Volume 3, Number 1 -- January 30, 1998

THE AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVER INITIATIVE

President Clinton, in his State of the Union Address, February 4, 1997, emphasized his goals for America's school children and much was said about that in the media. He also commented about a program called American Heritage Rivers and promised to name ten of America's rivers as Heritage Rivers in 1997. Most Americans have heard little if anything about this Heritage Rivers Initiative

At first glance, the initiative seems to be a real plus for those areas. It promises to clean up polluted rivers, to help finance development along the rivers that will bring increased revenue to the river comminutes There are a number of places that have nominated rivers for inclusion in the program.

As with much that comes out of this Administration, it is necessary to read between the lines to determine the real intent of the action When one takes an in-depth look at this "great boon to the river communities of America," what one finds is more subterfuge -- a federal government land grab wrapped like a gift for the people As one delves into the vague language of the initiative it becomes obvious that the major focus is on preserving and protecting the natural environment, not on the welfare and prosperity of the people living along the rivers.

It is not even necessary for the people or the local governments that will be impacted to enter into the nominating process Special interest groups, such as the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy or specially created NGOs (non governmental organizations) can develop the required "plans" and submit nominations for consideration Once a river (or portion thereof) has been placed in the program, withdrawal from the program would be up to those "organizations," "groups," etc. that were instrumental in placing it in the program, not the actual communities that may be the most affected

A river "Navigator," a federally appointed individual, would be the lead authority in developing and enforcing regulatory measures aimed at achieving the "sustainable" goals for the designated "American Heritage River." No longer would the state be in control of its rivers and streams, no longer would individual property owners be free to develop land they might own along the raver The overreaching authority of the federal government would be controlling, along with any international treaties that might come into play regarding our conservation of resources and the biodiversity of a region.

The current occupant of the White House has revealed on numerous occasions his affinity for the United Nations and its policies His President's Council on Sustainable Development has issued numerous reports and recommendations that parrot the language of the UN's Agenda 21, and he has issued presidential instructions to various Agencies that they are to draft regulations consistent with the goals of Agenda 21. Also, his push for Goals 2000 and other educational "reforms" like "school to work" could have been taken right off the pages of UN proposals for national educational initiatives.

Hillary's It Takes A Village is right in-line with the UN's policy as stated in its Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Our Vice President has made his position quite clear in his book Earth in the Balance, which is an open expression of earth worship.

Idaho and Texas have already had their legislators submit letters of withdrawal to remove their states from any participation in the Heritage Rivers initiative, and Representative Helen Chenowith (R Idaho) has drafted a bill, H.R. 1842, which would terminate the Heritage Rivers initiative by de-funding it. This bill already has 46 co-sponsors in the House, and we encourage you to request your Representative to sign on as a co-sponsor.

Media discussions of the Heritage Rivers initiative will portray only the up-side of the program The hidden reefs just below the surface will not be revealed You will hear about all the advantages to be gained by participating in this unique opportunity It will only be after the fact that you will learn of the restrictive regulations that will be necessary to protect and preserve the raver Entire watersheds will become subject to federal regulators whose main task will be to ensure the sustainability of the bioregion.

What is a watershed? One individual has described it as anywhere a drop of rain falls that could eventually make its way into the raver Whether that drop of rain flows into the river via a smaller stream or makes its way via the underground water table doesn't matter Your use of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, etc. could be subject to strict control if the river "Navigator" determined they might be detrimental to the river's health, even though your property may be miles from the river.

Let us quote from an article by Dr. Michael Coffman that appeared in the January 5, 1998, issue of The New American magazine:

"Citizens in Indiana stopped the efforts of the Indiana Wabash Heritage Corridor Commission and the Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources to nominate the Wabash River as an American Heritage River by showing the dangers of the initiative to the 19 counties abutting the Wabash. Sixteen of the 19 counties officially protested the nomination, and 10 of the 16 actually withdrew from the Rivers initiative in advance of its possible future designation The language of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is so ambiguous that it could require that the entire Wabash watershed be subject to federal mandates even though only the Wabash itself was nominated."

If, as the attempt at portrayal has been, the Rivers initiative is to affect only small sections of rivers and a few communities, why has the U.S. Geological Survey divided the contiguous United States into 18 watershed basins or regions that include every square inch of land within its borders You see, every lot, every farm, every plantation, every city street lies in a watershed of some raver Control of what is allowed to flow into those rivers is control of the land use within the watersheds Where is the proper place for that control to be exercised, in the states and communities involved or in Washington?

We think it appropriate to repeat a statement from the UN Vancouver Conference of 1976:

"Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, 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. Social justice, urban renewal and development, 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."

This is what we see as the mind-set behind the American Heritage Rivers Initiative The real goal is control, for the federal government to expand its area of control over the lives and property of American citizens Just as the early attempt of this Administration to impose mandatory Health Care, which was defeated but which is being implemented in incremental steps, was an attempt to enlarge the federal government and expand its control over the citizenry.

We must come to grips with the fact that our government is under the control of a globalist elite, who believe they know what is best for all living creatures, including you and me. Because they are the elite, they are not subject to the same set of rules that apply to the rest of us, but for the good of society as a whole we must conform to their idea of what good "world citizens" should be.

And we are being attacked on many fronts simultaneously The Rivers initiative is one. The Climate Change Treaty is another The Local Agenda 21 Visioning sessions is another The push for "sustainable cities" and "sustainable communities" is all a part of the same scheme Upon examination all of these initiatives and efforts call for the individual to surrender more-and-more control to some outside agency, whether it be the federal government or some regional bureaucracy that is non-elected and therefore unaccountable to the citizenry.

It becomes contingent on every citizen to carefully scrutinize the actions of government and of so-called citizens groups to ensure that those actions are what they are purported to be, and to resist and expose those schemes that would rob us of our freedoms The price of Liberty IS eternal vigilance!

PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

The American Heritage Rivers Initiative is another example of the use of public/private partnerships to change the form of government in our nation. The "visioning" sessions being conducted across America (Region 2020 is an example) is another. We would like to quote a passage from Joan Veon's book Prince Charles, the sustainable Prince in which she explains how public/private partnerships work:

Interestingly enough, it was in the early 1970s that the United Nations adopted the environment as its "mantra." Think about the implications. All of us share the environment; it is a common denominator no matter where you live in the world. The only way to change the laws of every country and to take control is to make the environment the focal point. Today, it is the goal of the United Nations to pass laws on the global level that will then be ratified by all of the member states. These laws will impact all of society in every country, and eventually the world will be ruled by "global governance," which is only possible through public-private partnerships. The key to governance in the 21st Century is the partnership between business, the private sector, and government.

What is "public-private partnership"? Public-private partnership is just what it says it is. First, it is a business arrangement, sealed by an agreement or, in some cases, a handshake. The terms of the partnership will vary according to partners and objectives. Second, the partners in the partnership are public and private entities. Public entities refer to government--local, county, state, federal or global agencies. Private refers to non-governmental groups such as foundations, non-profit groups, corporations, and individuals. For example, foundations could include the Ford, Rockefeller, or the local "good-works" foundation; non-profits could refer to non-governmental organizations like the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum, The Nature Conservancy, The Sierra Club, World Wildlife Federation, Planned Parenthood, or NOW; and corporations could be any corporation from a small one, to a multinational like Exxon, Johnson Wax, 3M, Black and Decker, of Giant Foods. Lastly, individuals could be John Jones, a businessman, rancher, or dentist.

A public-private partnership will always have as its goal a business making venture which requires some form of "governance." The question is, since the players will vary in experience and wealth, who has the most power? We know from life itself that whoever has the most money has the power. For example, when a public-private partnership is comprised of government entities such as The County Department of Environmental Initiatives, the State Department of Environmental Resources; a number of private entities like a land trust (foundation) and the Nature Conservancy (non-profit); along with a corporation such as Black and Decker, the players with the most money control the partnership. In this case, it would be the Nature Conservancy, with assets over $1 billion and Black and Decker, with a capitalization of $1.6 billion. Representative government loses.

Public-private partnerships were "unveiled" in June 1996 at the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, Habitat II, held in Istanbul. In an interview I conducted with Dr. Wally NíDow, secretary-general of the Habitat II conference, he said, "We have got to a point where we cannot not partner with the private sector, as governments, as the civil society, as NGOs, but also as people active in international development such as the U.N. That is what Istanbul tried to convey."

In a follow-up interview with Dr. Noel Brown, former director of the United Nations Environment Programme and current special advisor to the Group of 77, he said of public-private partnerships:

While my concept may appear to be new, public-private partnerships have been used for the last twenty years in America as a method of providing financing to low-income families. HUD and its Office of Community Planning and Development has used public-private partnerships to create affordable housing since 1990. In addition, Maryland, Oregon, and Minnesota have implemented state-level public-private partnerships. It should be noted that as public-private partnerships continue to rise in the United States, our Constitution is being eroded.

As we have pointed out before, once a partnership agreement has been signed it becomes binding for the duration established within the contract. The terms of that agreement are then binding upon the parties even though the individuals making up those parties may change. Voting in new representatives will not serve to sever the partnership nor to change the direction it may be taking the community or the country.

Such agreements signed between nations are called treaties. We might even go so far as to call the public-private partnerships mini-treaties.

What the globalists could not accomplish through our national Congress, they are accomplishing through these public-private partnerships.

Go to next newsletter