UN Seizure of US Land....

J

Justin Moore

New member
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26859

Toward a wilderness utopia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 16, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern



By Henry Lamb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

Few people know – including most congressmen – that the management of 73,270,583 acres of the United States is determined by 34 non-Americans, who are elected by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. This land – larger than Tennessee and Kentucky combined – is distributed in 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves, managed according to principles and guidelines established by the Man and the Biosphere International Coordinating Council, and set forth in the "Seville Strategy" and the "Statutory Framework."

The U.S. Biosphere Reserves are a small part of a global network of 411 similar reserves, which are the starting point for the implementation of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity.

Each Biosphere Reserve consists of a "core wilderness" area, surrounded by a buffer zone, managed for conservation objectives – both of which are surrounded by an "outer" buffer zone, also called a "zone of cooperation." The function of a Biosphere Reserve is to continually expand, and to eventually "connect" with each other through "corridors" of wilderness.

The Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve was designated in 1988 as the 517,000-acre Great Smoky Mountain National Park. Today, the U.N. lists this reserve as 36,727,139 acres, with the zone of cooperation reaching from Birmingham, Ala., to Roanoke, Va. Neither Congress, nor the legislatures of any of the affected states, debated or approved the designation or the management plan.

At the first meeting of the delegates to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Peter Bridgewater, then-chairman of the MAB Council, offered the network of Biosphere Reserves as the beginning of implementation for the Convention. The United States has not ratified this treaty. Nevertheless, our land is being managed as if we were a party to the treaty.

The ultimate objective is to convert as much as half of the land area of the United States to "core wilderness areas," which are off-limits to humans, with government management of most of the remaining land "for conservation objectives." This leaves only "sustainable communities" for people, which are described by Science magazine as "islands of human habitat surrounded by wilderness."

This scenario is not idle speculation. The plan is well documented in the 1,140-page U.N. publication Global Biodiversity Assessment, which names "The Wildlands Project" as central to the management scheme required by the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Wildlands Project, developed by Dr. Reed F. Noss, under contract with The Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society, calls for "at least half" of the lower 48 states to be set aside as wilderness. Through an incredibly well-orchestrated campaign, hundreds of foundation-funded so-called environmental organizations, assisted by federal and state agency personnel are working to see that land is converted to wilderness, corridors to connect the wilderness areas are developed, and regulations are put into place to control the use of "buffer zones." Still, there has been no congressional debate or approval of this land management regime.

Congress has looked only at small segments of the land management regime in isolation – never at the total picture as described in the "Seville Strategy," the "Statutory Framework," the "Global Biodiversity Assessment" or the "Wildlands Project." Consequently, the nation's land is being transformed into a utopian vision conceived by a handful of international socialists.

Just as the nest of environmental extremists have worked to expand the Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve, another nest is working to expand "Yellowstone to Yukon," an area that contains several Biosphere Reserves, and seeks to control all the land between Utah and Alaska.

When the New World Mine was on the brink of satisfying more than $33 million in permit requirements, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, with assistance from the Clinton administration, called upon UNESCO to declare Yellowstone to be "in danger" and thereby triggered regulatory authority to stop the mining operation, even though it was on private property.

The Mexican-border area is also a hot-spot of expansion for U.N. Biosphere Reserves, including a border region that reaches 62 miles on either side of the border. A major goal here is to eventually eliminate the border altogether. Development activity in the region that utilizes federal or international funds must be approved by a committee of un-elected environmentalists and agency bureaucrats.

Environmental extremists think this situation is wonderful. They have been working for years to achieve this result. Far too few people – including congressmen – are even aware of the transformation, and don't want to be bothered by the evidence. Therefore, day by day, our land of the free is being transformed into the land of government control.
Click to expand...
 
W

Watchman

Moderator
Yep...we've run head on into this BIOSPHERE BS here in the Ozarks.

I'm here to tell for a fact, that we are being raped by the UN and our senators and congressmen are letting it happen.

When first confronted with the facts, they say "No Way !"

As they learn more about it they display shock and anger and they even vow to fight it for the "good of the people".

Eventually, they throw up the white flag of surrender and say that there is nothing they can do.

One thing I can guarantee....

When the UN starts enforcing this crap, some people are going to get killed over it.:mad:


For those that dont believe it will happen here, just keep your head in the sand when the shooting starts and stay out of the way.
 
Last edited:
S

striderteen

New member
When the U.N. boys start showing up, I will _____ ________.


Edited to remove the advocation of an illegal act. - TBM
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

Justin Moore

New member
My guess is that even when confronted with the 1100 page "Global Biodiversity Assessment" report, some people still will not believe it, or try to say that it means something other than what it says.

Of course, these are the same people who, if they saw Godzilla standing in their backyard one evening, wouldn't believe THAT either ;)
 
J

Jay Baker

New member
Understand that the United Nations is now and always has been nothing more than a full blown communist front organization. It was formed up by Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Socialist, and his favorite Marxist, a communist spy, Alger Hiss. The Charter of the U.N., created by Hiss, states that the goal of the U.N. is to bring the world under the control of the U.N., and that all national sovreignty is to be destroyed.

Given that so many of our politicians and their unelected bureaucrats, most of the media, most of academia, and even the heads of most of the mainstream churches, today, are Marxist Socialists, we are seeing, through their unrelenting efforts, the coming destruction of this once great country manifesting itself in front of our very eyes.

Never forget, the Marxist Socialist monsters NEVER, EVER, disengage!

J.B.
 
D

Dave R

New member
"The United States has not ratified this treaty. Nevertheless, our land is being managed as if we were a party to the treaty. "

If this is true, no court that I know of would rule that the US is not bound by this treaty. Even if we didn't sign it, the fact that we are letting the UN manage the land is a very strong implied approval.

This is most awful news.
 
L

longeyes

New member
Justin Moore

Thanks for this post. This is a real eye-opener. I'm trying to get some information about this from a contact in the Dept. of Interior.
 
P

PATH

New member
Regardless of the veracity of this report, get the U.N. the hell out of the U.S.. Why do we need it here? Let them leech off of some other country. Britain would be a good choice. The country over there is being run by left wing loon tunes. The U.N. would fit right in!
 
B

Bulldog44

New member
Barring some unforeseen change of events, I think that the U.N. pinch on our country is just going to get tighter.

It's an undisputable shame that the organization ever got off the ground to start with. It's downright disgraceful that this country has tolerated it for as long as it has.
 
M

Malone LaVeigh

New member
Well, I think that for better or worse, some form of government is inevitable, and necessary for the concievable future. Given that, I don't have a problem with different levels of government checking and balancing each other. Some things are better done at national or even international scales than local. When Bull Connor was whupin' up on the folks in Alabama, it was good that the feds had the authority to step in. Likewise, an international force has a role to play in places like Rwanda and Kosovo. (I don't mean the US being the world's policeman, either.)

And what the heck's wrong with leaving some small part of this poor tortured earth alone? Can't we be happy with wringing every last bit of economic value out of the other 90+%? If it takes federal or even UN jurisdiction to protect the last wild areas on earth, I'm for it.

I also highly doubt that any more actual acres have been set aside through the UN designation than would have been through the US government. Protection of wilderness has a lot of popular support in this country.
 
A

Airwolf

New member
I have no issues with land being set aside for preservation. God knows there's enough greedy bastards out there that wouldn't think twice about the long-term results if it would make them a buck today. We have enough of that kind of short sighted thinking already.

What bothers me is that so much is the so-called environmental moment only sees things in black and white and operate from the premise that *ANY* human contact with the land is to prohibited. The fact that this program, run by the UN has not been debated or voted on by Congress is a major violation of the sovereignty of the United States. Once something like this becomes "Oh, it's always been this way" in people's minds, you'll never be able to reverse it (without a huge effor or force).

The fact that people, when confronted with the facts deny them doesn't surprise me in the least. We see it every day with the 2A issue.
 
J

Justin Moore

New member
fact that this program, run by the UN has not been debated or voted on by Congress is a major violation of the sovereignty of the United States.
Click to expand...

Actually when the Biosphere Treaty was put to a vote in the Senate they rejected the plan. However, Clinton went ahead an implemented it anyway. So there you go ;)

http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/biotreatystop.htm

How the Convention on Biodiversity was defeated
© Copyright Sovereignty International, Inc., 1998
On June 29, 1994, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodiversity Treaty) by a vote of 16 to 3. Only Senators Helms, Pressler, and Coverdell voted no. Three months later, on September 30, Senate Majority Leader, George Mitchell, for the second and final time, withdrew the Convention from the Senate calendar. The Treaty was never voted on, and now languishes in the bowels of government awaiting the arrival of a more friendly Senate. The defeat of the Treaty in the 103rd Congress came as a stunning victory for the private property rights and natural resource providers community, and was an astonishing defeat for the administration and its army of environmental organizations which had carefully orchestrated what it thought was certain ratification. The events that led to the defeat of the Treaty have been grossly misreported by the environmental community and by the main-stream press. Here is an accurate account of the events as they occurred, compiled from the records of many of the people who were in the forefront of the battle.
In the beginning

The Treaty did not suddenly appear at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio. It was first proposed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 1981. The land use policies required by the treaty were also expressed in dozens of other UN documents and at other UN conferences, and incorporated into the agendas of NGOs for implementation through programs and legislation at the local, state, and federal level long before the Treaty was ever presented to the world.

An early indication of the Treaty's land use policies was embodied in a legislative proposal called the "Endangered Ecosystems Act," advanced by the Audubon Society in 1990. In 1991, the Keystone Center in Colorado conducted a study on "Biodiversity on Federal Lands." The American Sheep Industry Association (ASI) participated in that study and were first introduced to Kenton Miller of the World Resources Institute (WRI). WRI is a second-generation off-spring of the IUCN, and Kenton Miller was designated to coordinate the compilation of Section 13 of the Global Biodiversity Assessment. Many of the land use policies recommended in the Keystone Study were written into legislation proposed by Congressmen Studds and Shermer: HR 1969 Forest Biodiversity and Clearcutting Prohibition Act; and HR585 National Biological Diversity Conservation and Environmental Research Act. Neither of these bills became law, although many of the land use policies they contained have been implemented administratively.

The Treaty

Even before the Treaty was presented in Rio, the American Sheep Industry Association adopted a policy statement opposing "any regulation, legislation and treaties on biodiversity that does not adequately consider regulatory takings, fails to recognize socio-economic needs and influences, or preempts sound management authorities of the United States." President George Bush refused to sign the Treaty when it was presented in Rio in 1992. Then-Senator Al Gore, and Bush's EPA Administrator, William K Reilly publicly criticized, to the point of ridicule, Bush's refusal to sign.

Tom McDonnell, Director of Natural Resources at ASI is the person on whose shoulders fell the responsibility of implementing ASI's policy regarding biodiversity. In early 1993, McDonnell was a presenter at a Conference conducted by the Environmental Conservation Organization in Reno. The American Farm Bureau Federation, and nearly 100 other grassroots organizations concerned about land use policies, learned about biodiversity from ASI's previous research and involvement. On June 4th, 1993, newly-elected President Bill Clinton signed the Treaty and Vice President Al Gore was already constructing his White House Task Force on Ecosystem Management in preparation for implementing the Treaty. The Biodiversity Action Network (BIONET), a coalition of environmental organizations, assumed the task of promoting the Treaty's passage in the Senate. On August 16, 1993, ASI obtained the minutes of their meeting at which the strategy for promoting the Treaty was outlined. The U.S. State Department transmitted the Treaty to the Senate officially on November 20 and asked for "fast-track" ratification.

In January of 1994, ASI adopted another policy statement which specifically said: "...that ASI support the defeat of the ratification of this treaty by the U.S. Senate." The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on the Treaty in April, at which Undersecretary of State, Timothy Wirth, recommended ratification. Vice President Al Gore's reinvention of government, under the label of "Performance Review" was well underway. ASI obtained internal working documents from the EPA, DOI, USFS, and Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Department, dealing with restructuring for the implementation of the Treaty under the title "Ecosystem Management."

The battle engaged

The Foreign Relations Committee voted 16 to 3 to recommend ratification of the Treaty on June 29. On July 5, McDonnell called Henry Lamb at the Environmental Conservation Organization to discuss strategies for defeating the Treaty. The first step was a letter of opposition to be signed by the grassroots organizations involved with property rights and natural resources. Lamb drafted a letter which was reviewed the next day by McDonnell, and Kathleen Marquardt of Putting People First. The letter and sign-on authorization forms were faxed to 75 selected organizations on July 7, with a request to refax to their respective fax networks. The Foreign Relations' Minority Report was released on July 11, which raised questions that were not answered in the committee hearings. On July 14, ASI requested the Alliance for America to fax the sign-on alert to its 4400 participant network.

On July 19, Dr. Michael Coffman, a Director of Maine Conservation Rights Institute, and a regional director for the Alliance for America, was in Washington talking to Senator Mitchell's staff and to Senator Dole's staff, trying to convince them that the Treaty would have the effect of making the "Wildlands Project," the objective of the Treaty's implementation. ASI produced a 100-page analysis of the Treaty which was released on July 28. The study revealed the existence of a draft of the Global Biodiversity Assessment, required by the Treaty, and the identification of the "Wildlands Project" as a primary mechanism for Treaty implementation. McDonnell met by teleconference with staff of the Republican Policy Committee and the Foreign Relations committee to review the ASI analysis on August 1. Senator Mitchell announced on August 3, that the Treaty vote would occur on August 8. Throughout the night of August 3, a fax drafted by Coffman was distributed through the Alliance for America Network to 4400 organizations and individuals calling for support in opposition to the Treaty. About 50 Senate staffers and representatives from the American Farm Bureau and the National Cattlemen's Association met on August 4 for an in-depth presentation on the ASI analysis and review of the Treaty. All day long, Senate fax machines and switchboards were swamped with messages urging Senators to vote against the Treaty.

The following day, August 5, Senator Dole issued a letter to George Mitchell, signed by 35 Republican Senators, which said Republicans would not ratify the Treaty until questions raised by the Minority Report had been adequately answered. Mitchell withdrew the scheduled vote later that day. The State Department responded to the Minority Report on August 8. The response listed several "Understandings" which were to be attached to the ratification legislation which supposedly would solve all the questions raised by the Minority. ASI drafted a six-point response to the State Department's "Understandings" the next day, which included a reference to Article 37 of the Treaty that specifically forbids any exceptions or reservations to the Treaty. On August 10, the National Wilderness Institute launched its legal review of the Treaty, conducted by Mark Pollot, to examine the Treaty's potentially excessive intrusion into private property rights. Congress recessed between August 26 and September 12.
Click to expand...
 
J

Justin Moore

New member
cont...

The final victory

As Congress reconvened, the Environmental Conservation Organization mailed letters to 1050 Mayors, urging them to oppose the Treaty. On September 19, every Senator received ECO's letter opposing the Treaty, co-signed by 293 organizations. Mitchell announced on September 27, that the Treaty would be rescheduled for a vote, but did not specify when. Michael Coffman again issued another fax alert through the Alliance for America network. The Blue Ribbon Coalition, Chuck Cushman's Private Property Rights Alliance and dozens of other grassroots organizations refaxed the alert. Once again, Senate switchboards and fax machines were overwhelmed.

The following day, Coffman was again in Senator Mitchell's office explaining that the Treaty was the embodiment of the Wildlands Project and that the "smoking-gun" evidence was contained in the Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA). Coffman and Bob Voight, President of Maine Conservation Rights Institute, met with Senator Cohen with the same message. Both Mitchell and Cohen agreed to get a copy of the GBA. September 29, Mitchell announced that the vote on the Treaty would occur at 4:pm the following day. ASI received a copy of the peer-review draft of Section 10 of the GBA and immediately overnighted copies to Lamb, Coffman, and selected Senate Staff.

Ironically, the Chicago Tribune reported on September 30, that the GBA did not exist. A front-page article by Jon Margolis denied the existence of the very document that was delivered to key Senators the same day the article appeared. Similar stories appeared in the Washington Post, and other newspapers within a few days, suggesting the influence of the White House "spin team." Coffman prepared color maps illustrating the impact of the Treaty on the northeast, including Mitchell's state. The maps were overnighted to Mitchell's office, and to the Republican Policy Committee and arrived the morning of September 30. Senate staff enlarged the maps into 4-foot by 6-foot posters, along with enlargements of selected text from the GBA.

As recorded in the Congressional Record (S13790), Friday, September 30, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) rose on the Senate floor with Coffman's maps and GBA text excerpts to oppose the Treaty. Senators Burns, Craig, Helms, Nickles, and Wallop also spoke against the Treaty. Bob Voight had once worked on one of Mitchell's campaigns and had become a friend with Mitchell and some of Mitchell's staff. Voight called Mitchell's office during the morning of September 30 in a final attempt to get Mitchell to withdraw Treaty. Voight believed that if Mitchell knew that the UN had lied about the existence of the GBA, Mitchell would withdraw the Treaty. Within an hour, and about an hour before the Senate debate, Voight received a call from Mitchell's office reporting that the Treaty would be withdrawn.

The Treaty was withdrawn from the Senate calendar and has not yet been rescheduled for a vote. It is not dead. It can be rescheduled whenever the Senate Majority Leader wishes to reschedule it. Perhaps this account of activities will help prepare others for the next appearance of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Click to expand...
 
R

ReadyOnTheRight

New member
"...The second broad principal is that government power must be dispersed. If government is to exercise power, better in the county than the state, better in the state than in Washington. If I do not like what my local community does, be it in sewage disposal, or zoning or schools, I can move to another local community, and though few may take this step, the mere possibility acts as a check. If I do not like what my state does, I can move to another. If I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternatives in this world of jealous nations..."

-Milton Friedman, "Capitalism and Freedom" 1962-

And where do we go if the USA caves in to the UN?

-11.43x23-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top