UNITED NATIONS NEW WORLD ORDER
ONE NATION UNDER GAWD!!
and you can just forget about Liberty and Justice for All... long gone BLUES!
NATIONAL Parks Given to UN??
yes. update: 2/19/97
A comprehensive government website on the UNESCO and United States MAB or Man And the Biosphere Program (establishing an extensive biosphere reserve system across the US, including Yellowstone) as embraced and being implemented by the Clinton Administration under "ecosystem management/sustained yield" can be found at the National Biological Service site http://www.nbs.gov/nbii/mab/ This is all part of the biodiversity treaty approved by Clinton, but never approved by Congress.
* * *
UNESCO's WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE ACTIONS: Yellowstone National Park has now been designated as a "World Heritage Site in Danger." Adul Wichiencharoen of Thailand, head of the World Heritage Committee said, "certainly the forest areas around Yellowstone belong to the same ecosystem. All these lands must have protection so their integrity is not threatened."
Wichiencharoen stressed that he respected U.S. sovereignty, however as a signator to the 1972 World Heritage Convention treaty, the U.S. has a duty to preserve the Yellowstone ecosystem across administrative boundaries. Similarly designated were Glacier National Park and Carlsbad Caverns and its minerals.
In a "Bozeman Chronicle" report, Senator Conrad Burns of Montana is reported as stating; "It is astonishing that a group of extreme environmentalists can invite a few folks from the United Nations to circumvent laws that Americans and Montanans have worked hard for and lent their voices to." Burns expressed fears the committee "would also seek to put a halt to activities in the park such as travel by motor vehicles as well as to create a buffer zone around the park that would run roughshod over private property rights. (From: "Blue Ribbon" Magazine, January, 1996 issue.)
* * *
The National Federal Lands Conference "Property Rights Update," May 1996 edition, has an excellent article on the World Heritage Convention (WHC). This was signed by the US and adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO in 1972. In 1995, there were 469 cultural and natural sites designated in 105 countries of the world. 20 of these are found in the US.
The WHC provides for protection of several types of world "heritage" resources. Our Statue of Liberty and Independence Hall in Philadelphia are currently protected as designated world "cultural" heritage sites. Yellowstone Park, the Everglades, Carlsbad Caverns and Glacier National Park are currently protected as designated world "natural" sites. In addition, the WHC contains provisions to protect areas that constitute the habitat of threatened or endangered species as world "natural" heritage sites.
Article 4 of the agreement states that signatory nations shall protect these sites "to the utmost of its own resources, and where appropriate, with international assistance and co-operation."
Tile IV of the US National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-515, 16 USC 470a-1, a-2) delegates authority to the Department of Interior to implement the Convention on World Heritage. A Federal Interagency Panel for World Heritage was formed to make recommendations on US World Heritage policies, procedures and nominations.
The WHC agreement authorizes a UNESCO bureau, the World Heritage Committee, to work with "international and national government and non-government organizations having objectives similar to those of the Convention." One such non-government organization (NGO), the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, was recently given "immunity from suit" by Executive Order 12986, signed by President Clinton on January 18, 1996. NGOs may also include "demestic" orgainzations such as the "Greater Yellowstone Coalition." Such groups may work directly with the WH Committee to nominate and obtain heritage designations for a site.
The WHC also states "that whenever necessary for the proper conservation of a cultural or natural property nominated, an adequate 'buffer zone' around a property shall be provided and should be afforded the necessary protection."
(In Yellowstone, this is resulting in land use restrictions on private lands and businesses surrounding the Park.)
Under the WHC, a Nation "state" may also request assistance from UNESCO if the nation feels a designated heritage area is in danger and to establish necessary corrective measures.
UNESCO previously indicated that it would respect Nation "state" sovereignty by not intervening in the management of the heritage sites unless assistance was requested by that Nation "state". However, during its 1995 Committee session, it stated that it views itself as "an emergent tool to assist all State Parties in conservation." The minutes of the December 4-9, 1995, committee meeting went one step farther, stating that "even if the State Party did not request action, the Committee still had an independent responsibility to take action based on the information it had gathered."
* * * *
Article I wrote for our organizational paper last fall Biodiversity Treaty
Many view the creation of federal "Multiple Use Resource Advisory Councils" and bioregional councils as a move to bestow legal standing on environmental organizations and to supercede the lawful local jurisdiction of city, county and state governments over the environment, land use and sustainable development.
According to the "Global Biodiversity Assessment" Chapter 4, Section 10, developed at the behest of the United Nations Environment Programme;
"[T]his means that representative areas of all major ecosystems in a region need to be reserved, that blocks should be as large as possible, that buffer zones should be established around core areas, and that corridors should connect these areas. This basic design in central to the recently proposed 'Wildlands Project' in the United States."
According to an article published in 1991 Proceedings of the Symposium on Biodiversity of Northwest California; "[W]hat is envisoned here for the Klamath-Siskiyou region, is patterned after a 'biosphere reserve,' as described by UNESCO for the Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB). Such reserve would consist of three basic zones of management intensity ( and implicitly management discretion): core preserve areas, buffer zone areas - what MAB calls transition areas, and a zone of greater management intensity that could be called 'traditional use areas."
The article includes a conceptual map prepared by the "Northwest Environmental Center." The text states; "A reconfiguration of the ownership pattern along hydrologic boundaries would be ideal. Achieving such an objective would be fraught with conflict and great expense, unless a vehicle for land exchange (perhaps a
semi-public corporation) can be created that is driven by incentives for cooperation, in order to arrive at common goals. Cooperation should be emphasized over condemnation."
The article states that various environmental organizations have established "extant databases on the biota of the region" and have constructed hundreds of maps which display existing data on overlays, including land ownership and roads "sufficient to guide development of a World Biosphere Reserve."
Signed by President Clinton in 1993 and passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, ratification of the Biodiversity Treaty by the full Senate was successfully halted by grassroots efforts last fall. Both "ECO" (Environmental Conservation Organization) and the "National Federal Lands Conference" have done an excellent job of highlighting the potential impacts of United Nation's Agenda 21, the "Convention on Biological Diversity" (Biodiversity Treaty) and the "Wildlands Project."
The Biodiversity Treaty is one in a disturbing trend of environmental agreements that defer important decisions to a "Conference of the Parties" (CoP,) which will serve as a future policy-making body. For instance, Article 8 requires that each nation-party establish a system of protected areas, defined as "a geographically defined area which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives." The CoP will establish the criteria for such areas, after the Senate has ratified the Treaty and relinquished any further responsibility for advise and consent. Should a party to the treaty fail to meet that criteria, it would not be in compliance and subject to sanctions imposed by the CoP. These sanctions will most probably take the form of an internal "resource use tax" to be transferred to underdeveloped nations to achieve an "equitable distribution of benefits."
The Clinton administration began preparations as early as 1992 to implement the treaty. After appointing individuals from environmental organizations such as Bruce Babbitt, George Frampton and Brooks Yeager to key federal agency positions, a White House Ecosystem Management Task Force was created. The Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency took the lead in the "reinvention of government" in alignment with biocentrism. An Interagency Ecosystem Management Coordinating Group was created consisting of policy-making officials from 20 departments and agencies. A massive Ecosystem Management Policy was devised to be implemented through Executive Order. A policy of administrative changes in existing law through "rulemaking" is clearly evident in Rangeland Reform, the recent proposed changes in the U.S. Forest Service mission and claimed "inability" of the agency to comply with with a recent law to permit increased salvage logging for reduction of forest fuels.
(visit website http://straylight.tamu.edu/bene/bene.html, the biodiversity and ecosystems network for more on what's happening in the government in this area.)
For those who are interested in the change of mission emphasis for the US Forest Service on National Forests to implementation of the Biodiversity Treaty through biodiversity-ecosystem mangement, the Long Term Strategic Plan of the USFS (RPA) has reopened its public comment period begining May 1 for 30 days. In the RPA, the agency proposes to administratively change its own mission based on rule-making and supported by public comment. The model for proposed Forest Service management is clearly the UN Man and the Biosphere Plan, as can already be seen as implemented in President Clinton's "Option 9" Spotted Owl Ecosystem Management Plan and the PACfish plan for salmon in the Pacific Northwest.
Luckily, Senator Larry Craig and Congressman Jim Hansen have taken action, to assert Congressional oversight. This is most probably why the Forest Service has reopened public comment.
In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. New Mexico, (238 U.S. 696,) that the Creative Act justified the creation of Forest Reserves/National Forests from the public domain on a foundation of two specified purposes for which they could be created: 1) to ensure "a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of United States citizens"; and 2) to secure favorable conditions of water flows. The court rejected assertions that the Organic Act had established a third purpose for which forests could be created - "to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries."
In accordance, the creation and retention of National Forests is not justifiable on the basis of "maintaining or restoring sustainable ecosystems," nor "providing for biodiversity of plant and animal communities." The sole primary and over-riding purposes of the National Forest have already been clearly established as ensuring a continuous supply of timber for the people of the United States and securing favorable conditions of water flows (for moderation of water flows for beneficial use downriver.)
The total text of the plan can be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/land/RPA/welcome.htm.
I just heard a very interesting interview with Karen Bixman of The Investigative Reporter newsletter, where she thoroughly investigated and documented the UN takeover of parks and other lands. This is done by the World Heritage Commission, a board which can arbitrarily decide to make any plot of ground a Heritage Biosphere Zone, or some such designation. This is the result of treaties signed in 1972 and ratified in 1974!! There are also some Heritage bills in front of the House and Senate at this time (didn't get to copy the numbers) which will make matters even worse than they already are. All new parks commissioned from 1998 on will be NO FLY ZONES!
Also, Executive Order signed by Clinton on Mar. 25, 1996 authorizes military operations/maneuvers in National Parks. This lady had a tremendous amount of info on the subject, most freely supplied by the UN. Check out her newsletter. It is available for $25.00/yr from Investigative Reporter (make checks payable to Karen Bixman) at PO Box 2747-298, Huntington Beach, Calif.
92648. Tel. 714-847-7534
BTW, one of the callers had recently driven through Big Bend Natl Park in SW Texas and saw one of the UN signs identifying the area as under UN control.
If you want to hear a good talk show, tune in with Real Audio at klif.com and check out David Gold, 3-6pm CDT. He will be doing some checking on his own, particularly through one of his frequent guests, Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX), who has also checked into such things as Emergency War Powers and the like, verifying they exist.
Council on Foreign Relations
The New World Order
This base symbol can be
found in almost every American wallet.
NATIONS in BONDAGE!!
Even Yet Another