American Policy Center » 2005 » April
- Agenda 21 or Freedom 21: Making the Right Choice
- APCTestifies before Congress—Slams Park Service
- People, Progress and Planet – Earth Day 2005
- Eco-extremists Attack Bank — Will Cost YOU Money!
- We Must Never Let the Terrorists Win
- SAFE Act Restores Constitutional Protections
April 27, 2005
By Tom DeWeese
Which do you choose? A way of life in which you are the master of your destiny, or one in which virtually all decisions are made for you by one ruling body or another? It’s the classic struggle facing every human on earth. Freedom or control.
Truth be known, there are many who actually choose control. It makes for a well ordered society with few surprises. In a controlled society, one doesn’t have to make complicated career choices, health care is provided. Community planners decide where housing will be placed. Committees decide what industries are to be allowed and how they will operate. Watchdogs decide the foods that shall be permitted to eat, to protect our health, of course. Family planners decide the number of children allowed. Those children, of course, will be well taken care of every day in public education centers that, not only provide a centrally planned curriculum, but also provide for all physical and mental health needs. No reason for crime because there are no real possessions to steal and no personally-owned weapons to threaten bodily harm. The aged have no fears for the future, as they are taken care of with government controlled social security accounts. Economic security is promised for a better world as everyone equally sacrifices to help their fellow man. Everything is well organized, peaceful and controlled. Everyone is secure in the knowledge that tomorrow will be just like today.
On the other hand, there is the chaos of what some foolishly call freedom. In such a society, people are fully responsible for their own actions. Untethered individuals throw a monkey wrench into a well-ordered society by inventing new gadgets that make life easier and more productive, but threaten old ways. Selfish people pursue their own dreams and ideals without ever worrying about how they fit into the order of society. They want to benefit from the fruits of their labor, own property and raise families without controls established from the wisdom of the community. Imagine such a society in which parents get to decide how best to educate their children. And think of the irresponsibility of individuals actually being able to chose if and how they want to invest their money to prepare for retirement. In the so-called free society, people eat what they want without benefit of government approval. Children are part of the family that bore them, not overseen by the state. People start enterprises without asking permission. Nothing stays the same, except that individuals are secure in their homes and have the ability to live their lives as they choose.
Control today has a name. Agenda 21. This is the name of a treaty that was first unveiled at the United Nations’ Earth Summit in 1992. Implementation of the treaty is through a policy called Sustainable Development. This program is now the official policy of the United States and is being systematically imposed in every single state of the Union and in every city and town. There are very few exceptions. Sustainable Development is no less than a ruling principle through which decisions for all aspects of our lives are determined through public/private partnerships between government (at all levels) and private institutions in our communities. They provide guidelines to determine business decisions; property use; medical care; education curriculum; foreign policy; economics; taxes; labor policy; career decisions; housing; building material; farming policy; and much more. Agenda 21 is based on the principle that government grants our rights.
If you choose freedom, then there is a counter to Agenda 21 and its Sustainable Development program. It’s called Freedom 21, and it’s quickly growing into a “freedom movement.” Freedom 21 is not an organization. It is a loose coalition of groups and individuals who believe that our nation’s Founding Fathers had it right when they established this nation as one with tightly controlled reins on government. The Founding Fathers believed that all individuals were born with their rights of individual liberty, and that government’s job is to protect those rights as individuals pursue their own dreams and goals. That’s the basis for the Freedom 21 agenda.
Freedom 21 was organized six years ago by Henry Lamb (Environmental Conservation Organization), Tom DeWeese (American Policy Center), Craig Rucker and David Rothbard (Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow), and representatives of Eagle Forum. Today, this group is joined by The Chicago-based Heartland Institute and Chuck Cushman’s American Land Rights Association. The unique fact about Freedom 21 is that it is truly a grassroots coalition. It has no central infrastructure; no official leader; no budget; no overhead; and no bureaucracy. The co-sponsors are independent organizations which do not give up their individual identity or autonomy to participate in Freedom 21 activities. It succeeds precisely because members are open to the activities of others and are happy to lend their support. The coalition operates under a set of principles of freedom first adopted by activists in conference in July of 2000.
In its six years, Freedom 21 has served as a mechanism for reaching out to the freedom movement to share ideas and unite grassroots activists. Through Freedom 21 projects and conferences, the movement has been able to introduce leaders in other movements to the principles of freedom. Even more, one-issue activists are beginning to learn that they share common goals and adversaries with other grassroots movements. Freedom 21 has been instrumental in uniting Second Amendment defenders; property rights activists; free market advocates; tax opponents; personal privacy protectors; family autonomy champions; back-to-basics education activists, and many more. These single issue activists have come to understand that they all share a common foe in Sustainable Development.
Today, Freedom 21 is providing invaluable tools to help fight back against the threat of the UN’s Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development. In the past year, Freedom 21 leaders have developed a six-hour DVD presentation entitled, “Americas’ Choice: Liberty or Sustainable Development,” designed to help educate activists and elected officials. Also produced is a booklet for elected officials entitled, “Understanding Sustainable Development: A Guide for Public Officials.” In 2005, Freedom 21 has turned its efforts toward creating new sources of funding for a cash-starved freedom movement. Just announced was Freedom 21.com, a unique internet service provider that gives $2 of every member’s monthly subscription fee to the freedom organization of the member’s choice. Soon two more unique funding sources will be announced under the Freedom 21 banner.
The most important project each year is the Freedom 21 national conference, this year scheduled for July 14 to 16 in Reno, Nevada. This year’s conference is designed like building blocks to show how Sustainable Development policies erode the principles of freedom in every area of life. Participants will learn about sustainable polices on water, medicine and education. They will learn how to use alternative media, like the Internet and television, to help fight for the principles of liberty. Participants will hear from local activists about how to fight on the home front; and they will learn of the ravages of Sustainable Development on the international front. The conference educates, unites, inspires, and renews the spirit. Go to www.freedom21.org for all the details. Freedom 21 is the gathering place for the freedom movement.
Collectivism, and its false promise of security, may be the accepted policy of the day, but the freedom movement is learning how to fight back.
J. Peyton Knight
Executive Director of the American Policy Center
Concerning
Oversight of our National Park System
Read before the
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy,
and Human Resources
of the
United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform
April 22, 2005
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Peyton Knight. I am executive director of the American Policy Center in Warrenton, Virginia. The Center is a nonprofit grassroots organization dedicated to advancing the principles of private property rights, free markets, and limited government. In addition, I am the Washington, D.C. representative for the American Land Rights Association (ALRA). ALRA promotes the protection of property rights, public access to federal lands, and the wise use of our nation’s resources.
America’s park system is in trouble. Our nation’s 388 national parks, historic sites, battlefields, landmarks, lakeshores, recreation areas, scenic rivers and trails have an estimated collective maintenance backlog of between $4.1 and $6.8 billion. That’s almost $18 million per entity. Yet as this crisis continues to snowball, Congress has not done enough to strike at the heart of the problem.
Will our national parks survive for future generations? The answer is simply “no”, unless Congress acts responsibly and reins in the ravenous appetite of the National Park Service (NPS) and federal land acquisition programs. The federal government currently owns almost one-third of America’s total land mass. NPS is assigned to caring for much of this property. It clearly can’t handle its current responsibility. How on Earth does it make sense to give it more?
In order to solve this crisis, Congress must make a sincere commitment to curb all future NPS programming and acquisitions, and scale back expansion plans already in the pipeline that will only add more fuel to the backlog fire. You can’t simply pledge more funding at one end, and continue with out-of-control expansion at the other end. This only exacerbates the problem.
In the private sector, businesses must consider expansion carefully, lest they find their resources overdrawn and succumb to implosion and bankruptcy. In the world of the federal government, agencies such as the National Park Service seek an infinite expansion of their fiefdom, and all too often Congress rubberstamps these requests with little regard for practicalities such as available resources or funding. This reckless expansion threatens the future of our nation’s national park system and undermines the ability of the agency to meet its commitments to future generations.
According to the National Parks Conservation Association, public safety and public access rank high among the casualties of our overdrawn Park Service. Yosemite National Park in California desperately needs everything from trail and campground maintenance to a new sewer system and electrical upgrades. Yellowstone National Park has decrepit buildings and over 150 miles of roads that need repair. In Mount Rainier National Park in Washington, travel to backcountry cabins is impossible because of neglected bridges and trails. The foundation of the visitor center at the USS Arizona Memorial in Hawaii is crumbling and literally sinking into the ground. Ancient stone structures are collapsing at Chaco Culture National Historical Park in New Mexico. In Gettysburg National Military Park, many historic structures need rehabilitation and a failing water line needs to be repaired.
When public access to parks isn’t taking a backseat to scarce resources, the Park Service is actually spending money to shut people out. The Park Service’s “Yosemite Valley Plan” would cost close to a half-billion dollars and would actually reduce the number of parking spaces in Yosemite Valley by two-thirds. Instead of being able to leisurely enjoy the sights and wonders of Yosemite, this grand plan calls for park patrons to be herded onto a fleet of buses and shuffled through the park on the Park Service’s schedule. Under the plan, hundreds of campsites that were destroyed in a 1997 flood would not be replaced, and nearly 60 percent of the Park’s remaining campsites accessible by car would be removed.
The National Park Service is quickly earning the moniker of our nation’s slumlord and Congress’ response should not be to reward NPS with more property and more programming. Rather, Congress should seek to scale back the Park Service’s duties until a manageable level is attained. The National Park Service is already slated to receive 2.2 billion dollars in the next fiscal year. That is almost one billion dollars more than it received just ten years ago. The real answer to the Park Service’s maintenance woes is fewer holdings and programs. Unfortunately, Congress seems determined to ignore this solution and drive the Park Service and our national treasures into further disrepair.
For example, the House and Senate are moving this year to create a National Heritage Areas (NHAs) program (S. 243 and H.R. 760). Funding and technical assistance for NHAs is administered through the National Park Service. Indeed, Heritage Areas are permanent units of NPS, and therefore, lifelong drains on already scarce resources. Even more importantly, Heritage Areas are federal land use mandates foisted upon local communities. Quite simply: Heritage Areas have boundaries, and those boundaries have consequences for property owners unfortunate enough to reside within them.
National Heritage Areas are being sold to Congress under false pretenses. Proponents claim that these areas are simply temporary funding grants—seed money that is scheduled to sunset once the Area becomes self-sufficient. Predictably, this has not happened with current Heritage Areas. These pork barrel land use schemes are forever dependent on federal funding because they lack local interest. There are only three entities interested in Heritage Areas: local preservation groups; state and local bureaucrats; and the Park Service. And all three of these entities are interested for just two reasons: money and power.
Ten years ago, the late Representative Gerald Solomon (R-NY) strongly warned that Heritage Areas are targets for increased land use control by the Park Service, as well as funding drains on the agency. Solomon’s September 19, 1994, letter he wrote to his colleagues shows that the Park Service’s maintenance crisis did not sneak up on anyone:
I urge you to defend property rights and strongly oppose the American Heritage Area Participation Program … The environmentalists advocating this bill have FEDERAL LAND USE CONTROL as their primary objective.
The bill wastes tax dollars that could be more appropriately spent on maintaining our national parks … Property rights defenders have legitimate concerns about the provision in the bill requiring localities to obtain approval by the Secretary of Interior for land use plans…
WHY SPEND $35 MILLION ON NON-FEDERAL HERITAGE AREAS WHEN OUR NATIONAL PARKS DESPERATELY NEED FUNDS FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR?
Again, I ask you to defend property rights and oppose this bill.
(The emphasis is Rep. Solomon’s—not mine.)
Representative Solomon would be appalled to learn that Congress is pushing harder than ever for a National Heritage Areas program when Park Service’s problems have only increased exponentially since he penned his letter.
When the federal government acquires property it compounds the current crisis in two ways. Of course, it adds more property and burden to the maintenance backlog. But it also removes private property from the tax rolls, thereby reducing funds that could help address the crisis.
In spite of this, a provision currently sitting in the Senate budget resolution would earmark $350 million, guaranteed, every year for the next three years for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. That’s over one billion dollars, not subject to annual appropriations, for federal and state governments to buy up more private property. Fortunately, the House budget resolution includes no such nonsense, but Representatives must make certain that the final conference report is free of this land grab boondoggle.
The future of the National Park Service also depends on how the agency is viewed by the public. Unfortunately, NPS has shown itself to be a bad neighbor with a history of hostility toward land owners and local communities.
Through programs like the National Natural Landmarks Program, NPS has run roughshod over many private property owners. Though advertised as voluntary, benign designations to inform landowners of the natural features of their property (as if they weren’t already aware) the program is in fact a feeder system for future NPS holdings and regulatory crackdowns. One day the Park Service knocks on your door and hands you a bronze plaque honoring your property. The next day you find your property ensnared in a quagmire of planned, progressively stronger land use prohibitions, and sometimes outright acquisition.
In a great number of instances, the Park Service was found to be trespassing and snooping around private property—evaluating it for landmark designation without ever notifying the landowner. The most prevalent abuse occurred in Maine, where the Park Service routinely ignored its own notification rules and refused to inform landowners of pending designations. NPS claims that property owners love the Landmarks program and are eager to join. If this is true, why the deliberate secrecy? And why do so many property owners fear a Landmark designation?
In fact, the Park Service was working in collaboration with environmental organizations and land trusts, targeting private property for future Landmarks. Syndicated columnist and author Alston Chase documented several examples of Park Service misdeeds under the program. Jim Shelly, a New Mexico rancher, didn’t learn that his property was being considered for a Landmark designation until a friend noticed the nomination notification in the Federal Register. The Nature Conservancy had evaluated Mr. Shelly’s land for the Park Service without his knowledge.
Lucy Wheeler of Vermont became suspicious when she noticed mysterious survey markers on her land. NPS officials were in fact sneaking around her property and neglected to inform Ms. Wheeler because, as they reported, the subject was “already sensitive.”
Because of this controversy, a moratorium was placed on new Landmark designations in 1989. However, that moratorium was lifted ten years later. It is far past time for the Park Service to locate and notify victims of the Landmarks debacle, and seek their written permission for inclusion in the program. If the Park Service is not willing to reconcile its misdeeds, then the National Natural Landmarks program ought to be abolished.
In summary, if the Park Service is to survive for future generations the agency’s holdings and programming simply must be scaled back. Congress should direct the Department of Interior to take a careful inventory of its current holdings, and determine which of these properties would best be turned over to states or sold to private interests. Undoubtedly, there are many national parks and recreation areas that have no business on the federal dole. Some examples would be the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area (NRA) in California or the Gateway NRA in New York. These properties might make good city or state parks, but American taxpayers nationwide should not be forced to carry this burden. Despite this, Congress is considering a massive addition to the Santa Monica Mountains NRA called the “Rim of the Valley.” The estimated cost of this addition is $2 billion. When the Santa Monica NRA was originally created, it was only supposed to cost $155 million. The price tag is now over one billion with another $2 billion in the pipeline. This sort of mission creep and reckless expansion has got to stop.
Congress should also make certain that the federal government does not swallow any more of our nation’s land mass. The “No Net Loss of Private Land Act” (S. 591) would help in this regard. As the bill’s sponsor, Senator Craig Thomas, notes:
It’s time for Congress to protect the rights of private property owners and instill some common sense into federal land acquisitions — No-Net-Loss of Private Lands will provide that discipline.
The federal government has not always been a good neighbor to the people of the West. Federal land management agencies continue to lock up public lands throughout the West and restrict access to areas for multiple-use purposes. This creates great hardship for local communities, destroying jobs and depressing the economy in many areas around the West.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify on this very important issue. The time is now for Congress to assert real authority and inject discipline into federal land management agencies. Only this can save our national parks and treasures. I would be happy to answer any questions that you, or other members of the subcommittee, may have.
Attachments:
1. Congressional Testimony of American Land Rights Association Executive Director Chuck Cushman concerning the Conservation and Reinvestment Act; June 20, 2001.
2. “National Park Service Entangled in ‘Greengate’” by Alston Chase; March 5, 1990.
3. Senate Testimony of American Policy Center Executive Director J. Peyton Knight concerning National Heritage Areas; March 15, 2005.
4. “No to the Yosemite Plan: Don’t Restrict Public’s Access to National Parks” by Bonner Cohen; June 2003.
This year, let’s remember that billions still face real, life-threatening dangers
April 22, 2005
Paul Driessen
Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore says the environmental movement “has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity.” This Earth Day, let us dedicate ourselves to restoring those essential virtues.
When I helped organize the first Earth Day on my college campus in 1970, I never dreamed we’d be celebrating #35 this year, or that we’d come so far in cleaning up our environment. But the improvements are remarkable.
Since 1976, airborne sulfur dioxide has been reduced 72% … carbon monoxide 76% … lead 98% – according to the Pacific Research Institute’s annual Index of Leading Environmental Indicators. Automobile tailpipe emissions are down 95% from 1975 levels.
About 80% of US community water systems had no violations of health-based EPA standards in 1993. Last year, 95% had no violations.
For the past five years, our wetlands have increased by 26,000 acres a year – reversing years of decline. We’ve gone from 500 nesting pairs of bald eagles in 1965 to 7500 today, including a half dozen on the river where I grew up, less than a half mile from a big paper mill whose effluents once contaminated the area.
Progress since the “good old days” is even more dramatic. In 1905, average US life expectancy was 47 years; today it’s 78. Few homes had electricity; instead, coal and wood fires created clouds of pollution, and the average home generated 5,000 pounds of wood or coal ash a year.
Over 3 million horses worked in American cities – producing 11 million tons of manure and 9 million gallons of urine annually. Most got left on streets or dumped into rivers; during summers, manure dust was a primary cause of tuberculosis. In New York City alone, crews had to remove 15,000 horse carcasses from streets every year.
The arrival of automobiles changed all that. It also meant we no longer needed vast forage and pasture land for horses, modern farming began increasing production per acre, and we’ve been able to add a million acres of new US forestland annually since 1910.
All is not rosy, of course. For instance, Alaskan stellar sea lion populations continue to decline, though exact causes are unclear. But overall – in sharp contrast to gloomy reports from some activist groups and news media – environmental progress has been steady, not only in the US but throughout the developed world.
So celebrate! Thank an environmental movement that initiated many of these improvements, before it lost its moral compass. Try to separate our true remaining ecological problems from those that are analyzed incorrectly, exaggerated or simply concocted to promote activist agendas.
Most importantly, remember that our remaining problems are relatively minor. Today’s truly serious health and environmental problems are in the poorest countries. That’s where we should focus our attention. That’s why we should have an annual People Day, when we can resolve to address real, immediate, life-or-death problems that threaten poor nations – rather than fixate on minor, distant, fashionable, theoretical problems.
The reality is, impoverished countries have little to celebrate.
Two billion of their people still don’t have electricity. Four in ten Indian families – 150 million households – do not. In sub-Saharan Africa, it’s nine of ten families.
The consequences are far worse than merely doing without modern homes, hospitals, schools, offices and factories. These families are forced to burn wood, animal dung and agricultural waste in unventilated homes – and live with constant toxic pollution that causes up to three million children to die every year from respiratory diseases.
And still radical greens conjure up specters of catastrophic global warming to justify their demands that the Third World not build coal or gas-fired power plants. Others use Earth Day to justify their campaigns against hydroelectric projects and nuclear power. The inevitable result, of course is perpetual deprivation, dung fires, poverty, disease and premature death.
Nearly a third of the human population likewise does not have safe drinking water. Families get water from distant wells, rivers and lakes that often teem with bacteria and pollutants. As Danish environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg points out, for the cost of implementing the Kyoto climate change treaty for just one year ($150 billion), we could permanently provide sanitation and clean, safe drinking water to everyone on the planet.
Mosquitoes, flies and fleas spread malaria, yellow fever, typhus and sleeping sickness to over a half billion people annually. Tens of millions become too sick to work, cultivate fields or care for their families for weeks or months on end. Each year, up to 4 million die.
It should be easy to control these diseases. We have the knowledge and tools – and we used them to eradicate these diseases in the United States, Europe, Canada and Australia. But extreme environmentalists, and even the World Health Organization and U.S. Agency for International Development, refuse to support, promote or fund a vital weapon in this war: pesticides – especially DDT. They say the chemicals might harm fish or be detected in mother’s breast milk.
“African mothers would be overjoyed if that were their biggest worry,” says Uganda’s Fiona Kobusingye. She may not know that modern instruments can detect one part per billion – a single second in 32 years. But she knows she lost her son, two sisters and two nephews to malaria. She knows her people are fed up with the death and eco-centric attitudes.
She also knows we support a monumental double standard. Americans and Europeans worry incessantly about pesticide residues on produce, and conjectural estrogenic effects of chemicals on women. We can afford to, because we no longer have to worry about killer diseases that still ravage Fiona’s continent. And yet, we still spray pesticides to kill mosquitoes that spread West Nile virus, which kills about 100 Americans a year.
“We have to become white, before we can become green,” states a new African proverb. Poor nations must first enjoy modern technology, health and prosperity, before they can focus on concerns that are important to the world’s lucky elites.
Obviously, eco-imperialistic western standards, ideologies and priorities are not the only cause of this monumental human tragedy. War, endemic corruption, and horrid political, legal and economic systems are also to blame.
We cannot easily fix these latter problems. But we can do something about our own misguided policies. We can rein in the runaway environmental Horsemen of the Third World Apocalypse.
So celebrate our progress. But at the same time, resolve to help poor nations reach our technological, economic, health and environmental status, so that more of their children live past infancy and can enjoy some of the blessings we view as our birthright.
As Congress of Racial Equality national spokesman Niger Innis notes, “There is no more basic human right than to live. Without life, the other rights mean nothing. Saving, sustaining and improving lives is the most fundamental form of environmental justice and corporate social responsibility.”
Earth Day was originally about our planet and its people. Let’s restore that common-sense approach.
_________________
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power ∙ Black death (www.Eco-Imperialism.com)
April 11, 2005
Action Alert! Action Alert! Action Alert!
The Rainforest Action Network (RAN), a radical green group, is trying to hog-tie a major bank’s lending practices.
J.P Morgan Chase will decide THIS WEEK whether it will stand strong in the face of green extremists, or capitulate to these radicals. J.P MORGAN CHASE MUST HEAR FROM YOU NOW! PLEASE READ THE *ACTION TO TAKE* BELOW.
RAN wants to dictate J.P. Morgan Chase’s lending policies for the developing world, especially with regard to energy projects and logging. As an extremist group that hates consumption of ANY kind — including oil, wood, and meat — RAN wants to block money for projects it claims may contribute to so-called global warming, or involve logging.
In reality, that money is needed to help impoverished nations invest in life-saving development. RAN wants to block J.P. Morgan Chase from lending money to these poor nations — and thus prevent these desperate people from building better societies and lives for themselves.
If RAN is successful in keeping the Third World down, it means more and more American tax dollars will be siphoned for Third World welfare. Whereas private loans from banks like J.P. Morgan Chase help the poor help themselves! RAN cares about one thing, and one thing only: STOPPING HUMAN PROGRESS.
Recall that earlier this year, RAN went so far as to hijack a classroom of 7-year-olds in their jihad against J.P. Morgan. RAN lured the children to Chase’s headquarters in Manhattan, promising them a poster-drawing contest, but it was all a hoax. RAN ended up using the kids as pawns in their radical protest against Chase. RAN’s tactics were aptly denounced as “ideological child abuse.”
Given RAN’s anti-human agenda, we can also expect it to oppose loans to ranchers and home builders EVERYWHERE — INCLUDING THE U.S.!
*Action to Take*
1. Call J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Bill Harrison and tell him NOT to sell-out to the radicals at RAN! Harrison’s phone number is (212) 270-4019. Mr. Harrison is under immense pressure. You must call today and tomorrow. HE MUST HAVE YOUR SUPPORT TO REJECT RAN’S DESTRUCTIVE DEMANDS! RAN lunatics have gone so far as to target him and his family at their home. RAN protesters have shown up on Harrison’s front lawn. They have harassed his neighbors. They are ruthless thugs who will stop at nothing in their war against the developing Third World, liberty, progress, and prosperity.
2. You must also call Amy Davidson. She is the Director of Environmental Affairs at J.P. Morgan Chase and has MAJOR influence over lending policy. SHE MUST HEAR FROM YOU! SHE MUST HAVE YOUR SUPPORT TO STAND UP TO THESE RADICALS! Tell her that J.P. Morgan Chase MUST NOT capitulate to the radicals at RAN! Amy’s number is (212) 270-7742. PLEASE CALL NOW.
For more information on RAN’s war against humanity and the developing world, go to:
http://csrwatch.com/Decision_time.htm
http://csrwatch.com/turningchildren.htm
PLEASE CALL BILL HARRISON AT J.P. MORGAN CHASE NOW!!! HIS NUMBER AGAIN IS (212) 270-4019. EXPLAIN TO HIM THAT THAT THE RAINFOREST ACTION NETWORK IS A RADICAL, ANTI-HUMAN GROUP! URGE HIM NOT TO GIVE-IN TO THEIR DESTRUCTIVE DEMANDS!
TIME IS SHORT! PLEASE MAKE THESE CALLS NOW!
***PLEASE SEND THIS URGENT ALERT TO
AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE***
April 8, 2005
By Peyton Knight
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
That is the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was designed and ratified by our nation’s founders to protect Americans from a federal government that, as our founders feared, would grow ever intrusive, overbearing, and downright power mad.
Certain provisions of the Patriot Act irreparably harm this critical constitutional liberty. The Act was passed just 45 days following the horrific 9/11 attacks. Congress didn’t even read the bill before they voted on it. As such, Congress made certain that the most extraordinary provisions of the bill, particularly those that are constitutionally challenged, would be subject to Congressional review and would expire in December of 2005.
As we’ve written before, terrorism should never be used as an excuse for government to grab unconstitutional power and monitor and track the whereabouts of law-abiding Americans. In the days following the terrorist attacks, Donald Rumsfeld stated, “The people who committed these acts are clearly determined to try to force the United States of America and our values from the world, or to respond by curtailing our freedoms. If we do that, the terrorists will have won.”
We must never let them win. And that is why the American Policy Center has joined an important new network of conservative and libertarian groups called Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB).
PRCB is chaired by former Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA), a stalwart in the fight to protect constitutional liberty. When Congressman Barr asked the American Policy Center to join this new effort, we jumped at the chance. Specifically, PRCB believes that the threat of terrorism cannot be allowed to dissolve or erode our most basic freedoms which are so carefully spelled out and protected by our Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution.
At a recent press conference in Washington, D.C., Barr announced that the immediate goal of the coalition is to modify a few of the more extreme provisions of the Patriot Act. “Now is the time for Congress to review and consider amending these provisions to protect Americans’ most fundamental freedoms, and bring the law in line with the checks and balances demanded by the Constitution.”
PRCB is urging Congress to modify the following extreme, unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act:
- Section 213: This section allows federal agents to secretly search your home or business and even confiscate your personal possessions without ever notifying you.
- Section 215: This section allows federal agents to secretly collect records about you, including such personal information as your medical history, library records, and even records of firearm purchases.
- Section 802: This section expands the definition of domestic terrorism so broadly that ordinary people simply exercising their first amendment rights, such as pro-life demonstrators, could be classified and charged as “terrorists.”
Imagine if Bill Clinton’s Justice Department had possessed these powers! Imagine these unprecedented powers in the hands of future presidents with Clinton-like “morals.” The prospect is downright frightening. The next Janet Reno will have a field day going after gun owners, pro-lifers, conservatives, and anyone deemed a “political enemy.”
Vigils held outside abortion clinics could be deemed terrorist acts. Federal bureaucrats can track every gun purchase and gun owner in America. Indeed, any dissenting voice against government policy could be muzzled and snuffed out under these provisions. How can we be a beacon of freedom to the world if we practice Soviet-style government ourselves?
The bottom line is that the outlandishly unconstitutional powers above don’t catch terrorists. All they do is violate the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans, and create a federal monster that only Orwell could have imagined. If Congress really wants to safeguard our nation, it should do something about the 500,000 illegal, undocumented, and potentially terrorist aliens that flood through our borders every year. Congress should not create a prison-like police state in the land of the free.
“Our goal is not to gut the Patriot Act,” said Barr. “PRCB is seeking modest changes to only a few extreme sections of the law.”
American Conservative Union chairman David Keene added: “There are few issues more important on the congressional agenda in 2005 than the Patriot Act. What is at stake is Americans’ Fourth Amendment freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.”
There are very powerful forces, namely the Justice Department and the White House, that want to make these extreme provisions permanent. Every American needs to voice their objection to make certain that this doesn’t happen. This battle is being fought right now and we have no time to lose.
As Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security.” We must never let the terrorists win.
Peyton Knight is executive director of the American Policy Center. The Center maintains an Internet site at www.americanpolicy.org.
April 5, 2005
Washington, D.C.—The American Policy Center (APC) and other organizations dedicated to limited government gathered today on Capitol Hill to support the introduction of the “Security and Freedom Ensured” (SAFE) Act. The SAFE Act is a bipartisan bill specifically designed to amend several of the more controversial, and constitutionally abusive provisions of the PATRIOT Act.
“The SAFE Act is a common sense measure designed to help restore crucial constitutional liberties that have been infringed upon by the PATRIOT Act,” said APC President Tom DeWeese. “Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act allows the federal government to secretly search Americans’ homes and business and confiscate personal property without ever notifying the owner,” noted DeWeese. “The SAFE Act simply amends this section to ensure proper judicial review of such ‘sneak and peek’ warrants, and makes certain that the affected party is notified.”
Another controversial provision of the PATRIOT Act would be amended by the SAFE Act. Currently, under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, federal agents can secretly collect personal information on Americans, such as medical records, library records, and records of firearm purchases – all without specifically linking the person to a foreign agent. “The SAFE Act requires the FBI to show that the target of such federal data mining is actually linked to a foreign agent,” said DeWeese. “Again, this is a common sense fix.”
According to DeWeese, the SAFE Act does nothing to impede the federal government’s fight against terrorism. Instead, it protects the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. “If the federal government were truly concerned with preventing terrorism, it would take serious measures to secure our porous borders,” said DeWeese, “rather than grant itself egregious powers to monitor and track the whereabouts of American citizens.”
The American Policy Center is a grassroots activist organization dedicated to the promotion of property rights, limited government, and free markets. The Center is located just outside our nation’s capital in Virginia.
