Under the Tower of Babel
Copyright ©1995 by Dean Isaacson : All rights reserved - ISBN 1-887008-00-4
Chapter Two :: Fast Players In The Game Of Politics
One day[1] I was listening to the radio when I heard our Vice President, Al Gore, say that, "Our heritage is in our national parks." This may be eloquent, but it is not patriotic. He simply does not understand the history of our nation. He does not realize why many people have forsaken their families and possessions to live here. Worse still, he fails to discern what our fiduciary obligation is to future generations.
The park promoters claim that the value of 'our lands' is in direct relationship to the efforts of the people to preserve them.[2] This, too, sounds charismatic, but it is not realistic. The land is not our heritage, it is merely an asset. We can only value this resource to the degree that it affords us wealth and a place to live. If we place the value of the land above our liberty, we will eliminate our jobs and our homes. What benefit then is a single tree to mankind if we live without freedom?
We cannot forget that our true national heritage is the blood that was shed for freedom by those who came before us. They were willing to die so that we might be free of governmental tyranny and bureaucracy. They pursued the right to voice their opinion without being hanged for treason or charged with a hate crime. Our forefathers fought for the right to believe in the One who gives us liberty. They believed that our God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were the fundamentals of life.
The 'pursuit of happiness' was never thought to be the endowment of political authority over the property rights of others. It was never the right to engage in irresponsible behavior without suffering the consequence of the action. The 'pursuit of happiness' was understood to be the God given right to defend one's self, family and property. Our Founding Fathers knew that it was innate within man to raise a family, worship God, engage in commerce and build an estate. They also knew that this was most possible with a limited government of citizen representation.
It was for these rights that our Founding Fathers, with a firm reliance upon God, pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.[3] This is an awesome heritage and it is the foundation of our nation. This heritage of freedom has made us great.
We cannot find our renown in our land, nor amidst our natural resources nor in our parks. Many nations have wealth and resources that surpass ours. South Africa has diamonds, the Middle East has oil and Russia has platinum to name just a few. Regardless of their assets, no nation will ever become as great as America has been.[4] This is only because the other nations have never understood a heritage based upon the principles that God set forth in the Bible. "Your statutes are my heritage forever."[5]
We are on the road to forgetting what has made us great and our vice president is leading the way. We have to hold our governing authorities accountable to higher law. Otherwise, we will certainly lose our true heritage and the benefits, wealth and freedoms that come with it.
Newspeak Politics
A politician is able to mask ideas with words. They customarily claim to have broad based support when proposing unconventional reforms, whether they do or not. To win our endorsement, the politician will spin words with subtle nuances. We may believe that we are listening to a constitutional dissertation when we are hearing socialist newspeak. If we carefully examine the rhetoric advocating environmentalism, International Parks, Goals 2000 education reform, Crime Bills, GATT treaties, or any other statist agenda, after a while we will begin to understand the underlying meaning of the phrases.
Our lawmakers and bureaucrats are trained to be facilitators. At taxpayer expense, they attend an inordinate amount of seminars and workshops. Through years of training, they have learned to present the most negative proposals with a positive light. They know how to divide citizens into small groups and they have learned to diffuse angry outbursts with positive responses.[6]
It is not wrong for a person to negotiate well and win favor. The common citizen, however, is not skilled in this art. When they are mad, they are mad. When they are upset, they are upset. They are not trained to negotiate with government officials, nor do they understand that they are wrestling with an experienced facilitator. So they mistake the agent's agility for sincerity and sometimes for truth. The unknowing civilian, lacking this alacrity, is often convinced they are wrong, or they are embarrassed by their own crass. They walk away vowing never to confront again. Worse yet, they are seduced and fall into step with the facilitator.
Knowing that the masses can be broad sided by such strategies, the politico is able to make the most immoral proposal to be publicly palatable.[7] Congressman Bruce Vento, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, uses Biblical and ethical word pictures to promote the international park.
These land policies and rules are a two edged sword. It reminds me of the adage that we have the right to swing our arm but that right ends where another person's nose begins.[8]
The old adage that our rights end where another person's begins is now used as a pretext for socialism. Their argument is that the earth is a common resource, rather than the domain of private property. So instead of protecting life, liberty and property, this cliché will be remade to imply that if we use our property to our own benefit we are violating someone else's ecological rights.
The hypocrisy of the environmentalist and their flagrant disregard for another's God given rights is illustrated in the story of William Arthur, the Northwest Regional Director of the Sierra Club.[9] In December 1992, he cut and sold 20 logging trucks of timber from his property surrounded by the Colville National Forest. He removed all the marketable timber, which was approximately 85,000 board feet.
According to the newspaper account, Mr. Arthur used the money to improve his home. He admitted logging another portion 12 years earlier to put himself through graduate school. However, when he sat on the forestry panel with President Clinton, in Portland, Oregon, (April 1994) he proclaimed, "We cut like there's no tomorrow, and tomorrow caught up with us yesterday." He has made his profit and it is time for the rest of us to quit this senseless logging.
Neither the proponents nor the politicians of environmentalism have any desire to revert to an austere lifestyle. Before his election to the vice presidency, Al Gore wrote a book about the evils of modern technology entitled Earth In the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. The purpose of the book was to convince us common people to repent of our selfish lifestyles and save the earth.
In a review of the book, the Wall Street Journal recites his own, confessed hypocrisy. "Mr. Gore is unhappy with much of modern life. He feels guilty about 'my own hypocrisy' in using chlorofluorocarbons 'in my automobile air conditioner' while he's 'on the way to a speech about why they should be banned' for hurting the ozone layer."[10]
An Associated Press news story was released in June 1993.[11] Vice President Al Gore had replaced the deck on his home just about the time that he was writing his book. He used 3000 board feet of vertical grain Douglas Fir. Vertical grain fir is a beautiful wood, it is expensive and it is old growth. Mr. Gore, the enthusiastic environmentalist, must certainly enjoy his new deck. So why would the second highest leader of this free country want to deprive us of the ability to do the same?
I have another question. Why do environmentalists publish and publish and publish? Chris Genovali, chair of the San Francisco chapter of the Sierra Club, complained that native[12] forests are "being liquidated by increasing industrial activity."[13] Then he went on to write that, "The major force behind this troubling development is the growing consumption of paper. . ." I found this quotation inside a twenty four page quarterly environmental journal. Within that journal I found several advertisements for other environmental books and periodicals. They keep on writing. I can't help but wonder if they would curb their books, magazines and direct mail fund raisers if that alone would save a few of these forests.
On the other hand, I feel no guilt for writing. Besides the therapeutic benefit that it provides, I know that my activities are providing jobs and feeding families. Loggers will cut the trees. Truckers will haul the logs to the mills and millwrights will make the paper. This paper will be shipped twice more and a printer will produce the finished product. Behind the scenes will be people making and repairing chainsaws. Others will raise cows to feed the loggers and provide leather for boots, chaps and tool belts. There will be people producing and shipping the leather products. Some people will be mining the hills to provide materials for the manufacture of the chainsaws, trucks, presses and equipment parts. Others will be working to produce the petroleum products necessary for manufacturing the equipment, fuel the saws and trucks, and provide ink for the printer. I do not want to forget the people who raise cattle and crops for clothing, nor do I want to forget the grocers and equipment warehousemen and their families, etc. There are myriad jobs created by writing this book.
Probably the most satisfying part of all this is knowing that the government shares my interest in perpetuating these jobs. For all the work I give these people, the bureaucracies require twice as much paperwork, legal and accounting, for every link on this industrial chain. This begins the process again. So please tell your friends to buy my books it keeps the economy going!
Many people have told me that when they contacted their congressional representative or their local paper about the international park, they were told that it is only a rumor. This can hardly be a rumor. Governor Lowry of Washington wrote a letter to the Northwest Regional Director of the National Parks and Conservation Association, praising him for his efforts to help create the park.[14]
Using what we have just learned about positive verbal strategies, examine this excerpt to see if it may be clear that he understands that the people are against this project. Nonetheless, he encourages Mr. Crane and his environmental friends to persevere. They will eventually wear the people down.
I am aware that many difficulties exist and a great deal of work must be done to create the political climate necessary for the enactment of appropriate laws in both nations. I wish you well and hope the needed consensus can be achieved.[15]
The international parks are no rumor to the environmental culture. Several environmental periodicals have written of the efforts, keeping their readers informed of the progress. The Cascades International Alliance, openly states on the front page of their newsletter that they are;
Working to establish an international park and special management area in the North Cascades Ecosystem.[16]
Our nation has not yet lost its last statesman, but it seems that politics and government jobs tend to attract the worst people. There are many bureaucrats who could never win an election, yet they write more regulations than a lawmaker. Many of the statutes that they propose have little to do with the well being of the people. Their purpose is to increase their agency and power. For these people, it is easier to get a government job and become a feudal lord than to win the respect of the people through dedication, hard work and customer service.
This ethic is antithetical to the founding of our country. The government our forefathers instituted was designed to be limited, to serve not to rule. We fought a revolution to rid our land of ruling classes. Our Constitution goes so far as to even forbid titles of nobility.[17] They established a representative civil government, ruled by the majority, with protection for the minority. Now, two hundred years later, representation has been revised to mean consensus.
To most people, consensus and majority are synonymous. Consensus, however, implies agreement but it is not a majority. It is a direct manipulation of the democratic process, using small committees and study groups to achieve the desired results. It is a wonderful tool to effect social change that places the will of the minority above the majority.
Consensus is not hamstrung by the usual protocols required for majorities and it is recognized without a vote. The will of the leader is reflected in the outcome of consensus. Dissenters do not have to be heard. If dissenters reveal themselves, they can usually be ignored. If they become obstinate, nobody outside the committee, meeting or hearing will know. If they organize, they can be painted as radicals, or trouble makers. There is no record for anyone to investigate to prove the extent of the opposition. There is no evidence of the majority will. There was consensus because it was declared.
A recent example of consensus, or in this case plurality, was the election of Bill Clinton, who, upon winning with only 43% of the popular vote, declared his victory to be a 'mandate.' This is another good example of masking negative outcomes with positive statements.
The White House Connection
The Constitution sets forth itself to be "the supreme Law of the Land," along with "the Laws of the United States" and "all Treaties made."[18] When the courts and the politicians refer to this supremacy clause, they will often suggest the three parts to be equal. Sometimes the courts will give more weight to the one most detailed, of which the Constitution is the least. Sometimes more weight will be given to the most recent and again the Constitution fails. However, the Constitution is clear that it is predominant and the laws and the treaties "shall[19] be made in Pursuance thereof." By giving the three parts equal stature, the Constitution is minimized and unconstitutional laws are able to be declared 'constitutional.' We will review this aspect later in the book.
Have you noticed that we have had a proliferation of treaties in recent years? It is not because we have suddenly decided to become more friendly with the rest of the world. Treaties have been found to be a useful tool for overcoming constitutional restrictions that limit the overweening role of national government. Through treaties, the President is able to write law that will accomplish what he believes Congress has failed to do. The Senate is willing to ratify treaties that make laws which bring about the social changes they desire but would otherwise be unpopular and would make re election difficult.
For example, portions of the Rio Declaration, the Global Climate Change treaty and Agenda 21,[20] drafted and agreed upon during the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development,[21] call for America to reduce the number of cars on the road and eventually eliminate all air conditioning and outdoor barbecues. If our president or senators were to make outright statutes to this effect, the people would storm Washington DC.
The Rio Declaration[22] established the Sustainable Development Commission, under Principle 27. This worldwide commission has the authority to hold hearings, have public proceedings and receive evidence about the environmental behavior and policies of all nations.[23] This is the equivalent of an international land use planning department. Have our leaders forgotten that we spilled blood to get out from under the land use policies of the king of Britain? Why should we now submit to an international jurisdiction? At the very least, this is another wasteful bureaucracy.
To facilitate the United Nation's international agenda, President Clinton has created a national council of Sustainable Development. Five Cabinet members sit on this council as well as several leaders from environmental groups.[24] He established the White House Ecosystem Management Task Force as the liaison between federal agencies and this council. Then the President directed the State Department to set up the Interior Ecosystem Management Task Force and give priority to communications between the council and the UN.
The State Department initiated the drafting of a 50 page report for the UN Commission. This outlined the national Council's efforts to implement Agenda 21. That was in August 1993. According to the State Department, Agenda 21 is a non binding agreement. However, it was adopted in toto by all nations represented at the Rio convention. You can understand that there is considerable peer pressure to conform to these measures.
Not only does Agenda 21 address basic human needs such as where we live, our health, water allocation and waste, but it is an agreement of "a global partnership for sustainable development."[25] It requires the United States to send 0.7 percent of its GNP to developing nations. It proposes to transform developed nations into austere societies.[26] It increases labor intensive construction technologies.[27] That is, we will get rid of our tractors and equipment because they produce carbon dioxides. We will return to the shovel and scythe. Probably the most dangerous section of this treaty is the clause that ordains the young to rule the world.[28]
Deputy Secretary of State, Tim Wirth,[29] took the Council's report to the United Nations Commission in June 1994.[30] The State Department is working on UN projects and treaties which puts them at odds with, rather than defending, our Constitution. We have the best freedoms and the best Constitution in the world. Why are we implementing treaties that diminish this? Why are we not bringing the rest of the world into conformance with our values instead?
Tim Wirth was also the highest ranking US delegate to the United Nations Conference on Population, in Cairo, Egypt. He has previously served as a board member of the Boulder, Colorado chapter of Planned Parenthood.[31] His service is compatible with the Cairo conference because it focused on ways to control and reduce world and national populations. The aim of the international park is to limit the availability of land for human habitat. Mr. Wirth cannot hide behind his job. It is not surprising to see Mathusians and proponents of eugenics[32] in the forefront of the environmental movement.
With what you hear from the news media, you probably thought that Vice President Gore commissioned the National Performance Review to make government more efficient and responsive to the people. That too, is a mask. The 'performance' has to do with environmental responsiveness, not people. Writing for the Washington State Farm Bureau News, Peter Stemberg notes that;
The national goal of ecosystem management was initiated by Vice President Gore's National Performance Review (NPR). . . . Gore commissioned a White House Ecosystem Management Task Force to coordinate the activities of this Interagency Management Coordination Group.[33]
Mr. Stemberg is not merely giving the bully pulpit over to the property rights advocates. The government's own Bureau of Land Management confirms his report;
The National Performance Review (NPR) is the beginning of a long term commitment to making the changes needed to create a federal government that works better and costs less. . . . Ecosystem management is one of the collaborative cross agency initiatives spurred by the NPR. The report from the Vice President envisions a proactive approach to ensuring a sustainable economy and a sustainable environment through ecosystem management. . . . NPR reinvention initiatives are being implemented across government. [Emphasis added].[34]
Under the color of governmental efficiency, our Vice President established the National Performance Review, which is just another bureaucracy. The main objective of this new commission is to manage our ecosystem. It is under the direction of an ecosystem management task force and an interagency management task force, which are two more bureaucracies. The NPR is as close to eliminating waste and making government more efficient, as Mr. Gore is to his Baptist faith.
The White House Ecosystem Management Task Force is chaired by Katie McGinty, Director of the White House Office of Environmental Policy. The task force consists of Assistant Secretaries from twelve departments and agencies, representatives for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.[35]
The goal of ecosystem management is to restore and maintain the health, sustainability and biological diversity of ecosystems while supporting sustainable economies and communities. . . . The Task Force is working to establish overarching goals for all agencies, draft an Executive Order on Ecosystem Management to provide critical direction and guidance to federal agencies. . . . Among the case studies. . . selected for budget review and analysis are. . . the Pacific Northwest Forests.[36]
When Paul Pritchard spoke to the conference, he reminded the attendees that this vision, for the international park, has been ongoing since the 1920s. With the recent change in the Washington political landscape, that is the 1992 elections, he expressed hope that a window of opportunity had opened. He has not been disappointed. Since the 1992 elections, the White House has been working actively to bring private property under the purview of national and international jurisdiction.
The difference now is that both the United States and British Columbia have more environmentally sensitive administrations. In the US, Secretary of Interior Babbitt [sic] has expressed strong interest. . . to manage public forests as ecological units. . .[37]
Bruce Babbitt, Water and Dams
Interior Secretary, Bruce Babbitt, recently declared that he "would love to be the first Secretary of the Interior to tear down a really large dam."[38] While serving as the President of the League of Conservation Voters, he addressed a lawyer's conference advocating the importance of federalizing control of the waters of the western States. In his speech[39] he called for judicial activism to facilitate the federal confiscation of waters. He warned that conservative judges would hinder the process by relying on a constitutional construction of law.
There is a constant threat that a new conservative judiciary will frustrate this effort to find a more balanced pattern of water use by expanding the concept of constitutional taking beyond any reasonable measure. . . . Navigation is an important aspect of the public interest in water because it has such deep historical roots. These roots might prove to be a formidable defense in takings claims.[40]
Furthermore, he stresses the importance of assuming federal regulatory powers, that is de facto government, and using creative techniques for writing unconstitutional law. He parades the very arguments that should be used against unfounded environmental regulations as major victories of legislative and judicial activism. He gloats about the successes of the environmental and legal special interests to get controversial statutes passed by an ignorant Congress.
These bundles of rights in water also need to be examined in the context of two of our most important environmental laws. The first is the Clean Water Act. . . . This is a very important assumption of federal regulatory power because it reaches everything that is wet (and some things that are arguable not so wet)[sic]. . . . The second federal law is the Endangered Species Act, the single most inventive and trailblazing environmental law of this century. I am certain that members of Congress who passed the Endangered Species Act did not fully understand the American West. [Emphasis added].[41]
Water, or what is legally termed navigable waters is the key to consolidating the control of large land areas. Federal regulations now include all waters, even mud puddles[42] (wetlands). With federal control of water, the rights of States and individuals will be diminished and the potential for federal revenue will be unlimited. This centralization of authority, along with progressive legislation will not only lead to more power for the lawmaker, but will be good for the lawyer, as well.
Water quality standards and endangered species issues will come to a head in the California Bay Delta within the next five years. This will be a massive fight, which in my judgment, will make the spotted owl seem like a relatively gentlemanly discussion because of its complexity and the fact that it will cover the entire watershed of the Sierra and Central Valley. . . . There is going to be a lot of site specific federal legislation in the future dealing with water issues, If you have a problem on a local river, it is going to become a federal topic. . . . The water problems of the West are going to be solved, not by taking more water for private use, but by setting up markets to reallocate the water we are already using. These markets will allow those who need more water and who are willing to pay a higher price. . . . the public interest in water, which is a growth industry. It will keep all of you [speaking to lawyers and law students] wonderfully busy for your lifetimes.[43]
In the introduction to the printed text of his speech, Mr. Babbitt erroneously claimed that the federal government had 'diverted' water rights to the States and must now get that resource back under its control. The reason he makes this remark is to lay a foundation for us to believe that it is the legitimate and proper role of national government to control the water adjacent to and beneath our soil.
In the rush to settle the West, the federal government diverted water rights to the states. However, emerging public rights such as the public trust doctrine and reserved water rights are bringing private rights back into a more balanced public private approach. This shift in focus will result in a more environmentally sensible use of water resources.[44]
The original intent of public trust,[45] as spelled out in article IV, of The Ordinance of 1787, was to provide unimpeded navigation throughout the western rivers. Under the Common Law, the right to water flows with the ownership of property. The only state interest would be the protection of navigation.[46] At the time of the incorporation of the United States the original States each retained local control of their navigable waters. Local control of natural resources was accorded to the subsequent States through the Equal Footing Doctrine.[47]
To this day, most courts still recognize the Overlying Right, which allows a property owner to take water from the ground. They also uphold the Common Enemy Doctrine, which allows a property owner to divert surface waters onto his neighbor. These are Common Law ideals. Historically, water is fundamental to the land. It is not a reasonable conclusion that the federal government 'diverted' control of these waters, as Mr. Babbitt claims.
The Equal Footing Doctrine, however, has been eroded through judicial and legislative tampering, as well as bureaucratic regulations. These strategies to diminish this doctrine have empowered the national government with public trust, giving the appearance of federal jurisdiction over waters. There is no constitutional authority, nonetheless, that is able to deprive the individual States of their right to control natural resources. This can only be accomplished through de facto judicial activism, which is what Mr. Babbitt espouses.
There is a tendency for the courts to accomplish their political goals by legislating through precedents. As late as 1908, the US Supreme Court ruled that individual States were protected from coercion to export their natural resources, namely river and lake waters.[48] By 1923, however, the Court had turned 180 degrees and held that a State could be required to export their natural resources, namely natural gas, even before they satisfied local needs.[49]
The controversial Boldt decisions[50] and other reserved water rulings have changed the face of fishing, industry and commerce in the northwestern States. Corps of Engineers' wetland regulations have altered the authority over water and have substantially deteriorated the rights of property owners.
Regarding the future of our dams, Mr. Babbitt explained that most dams were built with fifty year leases, which are now expiring. He gloats that many of the leases will not be renewed and the dams will have to be removed. The premise for removing the dams is to protect endangered fish and other environmental concerns. This is hypocritical because he allows for the dams to remain if they are retained by the Indians.
There are not going to be any more dams in the West unless there is the most excruciating evident case made, or unless they are built for a Native American tribe which has a special claim for water. Existing water projects all over the West are going to be reconfigured to give water back to the environment. . .[51]
How do we "give water back to the environment?" The environment is not robbed of its water or resources, irrespective of the dam. This is another case of environmental hypocrisy. The purpose for removing dams has nothing to do with the pretext. It is a play for political power.
Gorbachev and the International Green Cross
With the demise of the 'Evil Empire,' or Soviet Union, many believed that the cold war was over and the world was heading toward a lasting peace. Communism may have appeared to be over because it was bankrupt, both economically and morally. Nonetheless, the world has never witnessed a voluntary relinquishment of such immense power and domination. The old maxim for consumer economics holds true for politics as well; "if it sounds too good to be true, it is." The Russian giant may have fallen, but socialism and fascism are not dead.
Mikhail Gorbachev was not one day out of the Soviet Union when he began his new career, speaking throughout the United States. Recently, he was the guest of honor of the Environmental Media Association and keynote speaker at the Environmental Media Awards.[52] His latest mission of peace has been the promotion of Global Green USA, which is part of International Green Cross (IGC). He formed the IGC to seek solutions to the world's environmental problems.[53] They are currently developing international environmental laws. They plan to offer a draft of these new global codes at the 50th anniversary celebration of the United Nations.[54]
It is ironic that the leader of the world's most environmentally deprived nation, who was responsible for the Chernobyl disaster, now rises to become the world leader of the environmental movement. Joseph Farah noted that this man with the "Orwellian vision" is lauded by Hollywood and criticized by none. He also points out that these champions of the first amendment, are "enamored of this new environmental prophet." However, only five years earlier, it was he who outlawed all independent media activity within his country. Is this a paradox, or a parody?
There is no new face for Gorbachev. He has not received an environmental conscience. He is the same ruthless leader with megalomaniac dreams. It is only for pragmatic reasons that he is compelled to change his appearance. Farah reminds us what Mikhail Gorbachev wrote in his newspaper column, published in the New York Times, in 1992:
The idea of socialism lives on; and it is my feeling that the quest - the desire to experiment and to find a new form for putting the socialist idea into practice - is ongoing.[55]
Footnotes:
[1]28 Jun. 1993.
[2]ed. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[3]This is a recapitulation of the last sentence of the Declaration of Independence.
[4]Of course I cannot foresee the future. Although the glory of our nation is waning fast, there is no other nation existing that is established upon God's law. Without His law, there is no possibility for greatness. The Soviet Union's influence may have been vast but they rejected God and they did not last long. They were oppressive and had their economy not been propped up by the US government they would never have lasted as long as they did. China is large and oppressive. Though they are immense, they are not great. They may continue to conquer smaller nations, but they will not be exalted and people will not flock to them. The United States has offered freedom, justice and opportunity, and oppressed people have stormed our borders to get inside.
[5]Psalms 119:111 (NIV).
[6]Positive responses are not to be confused with positive ideas. A positive response is limited in scope. It does not need to agree. It only needs to acknowledge the other person, or their comment. Any unity on the smallest point is an area to exploit; the positive change agent will usually act as if both parties are unified on the entire subject.
[7]A good example is government schools teaching our children that using condoms is 'safe sex.' Their excuse is that by withholding this instruction we put students in danger of getting AIDS. Sex ed proponents attack abstinence and morality, claiming that this will endanger our children. Their presumption is that all children are going to have sex. This, too, is a mask. Most students will follow the instruction given them. If school administrators were really interested in reducing teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, they would not be fighting the parents who want their children to be taught abstinence.
[8]op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[9]AP story, "Environmentalist Draws Jeers For Logging His Land," Columbia Basin Herald (06 Dec. 93).
[10]Review & Outlook section "Senator Malthus," The Wall Street Journal, (03 Aug. 1992).
[11]AP story, "Old-growth Wood Used on VP's Porch," the author's copy appears to be dated 09 June 93.
[12]When is a forest not native?
[13]Chris Genovali, "Rescuing the Forests of the Northern Half of the Globe," Northwest Conservation, News and Priorities magazine, Greater Ecosystem Alliance (Summer 1994), p. 8.
[14]Letter from Gov. Mike Lowry to Dale Crane, NW Regional Director, NPCA (14 Jul. 1993).
[15]op. cit., Lowry.
[16]op. cit., Nature Has No Borders, the newsletter.
[17]The Constitution of the United States, art. 1, sec. 9.8.
[18]The Constitution of the United States, art. 6, sec. 2.
[19]Historically, in legal vernacular, 'shall' means 'must,' if they meant 'recommended,' 'maybe' or 'optional' the drafters would have written 'should.'
[20]Dixy Lee Ray & Lou Guzzo, Environmental Overkill, Regnery Gateway, (1993), all cites are from the paperback edition; HarperPerennial, (1994), p. 9 10. Agenda 21 is "an 800 page agreement that lays out 115 specific programs to put into effect all the major issues discussed at Rio. The Agenda is designed to facilitate (or force) the transition of the economies of all nations to 'sustainable development.'
[21]The Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 1992.
[22]The Rio Declaration was ratified by the Senate and signed by President Bush.
[23]op. cit., Ray & Guzzo, p. 9.
[24]Steve Gorton, "Will People Give Way To Ecosystems?" The Montanian (29 Jun. 94).
[25]"Agenda 21: It's Not Hidden," World Climate Review, Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 8 (Fall 1994).
[26]Section 4.11: "The need for new concepts of wealth. . . through changed lifestyles." op. cit., World Climate Review, p. 9. If we become an austere nation, how will we continue to fund the developing countries?
[27]Section 7.69: "Promote the use of labour intensive construction and maintenance technologies. . ." op. cit., World Climate Review, p. 9.
[28]Section 25.2: "It is imperative that youth from all parts of the world participate actively in all relevant levels of decision making processes. . ." op. cit., World Climate Review, p. 9. Even before I published this book I was rebuked for jumping to conclusions. This person felt that this section only invited the youth to become involved, to know what is going on in the world. If you have the same impression, please read it again. Remember, political statements always mean something. 1) 'youth. . . participate actively in. . . decision making. . .' does not mean that they are merely observing [also remember what we learned about consensus]; 2) 'imperative that youth from all parts of the world' means that the UN will force us to accept the views of third world youth, regardless of educational and social standing. Isaiah 3:4 warns us that when we leave the laws of God, children will rule over us. We already have many officials that have the character of children. By incorporating real children into the decision making processes of world governments, we will be ruled by children, virtual and authentic.
[29]former Senator (D, CO).
[30]ed. cit., American Sheep Industry Association memorandum (01 Jun. 94), commenting on Bureau of Land Management's Internal Working Document.
[31]Bob Ditner, "Life and Death in Cairo: A Reporter's Notebook," Citizen magazine, published by Focus on the Family, (21 Nov. 94), p. 11.
[32]Mathusians and proponents of eugenics will be discussed later in this book. Malthusians believe that the population of the world is increasing faster than our ability to feed them. They believe that war, famine, disease, abortion, euthanasia and suicide are necessary activities to restrain the proliferation of the masses. The study of eugenics is concerned with improving, or purifying, the species, usually by limiting reproduction to the purest of the races. Not only are these philosophies dangerous by themselves, but they pose an ominous threat to society when they merge politically.
[33]Peter Stemberg, "Ecosystem Management: The Latest Correct Environmental Thinking and a Battle Plan Against Private Property Rights," Washington State Farm Bureau News (Aug. 94), page 11.
[34]BLM, Internal Working Document, "Subject: National Performance Review Initiatives," prepared for: BLM Summit 3/30/94.
[35]op. cit., BLM, Internal Working Document, "Subject: White House Ecosystem Management Task Force and the Interior Ecosystem Management Task Force."
[36]id.
[37]op. cit., Paul Pritchard.
[38]Grant County Public Utility District, (Ephrata, WA), Tear Down The Dams!!? , newsletter (26 Sep. 94).
[39]Bruce Babbitt, "The Public Interest In Western Water," 23 Envtl.L. 933 42 (1993).
[40]op. cit., Babbitt, p. 936.
[41]op. cit., Babbitt, p. 939.
[42]There are many accounts that will confirm this allegation. Permit me to share this one. I was building four duplexes in Snohomish County for a client. Across the street was a ditch that was approximately one and one half blocks long. The county, without privilege of easements or condemnation, had previously installed a pipe under the road to relieve this ditch onto my client's property. During the worst rain, it would develop a puddle that was approximately 70 to 100 square feet. The neighbor across the street told all parties that he had never seen the puddle last more than a week and that was only during periods of heavy, continuous rains. There was an outflow pipe at the other end of the property that was always dry. In March 1990, the project was shut down for wetland mitigation. It was about two years before work was resumed. During the mitigation, it was admitted by the county agents on several occasions that we would be creating a wetland. In other words, there was no wetland, but the county felt that this was a perfect location for one. This account is not unique. The cost to myself was great. The impact on other contractors, businesses and jobs was severe. The cost to my client was devastating. The benefit to the environment and the county is nothing. The benefit to the attorneys was a windfall.
[43]op. cit., Babbitt, p. 940, 942.
[44]op. cit., Babbitt, p. 933.
[45]Public Trust Doctrine: "Provides that submerged and submersible lands are preserved for public use in navigation, fishing and recreation and state, as trustee for the people, bears responsibility of preserving and protecting the right of the public to the use of the waters for those purposes. . ." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., West Publishing (1990).
[46]The Constitution of the United States, art. 1, sec. 9.6 provides for unrestricted navigation, while the States' rights to their water is implied in art. 1, sec. 8.17.
[47]Equal Footing Doctrine: "This doctrine provides that, like the original states which retained title to the beds of their navigable waters, all new states are entitled to the beds of navigable waters within their boundaries. . ." op. cit., Black's Law Dictionary.
[48]Hudson County Water Co v McCarter, 209 US 349 (1908).
[49]Pennsylvania v West Virginia, 262 US 553 (1923).
[50]United States v Washington, 384 FSup. 312 (1974). The State of Washington contended that the Lummi Indian tribe was fishing in deeper waters than agreed to at the time of the signing of the treaty. Judge Boldt ignored the treaty and held that new areas were "usual and accustomed." His premise was that aboriginal Indians had, like any fisherman, moved to more productive waters. In other words, the Indians were allowed to go beyond the scope of the treaty to follow the fish. As they traveled, they carried their treaty rights to claim the fish, despite the fact that they were outside the treaty boundaries. This restricts or deprives all other fishermen of their ability to fish as long as the Indians have laid claim. This is a good example of establishing social policy through judicial precedent. Regardless of his intentions toward fairness, he upheld an action that could not stand the test of treaty nor Constitution. Whenever a judge succumbs to the temptation to enact 'fairness' in violation of law, the outcome is precedent that erodes everybody's rights, results in unfairness for one or more parties and creates disrespect for law and animosity toward those who have obtained rights unjustly.
[51]op. cit., Babbitt, p. 941.
[52]Joseph Farah, "Gorbachev Stars as Captain Planet" World magazine (29 October, 1994), pp. 18 19.; and, "Going From Red to Green," People magazine (31 October, 1994), pp. 145 146.
[53]op. cit., People magazine.
[54]op. cit., World magazine.
[55]op. cit., World magazine.