 | ||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | theconservative@usa.net | Number 60 |
http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn | ||
| ||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | theconservative@usa.net | Number 60 |
http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn | ||
11 December 2000
By Henry Lamb, WorldNetDaily.com
The U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification was ratified by the U.S. Senate on October 18, but few Senators yet know that it has been ratified. Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY) introduced a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.
Initially, Senator Thomas' office told callers that the Senator had nothing to do with the ratification. On December 8, his office called to explain that Senator Thomas just happened to be on the Senate Floor late in the afternoon of October 18 -- and was asked by the leadership to handle procedurally, the package of treaties. Senator Thomas has asked the Foreign Relations Committee to explain how, and why, the Desertification Treaty was included in the package.
At the recent climate change talks in the Hague, Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) said the treaty had not been ratified, until corrected by one of his staff. Phone calls to Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN), and other Senators, caught staffers off guard: Nobody knew how their boss voted on the ratification. They could not know -- there was no recorded vote.
This treaty was signed by the Clinton administration in 1994. It has been locked up in the Foreign Relations Committee since. Normally, treaties of such monumental importance are debated in committee and then forwarded to the Senate floor for further debate and disposition.
Not this time. The treaty appeared in a package of 34 treaties -- most of which were single-issue treaties with single nations, dealing with stolen vehicles, criminals, and the like. The Desertification Treaty, however, is not a single-issue treaty with a single nation.
This treaty is one of several environmental treaties that emerged from the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. One of those treaties, the Convention on Climate Change, was ratified in 1992. The Convention on Biological Diversity failed ratification in 1994. The Convention to Combat Desertification was skillfully maneuvered through the Senate to avoid the public reaction which killed the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Desertification Treaty claims jurisdiction over 70% of the earth's land area -- virtually all of the land that is not covered by the Convention on Biological Diversity. Moreover, this new treaty creates a structure through which all other environmental treaties are supposed to be integrated under a common United Nations implementation regime. A companion treaty is now being developed by the U.N. Commission on Water for the 21st Century. The United Nations is, in fact, creating the structure in international law and, through its extensive bureaucracies, to control the use of all natural resources on earth.
The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on October 18, 2000 -- whether or not it knew what it was doing. On November 17, the Clinton administration delivered the ratification documents to the United Nations. The United States is now bound by the international law that claims the power to dictate land use in 70% of the earth's land.
The name of the treaty implies that it is concerned about deserts -- in fact, it is concerned about all land use. To combat desertification, the treaty seeks to prevent land use that its enforcers think may lead to desertification. Converting forests to pasture, for example, or pasture to row crops, or crop land to subdivisions, are all uses that may lead to desertification, according to literature produced by the United Nations.
There is no distinction between federal land and privately owned land when it comes to land use under the jurisdiction of the U.N. The U.N. sees its role to be the establishment of policy -- it is up to the participating nations to see that the policy is implemented. The recent rash of land acquisition measures promoted by the administration and Congress seeks to get more land under federal ownership. The vast expansion of regulatory control over land use by all federal agencies makes it easier for the United States to comply with its international obligations under a variety of international treaties. This new treaty extends even further the U.S. obligation to control land use.
According to the treaty itself, no reservations can be included in its ratification (Article 37). The Resolution of Ratification adopted by the Senate contains several reservations -- all of which will be ignored by the United Nations.
Withdrawal from the treaty cannot even begin until after three years of participation -- and then another year must pass before withdrawal is recognized by the U.N. -- assuming, of course, that there is some desire in the Senate to withdraw.
TCN - It is unconceivable that the Senate trusts the Clinton administration so far as to allow them ANY treaty without a full review, but to pass a stack of them without even a summary of what is in the stack is nothing short of gross negligence.
As a result of this incompetence your next application for a building permit may have to go to the UN! Heaven forbid that it be to build a Christian church building, private school or gun club. --TCN
TCN- It would appear that there is going to be another attempt to take the Republicrat party back to the right. The following press release sounds serious, but I am afraid that the RNC is so far to the left that there is little hope of redeeming it. This is especially true now that it is under the leadership of the "COMPASSIONATE conservative" GW Bush.
With the influence these folks are going to have in the Republicrat Party being so miniscule, why are they not defecting to the Constitution Party where the membership en masse believes what they are preaching? --TCN
For Immediate Release
December 11, 2000
***** Republican Liberty Caucus Taps New Chief *****
**** Muth Promises "This Ain't Your Daddy's GOP" ****
(Atlanta, Georgia) - Delegates to the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) national convention in Atlanta, Georgia this weekend concluded their bi-annual meeting . which included appearances by Republican Reps. Ron Paul of Texas and Bob Barr of Georgia . with the election of a new National Committee, including longtime GOP activist Chuck Muth as its National Chairman.
"The Republican Liberty Caucus is a very unique organization under the GOP's big tent," said Muth, who has served as Nevada's RLC head for the past four years. "Unlike other Republican affiliate groups, we don't care what your race is. We don't care about your color, or national origin, or income, or age or gender, or sexual orientation. We only care if you champion limited government as authorized by the Constitution, personal freedom and individual responsibility."
Muth said he'll focus on two primary objectives during his two-year term: Building RLC affiliates throughout the U.S. and promoting the election of pro-liberty Republicans at all levels of government ... particularly in so-called "non-partisan" races. He also affirmed that the RLC under his watch would not become a wishy-washy, middle-of-the-road "let's-make-a-deal" organization.
"The 'Rodney King' Republicans of the Kumbaya wing of the GOP aren't likely to find a sympathetic ear at the RLC as long as I'm chairman," said Muth. "We're in a dead serious war of ideas with our opponents, and I'm in this to win . not split the difference. The future of our country and our children depends on our winning this contest of philosophies. The RLC will march toward the sound of the cannons, not retreat from them . and will endeavor to become the home for 'broken glass' Republicans who have the stomach for battle with the left. RINO's (Republicans In Name Only) need not apply."
The RLC also elected Murray Sabrin of New Jersey as Vice Chairman, Laura Kotelman of Illinois as Treasurer and Rob Booth of Texas as Secretary. Rounding out the National Committee will be the RLC's founder, Eric Dondero of Texas, Tom Walls of Florida and Rick Sincere of Virginia.
"The RLC believes the United States Constitution is the original 'Contract With America,'" concluded Muth. "It's time for us to concentrate on electing representatives who will actually live up to their oath to honor, abide by and defend this greatest political document of all time. Democrats and others who would shred that compact with our Founding Fathers need to be wiped off the electoral map. I'm sorry. Was that too blunt?"
Republican Liberty Caucus
611 Pennsylvania Avenue S.E. #370
Washington, DC 20003
Contact: Chuck Muth (702) 454-0350
The following report by Richard Rosenfeld was aired on National Public Radio, believe it or not.
"The control of arms was an important issue in the election of 1800 because only a year earlier, in the spring of 1799, the nation's second president, John Adams, had unleashed his brand-new federal army into the Pennsylvania countryside purportedly to enforce new tax laws," Rosenfeld said.
"But that federal force invaded the homes of German-speaking families who had been critical of John Adams' administration, tore down symbols of their political opposition, terrorized men, women and children alike and publicly whipped newspaper editors who reported the army's misconduct.
"Reaction to the federal government's misuse of force in 1799 was akin to recent public concerns about the possible misuse of federal force in Waco, Texas. The army's misconduct cost John Adams dearly in his presidential re-election bid in 1800. In Adams' words, 'That army was as unpopular as if it had been a ferocious wild beast let loose upon the nation to devour it.'
"Americans had been wary about arms in the hands of the government from the time of their independence from England and even before. They remembered 17th century British kings who had used government armies to keep the people in fear and had used restrictive hunting laws to keep the people without arms and therefore powerless against them.
"So while America's founders built many checks and balances against the misuse of power into the new United States Constitution, they all agreed that the ultimate check against possible government tyranny would be an armed American population.
"Thomas Jefferson, Mr. Adams' Democratic challenger in the presidential election of 1800, was also distrustful of arms in the hands of the federal government. He felt that in a republic, the government should be in awe of the people, not the other way around.
"So after he won the presidency from Adams in 1800, Jefferson substantially reduced the size of the federal army. And he continued to champion America's first federal gun control regulation, which is the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the article of the Bill of Rights which reminds us that power starts and stays with the American people."
In conclusion, Rosenfeld noted that, "the federal government must not infringe, in the words of that amendment, 'on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.'"
[ Richard Rosenfeld is the author of "American Aurora: A Democratic-Republican Returns" -- a book that recounts the ideological battles of the early American republic. ]
Al Gore has lost again. Time has run out on his legal wrangling. Unless he does what has become, for him, the unthinkable - bow out gracefully, accept the will of the people, concede defeat in the presidential election and congratulate his opponent on his victory - there is only one more tactical barricade separating George W. Bush from the White House.
Gore is going to turn loose on all of the members of the Electoral College Democratic Party activist-pitbull Bob Beckel.
If you go back a few years, you might remember Beckel as manager of Walter Mondale's losing presidential campaign. Evidently, Beckel doesn't want to lose any more presidential races, because he told the Fox News Channel's Neil Cavuto that he is actively engaged in a campaign to convince Electoral College representatives pledged to vote for Bush to change their vote to Gore.
Beckel said that his operatives had already talked to "over a hundred" friends in the various Bush-majority states. That was several weeks ago. Beckel stated his simple goal was to persuade just two electors -- enough to swing a 271-vote majority for Gore -- to switch their votes.
What is Beckel's motivation? Ironically, he accuses Bush of attempting to "steal" the election, and pledged to continue his campaign to sway electors to vote for Gore right up until Dec. 18.
Don't you love that? Bush is trying to "steal" the election by accepting the will of the voters. Beckel is trying to prevent him from stealing the election by persuading electors sworn to Bush to change their votes.
[ Joseph Farah WND ]
The homepage and archives for The Conservative Newsletter are located on the WWW at http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn/
This newsletter is sent by subscription only. If you do not wish to be on the mailing list, please let us know and you will be removed immediately. To be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this newsletter with the word REMOVE in the body of your reply. You may also send your request to theconservative@usa.net .
Thank you.
