Liberty
Matters News Service
October 3, 2007
Texans in the Forefront Against Trans-Texas Corridor
Four small, rural towns and two school districts in Central Texas are standing up to the goliath Texas Department of Transportation (TxDoT) and opposing the construction of the super highway known as the Trans-Texas Corridor. "We're utilizing a state statute that says any state agency 'shall, to the greatest extent feasible, coordinate' with regional commissions," said Mae Smith, chairman of the East Central Texas Sub-Regional Planning Commission (ECTSRPC) and mayor of Holland, Texas. Holland and three other towns, Little River-Academy, Bartlett, and Rogers, all located in Bell County, Texas, formed a regional planning commission using Chapter 391 of the Texas state statutes. Using state law, they have demanded TxDoT coordinate with them in both planning and constructing the TTC, as well as the environmental impact study. "TxDoT never asked us if we even wanted the quarter-mile wide highway through our area and they definitely never discussed the human, environmental, economic or cumulative effect it would have on our community, as required by state and federal law," said Smith. Two school districts have joined the commission, expanding its jurisdiction to include nearly the entire county. Any road going through the Commission's district will have to be coordinated with the members of the Commission. "This is about our way of life. It's not about money," said Ronnie White, vice chair and mayor of Little River-Academy. Both TxDoT and the EPA have responded to the Commission's letters of demand and TXDoT is in the process of working out meeting schedules to begin the coordination process. In response to the formation of this one commission, TxDoT has adopted new regulations creating citizen-type advisory committees that are going to be asking for input from local units of government on everything from economic to environmental impacts. "They clearly are feeling the heat we've created and are going to try to convince people they are now on our side, but that won't work," said Ralph Snyder, a Commission member and small business owner from Holland. To read more about the ECTSRPC and how to form a commission, go to www.stewards.us and click on Strategies.
Bush Administration Pushes LOST
President Bush has only a year and a half left in the White House and he is taking every opportunity to destroy what's left of American sovereignty before his reign is over. George II wants the Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and when, on September 26, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, D-DE, held a hearing on the treaty, only supporters were allowed to testify. Another hearing is scheduled for October 4, with a quick vote by the Senate to follow. LOST was rejected by President Reagan in 1982 because it was plain to Mr. Reagan that the treaty was a bad idea. It still is, in spite of claims that the offending provisions were corrected in 1994, when it was trotted out again. It has since been ratified by 154 nations, most of them hostile to the U.S. Under LOST, the U.S. would be subject to the whims of an international court and, as Phyllis Schafley writes; "If you think activist judges in the United States are out of control, wait until you try your case before this U.N. tribunal, whose decisions cannot be appealed." The administration's mouthpieces also claim the U.S. would not necessarily face judgment by the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). However, according to David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), "when provisional measure - similar to temporary injunctions - are demanded, the disputing parties must agree to a method of adjudication within two weeks or the case is automatically sent to ITLOS." The chances are slim to none that the U.S. would get a favorable ruling from that august body. The International Seabed Authority, created by LOST, has total jurisdiction, as well as the authority to impose international taxes, over all the oceans and everything in them, including "solid, liquid or gaseous mineral resources." Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England even claimed, in a Washington Times piece, that LOST would protect the environment. Probably just the opposite says Ridenour. "The treaty requires states that cannot harvest the entire allowable catch in certain areas to make the surplus available to other nations, especially developing nations." Once harvest rights are relinquished it will not be easy to regain them, and human nature being what it is, coastal nations would probably catch as much as the law allows, which would lead to destruction of resources. Additionally, proponents claim LOST would make oil and gas development easier. Again, probably not. Ridenour writes: "The treaty requires states to 'prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment,' including 'through the atmosphere.'" That would leave the door wide open for environmental activists to sue, sue, sue, just like they do with every land-based project today. George W. Bush has spent a good part of his presidency working with other nations to undermine American sovereignty and refusing to protect our borders. Now he wants to complete the treachery by making it impossible to protect our nation by sea as well. Time is short. Contact your senators and tell them LOST needs to be sent to sea in a leaky boat.
Another Premature "Mission Accomplished": Law Of The Sea Treaty Still Seriously Flawed
Law Of The Sea Treaty Doesn't Hold Water
Rumblings of a Revolution
It may not be the "shot heard 'round the world" but it is the beginning of a revolution against the growing tyranny of the United States government. Two farmers, one in Michigan and the other in Pennsylvania, have given their respective state governments notice that they will not comply with requirements of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). This past February, Greg Niewendorp sent a letter to the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) explaining why he refused to register his beef cattle herd. Niewendorp said one of the reasons is government overkill. He believes if one animal shows signs of illness, the government responds by destroying the entire herd. Upon receipt of the letter, MDA slapped a quarantine on his farm and, as Niewendorp continued to stick to his guns, the agency declared the situation a stalemate. That was not the end of the story. Last August an MDA regulatory agent arrived on his property with two Michigan State troopers in tow to try to intimidate him into agreeing to test and tag his herd. Mr. Niewendorp was not intimidated. When he got rid of them he called the sheriff to report the incident. The sheriff sent a letter to several state and federal agencies informing them that any actions by these agencies would be conducted only under his supervision. This after Niewendorp learned his case might have been turned over to the USDA and the Federal Marshalls. This year Pennsylvania dairy farmer Mark Nolt started his own revolution by declining to renew his permit from the state to sell raw milk to his private customers. Then, on August 10, his farm was raided by federal and state agents who confiscated $25,000 worth of milk, milk products and dairy equipment. Nolt's very angry and loyal customers and supporters retaliated by organizing a protest rally that brought attention to the agencies' heavy-handed tactics. They were rewarded by positive coverage from the Lancaster Farming newspaper. In response to the editorial "PA Crackdown on Non-Permit Raw Milk Sales" Nolt wrote that although he "found laws that protect my liberty in both the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Bill of Rights, U. S. Constitution; in my research I found no lawful requirement for me to obtain a permit from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA). Only knowingly and willingly can we waive the use of [God-given] rights (such as by taking a permit, license or by contract). When I revoked my last permit with the PDA, I inquired whether they were aware of any waiver or document that still bound me to their public regulation. They have tacitly confirmed that there is no waiver of my rights." Critics of NAIS realize the program is designed to favor big agribusinesses that trade on the global market and want to assure their foreign customers their beef products are safe. There is little benefit, but a lot of cost, to small growers. As usual, this administration takes care of its big business partners while leaving the rest of us in the dust.
We Will Not Comply - Two NAIS
Resistors Lead The Way
Democrats Push for More Wilderness
Democrats have been waiting twelve years for a chance to make more public lands inaccessible to the public. Now that they hold majorities in both Houses of Congress they are positioning themselves to throw away the keys to three million acres, closing them to gas, oil and mineral exploration, as well as most recreational uses. Congressional aides say Bush would probably sign such legislation. Currently, there are about twelve wilderness designation bills pending in the House and Senate. "It's almost like the floodgates have opened," says Myke Bybee, a lobbyist for the Sierra Club. Democrats think their support of environmental issues like wilderness will give them an advantage in up-coming elections and perhaps help them retake the White House. A spokesman for the Senate Energy and Resources Committee said "The environment has been, is and always will be a top priority for Democrats." A few Republicans are joining the Democrats wilderness binge too. Retiring Virginia Senator John Warner, a Republican, along with Democrats Sen. Jim Webb and Rep. Rick Boucher, has introduced the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act, which would place 43,000 acres of the Blue Ridge Mountains into wilderness. The Wild Sky Wilderness Act, which would create a wilderness area 90 minutes from downtown Seattle, is most likely to pass this year. The 107,000 acres would include 15,000 previously logged acres, which proved to be the stumbling block for passage between 2003 and 2006. Former Republican Representative Richard Pombo, then Chairman of the House Resources Committee, wouldn't let it out of Committee because he didn't think those logged areas qualified as wilderness. Colorado's delegation is pushing wilderness designation for 265,770 acres of Colorado's Rocky Mountain National Park. Two bills yet to be introduced would evict the public from several hundred thousand acres in California and Utah; a compromise with the Republican delegation has whittled about 9 million acres off environmentalists' demands to padlock the gates to 10 million acres of canyon lands. Critics remain steadfast in their opposition. "The problem with wilderness designations is that there's no recreational access unless you can hike up there," says Greg Mumm, executive director of the Blue Ribbon Coalition. "It's only good for one elite demographic." Independent Petroleum Association of America officials also look at the ramp-up with alarm. "It has now become part of the environmental activist's playbook to reduce access to almost all federal lands that could safely produce American energy supplies," says Dan Naatz, a vice president for the Washington, D.C. trade group. If Democrats successfully take over all branches of government in coming years, how long will it take them and their environmental buddies to close down the rest of America?