Oct 15, 1996

Posted by in Commentary Articles | 0 Comments

Enviro-Whackismo

Enviro-Whackismo

by John Loeffler, Colorado Christian News

“I was offended,” read the letter to me from a Boulder, Colorado listener reprimanding me for an on-air comment. I had referred to some of the loonies in the environmental movement as “enviro-whackos.” She couldn’t understand why I would refer to people who were genuinely concerned about the environment that way. An angry letter from a nice lady who was deeply concerned about Christian stewardship for the environment — someone desperately ignorant of what she had bought into.

In 1991, as the Cold War allegedly died, the globalist think tank Club of Rome announced a new unifying principle for a socialist international realignment of power: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill…All these dangers are caused by human intervention…The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

A radical difference from Christian stewardship, isn’t it? Mankind is the enemy. This was not an isolated comment. It can be found in much literature of hard-core environmentalist and government organizations who have no use for “populution,” read people.

The outlook that humans (along with capitalism) are bad and must be eliminated where possible, was a driving philosophy behind the UNCED conference in Rio, which provided us with our latest boost towards environmental laws and regulations via United Nations treaties, whose far- reaching consequences are about to burst over our heads.

These environmental plans have been quietly in the works for a long time among the global greens and are now the substance of UN treaties which are forcing our government to take action against you. Much of these are based on flaky pop science rather than hard-core research and dissenting scientists are routinely being shouted down.

The next target is your automobile. The conversion of state inspection sites to single companies to match federal emissions requirements is not by accident. It’s part of a much larger plan to screw down emissions requirements until cars older than four years won’t pass. The EPA says we have to do this to comply with a treaty President Bush signed in 1990.

Since many people won’t be able to afford new cars, they will be forced out of them and into other forms of transportation, fulfilling a green socialist dream. Keep your eye out for confiscation of cars that don’t pass; they’re already on the horizon.

The EPA wants to impose all sorts of taxes to get you out of your car like a $0.50/gallon fuel tax. Other ideas include taxes on motorists to ensure use of public transportation, fees for using highways, etc. The list is enormous. The cost per family could easily jump $1,000 per year to implement these taxes.

Now on to the Biodiversity plans of the U.S. government. The current goal is to remove humans from 50% of the currently-occupied lands in the United States. The push for buffer zones around Yellowstone Park (no longer a U.S. park but a World Heritage Site under auspices of the U.N.) is just the tip of the planned iceberg. Entire sections of the country will be human-free. Populated islands will be connected by causeways all of which are surrounded by buffer zones with extremely limited human access and outside of those totally human-free zones.

Even though this written environmental plan is on the books, obviously the government can’t tell you that you can’t live somewhere. The mechanism to achieve this will be a combination of complex environmental regulations and financial pressures and invariably property confiscation, which will make it impossible for people to live in the designated areas. None of this is new for anyone following written government policies and U.N. treaties. It’s all in written treaties, agreements, memoranda and regulations.

Now that the global warming scare is facing mounting scientific evidence disproving it, the new spooker will be pollution. You are about to be deluged in a plethora of hoopla about pollution which will be used as a pretext for more regulations, fines and confiscations. Keep an eye out and remember we told you about it.

Over the past two decades we have been barraged by a series of environmental crises, calling for government action to avert imminent disaster. As each of these scares proved false, it was quietly forgotten and a new scare was hyped by the green establishment. In the process, millions of dollars are being squandered, property seized and lives ruined, all in the name of saving us from fictitious crises. Now we are beginning to implement the radical green agenda contained in international treaties. This is just the tip of the iceberg. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!

# # #

A week ago, the Supreme Court in a ruling on the case of the United States versus $405,089.23 that forfeiting a person’s property in a civil action and then prosecuting him or her with a crime in a criminal proceeding does not constitute double-jeopardy. This seriously reversed a trend in which the Supreme had begun rolling back forfeiture laws in favor of the Constitutional protections.

In effect, the fifth amendment took a horrible blow. It is also endangering the first and second.

With a long history in U.S. law, civil property forfeiture emerged in the 1980s as a weapon in the drug wars. Originally it was intended to allow seizing property of drug dealers when they couldn’t be convicted of a crime.

Civil forfeiture is still being sold to the public by the mainline media as being used primarily in the drug war. But in reality, there are now over 200 federal statutes alone in addition to dozens of state statutes which allow for the seizure of property on the mere allegation that a crime has been committed, ranging from environmental crimes to making a mis-statement on a loan application for a mortgage loan.

If you make a mis-statement of income on a federally-guaranteed loan for a home mortgage, the house can be seized in a relatively simple procedure. And what constitutes a mis- statement? Remember: no criminal conviction or proof is required.

Another example, since 1990 there have been several attempts in Congress to create a law which would allow seizing of the medical practices of physicians who fraudulently bill Medicare. Again, remember that proof of the crime is not required — only allegation and the burden of proof is on the person.

Here are the facts of forfeiture:
(1) When civil forfeiture takes place, the property, not the person is charged with the crime.

(2) The forfeiture proceeding goes through civil court. Since property does not have constitutional rights, the burden of proof rests on the property owner instead of the government. The courts are frequently ruling that an innocent owner defense — where the owner wasn’t aware the property was being used for illegal activities — is no bar to a forfeiture.

(3) In a civil forfeiture procedure there is no jury, you do not have the right to a court- appointed attorney and the outcome lies with the whim of the presiding judge.

(4) Even if a person is acquitted of the related crime in a criminal court, he or she usually does not get their property back. In 80% of the federal cases where people have property forfeited they are never even charged with a crime, much less convicted.

(5) To date, there has been $5B forfeited in this country. Money that is forfeited does not go into a general fund but rather to the law enforcement agency making the seizure. It’s an off-budget source of cash. Credible studies are showing that forfeiture is corrupting law enforcement agencies, since it acts as an incentive to legalized extortion, because forfeiture is easy to accomplish. Undercover investigations are showing that drug busts are now being made not on the basis of drugs but rather how much property and money can be seized.

(6) Informants who remain anonymous can get up to 25% of this and, by the way, the amount is not reported to the IRS as required so informants can pay taxes on it; which means states lose income tax from federal forfeitures. Either way, it’s a violation of federal law. In essence, perhaps the motto of some law enforcement agencies should be changed from “To Serve and Protect” to “To Seize and Plunder.”

(7) Abuse is rampant. Dozens of innocent people are losing property each week and the mainline media has failed to report this. Forfeiture is especially dangerous to religious freedom and freedom of speech, because “hate speech” and politically correct speech laws are inching closer and closer to public acceptance. Already the courts have rule that RICO statutes can be applied to abortion clinic protestors. RICO includes property forfeiture. Once “hate speech” laws and property forfeiture link up together, it will mean the death of freedom speech and religion. Remember, all that is needed is an accusation and a civil procedure and the property is gone and you have to spend thousands of dollars trying to get it back and you may never succeed — even if someone else used your property for something that was allegedly illegal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *