American Policy Center » 2005 » July
- CAFTA Vote Count
- Center Announces Creation of ‘Property Rights First!’ Coalition Cites need to stop ‘Kelo II’
- Sustainable Development, Smart Growth and Kelo – Organized theft by any name
- ESA: A Clearing of the Air
- Policy Center Warns: Beware of ‘Kelo II’
July 28, 2005
From our friends at Rep. Ron Paul’s Liberty Committee…
“With just two weeks to go until the August recess, Republican House leaders are possibly facing do-or-die time for the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The Republican whip operation is running at full throttle, making deals on China policy and textile production at a fast clip in the hopes of wooing just enough members off the fence to pass the pivotal trade pact.” (The Hill newspaper, July 20, 2005)
Yes, time is running out. Closed-door deals are being made. Arms are being twisted. Pressure builds as not-so-subtle taxpayer-funded bribes are offered.
“At a closed-door meeting of House Republicans yesterday, Rep. Bill Thomas (Calif.) sidled up to the lectern and hinted that the leadership might look more favorably on lawmakers’ requests for highways and bridges if they vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement, according to three GOP witnesses.” (The Washington Post, July 21, 2005)
In other words, “Want that highway project back home? You had better vote for CAFTA. Want that new bridge? You had better vote for CAFTA even though you know it is bad for America.”
One of the first House members to be bought off was Congressman Phil English (R-Penn.). Mr. English had always opposed CAFTA, but just a few days ago he sold out. He now says he is “comfortable” voting for CAFTA. This puts the pro-CAFTA forces one critical vote closer to having the 218 votes they need to pass it in the U.S. House.
What’s the vote count? According to Congress Daily, 105 House members will vote “yes” or are leaning to vote “yes” on CAFTA with 166 members who will vote “no” or are leaning to vote “no.” That leaves 163 House members who are undecided or aren’t saying. To stop CAFTA, we must convince at least 53 of those 163 members to vote against CAFTA.
The House will likely vote on CAFTA Wednesday or Thursday of next week. The vote will be extremely close — just like the vote was on the Medicare prescription-drug bill where House leaders were willing to resort to bribes and out-right threats to win.
“According to the administration and House aides, the White House has authorized Republican leaders to secure votes with whatever is at hand, from amendments [read pork-barrel projects in their respective districts] to the highway and energy bills to the still incomplete appropriations bills.” (The Washington Post, July 21, 2005)
So, between now and next week, the pro-CAFTA forces are working overtime. Deals are being made on highway projects, bridges, committee chairmanships, rides on Air Force One, dinners at the White House, campaign contributions, and countless pork projects that have nothing whatsoever to do with CAFTA or true free trade.
Faced with all this, what can we do? Representatives who change their vote to support CAFTA in return for the promise of pork-barrel projects in their district or rides on Air Force One think they will impress the voters back home by “bringing home the bacon.” You are that voter back home. It’s up to you. Are you impressed? Only hearing from you can convince your representative that politics as usual won’t work this time. In fact, it stinks.
Will you let your representative know there will be a price to pay for selling out? You do that when you contact his office and let him know you are informed and watching. That’s the only language most of our elected officials seem to understand.
And that’s why what you do right now is so important.
Do you want to know where your U.S. representative stands on CAFTA? Check the recent Congress Daily vote check posted at http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/caftavotecount.htm .
Now take action. If your representative is against CAFTA, tell him “thank you, don’t bend under pressure, I support you!” If he is for CAFTA, urge him to change his mind — it is important you make it clear that you oppose CAFTA.
If your representative is undecided, convince him to vote against it and tell him no matter what payoff he might be offered, there is nothing worth the damage CAFTA will do to America.
CAFTA can be defeated in the U.S. House next week, but you must act. More than ever, what you do matters.
* Action to Take *
Send an E-mail message to your U.S. representative by going to http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/alert/?alertid=7860311&type=CO .
Then call your U.S. representative. The U.S. Capitol switchboard phone number is 202-224-3121 or use our directory at http://capwiz.com/liberty/dbq/officials/ .
Also, please spread the word. Share a copy of this message by forwarding http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/update07.21.05.htm .
Thank you for your help!
Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org
***PLEASE SEND THIS URGENT ALERT TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE***
July 28, 2005
Washington, D.C.–Today, the American Policy Center joined several organizations concerned with property rights to help form “Property Rights First!,” a coalition designed to push property rights to the center of the debate over the Endangered Species Act. APC is warning that draft legislation released by Congressman Richard Pombo (R-CA) titled “The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005″ (TESRA 2005) would do more harm than good to American property owners. The Center has dubbed Pombo’s draft bill “Kelo II,” as it represents a massive sellout to landowners.
“I don’t want the worst piece of legislation since the income tax to be ‘updated and strengthened’ — I want it repealed,” said APC president Tom DeWeese. “When lawmakers refuse to stand up for what’s right, it’s our duty to stand up to lawmakers.”
Property Rights First! is a collaborative effort of the American Policy Center, the National Center for Public Policy Research, the American Land Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Stewards of the Range, and Liberty Matters. The coalition had recent success in postponing the debut of TESRA 2005, which had been expected to pass the House Resources Committee two weeks ago. The coalition vows to fight for full and complete private property rights protections with regard to the Endangered Species Act.
“If grassroots property rights advocates want something they must demand it,” said DeWeese. “It may be that in the end, you don’t get your way, but what you have to settle for is a whole lot better than if you had never tried.”
TESRA 2005 allows the federal government to take up to 50 percent of a landowner’s property before it ever has to pay the landowner a dime. “Can Americans make do with half of their property?” asked DeWeese. “Stealing 50 percent of a person’s lifeblood is theft, but Congressman Pombo wants to codify it as federal law.”
Incredibly, TESRA 2005 even “provides new authority to protect listed species from harmful invasive species.” DeWeese calls this “an outrage,” noting that radical environmentalists have sought regulatory authority over so-called invasive species for years. Such authority would lead to property rights abuses far and above what the current Endangered Species Act allows.
According to an Executive Order signed by President Bill Clinton in 1999, invasive species are broadly defined as “any species, including seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem.” Kentucky bluegrass and English ivy, found on most lawns and golf courses, are just two examples of common invasive species that could open the door to government regulation of a person’s property.
“I guess when Congressman Pombo talks about the need to ‘strengthen’ the Endangered Species Act, he means it,” said DeWeese. “Add invasive species language, and you’ll wish you had the old ESA back.”
Considering that Republicans hold firm majorities on Capitol Hill, the current uproar against the Supreme Court’s dreadful decision in Kelo v. New London, and the overwhelmingly successful ballot initiative in Oregon to compensate victims of state land use regulations, this recent sellout on property rights is inexcusable.
DeWeese notes that the grassroots property rights community is appalled by this latest effort to strengthen the Endangered Species Act.
“Why are our so-called champions on the Hill so afraid to do what is right and start a campaign to repeal the ESA?” asks DeWeese. “It’s time to stop the ESA from destroying any more American lives.”
*The American Policy Center is a grassroots lobby located in Warrenton, Virginia. For nearly 20 years, the Center has fought for private property rights and limited government regulation.
July 13, 2005
Put yourself in the homeowner’s shoes. You buy a home for your family. Perhaps it’s even handed down from your farther or grand father. It’s a place you can afford in a neighborhood you like. The children have made friends. You intend to stay for the rest of your life.
As you plant your garden, landscape the yard, put up a swing set for the kids, and mold your land into a home, unknown to you, certain city officials are meeting around a table with developers. In front of them are maps, plats and photographs – of your home. They talk of dollars – big dollars. Tax revenues for the city, huge profits for the developer. A shopping center with all the trimmings begins to take shape. You’re not asked for input or permission. You’re not even notified until the whole project is finalized and the only minor detail is to get rid of you.
Then the pressure begins. A notice comes in the mail telling you that the city intends to take your land. An offer of compensation is made, usually below the market price you could get if you sold it yourself. The explanation given is that, since the government is going to take the land, it’s not worth the old market price. Some neighbors begin to sell and move away. With the loss of each one, the pressure mounts on you to sell. Visits from government agents become routine. Newspaper articles depict you as unreasonably holding up community progress. They call you greedy. Finally, the bulldozers move in on the properties already sold. The neighborhood becomes unlivable. It looks like a war zone.
Like being attacked by a conquering army, you are finally surrounded, with no place to run, but the courts. However, you’re certain of victory. The United States was built on the very premise of the protection of private property rights. How can a government possibly be allowed to take anyone’s home for private gain?
Under any circumstances this should be considered criminal behavior. It used to be. If city officials were caught padding their own pockets or those of their friends it was considered graft. That’s why RICO laws were created.
Finally, five black robes named Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer shock the nation by ruling that officials who have behaved like Tony Soprano are in the right and you have to vacate your property.
These four men and one woman have ruled that the United States Constitution is truly meaningless. Their ruling in the Kelo case declared that Americans own nothing. After declaring that all property is subject to the whim of a government official, it’s just a short trip to declaring that government can now confiscate anything we own; anything we create; anything we believe.
Astonishing. The members of the Supreme Court have nothing to do but defend the Constitution and keep it the pure document the Founding Fathers created to recognize and protect the rights with which we were born. They sit in their lofty ivory tower, never worrying about job security with their life-time appointments. And yet, they have obviously missed finding a copy of the Federalist Papers, which were written by many of the Founders to explain to the American people how they envisioned the new government would work. They have missed the collected writings of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and George Washington, just to mention a very few. It’s obvious because otherwise, there is simply no way they could have reached this decision – unless implementing another agenda was their purpose.
I don’t have the benefit of the Justices’ grand staffs or unending salaries. But just a little research has turned up pretty much everything Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer would have needed to reach a logical conclusion that protection of private property rights are the most important rights, vital to the very foundation of a free society.
Our Founding Fathers left no doubt in their writings, their deeds, or their governing documents as to where they stood on the vital importance of private property. John Locke, the man whom the Founders followed as they created this nation said, “Government has no other end than the preservation of property.” John Adams said, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God; and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
One would be hard pressed to find a single word in the writings of the Founding Fathers to support the premise that it’s okay to take private property for economic development. To the contrary, they believed that the root of economic prosperity is the protection of private property.
So how did Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer miss such a rock solid foundation of American law? Perhaps they didn’t. Perhaps they chose to ignore it in favor of another agenda. Specifically, Agenda 21.
For several years, certain members of the Supreme Court have been discussing the need to review international law and foreign court decisions to determine U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Justice Breyer has been the most outspoken for this policy, saying, “We face an increasing number of domestic legal questions that directly implicate foreign or international law.”
What international laws are these? In general, the most pervasive are a series of UN international treaties, including several that address issues of climate, resource use, biological diversity, and community development. Specifically, Agenda 21, signed by the United States at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992, calls for implementing what former Vice President Al Gore called a “wrenching transformation” of our nation, through a policy called Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development is the official policy of the United States and almost every single city and small burg in the nation.
Sustainable Development is top-down control, a ruling principle that affects nearly every aspect of our lives, including; the kind of homes we may live in; water policy that dictates the amount each American may use in a day; drastic reductions of energy use; the imposition of public transportation; even the number of inhabitants that may be allowed inside city borders. Most Americans have heard of a small part of this policy operating under the name Smart Growth. Agenda 21 outlines specific goals and a tight timetable for implementation. In June, 2005, the UN held a major gathering in San Francisco where the mayors of cities from across the nation and around the world gathered to pledge to impose Sustainable polices.
In order to meet such goals, federal, state and local governments are scrambling to impose strict policies on development and land use. The use of Eminent Domain has become a favorite tool. Sustainable Development calls for partnerships between the public sector (your local government) and private businesses.
Now, as the public/private partnerships move to enforce Sustainable Development in local communities, an unholy alliance is also forming, allowing corrupt politicians to line their pockets and gain power as they partner with select businesses and developers to build personal wealth and power. They plot to take land that isn’t theirs for personal gain, while claiming it’s for the “public good.” That’s all the excuse they’ve needed to hide their true intent.
However, things have been changing as such brutal, organized theft has spread across the nation in the name of community development and environmental protections. American have started to fight back to protect their property. In Oregon, people went to the ballot box and shocked lawmakers by passing Measure 37, which says the government must either pay full price for any land taken, or waive the regulation and leave the property owner alone. In Wisconsin, the state legislature passed a bill to stop Smart Growth policies that are destroying property owners. In Michigan, the state Supreme Court overturned the precedent-setting ruling it made more than 20 years ago that allowed the use of Eminent Domain in taking property for private use. In fact, it was that original ruling that had been used by communities across the nation to justify their own Eminent Domain takings.
Clearly, the nation has started to rise up to stop this assault on private property. Without the power to grab property at will, the ability for communities to implement Sustainable Development has come into question.
Those who support Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 needed something big to put things back on track. The Supreme Court, which has already stated that it must look to international laws and treaties to decide American law, provided the answer. Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer chose Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 over the Constitution of the United States.
However, the effort may well be backfiring on the Sustainablists as the nation is reacted in force to protect property rights. Now, state legislatures and the U.S. Congress are rushing to produce legislation to restore property rights protections. Even Americans who have rarely uttered a political thought are suddenly becoming feverish with zeal for the Fifth Amendment. Americans may be learning all over again what the Founding Fathers knew – that the right to own and control private property is the most important right
That is all well and good, of course, but Americans must do much more than just get upset. They need to get behind those legislative efforts at every level of government to assure passage. They must dig in at the local level to foil efforts by their mayors and city councils to impose Eminent Domain against their neighbors. We must run this organized theft (now masquerading as the “common good”) out of town on a rail. And don’t forget to leave room on that rail for Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer.
July 12, 2005
Action Alert! Action Alert! Action Alert!
Due to recent confusion and half-truths concerning the coming effort to reauthorize Endangered Species Act, the American Policy Center feels it is time to clear the air a bit.
Some of our frequent allies on property rights are playing word games with grassroots property rights advocates in hopes of deceiving them into supporting what appears to be a bad bill. They refer to themselves as compromisers, winners, and realists who just want to work within the political system to accomplish what is “doable” on the Endangered Species Act. They say they have nothing but the best intentions. That they only want to do what is best for landowners. That it is now or never if we’re going to reform the ESA. That everyone should follow them, because it’s better to get some than none at all.
Anyone who disagrees with them is labeled an “extremist,” or a “purist.” In other words, if you believe that the government has no right to steal your property because it harbors a spotted owl or a snail darter — and you fight for that belief and make your voice heard — you are nothing but a malcontent. A doe-eyed optimist. Or maybe just a dumb hick who “doesn’t understand how Washington works.”
Unfortunately these self-described compromisers and realists do not have the interests of property rights advocates at heart. They are working as merely an extension of a congressional office and powerful industry lobbyists. As such, it seems their goal is not to protect property rights with regard to the ESA. Rather, their goal is to shepherd property rights advocates down a path to nowhere — all the while reassuring everyone that there is partial salvation at the end of the road. Amazingly, they compare themselves to great liberators. In truth, they are behaving more as wolves in sheep’s clothing.
The details of a long-anticipated ESA reform bill have now been made public in the press and by various political interests. These details come directly from Congressman Richard Pombo’s office. If they are accurate — and most folks (including those who are championing the bill) agree that they are accurate — then true property rights advocates have nothing to cheer, and plenty to lament.
For one, the bill pretends to offer landowners partial compensation when their property rights are taken under the ESA. Let us explain. The bill says that property owners may only seek compensation for the taking of private property if at least 50 percent of the property is taken. This means that if the government deems that only 49.9 percent of your property was taken, then you get nothing. Can you make do with half of your property?
Moreover, this 50 percent threshold is only the STARTING point. It is just the initial offering. As those who have been around Washington awhile know, once the fighting begins over this bill, and once the greens start their multi-million dollar assault, this already meager 50 percent threshold will almost certainly be whittled down to nothing. 50 percent would be a bad compromise, yet some want to offer it as a strong starting point. It is most certainly not.
But even those who have at least 50 percent of their property stolen by the government will likely never receive compensation anyway. Why? Because, reportedly, the bill does nothing to fix the issue of “ripeness.” Once your land is taken, you still have to file an “incidental take” permit and it can take years before you get any response. In the meantime, you’ve lost the use of your land for all of those years. When your permit is finally rejected, if you still have anything left, you can now go to court — and begin that long, drawn-out, expensive process. This has been the major problem with the ESA. Yet nothing is being done about it.
And then there is the dreaded invasive species provision. According to the details, the bill creates a new authority within the Endangered Species Act to regulate invasive species! Unbelievable. Invasive species are any plants or animals that are not native to a particular area. For example: Kentucky bluegrass on golf courses and English ivy on lawns. The radical greens have wanted invasive species regulation for years because they know it is the key to eventually having the power to regulate and control virtually every square inch of land in America. And under this so-called new and improved ESA, the greens will have this power. Property rights advocates have been fighting the invasive species nightmare tooth-and-nail for years. And now our so-called property rights allies are trying to sell this as a win for landowners? The absurdity of it all is beyond comprehension.
Here is the bottom line.
If you support the repeal of the Endangered Species Act, this bill is not for you. Reauthorizing the ESA now will take the repeal issue off the table for at least ten years, perhaps a generation.
If you support full property rights protections within the Endangered Species Act, this bill is not for you. From what we’ve seen so far, this bill is all smoke and mirrors and no real property rights protections. Don’t be fooled.
If you support partial property rights protections within the Endangered Species Act, this bill is not for you. Again, from what we’ve seen thus far, takings will continue unabated and will likely even increase due to the invasive species language.
If you support business as usual with the Endangered Species Act, by all means, this bill is for you.
Of course, we hope that what we’ve seen so far in the press and from Congress is not actually representative of the bill itself. We hope that when the actual ESA “reform” bill is introduced it doesn’t have all the major deficiencies mentioned above. However, we’ve been given no reason to be optimistic. So we must prepare for the worst — and also make certain that our loyal supporters are prepared.
Our job is to tell the truth and fight the battle for property rights as it must be fought — straight on. In light of the horrendous Supreme Court ruling on Kelo v. New London, we simply can not afford another devastating sellout on property rights.
Stay tuned, but in the meantime, see the Action to Take below.
* Action to Take *
Call your Representative and urge him or her not to support any ESA reauthorization bill that doesn’t fully protect property rights100 percent. Tell him or her that the ESA ought to be repealed, not strengthened. Explain that it would be a serious, serious mistake to reauthorize the ESA without fully bringing the bill in line with the U.S. Constitution. No half measures. No invasive species nightmares. No smoke and mirror property rights language. Capitol Hill Switchboard: (202) 225-3121. Simply ask for your Representative by name. Call TODAY, THIS WEEK, AND NEXT WEEK.
***PLEASE SEND THIS URGENT ALERT TO
AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE***
Washington, D.C.–Unfortunately, the dreadful Kelo v. City of New London ruling isn’t the only nightmare facing property owners this summer, the American Policy Center (APC) reported today. According to draft language obtained by the Center, the “Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005″ (TESRA 2005) is a major sellout to property rights advocates nationwide. Appropriately, the Center has dubbed the bill “Kelo II.”
“I can’t believe what I’m looking at,” said APC president Tom DeWeese referring to the draft language. “Just as the Supreme Court’s decision on Kelo has strengthened local governments’ ability to run roughshod over the Fifth Amendment, TESRA 2005 strengthens the federal government’s ability to steal private property under the Endangered Species Act.” According to the documents obtained, the TESRA 2005 language was produced by Congressman Richard Pombo’s House Resources Committee office.
The language states that the federal government can take up to 50 percent of a landowner’s property before it ever has to pay the landowner a dime. “This is a sellout to property rights advocates, plain and simple,” said DeWeese. “Stealing 50 percent of a person’s lifeblood is out and out theft, but Congressman Pombo wants to make it federal law.”
A particularly frightening provision in the Act “provides new authority to protect listed species from harmful invasive species.” DeWeese calls this “an outrage,” noting that radical environmentalists have sought regulatory authority over so-called invasive species for years. Property rights advocates have fought such authority tooth-and-nail, as it would lead to property rights abuse far and above even what the current Endangered Species Act allows. “If this is Congressman Pombo’s idea of help for property owners, I’d hate to see his idea of hurt,” said DeWeese.
According to an Executive Order signed by President Bill Clinton in 1999, invasive species are broadly defined as “any species, including seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem.” DeWeese notes that Kentucky bluegrass and English ivy, found on most lawns and golf courses, are just two examples of common invasive species that could open the door to government regulation of a person’s property.
The Endangered Species Act has a thirty-year history of shredding Americans’ constitutional protection of private property, and it has ruined countless lives in the process. DeWeese warns that the Pombo plan to reaffirm the Act’s unconstitutional power to take private property, and give the federal government the additional power to regulate invasive species, is an absolute disaster for anyone who owns land. He gives it an emphatic two thumbs down.
“Like most sequels, it would have been much better if Kelo II [TESRA 2005] had never been made.”
The American Policy Center is a grassroots lobby located in Warrenton, Virginia. For nearly 20 years, the Center has fought for property rights and limited government regulation.
