Yeah, but to the Senate, I think the dictionary they use has the picture of a typical American landowner.
Thieves in the night
By Henry Lamb
Like thieves in the night, a handful of U.S. senators have set
into motion a new law that can steal the property rights from
private owners in the name of protecting wildlife.
Late in the evening of Dec. 20, while the media focused on
Daschle's refusal to allow a vote on the economic stimulus
package, while senators were racing to wind up business to get
home for the holidays, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., called for
"unanimous consent" to pass S. 990 ? The American Wildlife
Enhancement Act of 2001. The bill passed.
Who voted for and against this bill? No one will ever know. Was
there even a quorum present? No one will ever know.
This is the same tactic used on Oct. 18, 2000, the result of
which was the ratification of 34 international treaties,
including the controversial U.N. Convention on Desertification
? without debate, without a recorded vote. This is the kind of
shenanigan that takes place at the end of every session, to
enact legislation that can't stand the scrutiny of public
debate and public opposition.
This particular bill should have been entitled "Screw-The-
Landowner Act of 2001." It is one of several proposals to
provide tax dollars and authorization to convert even more of
the rapidly diminishing private property in America to
government inventories.
This bill provides $600 million per year for five years for the
"acquisition of an area of land or water that is suitable or
capable of being made suitable for feeding, resting or breeding
by wildlife." With this broad purpose, no land anywhere is safe
from condemnation and acquisition by an agency of government.
The money can also be given to environmental organizations for
land acquisition. Moreover, this bill explicitly exempts land
deals from scrutiny or oversight required by the federal
Advisory Committee Act.
Apparently, the U.S. Senate will use our taxes to buy pigswill
if it is sold in a green bucket. Government's push to purchase
private property in recent years goes far beyond "wildlife
enhancement." Those who vote for such measures may think that
the objective is wildlife, or open space protection, but those
who promote wave after wave of these proposals have a much,
much bigger agenda: total government ownership, or control, of
land use in America.
It is time for the federal government to confront, debate and
decide this question: How much land should the government own
or control?
Presently, federal, state and local governments own more than
40 percent of the total land area in the United States. Once,
our federal government believed that land should be owned by
private parties, and that the only land the government should
own is that land specified in the U.S. Constitution. Now, just
the opposite is true. Our federal government is using our tax
dollars to buy the land it cannot legitimately control through
regulation. Where will it end?
The push for government ownership and control of land comes
from environmental organizations. In the 1930s, the Wilderness
Society openly called for the nationalization of all forests.
Of course, socialism was popular then. Now, their arguments for
government ownership and control downplay the goals of
socialism and promote the idea of "wildlife enhancement" and
"open space."
How much land should the government own?
If this question remains un-debated and undecided, the
government will eventually own it all. This is the goal of the
environmental agenda. Land, and the natural resources it
contains, is the source of all production. When government owns
or controls all the land, and its natural resources, government
will control the source of production ? which is the classic
definition of socialism. Since governments now own more than 40
percent of the sources of production, does this mean that
America is more than 40 percent socialist?
If America is to become a socialist nation, as is the objective
of global governance, then it should be a deliberate action
authorized by the people who have had opportunity to disagree,
debate and ultimately vote the issue up or down.
Shrewd bureaucrats and politicians, however, are unwilling to
address the issue head on. Instead, they keep inching their way
to total government control, with regulatory measures and
stealth maneuvers that accomplish their goals incrementally ?
out of the view of a trusting public.
This legislative agenda is not limited to the Democrats. Sen.
Reid had help from Republican Bob Smith of New Hampshire and a
handful of others. Any senator could have prevented the
unanimous consent caper by simply objecting. Whether they were
unaware of the schedule or unwilling to go on record opposing
the bucket of green swill, we will never know.
The fact remains that once again, like thieves in the night, a
handful of senators have pushed through a bill that erodes more
of the foundation of our freedom. When government owns the
land, there can be no freedom ? except that which government
bestows.
worldnetdaily.com |
