Some years ago, I left Florida in the midst of a rainstorm, driving
north. Just across the Georgia line, I noticed that the rain seemed to
be accumulating on the windshield wipers. I noticed that the fences
along the road seemed to glisten. Before I knew it, the centerline
disappeared and the road was white. Unfamiliar with these conditions, I
touched the brake, which resulted in a spin-out and a backward slide
down a 20-foot embankment. I was stuck.
Like the unexpected Southern snowstorm, global governance is likely to
ensnare us before we recognize what it is, or its power to stifle our
I get letters from readers regularly, who say things such as: “I’ll
never accept world government!” The truth is, we are already in its
Global governance will not march on
Washington in the form of blue-helmeted troops. It is marching into our
towns in the form of “smart growth” proposals; into our schools in the
form of “tolerance” curricula; into our churches in the form of “The
National Religious Partnership for the Environment”; and into our
government in the form of a parade of bills to promote everything from
global taxation, to a Department of Peace inspired by UNESCO.
Global governance is all around us; we just don’t recognize it as such.
Nowhere is global governance more apparent than in our land-use
policies. Way back in 1976, the U.N. set forth its policy on land use, saying:
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. …”
Since then, through a series of treaties, agreements, laws and
administrative initiatives, the federal government has moved
relentlessly to acquire land where possible, and control its use through
regulation – where acquisition has not yet been achieved.
The Convention on Biological Diversity requires that each State Party
initiate “a system of protected areas.” The instruction book for
implementation, the Global Biodiversity Assessment, identifies The Wildlands Project as the ideal system for protecting biodiversity.
The Wildlands Project seeks to set aside 50 percent of the total land area as
wilderness. John Heilprin reports in the Anchorage Daily
News that since 1970, designated wilderness areas have grown from
247 to 741 million acres – to encompass about 15 percent of the total land area
of the continent.
When congressmen introduce wilderness bills, they never say that the
purpose of the bill is to comply with the U.N. policy of land-use
control. They say it is to “protect” the land and its resources for
future generations. When Bill Clinton designated his monuments and
“roadless areas,” he didn’t say it was to advance the policy of the
United Nations, he said it was to “protect” the land and its resources
for future generations.
If the land and its resources are owned or controlled by the
government, it will be of no more value to future generations than it is
to the present generation from which it is being taken.
Once land is owned by, or under the control of a government entangled in
land use treaties, our government becomes little more than an
administrative unit for the implementation of global-governance
The rash of “sustainable communities” initiatives that continue to
plague cities in every state did not emerge as the result of a
spontaneous demand by citizens. It has been carefully calculated,
orchestrated and implemented by the international community of U.N.
agencies and organizations, and a host of cooperating non-government
As people are forced off their rural lands in pursuit of the 50 percent
wilderness panacea, they are to move to “sustainable communities,”
designed by government bureaucrats for easy control. The idea that a
person should live where he chooses, in the home he chooses, is anathema to global governance. The 1976 U.N. policy statement on land actually recommends a national commission on population distribution. Global governance presumes the wisdom, and the authority, to dictate not only where, but how, private citizens should live.
I sat in my car until just before dawn, watching the snow accumulate
around me. Finally, an old farmer on an even older John Deere tractor
came down the road. He hooked a chain onto my bumper, and with
considerable effort, dragged my car back onto the road and helped me
get headed in the right direction.
When enough people recognize that global governance is burying our
freedom, we may be able to collectively pull our country back onto the
road paved by our Constitution and get this nation headed, again, in the