This article is a compilation of some quotes from a much larger article (source below), along with commentary from the publisher of ‘elf Expressions Ezine.

“Most Americans are totally unaware of a relentless, 20-year campaign by the United Nations to gain control over land use around the world. Many people believe that the U.N. is a distant, benevolent do-good organization that is expensive, but which has no direct effect on America. Nothing could be further from the truth!”

“Implementation of the U.N.’s land use philosophy is well under way in America, and is now being accelerated through the use of the “collaborative process” using stakeholder councils. The 1973 Endangered Species Act has been expanded administratively to now cover not only endangered species, but the habitat which a listed species may wish to use—even though the habitat may be privately owned. This policy breathes life into the GBA recommendation to extend legal rights to biodiversity. It, in fact, clarifies ‘the principle that biodiversity is not available for U.N.-controlled human use.'”

Read the entire article about the U.N. and property rights at http://sovereignty.freedom.org/p/land/unproprts.htm

“To the framers of the U.S. Constitution, property was as sacred as life and liberty. The inalienable right to own—and control the use of—private property is perhaps the single most important principle responsible for the growth and prosperity of America. It is a right that is being systematically eroded.

“Private ownership of land is not compatible with socialism, communism, or with global governance as described by the United Nations. Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Mao all took steps to forcefully nationalize the land as an essential first step toward controlling their citizens. The U.N., without the use of military force, is attempting to achieve the same result.”

Now get this . . . read the official land policy of the United Nations (and this is just the preamble):

“Land . . . cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable . . . ”

This is a quote from only one of the recommendations of various country members participating in this travesty: “Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means of . . . achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development whilst assuring that environmental impacts are considered.”

“Excessive profits resulting from the increase in land value due to development and change in use are one of the principal causes of the concentration of wealth in private hands. Taxation should not be seen only as a source of revenue for the community [read government] but also as a powerful tool to encourage development of desirable locations, to exercise a controlling effect on the land market and to redistribute to the public at large . . . ”

“The unearned increment resulting from the rise in land values resulting from change in use of land, from public investment or decision or due to the general growth of the community must be subject to appropriate recapture by public bodies.

“Past patterns of ownership rights should be transformed to match the changing needs of society and be collectively beneficial.”

[“Collectively” is a typical communist term.]

All of this has its basis in the environmental protection arena, whose original intentions were inherently good. Like most every other bureaucracy (governmental or not), however, it has been overdone, exploited, and is far out of proportion to its original intent.

“Propaganda about the loss of biodiversity and the threat of global warming has become rampant from the U.N. on down through all kinds of non-governmental bureaucracies.

“The U.N. also wants to “Encourage the principle of delegating policy-making to the lowest level of public authority consistent with effective action and a locally driven approach.

“Between 1976 and 1992 a new strategy for land use control was devised. It is subtle, sinister, and successful. Read again “Encourage the principle of delegating policy-making to the lowest level of public authority consistent with effective action and a locally driven approach.”

The reference to “public authority” is not to elected city councils or county commissions. No! The reference is to newly constituted “stakeholder councils” or other bodies of “civil society” that consist primarily of professionals functioning as representatives of non-governmental organizations (N.G.O.s) affiliated with national and international N.G.O.s accredited by the United Nations! This strategy is becoming increasingly effective.

You also need to read some other documents produced by the Earth Summit, which directly affect private property rights and land use, e.g., the Convention on Biological Diversity, which authorized the production of the Global Biodiversity Assessment (G.B.A.).

“The G.B.A. is a massive 1,140-page document that supposedly provides the “scientific” basis for implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity and other environmental treaties. It discusses land use extensively (approximately 400 pages). Some of the more poignant revelations:

“Property rights are not absolute and unchanging, but rather a complex, dynamic, and shifting relationship between two or more parties, over space and time.”

“The legal approach to this U.N. view of property rights is discussed in Section 11.3.3.2 (pages 786-787):

“Plants and animals are objects whose degree of protection depends on the value they represent for human beings. Although well intentioned, this specifically anthropocentric view leads directly to the subordination of biological diversity, and to its sacrifice in spite of modern understanding of the advantages of conservation. “We should accept biodiversity as a legal subject and supply it with adequate rights. This could clarify the principle that biodiversity is not available for uncontrolled human use. Contrary to current custom, it would therefore become necessary to justify any interference with biodiversity, and to provide proof that human interests justify the damage caused to biodiversity.”

Now listen to this: “Under the U.N.’s concept of land and resource management, the owner is not even considered as one who may have a right to determine how his land is to be used. It is a higher authority that represents the “community” to whom “proof” must be offered that a proposed use is justified. This process effectively separates the right of ownership from the right of use . . . And who, exactly, is this “higher authority” to whom proof must be presented? The authority envisioned by the U.N. is not local elected officials, but rather local “stakeholder councils” dominated by N.G.O. professionals.”

The election process and representative government created by the U.S. Constitution is clearly unacceptable to these power mongers, which want “civil society” [read: N.G.O. dominated stakeholder councils] “to become the local authority for not only land use decisions, but for a variety of other policy decisions as well.

“Implementation of the U.N.’s land use philosophy is well under way in America, and is now being accelerated through the use of the “collaborative process” using stakeholder councils. The 1973 Endangered Species Act has been expanded administratively to now cover not only endangered species, but the habitat which a listed species may wish to use—even though the habitat may be privately owned. This policy breathes life into the G.B.A. recommendation to extend legal rights to biodiversity. It, in fact, clarifies ‘the principle that biodiversity is not available for uncontrolled human use.’

“Sustainable communities are essential to the concept of land use and resource management envisioned by the Global Biodiversity Assessment and required by the Convention on Biological Diversity.

“Ultimately, if the U.N. plan is realized, at least half of the land area of North America will be converted to wilderness, off limits to human beings. An additional 25% will be controlled by government in collaboration with “civil society” in which individuals will have to prove that a proposed use will not harm biodiversity. Humans are to be relocated into “sustainable communities” that are described as “islands of human habitat” surrounded by natural areas.

“It is now clear that the U.N.’s land use policies, though refined over time, have had a predetermined objective from the very beginning. That objective—as bizarre as it may sound—is to place all land and natural resources under the ultimate authority of the U.N.

“Sadly, American policy has failed to honor the Constitutional commitment to life, liberty, and property. The next four years in America may well be the historic watershed which will be seen by future generations as the point from which the blessings of freedom were shared with the entire world, or the point from which the world began its descent into global tyrrany.”

Well, doesn’t this just make your day? The Government is messing with our basic freedoms guaranteed by our U.S. Constitution, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to keep and bear arms, freedom to assemble peaceably, the freedom to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

[Emphases added]