Land-grab swindle hidden in faith-based plan {Henry Lamb}

Land-grab swindle hidden in faith-based plan

Henry Lamb
Posted: August 16, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

"Scary," was the consensus response to last week's article, "The Third Sector." A classic example of how the Third Sector works is now unfolding around the president's Faith Based Initiative.

The initiative, which will allow federal funds to be used by faith-based organizations, has been hijacked by the Third Sector, to further eliminate privately owned land. The Senate version of the proposed legislation for the president's plan (S-476) contains a provision that grants to the seller of private land a 25 percent discount in capital gains tax, providing that the land is sold to the government, or to a Third Sector organization such as the Nature Conservancy. The seller gets no discount should the land be sold to a church, or to a church school, or to anyone else. The discount also applies to conservation easements and water rights.

The House version (HR-7), sponsored by Rep. Roy Blunt, deliberately excludes this provision, and the Third Sector is pulling out all the stops to get the provision included in the House version as well.

The Land Trust Alliance, all of whose members stand to benefit from the discount provision, have scheduled a major rally in October to prepare to exert maximum political pressure on Congress. Look at who is sponsoring the event with donations in excess of $25,000: The Nature Conservancy; Trust for Public Land; U.S. Department of Defense.

These folks gave more than $10,000: EPA's Office of Oceans, Wetlands and Watersheds; Dept of Commerce; NOAA Coastal Services Center; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Division of Realty.

These folks gave less than $10,000: USDA Forest Service; American Land Conservancy; National Park Service; Environmental Defense; and the Humane Society of the United States.

The Third Sector is being funded, to a large extent, by your tax dollars. The Nature Conservancy in particular, has mastered the art of extracting tax dollars en route to becoming a $3 billion industry. (More on the Nature Conservancy here.)

It is, indeed, frightening that these organizations have so effectively taken over the policy-making process; it is unconscionable for the federal government to use tax dollars to support them.

Not only should this Third Sector favoritism be stripped from the Senate bill, all federal grants to these parasitic organizations should come to a screeching halt.

The Faith Based Initiative President Bush described envisioned church-related programs that provide food, clothing, and shelter to the needy. There was no discussion about the Nature Conservancy and other Third Sector organizations, or the government, buying up private property.

The federal government already owns about one-third of the total land area in the U.S., much of which is destroyed by fire each year, because these same Third Sector organizations have insisted on management policies that prevent human use of these so-called "public" resources.

These are the same organizations whose executives and staff members flocked to the Clinton-Gore administration to dominate the policy-making and grant-giving positions in federal agencies. These are the same organizations that now scream like stuck pigs every time the Bush administration attempts to undo the radical policies imposed by the Third Sector.

Bush's healthy forest initiative is described as "gutting national forests to enrich greedy loggers."

Bush's initiative to use limited public land for energy exploration is described as "destroying the environment to enrich the greedy oil industry."

Bush's effort to honor pre-existing rights of way on public land (as required by law) is described as "opening wilderness to concrete highways to enrich greedy developers."

The Third Sector has become the dominant influence in public policy development, and it has learned how to fund its operations from the public trough. Congress controls the faucet from which the funds flow. Congress will not shut off the faucet unless forced to do so by irate voters.

Shutting off the flow of federal funds to the Third Sector will not completely stop its movement, but it will put a serious kink in its come-a-long. While congressmen are visiting their districts during the August recess, it is an excellent time to tell them to stop buying private lands and to stop favoring, and funding, these Third Sector organizations.

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.

THIS article at WND

The NRA , THE NATURE CONSERVANCY , VERMONT & HOWIE

Editorial Comment- OUTDOORS MAGAZINE
January 2003
Understandable, But Forgivable?
Federation officers want so badly to be important

Sometimes good people do bad things. In doing so, we more often than not will then
attempt to reconcile in our mind our wanting to believe we are good people and the
inappropriate behavior. In many cases, because changing the behavior that was the
foundation of the wrongdoing requires significant effort, we will change our beliefs instead.
Thoughts are far more easily changed than behavior. Psychologists ascribe it to the
Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Sportsmen and women see it in the leadership of the
Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs (VFSC) and their decision on the Champion
lands issue to support Executive Order 12-02—a decision that in effect abandons the
Vermont Traditions Coalition (VTC) in favor of a radical environmental agenda disguised
as polite birdwatchers, and no less important, to gain favor and money from the National
Rifle Association (NRA).

It went like this.

Sometime during the spring of this past year, the VFSC began to negotiate their own
settlement, with the help of the NRA, on the Champion lands. VTC was aware of these
talks. However, what VTC officials were not aware of was that VFSC officers were going
to abandon the coalition in the eleventh hour if they received the promise of deal from the
Dean Administration that they could live with if, even if their allies, to whom VFSC publicly
pledged support, could not. Eventually VFSC went on to negotiate an executive order with
the Dean Administration, the NRA, and The Nature Conservancy, touting it as the remedy
to all the concerns of the hunter and anglers. The EO falls far short
Why would VFSC do such a thing? There are several reasons. First, VFSC president William
Leipold embarrassed a fellow officer, Clint Gray, when Leipold penned a letter to the
Vermont House Republican leadership, in effect, stating that Gray was not permitted to
negotiate any deals with then Senate leader Peter Shumlin, House leadership, and the Dean
Administration if it did not meet the approval of VTC members. Gray was outraged.
Leipold needed to mend fences internally, and letting Gray back another day to play in the
negotiations would be a good first step.

Second, the NRA promised VFSC affiliate status. How do I know? I was there during one
of the discussions. With that affiliate status comes money. There had been mention of as
much as $10,000. Attempts to find out exactly how much was promised from both the
NRA representative in Vermont and Leipold have gone unanswered. It is noteworthy, since
VFSC agreed to the executive order of November 1, E.O. 12-02, the VFSC has been
recognized as the official NRA affiliate without a disclosure of how much money has
changed hands.

Why would the NRA, however, be interested in supporting the E.O. that is plainly not in the
best interest of Vermonters? Simple. Politics. Locally, the NRA owed Dean and Shumlin
some favors for past legislative dealings around the time of the Columbine shootings. On
the national level, the NRA is looking for a message carrier in the Democratic Party
presidential primary race—Howard Dean, by default, is that man. What remains unclear is
the relationship between The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the NRA on a Washington
level. It was made abundantly clear over numerous months and several conversations with
the NRA representative that he was under pressure in Washington from those within his
organization that had ties to TNC. NRA officials will not respond to repeated requests for
information on this matter. The bottom line, however, is supporting Dean, a man who
desperately needs and wants the support of an “environmental political powerhouse” such
as TNC in his bid to become president.

The third reason the Federation officers, without the knowledge of their members,
supported the EO behind the backs of their former allies was to have an air of being
important politically. Paying attention to gubernatorial race polls, it seemed Doug Racine,
Democrat and TNC supporter, would be our next governor. VFSC officers did not bank on
Jim Douglas being the next governor, the candidate who firmly believed the original
Champion legislation was the guide to be followed. Jim Douglas certainly never would have
agreed to anything like the current EO. Had Racine won, VFSC officers would look pretty
smart right now. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for Vermont sportsmen, women
and anyone believing in honest government dealings, Jim Douglas won.

Now VFSC officers are caught between dark and a long hike back to the truck. They
supported an EO that does not deliver what the law promised. They picked losing horses
in statewide races—through NRA status and indirect alliance—opponents of sportsmen in
losing candidates Racine and Shumlin. They violated the trust of VTC members, the likes of
which include The Farm Bureau, Lake Champlain Walleye Association, Vermont Outdoor
Guide Association, and the Maple Sugar Makers Association, to name a few. In the
process as well, they have attempted to smear the reputations of individual VTC
members to divert attention from their own misdeeds: actually stooping to calling their
own staunch supporters, some of whom are cash sponsors of VFSC, liars. All this, when
VFSC officers could have just said they made a mistake, but instead they would rather
change what they believe than their behavior.

Sometimes good people do bad things.

All the best,

James Ehlers, Editor

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.