> AMERICA: FORECLOSED > By Wayne Hage - Posted: 11.21.00 > > Chairman Don Young (R-AK) of the House Resource Committee, with > considerable help from left wing extremist George Miller (D-CA) and his > cadre of environmentalists, were recently successful in the passage of > the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA), HR 701. Senator Murkowski > (R-AK), is preparing to secure passage of the same legislation in the > Senate as S 25. CARA would provide money for the purchase of private > property by federal, state, local governments, Indian tribes and > environmental groups. 2.4 billion dollars per year would be made > available from offshore oil revenues. > > Opponents of the bill say it would eventually eliminate the ownership > of private property in America. In so doing, it signals the end of > Congress as an independent branch of government. The debate on HR 701 > for all its exuberance avoided the fundamental question. Why does the > government need our land? Basic economics tells us that all wealth > originates in the land and by extension the sea. The hallmark of a free > society has always been citizen ownership of the land. The hallmark > of a totalitarian society has been government control of the land. A > free > society is, of necessity, a society in which the government must come to > the people for its operating budget. A government that must depend on > the people for its source of income is one that must listen to what the > people and their representatives have to say. The United States was > originally structured on the strict premise that the government be > limited in land and resource ownership. Indeed, history shows us that > free societies and private ownership of the resource base are > inseparable, the degree of freedom and the degree of private ownership > being basically proportionate. > > Coercive or totalitarian societies demand government ownership or > control of the resource base. If government controls the means of > production it has a source of income independent of the people and > certainly does not need the permission of the people to justify its > actions. In a coercive or totalitarian society, the people do not need > representatives or a Congress to protect property rights that do not > exist. They do not need a common law of property because the people have > no property. They do not need a Constitution to limit the power of > government to intrude into the people's property rights because the > people have no property rights. Government is total; totalitarian. It > can, and does, rule by decree. It has often been stated that the only > reason for government is to protect property. The founders of the United > States system of constitutional government often expressed this concept. > The statement is just as true of a coercive form of government as it is > of a free society. > > In a free society, government functions to protect the people's property > from government. In a coercive society, government functions to protect > the government's property from the people. The United States, which was > founded on the concept of representative government, has evolved toward > a coercive form of government. The United States government, which > originally was limited to owning land necessary for forts, dockyards, > and other needful buildings, and then, only by purchase from the states > with the consent of the state legislature has emerged today as the > ostensible owner of 43% of the nation's land. When land ownership by > states and local governments is added, the private citizens of the > nation own less than 50% of the nation's resource base. This erosion > of private control of the means of production in the United States has > been growing throughout the nation's history with a major change coming > after the Civil War when western lands began to be nationalized as > collateral to secure the nation's foreign debts. National forests and > national monuments joined the original national parks, but the biggest > increase in nationalized lands corresponds with the birth of the > environmental movement. > > Laws passed to "protect" endangered species, clean air, clean water, > etc., have one primary function. That function is to drive the United > States citizens off the resource base. What were once domestically owned > mines are now mostly owned by international mining conglomerates. > Domestic oil and gas producers have largely been absorbed by energy > producing corporations of global proportions. Domestically owned timber > production has been largely eliminated, leaving large corporate and > international interests in control of the nation's timber resources. If > we continue to follow the money, we find that the international > corporate entities, which have come to control so many of the nation's > resources, are themselves tied to international banking and financial > institutions. > > The global economy has come of age and the independent domestic producer > of natural resources is rapidly disappearing from the American > landscape. Where he still remains he is maligned as a despoiler of our > mother earth and regulated into economic strangulation. If one were to > attempt establishing a birth date for the modern day environmental > movement, the evidence clearly points to the early and mid 1960's. > Almost overnight we went from the long held premise that the world > and its resources were created for the benefit of man and that private > ownership of resources was the best method to insure resource > conservation and renewal; to accepting the dogma that resources of and > by themselves have some heretofore unrecognized mystic value and only > collective control of resources under government can adequately protect > them. Another event of world significance took place as the modern > environmental movement was being formed. > > That event was the collapse of the Bretton Woods agreement. The > synergism of these two events has had a greater impact on the > constitutionally protected rights of Americans than any other two events > in the nation's history. Under the guise of protecting endangered > species, endangered habitat, wild rivers, old growth timber, clean > water, clean air and a host of other frauds; property, wealth and > personal freedom is being confiscated by government at an ever > accelerating rate. The Bretton Woods agreement emerged from a meeting of > the allied nations of WWII as the war was concluding. The meeting held > in Bretton Woods, New Jersey in 1944, was prompted by the urgent need > for a stable world foreign exchange system to deal with postwar > rebuilding. The world's foreign exchange system had been experiencing > various degrees of instability, sometimes bordering on chaos, since the > breakdown of the world gold standard at the onset of WWI. > > That instability had been a major contributor to a worldwide depression > and a second World War. The US was so impacted by the collapse of the > gold standard and the ensuing depression of the 1930's that in 1933 > President Franklin Roosevelt invoked the War Powers Act and by executive > order confiscated gold held by American citizens. This gold was used to > back the foreign exchange capabilities of the US in world trade. Prior > to > 1933, a US citizen held gold and gold denominated currency and bonds as > primary forms of money. Currency and bonds were freely convertible to > gold upon demand. > > After 1933, if a US citizen was caught with a gold coin in his > possession, he was subject to a $10,000 dollar fine and or 10 years in > prison. Gold-backed debt instruments of the US were converted to non- > gold backed debt instruments. This posed a major dilemma for holders of > US treasury bills, bonds and notes. The question became if treasury debt > instruments are not convertible to gold, what are they convertible to? > The federal reserve notes they would have to be redeemed in were again > nothing but lower denominational debt instruments. Where was the real > collateral value behind this debt? The standard answer to that question > was-the natural resources and all other assets of the US provided the > collateral value backing treasury debt. Bondholders were assured that > there was far more oil, gas, gold, silver, iron, copper, timber and > other resource values in the federal lands of the western US and Alaska > than there was debt. Bondholders were, if anything over collateralized. > Besides, they were assured; because the debt was internalized, meaning > only US citizens could own US debt, we in fact owed the debt to > ourselves. The new treasury debt offerings even though not backed by > or convertible to gold were adequately if not abundantly secured. > > Under the Bretton Woods agreement the US dollar, convertible in foreign > exchange for gold became the world's key currency. Foreign holders of US > dollars could demand gold convertibility and it would be honored. It > remained illegal for US citizens to hold gold. The Bretton Woods > agreement held together for twenty years but by the early 1960's signs > of disintegration of the arrangement became apparent. As the US > continued to borrow money on its assets and to issue debt currency and > other dollar denominated debt instruments, foreign holders of dollars > became uneasy as to the ready convertibility of their holdings to gold. > Francis Charles de Gaul was the first to sound the alarm demanding that > France's dollar holding be exchanged for US gold. This uncertainty was > aggravated by the excessive borrowing brought on by the US involvement > in the Vietnam War and huge domestic spending to support the "great > society" programs of the Johnson administration. The selling of US debt > to foreign interests (externalizing the debt) was necessary to support > these efforts. There was insufficient lending capacity domestically to > support this massive increase in spending. When it became apparent to > foreign holders of dollars and dollar denominated US debt instruments > that the US may not be able to redeem these holdings in gold, foreign > cashing of dollars for gold increased. > > When Nixon took office in 1968 the problem of convertibility was at a > crisis stage and the Bretton Woods agreement was rapidly falling into > disarray. On Aug. 15, 1971 Nixon sounded the Death bell for the Bretton > Woods agreement by closing the "gold window." Alarm quickly spread among > foreign holders of US debt. They asked the obvious question. If US debt > was not convertible to gold, what was its value? What collateralized US > debt? In an effort to stave off a world financial crisis, the natural > resources and other assets of the US were pledged as collateral for > foreign held debt. This, in effect, left domestic holders of US debt > unsecured. Their collateral base shifted to secure foreign held debt and > stave off a massive liquidation of US debt instruments by foreign debt > holders. This action, in turn, raised further questions by foreign debt > holders. If the natural resources of the US were the collateral for > foreign held debt; why were domestic mining companies, oil companies and > timber companies continuing to develop that same resource base? This > question had been anticipated during the previous decade and had > manifested itself in the passage of the Wilderness Act by Congress in > 1964. > > It led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency by > executive order in 1970; the official sanction for the environmental > movement had occurred. > > > > The environmental movement has accomplished two major goals since the > 1960's. It has been effective in driving domestic mining, oil and timber > companies off the resource base and into the hands of international > entities which also represent the holders of massive amounts of US debt > obligation. The environmental movement has also been very effective in > forcing the transfer of private land into the hands of government. When > one follows the money trail to find out where the environmental groups > obtain the means to finance litigation, legislation and propaganda to > achieve these ends that trail leads to major corporations, banks, and > foundations whose investment portfolios are top heavy in unsecured US > debt obligations. > > Only a massive increase in the government's asset base can make that > unsecured debt good. In simple terms, the resource base of the US has > been mortgaged by a profligate central government and the creditors are > positioning themselves for foreclosure. The environmental laws passed by > Congress have facilitated this process. Since the breakdown of the > Bretton Woods agreement, Congress, by following the environmental > agenda, has reneged on its primary charge of protecting the citizen's > private rights and has unwittingly engaged in the plunder of the > people's property. > > HR 701 and its companion bill, S 25, represent the latest and most > blatant activity of Congress to disenfranchise the American public from > the cornerstone of all civil rights; private property. Ironically many > of the members of Congress, who have loudly decried the president's use > of executive orders, to circumvent the will of Congress, voted for the > passage of CARA. When the executive branch of government gains control > over a major portion of the productive capacity of a nation it no longer > needs the approval of its citizens or their representatives to determine > policy. It can rule by decree. Congress, by its failure to exercise its > constitutional charge to protect private property, has created an > executive branch that no longer is dependent on the approval of the > people or their representatives to make policy. The executive branch has > gained independence from the people and Congress with an independent > asset base and ability to borrow against that asset base. Rule by > presidential executive order has often rendered the role of Congress > irrelevant. HR 701 and S 25 would complete the process by making > possible the conveyance of virtually all private property into the hands > of government. This legislation amounts to a death wish by a Congress > that long ago forgot the essential principles upon which a free society > is based. > > Copyright 2000. Permission to reprint is granted in whole or in part > with attribution to Stewards of the Range, P.O. Box 1189 Boise, ID 83701 Bob --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
