Volume 1, Number 7 -- December 30, 1996
The RIO Summit (1992) resulted in the RIO Declaration on Environment and Development, and even though the United States never formally ratified a treaty concerning this Declaration most of our laws and regulations since 1992 concerning environmental issues can be traced back to it.
Principle 3 of that Declaration said: The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet development and environmental needs of present and future generations.
The United States filed a written objection to this principle, disavowing development as a right. We in essence said development is a goal, but its attainment is secondary to human rights.
We also voiced some reservations about Principles 7, 12, and 23, and offered other comments about "Agenda 21," a volume of several hundred pages elaborating on the Principles set forth in the RIO Declaration.
In spite of this, past and present Administrations have moved ahead with measures to implement many of the provisions called for in the Declaration. Most of this has been done through bureaucratic regulation with the help of some Executive Orders. Such surreptitious actions accomplish the aims set forth by the U.N. but avoid the bright light of public scrutiny that so often accompanies legislative action.
What are some of the Principles enumerated in the RIO Declaration? Let's briefly review a few:
Sounds good, doesn't it? Notice the word shall instead of should. Sound like a mandate to you? In essence this Principle calls for a redistribution of wealth, from the wealthy nations to the poor nations. It isn't voluntary charity!
Notice that word shall again. The rest of the statement indicates that developing nations may not have to be held to the same standards as will be needed in the more industrialized nations.
We hope to have space in this issue to tell you about one couple's nightmare resulting from alleged pollution from a septic system.
We note the recurrence of the term "sustainable development" throughout the RIO Declaration. We also note the continual emphasis on "equal participation" for women not only in the RIO Declaration but in virtually all reports and writings emanating from U.N. Conferences. We are talking world-wide affirmative action!
Notice the mandate! Also notice whose rules we will be following.
Should we ratify this treaty it would open a Pandora's box of myriad problems almost impossible to foresee.
A few things it would guarantee would be the child's right to privacy, the child's right not to have to endure religious indoctrination from it's parents, and the child's right of access to any and all kinds of materials -- including, we presume, pornography.
You may have heard about it and some of the radical feminist agendas it endorsed.
There was an earlier (1979) U.N. treaty, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. President Clinton just recently asked the Senate to approve this treaty. The "Birmingham News" carried this story on page 8A of its Wednesday, December 11, 1996 edition.
In the preamble to the actual articles coming out of this Convention we see statements such as:
Were you aware that we are now living in a new international economic order?
And this was 17 years before Hillary "wrote" her book, It Takes a Village.
Remember this was 17 years ago. Have you noticed the trends in entertainment, in education, in media emphases that might tend to condition the public to accept these changes in their traditional roles? And people say there's no conspiracy.
What do some of the actual Articles in this document have to say?
In essence, affirmative action steps taken to speed up the "equalization" process will not be considered discrimination against anyone else. Of course, men or gays would be the only "else" possible. We know it won't be gays.
Again, we have seen concerted efforts on the part of the media, the entertainment industry, educational institutions and governmental pronouncements to move the public in this direction. Manipulation is the word commonly ascribed to such tactics, and you are the manipulatee.
Ask yourself why such customs and practices developed over the years. Did they serve a useful purpose? Was the society that grew up as a result better? Or is the crime-ridden, family-disrupted, aimless structure we see about us better?
Still wonder where the recent laws concerning such matters originated? We bet you thought they originated in the U. S. Congress. Guess again.
Clinton could have used his time on better things than to push for ratification of this treaty, we're already implementing it.
But that is how it is with these U.N. Conferences. There are in this country, within and without government, those whose ultimate goal is to invalidate our Constitution and lead us into the New World Order in the same way the Pied Piper of Hamlin led the children out. As long as the music keeps playing its haunting melody, we follow along without seeing the quicksand that's already waist deep.
WHERE DO THE PEOPLE TURN WHEN JUSTICE GOES AWRY?
Kent and Glenda Duell owned a low rent, six unit apartment complex in the Adirondack Mountains of New York. The complex was served by a septic system, since there was no municipal sewer system available. Of course, septic systems have been serving our nation since long before there were sewerage treatment facilities.
Three times charges were brought against the Duells, that they had allowed their system to drain polluted water into state waters. The first two efforts to bring them to trial failed because Grand Juries failed to indict. But the N.Y. Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC) was persistent. On the third try they got an indictment.
The fact that Linda Duell's father, who is Town Supervisor of Warrensburg, has been locked in battle with the DEC for several years in efforts to force them to reopen roads and trails in so-called "wilderness" areas may not have had any bearing on the case, but it sure raises suspicions as to motivation.
The case was prosecuted by the Essex County District Attorney, Ronald Briggs. The trial judge was David Jung, who was brought in from another county. Why did the prosecution feel the need to import a judge from outside the county?
There appear to be numerous irregularities surrounding the case:
We do not know all the facts in this case. We do not know just what evidence the judge allowed and what he disallowed. The information we do have came from the December 1996 issue of Land Rights Letter by Dale French, Vice-President of Adirondack Citizen Aid Fund, and from some additional Mike Reagan Information Interchange Editorial Notes.
The jury found the Duells guilty on all charges.
Appeals are expected. In the meantime the Duells have lost their property (The apartment building was acquired by the state for $1.00.) and are facing fines totaling $340,000.00 and up to 100 years in prison. All because of a malfunctioning septic system.
The judge set bail at $100,000.00. Sentencing is set for January 6, 1997.
How does this stack up with other felony cases in the area? An area newspaper reported that a local woman was sentenced to three years probation for being negligent in the death of her infant son.
We would be inclined to gloss over this incident if we were not aware of many other such incidents where environmental laws have been used to deprive other American citizens of their property rights and their property.
When Congress passes a law (such as the Clean Waters Act) and then leaves it up to the bureaucrats to draft regulations to implement those laws they are abdicating their responsibilities and allowing the Executive Branch of government to legislate.
As of now we do not know the final outcome of this incident in the lives of one American couple. Even if they are acquitted on appeal, their property is gone and they have been put through an horrendous ordeal. We believe our judicial system has, in many instances, become a tyrannical system used to force Americans into conforming to a social order they could hardly have imagined thirty or forty years ago. And we believe those who are pushing for the one-world government called the New World Order are instrumental in these tyrannies.
"In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed. . . . No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. . . . When I speak of the Christian religion as the basis of government, I do not mean an ecclesiastical establishment, a creed, or rites, forms, and ceremonies, or any compulsion of conscience. I mean primitive Christianity in its simplicity, as taught by Christ and His apostles, consisting in a belief in the being, perfections, and moral government of God; in the revelation of His will to men, as their supreme rule of action; in man's accountability to God for his conduct in this life; and in the indispensable obligation of all men to yield entire obedience to God's commands in the moral law and in the Gospel. This belief and this practice may consist with different forms of church government, which, not being essential to Christianity, need not enter into any system of education."
Noah Webster