MORRISON: Perception vs. truth, Part I
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
OPINION -- Perception is a strange thing. We
allow ourselves to believe what we read or hear
without bothering to check facts. The way we
perceive an issue has already been molded by expert
molders, and we go daily through our lives with
formed opinions not really understanding what is
happening around us.
Although this article is a bit long, please read to
the end so you can begin to put another piece in the
The liberal media are accomplished illusionists as
they spin the news, and most of us believe exactly
what they tell us. We are very gullible, and we form
our perception based on what we are told - not what
we really know to be truth.
There are conservatives who pride themselves on
their discernment of issues, but they have bought
into the "new environmentalism" on the basis of what
the media has told them without searching for the
If they tell us we are overpopulated, we believe
them. If they tell us urban sprawl is using up all
the farmland, we believe them. If they say we need
more open space and parkland, we love it without
asking how much we already have. If they say a woman
has the right to choose to kill her baby, we believe
them. If they say we shouldnít say the G(od) word in
school, we agree. We never question the vaccines
given our children. If they say we should all live a
certain lifestyle, we comply.
Recently someone asked me, "Just what are property
Some perceive "property rights" to mean you see
black helicopters everywhere. Others perceive that
you are paranoid about the U.N. and the government.
There are those who think you are selfish and donít
want parks and open space.
If you perceive property rights to mean that you
have the God given and Constitutional right:
~ to live in the home or on the land you choose,
~ to raise a family according to your values,
~ to worship and teach your children about God,
~ to provide the best education for your children,
~ to be a good law abiding citizen,
~ the right for the pursuit of happiness,
~ and if you desire, you can even have a gun to
protect your family,
then you are correct. These are "property rights."
Every American citizen should have the freedom to
all these "rights" without undue government
interference. If you share this belief, then you too
believe in "property rights."
The United States is a self governing nation - we
are independent (sovereign) of any other nation in
the world. The media says the word "global" in every
newscast but we have become desensitized, and we
donít even hear the word. We see the United Nations
as a peacekeeping force, and we collect for UNICEF
and we donít realize:
The United Nations is global.
The United States belongs to the UN along with many
The UN holds lots of meetings with representatives
from all nations attending, including the United
Treaties are signed.
Nations abiding under the UN must comply even if it
destroys that nationís sovereignty, and that
includes the United States - your state - your town.
There is no conspiracy theory - there is no paranoia
- it is just reading the information that is readily
available to know what to expect next that could
destroy the security of your family and your home.
It is not perception.
How it works
All parents think their children are theirs
(property), and yet the UN keeps pushing the "rights
of the child," and our legislators pass legislation
according to UN standards mandating vaccines,
restricting parental notification and on and on -
removing your rights as a parent.
The headline from the October 9, 2003,
National Post reads, "U.N. rules Canada
should ban spanking - Committee on the Rights of the
Child issues decision in Geneva."
As a signatory of the Convention on the Rights of
the Child, Canada is obligated to make periodic
appearances before the UN's Committee on Rights of
the Child, which said the country should "adopt
legislation to remove the existing authorization of
the use of "reasonable force" in disciplining
children." (To view this item online, visit
The United States Constitution gives you the right
to bear arms, but the UN does not want the people of
any nation to have this right. Legislation is passed
for gun control... .and crime increases as the
criminals keep their guns.
World Heritage areas and Biosphere reserves are
established in the United States under the auspices
of the UN, and all the people who live in these
areas must comply with global standards.
If the UN wants to establish wetlands, according to
the Ramsar treaty signed by the United States at a
meeting held in Iran (http://www.ramsar.org/),
Illinois or whatever state you live in will pass
Check out IL HB422 and see if it complies with
United Nations standards. Federal measures are also
If HB422 passes, wetlands will be claimed on
privately owned property. A 17-member board will
form the Wetlands Advisory Committee appointed by
the governor and two non-voting members, according
the Section 45 of HB422. The appointments will
consist of five members from business, real estate,
and agriculture, five members from environmental and
conservation, two from counties, one from
municipalities, one from building trades unions,
three members appointed by Governor, and non-voting
members from the Department of Natural Resources,
Environmental Protection Agency.
Did you see "landowner" listed among the 17 member
board? Agriculture does not mean farmer or
landowner. This is cause for concern for anyone who
believes in "property rights."
The bill calls for up to a $10,000 per day fine for
violation of the wetlands act. If you canít drain,
fill or build on your property that has been deemed
a wetland, you have just woke up to the reality of
the bill - control of YOUR property.
There are 28 million acres of farm land in Illinois
and there is no doubt a wet spot on almost every one
of these farms, not to mention the small acreages
owned by those who hope to someday build a home.
If this concerns you, I suggest you read HB422 and
contact your Illinois state senator before the veto
session coming up on November 4-6 and November
18-20. Environmentalists are lobbying hard for this
bill. Chicago is exempt from the bill. It has passed
the House, and is in the third reading in the Senate
Rules Committee - just a breath away from a Senate
Eric T. Freyfogle, a professor of law at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, has
published widely on land ownership and environmental
ethics, according to the University of Illinois
An Illinois Leader reader from New
Mexico sent the following quote which he attributed
"If we can redefine harm to include substantial
ecological disruption, thereby pushing such land
uses outside the bounds of protected ownership
rights, private ownership then becomes a much
smaller obstacle in the path ahead.".
My perception of this statement is that if we can
label a piece of privately owned property - as
perhaps a wetland, a viewshed, endangered species,
or some other "ecological disruption" - then the
owner has lost his rights on his property. It
doesnít matter if he owns it, someone else now
governs the use.
What is your perception?
(Perception Part II next week)
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section
107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to: