directly at <http://www.eco.freedom.org>) contains three years of cologic newspaper columns, with a table of contents for each year. The site is still under construction and currently has only a few back issues of the bi-monthly journal, cologic, but eventually will have all past issues, and special reports. There is a bookstore on this site for people who would like to join or purchase materials by credit card.

EPI: (accessible directly at <http://www.epi.freedom.org>) is the site of Environmental Perspectives, Inc., headed by Dr. Michael Coffman. This site features Dr. Coffman's articles, books, maps, and other information that is extremely important in the battle to protect property rights.

Freedom Week: contains information about this new initiative, including the Freedom Week Proclamation. On this site we will report those organizations that are participating in the program along with descriptions of the various events and activities they are planning for the Freedom Week Celebrations in 1999 and especially for the millennium celebration in the year 2000.

This vast array of information represents only the first step toward what will be the most helpful tool our members and supporters have available. We are currently preparing our research library which will provide easy access to the volumes of information we have collected over the last several years. Visit these sites often. Watch the Bookstore grow.

END May/June ecologic, 1998