Since you finally caught on that YOU need to do your part as an able bodied American here are your choices.
Posted on 04/11/2002 10:05:23 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
A Texas lawmaker has drafted a bill that would ban the United States from participating in the newly formed International Criminal Court.
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is set to introduce "The American Servicemember and Citizen Protection Act of 2002," which he said "repudiates ICC jurisdiction over American citizens." The bill essentially provides that "the International Criminal Court is not valid with respect to the United States," said a draft copy obtained by WorldNetDaily.
Paul said his bill seeks to protect "American citizens against the ICC by urging President Bush to rescind the foolish Clinton administration signature of the ICC treaty." It would also ban "the use of U.S. taxpayer funds for the court, and deems ICC actions against U.S. servicemen acts of aggression against America," said a statement issued by Paul's office.
"The ICC is completely illegitimate, even under the U.N.’s own charter," Paul said.
"We characterize this legislation as a counteroffensive at this point," Jeff Deist, a spokesman for Paul, told WorldNetDaily. "Congressman Paul has many findings in the bill that lays out the case against the legitimacy and authority of the (ICC)."
Among them, said the Texas lawmaker, is the fact that the world body's "charter gives neither the U.N. General Assembly nor any other U.N. agency lawmaking authority."
"In other words," he continued, "there cannot be U.N. 'laws,' and there is no valid law authorizing the establishment of the ICC. The ratification of the ICC treaty, whether by 60 nations or 1,000, does nothing to give the court any legal authority whatsoever."
The bill notes that that under the terms of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, "no nation may be bound by a treaty to which that nation has not consented."
"Therefore the United States, which has not consented" to the ICC "cannot be bound" by its terms, the bill says.
It notes that the ICC is "wholly unauthorized by the Charter of the United Nations." And, it says the ICC statute "also contravenes the principle of government only by the consent of the governed," which is "enshrined in the American national charter, the Declaration of Independence."
The ICC's authority, the bill notes, circumvents U.S. constitutional "principles of separation of powers, federalism and trial by jury that are guaranteed" to Americans.
The ICC "by design and effect, is an illegitimate court," the bill states.
Paul thinks the world court could be used as a tool against the global interests of the U.S.
"The ICC, like the U.N. itself, will be used for political purposes," he said. "Far from being neutral, the court will serve as a weapon against disfavored nations and leaders. Given the anti-American sentiment that pervades the U.N., we can only assume that the court will be used one day to prosecute Americans who offend our many enemies among U.N. member states."
As WND reported, the world court was officially instituted yesterday at the U.N.'s New York City headquarters. According to its charter, the ICC is a permanent tribunal established ostensibly to prosecute "crimes against humanity." Clinton signed the treaty on his last day in office, Jan. 20, 2001, but it has never been ratified by the Senate. But as late as Monday there were reports that President Bush had sought means to retract the signature of the former president.
Deist confirmed that Bush has talked of finding a way to withdraw Clinton's signature, but he said talk in Washington is sometimes cheap.
"The ICC cannot exercise legitimate jurisdiction over American citizens," Paul said. "Furthermore, the Senate cannot constitutionally ratify any treaty that attempts to surrender the judicial function to an international agency. Our Constitution guarantees every American citizen various rights before, during and after a criminal arrest and trial, and no valid treaty can deny our citizens those rights."
Deist told WND that the bill is similar to legislation introduced in the House and Senate last summer, but that the Texas lawmaker's bill "is more zesty."
He also said the measure had garnered at least 15 co-sponsors by midday yesterday but it is so new that it has yet to be assigned a number.
West humiliated Macedonia by escorting armed guerrillas back to base. Whatever the sources of the conflict and however ill-advised the Macedonian security forces' response to it since 21st June, by escorting armed guerrillas to safety from their Aracinovo base, US-Kfor troops humiliated Macedonia and spurred the bitter resentment among ethnic Macedonians against what they see as the abuse of their small and fragile country by the great powers of the West who use it as a logistical base and rest-and-recreation area with scant regardfor its majority population.
Does that mean if I join up I will have to help Islamic rebels of the Jihad? This from the Conservative Truth in Media NATO Backing Albanian Terrorists in Macedonia
I won't join the military until all those politicians and senior officers that aided the Balkan Jihad are tried for treason.
If you wore the uniform back in July/August of last year and you were told to escort those terrorists to safety what would you have done? I ask this because of you years experiance with military matters.
United States House of Representatives,
on H. R. 901
AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT
by
Wyoming Representative, Charles P. "Pat" Childers,
House District 50
Introduction
This testimony is offered to support passage of H.R. 901. My input is a first-hand account of how a Heritage Site (Yellowstone National Park) was and is being used to sabotage public law (National Environmental Policy Act - NEPA) and circumvent an ongoing legal public process (the development of an Environmental Impact Statement (E IS) that was being scrupulously followed to determine the suitability of the proposed New World Mine located outside of Yellowstone National Park (Park). Additionally, the public information presented to establish the forums for evaluating the reclassification of the Park to a "Heritage Site in Danger" was a classic example of minimizing the involvement of interested parties (ie., The State of Wyoming) in the process. As fine and strong a public law as NEPA is, it was no match for the political leverage that a World Heritage Site carries. My testimony is a clear and documented example of abuse of power. This abuse came from some within the Clinton administration, utilizing our Departments of Agriculture and Interior including the Park Service, and environmental organizations as well as an abuse of prestige and public trust by UNESCO's - World Heritage Committee. All of these groups were drawing on Yellowstone's designation as the United States' first National Park and a World Heritage Site. The members of this committee should make every effort to prevent this from happening again in this nation.
Background
1970: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Nixon. NEPA - a structured environmental assessment process which mandated agencies (1) to document if any proposed action on federal lands produces a significant impact or not on those lands and (2) to develop mitigation proposals to minimize or prevent any significant impacts on public lands if the action is approved to go forward. NEPA emphasizes the evaluation is to be a public process. Other acts such as the Wilderness Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act are but some of the federal regulations that should have been considered in any heritage site consideration on these public lands.
1978: Yellowstone was designated a World Heritage Site about six years after the United States signed the World Heritage Convention of the United Nation's Environmental, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
1989: Data collection began for the proposed underground gold/copper mine to be located outside of the Park on Fisher Creek north of Cooke City, Montana. It would have been situated on a watershed flowing away from, not into the Park. The project proposal was to improve the water quality of a dead stream (Fisher Creek) that currently flows into a Class I trout stream (Clark's Fork River) approximately 6 miles from the mine site. It is significant that the Clark's Fork River is the only Wyoming river with a federal Wild and Scenic designation.
1990: The attempt to establish the "Vision" document was defeated. This document, coordinated by the Park Service and Forest Service and as well as environmental organizations in the area, proposed a buffer zone around the Park similar to the zone proposed in the Heritage issue. The "Vision" document was also established without having gone through the scrutiny of the public process as required by law. While they had public hearings as did UNESCO, the hearings had very little meaning in the process.
1993: The EIS process for the New World Mine proposed project began as required by NEPA.
February 28, 1995: Fourteen environmental groups, opponents of the mine, sent a letter to the Chairman of the U.N. sponsored World Heritage Committee, Dr. Adul Wichiencharoen, requesting that the Committee initiate an investigation to determine if the Park should be included on the "List of World Heritage Sites In Danger." This letter stated, as the reason for the request, the "serious threats presented to the park and its larger ecosystem by the proposed "New World" gold mine and other activities." It is important to note that those other activities were not widely publicized in any public notices for the hearing by the Heritage Committee. In the interests of brevity, I will tell you that Chairman von Droste responded in part that "...if proposed developments will damage the integrity of Yellowstone National Park, the State Party (United States) has a responsibility to act beyond the National Park boundary." Creation of a "buffer zone" is part of the treaty language and is predicated on listing a site as in danger.
June 27, 1995: Enter our own Assistant Secretary of the U. S. Department of Interior, George Frampton, by way of a letter from him to Chairman von Droste. In his letter he stated that "...we believe that a potential danger to the values of the Park and surrounding waters and fisheries exist and that the Committee should be informed that the property inscribed on the World Heritage List is in danger" (emphasis added). So, here we have our own Department of Interior arriving at its own environmental conclusion before compliance with NEPA had been met. This letter clearly sent a message of the desired determination.
August 1995: Enter President Clinton, coincidentally vacationing in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Mr. Clinton held a surprise press conference organized by the National Park Service to announce withdrawal of about 4,600 acres of lands adjacent to the land held by the New World Project from mineral entry. This area was subsequently increased to 33,000 acres.
September 8-11, 1995: World Heritage delegation arrives at Yellowstone Park for the inspection and hearings, the stage having already been set by the Department of Interior and President Clinton. I managed to speak at this public forum and encourage you to question me about this.
December 5, 1995: Berlin, Germany. The World Heritage Committee declares that Yellowstone National Park is a World Heritage site in danger. Secretary Frampton's letter was sited during these deliberations and is recorded in the minutes. Prior to this, on September 13, 1995, the U. N. delegation is quoted as stating "the World Heritage Committee will not decide on Yellowstone's status until the EIS is released."
August 1996: Announcement of a buy-out of the New World Mine by our government.
Conclusion
My position as a Wyoming State Representative speaks of my respect for public law and public process. Please remember, Heritage sites have significant negative collateral fallout to the areas around them. They create an unstable economic climate discouraging free enterprise, and subject the surrounding areas to an inappropriate and unfair sphere of influence. Heritage sites de-stabilize far more than they seek to protect. I encourage you, above all else, that what needs to be protected are not more heritage sites, but our own Congressionally-passed public laws. This is what H.R. 901 will help achieve.
Thank you,
Representative Pat Childers
TESTIMONY
ALASKA STATE REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES HOUSE COMMITTEE
ON RESOURCES
REGARDING HR 901
AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT
JUNE 10, 1997
Mr. Chairman and members of the House Committee on Resources, I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify on the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. For the record, my name is Jeannette James of North Pole, Alaska, and I am a member of the Alaska State House of Representatives. I am testifying on behalf of the Alaska State House Leadership.
The issue before us today is extremely important to my state, and, since my time is limited, I am requesting that my entire written testimony be entered into the hearing record of the Committee.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Resources Committee, we believe it is imperative that Congress asserts its authority under our U.S. Constitution. I believe you will conclude from the testimony and material presented here that without congressional oversight on land designations in our country and state there are grave risks to state sovereignty and our private property rights protected under our Constitution. Moreover, considerable confusion is mounting about the intent and vision of these international agreements.
From the perspective of Alaskans, there are valid reasons to be concerned. We become increasingly concerned that continued federal withdrawals and classifications, coupled with over-lapping international zoning impacts, could stifle any reasonable economic opportunities available to our fledgling state. If the absurd concept of extended buffer zones were even minimally applied in Alaska, major social and economic impacts would occur.
From the standpoint of a State that still has the semblance of third-world living conditions in some of its rural areas, it is incomprehensible to imagine how we can provide economic opportunities for these citizens with the continued meddling and intolerant attitudes of some people in the international environmental community. We question if Congress had that intent when it ratified these Treaties. Sometimes good intentions reap unintended consequences, which may be the case here.
To allow these Conventions to evolve unchecked, which seems to be what we are witnessing now, is an abrogation of Congress' responsibilities. In the opinion of the Alaska State Legislature, and the Alaskan people, it is time that Congress begins to assert its intended role to protect the rights of our citizens, and the states, and our national sovereignty. Alaskans are very concerned about any action that could impact management or use of the lands in our state. Some statistics should help this committee and the news media to understand our concerns.
If you would allow me to boast for a moment, Alaska covers 365 million acres! That is about 500,000 square miles: a million acres for every day of the year. Of this 365 million acres, about 165 million acres are already Congressionally designated parks, preserves, refuges, wilderness areas, wild & scenic rivers, etc. Because of its size and limited population, it seems that some administrations find it very easy to designate our lands. Ninety-two million acres of monuments alone were designated during the Carter administration with one stroke of the pen.
If 165 million acres seems too hard to visualize, the sanctuaries in Alaska would cover nearly the whole state of Texas. That equals the combined total areas of the states of New York + New Jersey + Pennsylvania + West Virginia + Ohio + Indiana + Illinois! These lands are already off-limits and closed to development. Moreover, less than 1% of Alaska's land is in private hands. Perhaps this will help you understand why we feel this urgency to protect our state sovereignty.
From Alaska's prospective, the World Heritage Convention, the Biodiversity Convention, and the United Nations Biosphere Reserve Program, if their objectives are interpreted in the most literal sense, have the potential to intervene in virtually every aspect of our lives. Existing World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves in Alaska total over 40 million acres. If buffer zones and transitional zones are established for these sites and reserves at approximately the same ratio as proposed for Yellowstone National Park, Alaska could well expect an additional 120 million acres to be directly impacted by international planning and zoning schemes. In fact, the impact on the limited private lands and our struggling local economies in Alaska could be devastating.
The Arctic/Bering Sea Region is a major focus for education, research, and preservation. Some areas in Northwestern Alaska have been threatened with international designations for many years. Since 1991, aggressive efforts have been ongoing to establish a Beringian Heritage International Park in the Northern Region of Alaska. The park would cover existing set-aside areas in the Bering Straits region and a "yet to be established" set-aside area on the Russian side of the Bering Straits. The efforts have been put in remission by public opinion, particularly from the local inhabitants and the Sitnasuak Native Corporation. Native groups in this area of Alaska have been fighting reasonably and hard for their own freedoms and the United States commitments under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
This proposed international park was touted with warm and fuzzy opportunities to establish a relationship with our Russian neighbors on the West. Specific language in the proposed draft, under Section 2, Findings (4), ".....would enhance the conservation, management, and understanding of shared resources, and would serve as a dramatic symbol of our Nations' commitment to environmental protection and the preservation of the shared natural and cultural heritage of the region." This sounds so good...but it does not work well!
Mr. Chairman and committee members, Alaska is not a throwaway region. Real people live there who need and use these areas for their existence. Their families have lived there for thousands of years. The voices of these people are important!
All the while, the international park idea, which would precipitate a Biosphere Reserve, remains alive and well. There are strong indications a Marine Biosphere Reserve, that would include all of the waters from the Arctic Ocean to the Aleutian Chain, is being considered. Currently, there are no rules for a Biosphere Reserve that includes a body of water. It seems that the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) make rules and regulations as they go along. Again, the residents of this area depend on the sea for sustenance, and making it a Biosphere Reserve designation could leave these people destitute. Mr. Chairman and committee members, we need your help. We cannot allow these decisions to be made about our lands, people, and our resources, without the public process provided by congressional action. HR901 is imperative!
It is particularly disturbing that the process for listing World Heritage Sites is so intolerant of public input. The procedures for listing of cultural and natural properties are listed in Paragraph 17 of the UNESCO Operational Guidelines for implementing the World Heritage Convention. In relationship to the nomination of a site for listing, Paragraph 14 of the guidelines states that areas are to be nominated without, "undue publicity" and with the participation of local people, only, and I stress only, so far, as they don't "prejudice future decision-making by the Committee."
To give another example, to the north of Seward Peninsula is a world class zinc mine, known as Red-Dog Mine. To extract the ore and get it to market, road access was needed. Getting permission to build the road took congressional action since it had to traverse the Cape Krusenstern National Monument. If the Cape Krusenstern National Monument had been established as a World Heritage Site or Biosphere Reserve, that road would not exist today. Consequently, there would be no Red-Dog Mine in operation.
A 1995 report indicates Cominco Alaska Exploration Inc, milled 2,285,900 tons of zinc-lead-silver ore at the Red Dog Mine and shipped 645,100 tons of zinc concentrate, 101,300 tons of lead concentrate, and 7,200 tons of bulk concentrate from the port of Kivalina, north of Kotzebue, to overseas and Canadian smelters. In 1995, Red-Dog Mine became the world's largest zinc mine, producing about 8 percent of the world's mine-produced zinc. Approximately 79% of the 397 employees on the payroll are Alaska residents. Fifty percent of the Red-Dog employees are shareholders of NANA Corporation (a regional Native Corporation), which owns the ore-deposit. This is not small change for Alaska and the US.
Even further North are the Arctic Coal Fields. The North Slope, including the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska (NPRA) and bordering areas to the east and west of it, holds as much as 4 trillion tons of Coal. Approximately 60 percent of North Slope coal is estimated to be of bituminous rank. In order to get equipment in and products out for market, Alaska must establish a surface route to an all weather port, preferably by rail. This access will require permission to pass over federal lands. To establish any land connections between communities, ports and resources, there are federal lands to pass through. Looking at a map of Alaska, I can be easily convinced to believe that these designated restricted areas were purposely situated to deny or prevent any surface access system from ever being established.
Meanwhile, all the needs of industry and the citizens of that area are cost accelerated, due to limited access by air and water. All Terrain Vehicle trails, winter trails, and routes over frozen rivers, are also threatened, due to the resistance of the Federal Government to recognize RS2477 type access routes. Alaska cannot afford any more warm and fuzzy attention.
The driving factors for these excessive set-asides, commonly known as international environmental advocates, include the National Audubon Society. They do good work in their field and I applaud them; however, their zealous participation in the issue of the Beringian Heritage International Park and Beringian World Heritage Site is distressing.
In a letter dated October 15, 1994, to the Secretary of Interior, Bruce Babbitt, the President and CEO of The National Audubon Society stated, "Here in the US, we feel President Clinton has a wonderful opportunity to establish our component of the Beringian Heritage International Park by executive order. The park units are already in place at the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, Kobuk Valley National Monument, Noatak National Preserve, and Cape Krusenstern National Monument. The executive order would simply overlay an international park designation on these existing units and direct the National Park Service to manage them in close cooperation with their Russian counterparts and indigenous people of the region. Part of the process will involve establishing a joint US-Russian body to play a role in administering the park and protecting the natural and cultural resources in the Beringia ecosystem. We would like to offer you our suggested language for such an executive order in the near future." I believe this is excessive meddling.
Meanwhile, in Alaska, we are already establishing a good working relationship and neighbor to neighbor policy with the Russian Far East. We have had extensive legislative exchanges. The Russians have visited Alaska and are attending the University of Alaska. Both Alaska and Russia are enjoying an exchange of business and ideas. They are part of our Rotary District: we have helped them start Rotary Clubs there. We have daily flights across the border, and although the Russians are struggling to catch up to the market economy and democratic system, they are working desperately and diligently to do so. The Russians are our friends and relatives. It takes time to establish good relationships. Neither side needs the overwhelming interference of those people who would support these land designations without consideration of the voice and effect on local people.
According to the Russian Far East News 3-97, "The environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, and Pacific Environment and Resources Center have called on the US Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) to reject providing financing for the Aginskoye gold mining project on Kamchatka. They are concerned about possible pollution of the "Volcanoes of Kamchatka World Heritage Site", a site designated recently by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization."
These environmental organizations use the standard hype and rhetoric to create fear and attempt to disarm the Native Peoples with talk of culture, lifestyles, salmon spawning, etc. The groups are not concerned about jobs, food, health care, warm clothes and warm homes. One of the Russians states, "....the attitude of the pro-environmentalists shows criminal disrespect for human life in this part of Russia: our children have to starve and freeze just because well-off Americans think that they may not have enough salmon left for them....the environmentalists resort to falsification of facts and distortion of information."
Our Alaska Native population in the Bering Straits region is not gullible, and they call a spade a spade. To quote from a resolution prepared, in 1991, when draft legislation was filed to establish this international park and designation, "..... Alaska Native people are fed up with outside agencies and conservation groups, who purport to have our best interests in mind, hoist their own agendas and regulations on our way of life..."
Mr. Chairman and committee members, I am not here today to discredit these environmental groups, or to insinuate that their concerns about the environment are not valid. I want to be sure we have clean air, clean water and clean lands that will provide safe and healthy living conditions for the future. What I am here to say is that there are two sides to this story and we can never achieve balance and fairness unless the social and economic interests are addressed. The issues are best addressed through the public process provided by legislative action, not executive orders, and secret committee decisions. Any decisions to share our resources, or decisions about our resources needs to be thoroughly evaluated, not only by the intended outcomes but by the unintended consequences, which become evident when all things are considered. We definitely need HR901 to help restore order and reason to these issues.
In the Washington Post, Saturday, June 24, 1995, an article entitled, MARINE PROTECTION SITES PROPOSED, World Bank, Conservation Groups Offer Ambitious Preservation Plan, by Tom Kenworthy, states, in part, ".....International conservation organizations and the World bank yesterday proposed an ambitious global effort to preserve marine biological diversity...the study picked 155 areas based on genetic diversity, breeding and migration, biological productivity, and on their importance as a habitat for species in danger of extinction. Two U.S. areas, both in Alaska, were selected for the final list: The Bering Strait and Kachemak Bay. Nearly two years after this announcement, the May, 1997, newsletter I received from the Alaska Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, included an announcement that Kachemak Bay was nominated to be included in the National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) System. The NERR system is a national system of protected sites to promote long-term research and education. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) accepted the site nomination in mid-May. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) is now in the process of drafting an environmental impact statement and a reserve management plan. ADF&G will update information on the site designation process on the Web Site. Although the nomination of the Kachemak Bay area was obviously initiated by conservation groups, this is a good example of the public process at work, using our existing national organizations. We don't need Biosphere Reserves, Marine Biosphere Reserves managed by a UNESCO committee to implement responsible protection of these important areas.
Reading the Yellowstone Affair: Environmental Protection, International Treaties and National Sovereignty, by Jeremy Rabkin, May, 1997, will inform the reader of the pitfalls of establishing international recognition of areas as World Heritage Sites. The areas identified as World Heritage Sites are maintained on a roster, developed by an international authority called the World Heritage Committee. This committee operates in association with UNESCO.
The controversy regarding Yellowstone resulted from a proposal by Crown Butte Mines, Inc., to develop the New World Mine. This area was three miles from the boundary of the Yellowstone Park. Crown Butte proceeded to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) feeling fully confident the operations would be environmentally sound, and invested several million dollars into the research. Over the years, the EIS has been a good method to use to sort out operations that may be an environmental threat. With an EIS process, the public input is guaranteed.
Meanwhile, the World Heritage Committee was impatient, and not comfortable to wait for the EIS and was successful in arranging for Yellowstone to be listed on the Endangered Heritage List. With the ensuing international attention, Crown Butte saw the handwriting on the wall and, although the deal has not yet been finalized, they have abandoned their effort and accepted an offer by the United States to trade these properties for another site yet to be determined. It should be noted here that when mining for gold, it must be mined where the ore is. It seems that Crown Butte gave up known reserves for a "pig in the poke."
Mr. Chairman, I recently sponsored House Joint Resolution 14 in support of HR901. HJR 14 passed by both Houses of the Alaska State Legislature. The leadership of the Twentieth Alaska State Legislature has strongly endorsed the principles embodied in HR901 and encourages Congress to take immediate action to address the present threats to private property rights and state sovereignty. HJR 14 is attached for your information.
During the testimony in House State Affairs on HJR14, a gentleman from the National Park Service tried to placate the legislators and supportive citizens by maintaining that the designation of World Heritage Sites have no real impact on the management of an area. However, when asked specifically about the Yellowstone experience, he admitted that giving notice to the international community of any controversial activities nearby, certainly would have a different effect on the outcomes, than if only local people were involved in the public process. In the case of Yellowstone, the local people were deprived of needed jobs, and even if Crown Butte Mines does exchange this property for another, there is no way of knowing who will be getting those jobs. The most interested stakeholders in that case would have been the prospective employees and other providers of services and supplies. So...many would say, all that a World Heritage Site designation means is to have a sign on the property and inclusion in a world wide list. Jeremy Rabkin says, "Most international environmental agreements are examples of... hortatory conventions without clear standards or real bite. It is easy to dismiss such agreements as mere diplomatic ceremony, yet whatever else they do, such agreements may reinforce a mode of thinking that slights national sovereignty and discourages sound approaches to environmental protection." Certainly that was the result regarding Yellowstone and that image serves all Alaskan to be weary of this designation in their back yard.
Glacier Bay National Park is another great concern to Alaskans, currently. I understand that not only is it a National Park, it is a wilderness area, a World Heritage Site, and a Biosphere Reserve. For hundreds of years, the people in the area have done commercial fishing in those waters. It is their livelihood. In addition, crabbing is done there. The National Park Service is struggling to stop these activities and there is tremendous objection from the local people. I am not sure what it might take to get these fishers some relief.
In summary, there are important facts to consider from my testimony. Remember Alaska is a young state. It is not yet 40 years old. We are very environmentally concerned, and careful to protect our environment, land, water and air, as well as our wildlife. We enjoy one hundred days of tourist activities, although one hundred days of work cannot support a family for one year. We suffer high unemployment and low wages. We have huge reserves of developable resources, but we lack sufficient access to implement otherwise profitable operations.
Alaskans are independent and hard working; they are intelligent and talented. Our society is a potpourri of nationalities, religions, races, and ethnic cultures, and we support one another. Native Alaskans and native born Alaskans are a small part of our population, as most of us have migrated here from other places. Alaskans are a diverse group, but we have one very important thing in common - we love Alaska. Alaska is like a mother, she teaches us how to live. She treats us well, and we treat her well. In addition, we know what is best for our land.
Thank you for this time --- If you have questions, I will be happy to answer them. Also, there is other backup material for the record.
Witness Testimony
My name is Jack Jordan and I am from the Town of Lexington, New York. Six years ago my wife Kathy, our four children and I moved to this area. Kathy's grandfather had brought what is now our home approximately 57 years ago as a summer home for his family. What we did not know before moving here was how much New York City, New York State, the National Park Service, and the United Nations also wanted to move here.
Our involvement in the Property Rights Movement began late January 1995, when we read a small article in The Catskill Daily Mail. It was about a meeting that was to be held in the Town of Cairo dealing with the Greene County Planning Board, the Environmental Management Council, and the Catskill Center. The purpose of this meeting was for the Catskill Center to bring a presentation on something called the Heritage Trail and was to be given by Deborah DeWan. This would not normally have caught my eye had it not been for the sentence stating:
"The Catskill Center received a National Park Service grant last year to launch the project..." The Daily Mail, County Planning Board, EMC Hear Presentation On Heritage Trail Jan. 31."
We became concerned since we had heard some stories of what the NPS had done to personal property rights in other areas.The Daily Mail, Jan 31, 1995 We decided to find out as much as we could before the meeting which was going to be held in a few days.
We contacted a friend in Virginia who put us in touch with David Howard, Alliance for America, and Carol LaGrasse, New York Property Rights. Kathy and I borrowed a FAX machine and started receiving information. At the same time we started going door to door asking people if they had heard of the Heritage Trail. We started along the route the trail was to take speaking to property owners and to our surprise we found no one had ever heard of this plan. With this information we put together a petition against the Heritage Trail, trails, scenic designation, their linking with and connecting to private property.
The day before the meeting my wife was able to get a copy of the Catskill Center's Catskill Center News from which we read a story written by the Senior Program Associate Deborah Meyer DeWan entitled American Heritage Areas Partnership Program. In this story DeWan speaks of the House of Representatives bill dealing with the creation of The American Heritage Areas Partnership Program. This bill, H.R. 5044 among other things establish a 140 mile Hudson River Valley American Heritage Area. Gerald Solomon wrote a letter to his fellow congressmen stating:
OPPOSE ANOTHER FEDERAL LAND GRAB!
VOTE "NO" ON
THE AMERICAN HERITAGE AREAS PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
"I urge you to defend property rights and strongly oppose the AHAPP... the environmentalist advocating this bill have FEDERAL LAND USE CONTROL AS THEIR PRIMARY OBJECTIVE."Congressman Gerald Solomon, letter dated Sept.19, 1994.
In this story DeWan was upset about Solomon's letter and what she felt it had done for the outcome of the bill. That night at the meeting, however, she told the people that it was Solomon who introduced the bill. If it were not for the fact that I had received a FAX of a copy of Mr. Solomon's letter and showed it to everyone there she would have gotten away with misleading the people at this meeting.
In her article DeWan stated that bill had become tied up in the House and latter left unfinished, "the Heritage Trails would have to become a local 'grassroots effort' in order for the program to go through", and that this designation was a way to tap into federal funds and assistance from none other than the NPS. In this she was stating that the idea for the trails was founded in this bill, and would be continued on a local level in order to bring about the goals set forth in the original bill.
The night of the meeting to we were told that the "idea" for this trail had come about from a "local" group of people which lived along the area involved, and was meant to be a means for the different towns along NYS Routes 23 and 23A to bring in more business and that it was non governmental and non regulatory. DeWan lead the people to believe that this "partnership" was and is a "grassroots effort", which has been put together by other interested individuals from the area and not connected to any other actions.
However, listed in the project goals for this "partnership" was the statement; "The success of this project will be demonstrated by the creation of a regional task force that can serve as a local empowerment tool for conservation and planning."Handout from the Catskill Center, Jan. 31, 1995. What was being said was that the Catskill Center wanted to impose an unnecessary bureaucracy on the Mountaintop area. This would also open the door for even more governmental regulations and control of private property and rights. We already have "local control" over this area, why do we have to dilute and marginalize what we already control?
While the Catskill Center stated that it is the short term goal of this task force to put together maps and brochures telling people of the many places of interests in this area, they went to the NPS in order to find help. This did not make sense, in light of the fact that Greene County already had The Greene Country Promotion Department which puts outs the Greene County Catskill Travel Guide. Just off the N.Y.S. Thruway we have the Greene County Visitor Information Center. If it was better guide information we needed why have the federal government come in to show us our own area?
What we did not know then was the real goal of the Catskill Center. We feel that the Heritage Trail was misrepresented by the Catskill Center in order to push through their own plans and goals. Besides the members of the Center many of the other "interested individuals" represent museums, historical societies, special interest groups; everyone but the main stream local property owners who live along the area in question.
Kathy and I knew however, that in order to protect our rights we must become active. What we did not expect was the attack which would come against us and others wishing to protect their rights.
We learned that the Heritage Trail was not the only program the Catskill Center was involved in. They had also put together an application to designate the area as the Catskill/Biosphere Reserve. Without so much as asking even the local government, much less the local resident land owners which this reserve would effect, the Catskill Center took it upon their selves to ask the UN for this designation. While this proposal would effect all of Greene, Delaware, Schoharie, Sullivan, Ulster, Otsego, and part of Albany Countries, the Catskill Center did not even offer to inform them of these actions.
Then we learned of another meeting being held in Prattsville at the Pratt Museum dealing with the Heritage Trail. This was an unadvertised meeting and was lead by Ron Wagner, of the Catskill Center. We were surprised to find that at this meeting there were quite a few museum and historical sites resented along with Karl Beard of the NPS. Before this meeting we had put together a handout of information we learned No Takings, Jack Jordan. Wagner was upset and felt that we were spreading nonfactual information. Yet the information had come from the Congressional Record, The National Park Service Concept Paper, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, and The Catskill Center News.
At several Heritage Trail Meetings both Ron Wagner and DeWan insisted that they had nothing to do with the Biosphere Reserve Project. However one of the "Principal References" listed in the application was that of DeWan's own thesis The Daily Mail, April 7, 1995 A View From The Mountaintop. The truth turned out that DeWan had spent two years working in a local town helping to put together a historical profile of the area to be used for her thesis. When people in the area started to learn that the same woman was involved with these projects they felt betrayed.
The Heritage Trail was portrayed as only being a "concept" and "benign". These same words were later to be used for the Biosphere. In a period of less that two weeks Kathy and I read everything we could about property rights, biospheres, and land use. We organized a group of local people and called it NO TAKINGS. Our family took a trip up to Glovervile to meet David and Bonnie Howard. They supplied us with mountains of information, contacts, and a video of a documentary film about the making of a park in Cayuga Ohio.
The video showed how the people of Cayuga Valley had been told that this was only to be a Recreational Area and would help the area and the people living there. Since the people who lived there, loved the land, respected and took care of it, they thought it would be a good idea to preserve it the way it was. They didn't dream that the NPS had plans to acquire their land and remove them from their family homesteads. In the end the people were moved out and their lands taken to make way for the "Recreational Area".
With this material we invited people to our home to share the information and the video. The interest in this was so great that we used the church hall in town to show the film to members of some of the local town boards. (One local paper was to later write that "now it turns out that much of the language utilized by No Takings and many of the town and county officials who voted against the Biosphere project came from the same sources uncovered in recent investigations of the Oklahoma City bombing "The Mountain Eagle, These People Are Suspicious.)
The problem here on the Mountaintop was and is the limited number of non-bias newspapers. During this time there was one reporter from a newspaper trying to print the facts while another paper would print one-sided facts and even out right misinformation(a fact which the reporter was latter to admitted to my wife and myself was done mainly to sell papers). We learned that one of the most important thing in dealing with this problem was the speed at which one could obtain information. The old FAX machine we borrowed was slow. We need to be able to put together information fast and get it out to people just as quickly. We decided it was necessary to buy a copier and newer FAX machine. Armed with this we started putting out an informational newsletter called Mountain Views, Feb/March 1996.
One local paper started a campaign against us and others working with us. Using fictitious writers this "paper" said there were "dangerous waves of bad information passing around". One reporter from another paper who was blowing holes in the Biosphere was accused of being "in bed with a certain Delaware County property right activist". The property right activist is in fact the reporter's wife. The Mountain Eagle, April 6, 1995, "Ned Buntline", A Growing Board Brouhaha As opposition to the UNMAB increased so did the slanderous attacks by this paper. Anyone opposed became anti environment right wing extremists.
We believed that the people had a right to know what the Biosphere was all about. We contacted a legislator in our area and he knew nothing about it. The newspaper tried to get a copy of the application and could not. I contacted the Attorney General's office and they were not able to get a copy. It wasn't until Senator Cook became involved that we were able to get portions and more information.
At that time Greene County Legislature Clerk Donald Olson said it was news to him. He was stated on February 16, 1995 that he "still has not received any information about the project from the Catskill Center." This was in spite of the fact that all of Greene County was to be in the Biosphere. When asked about this Tora Johnson, Center Program Associate for the Catskill Center said, "Announcements and invitations to participate in the project will be sent to town supervisors and county officials in about 2 weeks."The Daily Mail, Feb. 16,1995 Sadly however, it was already in the hands of the UN.
At an unadvertised meeting on the Biosphere the first copy of the application to be shown to the public (only after it had been sent to the UN) was passed around the room. In the front was a "Mailing List for Catskill Region Biosphere Reserve Organizing Meetings" which listed the names of local officials. Not knowing who Kathy was, the book was passed to her. Kathy copied the names and we turned them over to one of the newspapers. The following day the paper published the list and we were surprised to learn that some of these people had never heard of the Biosphere much less taken part in an organizing meeting. The director of the Catskill Center, Janet Crawshaw wrote on March 17, 1995 ; "It has come to our attention that some of the people in the region have misinterpreted the meaning of the list, and this has caused problems for some individuals on the list." For anyone reading the application it appeared that the Center had the support of the local officials because of this list.
By getting in touch with other groups within the Property Rights Movement we were able to bring together vast information. Alone, we did not know the power or the goals of these environmental groups, yet with the help and communication of groups within the Property Rights Movement the overall picture begin to come together.
On April 6, 1995 there was a hearing in Kingston, NY on the Biosphere. I made up a map showing the size of the Biosphere and the counties it would cover Catskill Region Biosphere Reserve Map, Jack Jordan. We brought it along with us to show the biosphere and the Heritage Trail.
At this meeting Mr. Sherret Chase who was one of the sponsors of the Catskill UNMAB told the audience how wonderful it would be for everyone and how it would bring the Catskill into a new light. He stated that the people against it did not understand the idea behind the Biosphere. Because he had worked for "so long" at putting together the work towards the Biosphere it was wrong not to be for it. Mr. Chase spent a long time telling of his local work and groups he belonged to but failed to mention work done in other areas of New York.
A woman from our group wished to ask about his other activities in the Adirondacks. Yet even having her hand raised for quite a long time and was not recognized. She finally stood up and told everyone about his other background, at which Mr. Chase demanded to know who all was from the Adirondacks. David Howard, who had come with Kathy and I was the only person outside of the Catskill there. Once he saw David Mr. Chase never said another word during the meeting.
While the meeting was going on a copy of the UN draft document entitled, Global Biodiversity Assessment Section 10 was being passed around. In the Daily Mail April 13,1995 Raymond Christensen the Delaware board chairman read a passage from section 10.5;"During the initial stages of park and reserve establishment, there may be a transition phases while local inhabitants are provided with options for relocation outside the area. In many cases this phase can be 20 to 50 years where residents are given life tenancy, that is, where following purchase of and payment for their valuable buildings, livestock, crops and other items, they may remain and work the land (under certain restrictions) for the remainder of their lives. Some people have called this nothing more than the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval," Christensen said, "I don't think so." He also said he objected to the fact that the center "worked 3 years on a project involving 6 counties without letting anybody in those counties know what they were doing."The Daily Mail, April 13, 1995.
Also at this meeting was Langdon Chapman legislative aide to Senator Cook and Councilman from the Town of Hunter. He was quoted in the newspaper the next day, "Last night I asked a question which you were unwilling or unable to answer. I will restate it here: If a county, by formal resolution , requests not to be included in the biosphere , will you honor the request of the locally elected officials and remove that county from the biosphere? He continued with other statements about home rule. Chapman quoted her as saying that she would take into consideration "the thoughts" of the respective counties". Chapman declared the answer "unacceptable".The Daily Mail, April 10, 1997.
After the meeting Mr. Chase sent out a 3 page letter to local newspapers Letter of Sherret S. Chase, May 12, 1995.He stated "Here in the Catskills. There are hate groups of paramilitary structure; bush bullies. Some of the leaders of these groups receive their funding and encouragement from local fascists, others from European fascists including the Nazi government itself. After Pearl Harbor these groups dissolved or went dormant many of their followers serves their country well during the war." Later in his letter he stated, "At that meeting I discovered that I am individually targeted. One of the Prattsville disrupters - a women well known in Prattsville - revealed as a treat that she had a lengthy dossier."
The events depicted by Mr. Chase's letter is a far cry from what actually occurred at that meeting. The people in attendance had more questions but the meeting was abruptly closed. Because of public awareness, in the end different towns voted not to support the Heritage Trail and the Biosphere. Had it not been for Section 10 many people there would never have known the real goal of the biosphere which is to depopulate the area. The Good Housekeeping Seal without the "house".
After this and the fact that many towns asked not to be part of the Biosphere and the Heritage Trail The Daily Mail, March 20, 1995; April 11, 1995; April 12, 1995, the Catskill Center withdrew the application.The Mountain Eagle, March 23, 1995. The rhetoric and discourse even reached this meeting before it was given a chance to convene. On May 1, 1997 another of the long dead came back from the grave to mislead people. Daniel Shays, an insurrectionist from 1787 wrote in the local newspaper that he had diner with Congressman Sherry Boehlert the other night. According to "Shays" Boehlert is "sick and tired of so many crazies getting control of agendas, such as the upcoming congressional hearing on U.N. activities planned for Hunter..."The Mountain Eagle, May 1, 1997 The Catskills is a wonderful place to live, just ask Nellie Bly(1867-1922), Ned Buntline(1823-1886), or Daniel Shays(1747-1825) apparently they too have come back to live here.
It is sad that here in America we must write laws protecting lands belonging to America Citizens. I feel that land owners do care for the land and work to take care of it. An important right as an American is the right to own property. Sadly there is an environmental agenda which is opposed to private property rights. So much of this area is under regulations unheard of in other parts of the country.
The Catskills supply New York City with their drinking water, because of this NYC regulates how we can use the water flowing through our land. It is their long term plan to own the land in the Catskills. The devastating effects of new watershed regulations upon the local population will not be seen for years to come. These new regulations involve land acquisition and stricter regulations.
With soaring taxes many farms are no long in operation. Land once used to feed the people are now turned over to the State to be added to the Catskill State Park. Enactment of H.R. 901 will help protect the rights of American Citizens.
Is the U.N. in control? Has H.R. 901 become law yet?
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.