The Great Deception -> World Heritage Site? Biosphere Reserves Since

World Heritage Site? Biosphere Reserves Since, 1972; Sustainable Dev under radar?

Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

jofortruth

Posted: Aug 2 2009, 08:46 AM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,480
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

The World Heritage List includes 890 properties all over the World: (WHY?)
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list
http://whc.unesco.org/?cid=175

QUOTE

World Heritage

Borobudur - Indonesia Heritage is our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations. Our cultural and natural heritage are both irreplaceable sources of life and inspiration. Places as unique and diverse as the wilds of East Africa�s Serengeti, the Pyramids of Egypt, the Great Barrier Reef in Australia and the Baroque cathedrals of Latin America make up our world�s heritage.

What makes the concept of World Heritage exceptional is its universal application. World Heritage sites belong to all the peoples of the world, irrespective of the territory on which they are located.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) seeks to encourage the identification, protection and preservation of cultural and natural heritage around the world considered to be of outstanding value to humanity. This is embodied in an international treaty called the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, adopted by UNESCO in 1972.

QUOTE

United States of America & Map of Biosphere Reserves: (Called Sustainability interestingly)
http://www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir/europe-n/USAmap.htm

Mesa Verde National Park
Yellowstone National Park
http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/fees...eservations.htm
Everglades National Park
Grand Canyon National Park
Independence Hall
Kluane / Wrangell-St Elias / Glacier Bay / Tatshenshini-Alsek # * 28
Redwood National and State Parks
Mammoth Cave National Park
Olympic National Park
Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site
La Fortaleza and San Juan National Historic Site in Puerto Rico
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Statue of Liberty
Yosemite National Park #
Chaco Culture
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park #
Monticello and the University of Virginia in Charlottesville
Pueblo de Taos
Carlsbad Caverns National Park
Waterton Glacier International Peace Park *

TROJAN HORSE FOR AN INTERNATIONAL TAXATION SYSTEM?

CAN YOU SAY "CAP AND TRADE TAX" (AKA American Clean Energy & Security Act ( Hr 2454 )? IT'S HAPPENING NOW, FOLKS! THANKS TO ELITE CONTROLLED REP. HENRY WAXMAN AND BUDDIES!
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...?showtopic=6663

QUOTE

Canada

L�Anse aux Meadows National Historic Site
Nahanni National Park #
Dinosaur Provincial Park
Kluane / Wrangell-St Elias / Glacier Bay / Tatshenshini-Alsek # * 5
Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump
SGang Gwaay
Wood Buffalo National Park
Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks # 6
Historic District of Old Qu�bec
Gros Morne National Park
Old Town Lunenburg
Waterton Glacier International Peace Park *
Miguasha National Park
Rideau Canal
Joggins Fossil Cliffs

QUOTE

Mexico

Historic Centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco
Historic Centre of Oaxaca and Archaeological Site of Monte Alb�n
Historic Centre of Puebla
Pre-Hispanic City and National Park of Palenque
Pre-Hispanic City of Teotihuacan
Sian Ka'an
Historic Town of Guanajuato and Adjacent Mines
Pre-Hispanic City of Chichen-Itza
Historic Centre of Morelia
El Tajin, Pre-Hispanic City
Historic Centre of Zacatecas
Rock Paintings of the Sierra de San Francisco
Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino
Earliest 16th-Century Monasteries on the Slopes of Popocatepetl
Historic Monuments Zone of Quer�taro
Pre-Hispanic Town of Uxmal
Hospicio Caba�as, Guadalajara
Archeological Zone of Paquim�, Casas Grandes
Historic Monuments Zone of Tlacotalpan
Archaeological Monuments Zone of Xochicalco
Historic Fortified Town of Campeche
Ancient Maya City of Calakmul, Campeche
Franciscan Missions in the Sierra Gorda of Quer�taro
Luis Barrag�n House and Studio
Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California
Agave Landscape and Ancient Industrial Facilities of Tequila
Central University City Campus of the Universidad Nacional Aut�noma de M�xico (UNAM)
Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve
Protective town of San Miguel and the Sanctuary of Jes�s Nazareno de Atotonilco

1996 Clinton Executive Order 12986 -International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources:
http://www.epa.gov/fedreg/eo/eo12986.htm

jofortruth	Posted: Aug 2 2009, 09:01 AM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,480 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf In other Languages: http://whc.unesco.org/?cid=175 The Treaty adopted November 16, 1972! Adopted by the General Conference at its seventeenth session Paris.

jofortruth	Posted: Aug 2 2009, 09:07 AM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,480 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	Alex Visits some of these parks and talks about this in his video "America: Destroyed by Design" Question: Who really controls these properties, makes the decisions, and collects the fees assessed visitors?

jofortruth

Posted: Aug 2 2009, 09:11 AM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,480
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

World Heritage Information Kit
http://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/567/
http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/d...ivity-567-1.pdf

QUOTE

A key benefit of ratification, particularly for developing countries, is access to the World Heritage Fund. Annually, about US$1 million is made available to assist States Parties in identifying, preserving and promoting World Heritage sites. (pg 10)

So, what strings are attached to getting this money? Money isn't given out for free, folks! There's always a string attached! So what is it?

QUOTE

The World Heritage Fund was created in 1972 by the World Heritage Convention. Its purpose is to assist States Parties in identifying, preserving and promoting World Heritage sites. Contributions to the Fund are made by States Parties, on a compulsory or a voluntary basis. Compulsory contributions represent one percent of their annual UNESCO dues while voluntary contributions are paid on a regular basis at least every two years and should be no less than the contributions if they had been bound by the provisions regulating compulsory contributions. Other sources of income include other voluntary contributions, funds-in-trust donated by countries for specific purposes, partnerships, income derived from sales of World Heritage publications and private donations. (pg 11)

QUOTE

The Tentative List

The first step a country must take is making an �inventory� of its important natural and cultural heritage sites located within its boundaries. This �inventory� is
known as the Tentative List, and provides a forecast of the properties that a State Party may decide to submit for inscription in the next five to ten years and which
may be updated at any time. It is an important step since the World Heritage Committee cannot consider a nomination for inscription on the World Heritage List
unless the property has already been included on the State Party�s Tentative List.

How interesting that you have to submit a TOTAL INVENTORY of natural sites in your State or territory! Good information for these people isn't it?

Also, you have to REQUEST to become a part of this once you've signed the Treaty. This makes it sound special and more desirable! Of course, everyone likes to feel special! The question is: do they look any deeper to the real agenda behind this SPECIAL DESIGNATION? Is it about CONTROL?

Why can't our OWN COUNTRIES take care of these sites? Is this more about INTERNATIONAL CONTROL, COLLECTIVISM AND INCREMENTALLY EVOLVING US INTO A WORLD GOVERNMENT THROUGH THE TAKING OF OUR LAND AND MILLIONS OF ACRES?

jofortruth

Posted: Aug 2 2009, 09:42 AM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,480
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Do you know that our Congressmen are constantly signing TREATIES whereby they obligate us to things that have nothing to do with our Country and basically feed into the GLOBALIST INTERNATIONALISTS AGENDA? With each Treaty comes control over this Nations lands, infrastructure, and eventually over the people!

Here's an interesting article: (Even though these guys have been signing Treaties for decades)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/opinion/05bolton.html

QUOTE

January 5, 2009
Op-Ed Contributors

Restore the Senate�s Treaty Power

By JOHN R. BOLTON and JOHN YOO
THE Constitution�s Treaty Clause has long been seen, rightly, as a bulwark against presidential inclinations to lock the United States into unwise foreign commitments. The clause will likely be tested by Barack Obama�s administration, as the new president and Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton, led by the legal academics in whose circles they have long traveled, contemplate binding down American power and interests in a dense web of treaties and international bureaucracies.

Like past presidents, Mr. Obama will likely be tempted to avoid the requirement that treaties must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate. The usual methods around this constitutional constraint are executive agreements or a majority vote in the House and Senate to pass a treaty as a simple law (known as a Congressional-executive agreement).

Executive agreements have an acknowledged but limited place in our foreign affairs. Congressional-executive agreements are far more troubling. They have evoked scathing attacks by constitutional experts and have been strongly resisted in the Senate, at least so far.

The framers of the Constitution designed the treaty process with a bias against �entangling alliances,� as Thomas Jefferson described them in his first inaugural address. They designated the Senate as the body responsible to protect the interests of the states from being bargained away by the president in deals with foreign nations. The framers required a supermajority to ensure that treaties would reflect a broad consensus and careful, mature decision-making.

America needs to maintain its sovereignty and autonomy, not to subordinate its policies, foreign or domestic, to international control. On a broad variety of issues � many of which sound more like domestic rather than foreign policy � the re-emergence of the benignly labeled �global governance� movement is well under way in the Obama transition.

Candidate Obama promised to �re-engage� and �work constructively within� the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Will the new president pass a new Kyoto climate accord through Congress by sidestepping the constitutional requirement to persuade two-thirds of the Senate?

Draconian restrictions on energy use would follow. A majority of the Congress would be much easier for Mr. Obama to get than a supermajority of the Senate. A scholar at the Brookings Institution has already proposed that a new president overcome objections to this environmentalists� holy grail by evading the Treaty Clause.

President George W. Bush resisted many efforts at global governance. But his administration still sometimes fell into the temptation to flout the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

In 2002, the administration considered submitting the Treaty of Moscow, a nuclear arms reduction agreement, for majority approval of Congress. Vice President-elect Joe Biden, who was then the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, privately made clear that he would vigorously oppose such an attempt to evade the Senate�s constitutional prerogatives. The administration agreed to submit the agreement as a treaty, and the Moscow agreement cleared the Senate.

We hope the new vice president will not reverse his commitment to the Senate�s constitutional authority. But an administration determined to tie one hand behind America�s back might use Congressional-executive agreements to push the nation all too easily into quixotic and impractical global governance regimes.

President Bill Clinton signed Kyoto, but the Senate in effect rejected it. He also signed the Rome Treaty of 1998 that established an International Criminal Court, which would subject American soldiers and officials to unaccountable international prosecutors and judges for alleged war crimes (including, potentially, the undefined crime of �aggression�). Mr. Clinton did not even send this agreement to the Senate. Mr. Bush �unsigned� it. Mr. Obama might re-sign it and seek approval by only a majority of both houses of Congress.

Other international regimes might restrict America�s freedom of action to defend itself. In 1999, the Senate rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which would have undermined America�s ability to verify the reliability and effectiveness of its nuclear deterrent. Mr. Obama has said he supports ratification. The historical precedents are that major arms control agreements must receive the approval of two-thirds of the Senate.

President Bush, like President Clinton, did not sign a global agreement that would ban antipersonnel land mines, on the grounds that they are a key component of the American defense of South Korea. But his administration has pressed for ratification of the treaty on the law of the sea, which would subject disputes over the free passage of American naval vessels to the jurisdiction of an international maritime court � which the Senate has so far refused to ratify.

If Mr. Obama were to submit either of these agreements for approval by a simple majority of the House and Senate, his actions would pose a serious challenge to American principles of law and democratic governance. Global governance schemes delegate power to independent international organizations to make and enforce laws that would apply domestically, by international bureaucrats who are unaccountable to Congress, the president, American public opinion or the democratic process.

It is true that some multinational economic agreements, like Bretton Woods, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the North American Free Trade Agreement, went into effect after approval by majorities of Congress rather than two-thirds of the Senate. But international agreements that go beyond the rules of international trade and finance � that involve significant national-security commitments, or that purport to delegate lawmaking and enforcement functions to international organizations, or that could fundamentally alter the American constitutional system of individual rights � should receive the intense scrutiny of the treaty process, regardless of their policy merits.

By insisting on the proper constitutional process for treaty-making, Republicans can join Mr. Obama in advancing a bipartisan foreign policy. They can also help strike the proper balance between the legislative and executive branches that so many have called for in recent years.

John R. Bolton, the ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of �Surrender Is Not an Option.� John Yoo, a deputy assistant attorney general from 2001 to 2003, is a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

More on Treaties:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...?showtopic=4223

jofortruth

Posted: Aug 2 2009, 11:36 AM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,480
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

The Organizations, under direction from UNESCO Dir-Gen, that Prepare the Committee's documentation and agenda of its meetings and that has the responsibility for the implementation of its decisions: (See Article 14 Section 2)
http://www.international.icomos.org/home.htm

International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property (the Rome Centre):
http://www.iccrom.org/

International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS):
http://www.international.icomos.org/home.htm

International Union for Conservation of Nature & Natural Resources (IUCN):
http://www.iucn.org/

QUOTE

Article 14, Section 2:

"The Director-General of UNESCO, utilizing to the fullest extent possible the services of (the above organizations) shall prepare the Committee's documentation and the agenda of its meetings and shall have the responsibility for the implementation of its decisions."

So, indirectly these organizations have the capacity to control the thinking surrounding the UNESCO World Heritage sites. Their influence will filter down and dominate the project.

This is really no different than think tanks writing legislation that then gets passed in the US Congress, or some such thing. The control comes from the TOP regardless!

THE QUESTION IS: What is the real agenda of the organizations listed above who oversee this convention? Are they part of a bigger agenda?

For ex: Could this be one incremental, compartmentalized part of the current Environmental Agenda we are seeing taking over our Country? Is it really about control, the NWO, land grabs and the SUSTAINABILITY AGENDA?

Oh yes, everything the elite do APPEARS ON THE SURFACE to be a good thing, until you read the fine print and see there is another agenda that really drives it. The only way to determine if there is another agenda is to read their white papers, documents, and books.

jofortruth	Posted: Aug 2 2009, 07:28 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,480 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	USA Map of Biosphere Sites - World Heritage Sites: http://www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir/europe-n/USAmap.htm

jofortruth

Posted: Aug 2 2009, 07:42 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,480
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

2008 Tentative List & the Current Targets USA: (National Park Service / Dept of Interior)
http://www.nps.gov/oia/topics/worldheritag...rldheritage.htm

Go to the following section on the page above to see lists and maps: (Looks like the East Coast is the target now)

QUOTE

Important World Heritage Links & News Updates
�
Recently (Former) DOI Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced a US World Heritage Tentative List. For more information:�

Click here for a list of the 14 properties included in the new Tentative List. Click here for the press release announcing the new list and including brief descriptions of the 14 sites.

Click here for the complete New Tentative List report document.�

QUOTE

U.S. WORLD HERITAGE TENTATIVE LIST 2008

Cultural Properties (9):�
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Civil Rights Movement Sites, Alabama� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��
Dayton Aviation Sites, Ohio� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Hopewell Ceremonial Earthworks, Ohio� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Thomas Jefferson Buildings:� Poplar Forest and Virginia State Capitol� � � � � � � � � � ��
Mount Vernon, Virginia� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��
Poverty Point State Historic Site, Louisiana� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��
San Antonio Franciscan Missions, Texas� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Serpent Mound, Ohio� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��
Frank Lloyd Wright Buildings, Arizona, California, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin

Mixed Property (1):� �
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��
Paphanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, Hawaii

Natural Properties (4): � � �
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��
Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary, American Samoa� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Okefenokee Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, Georgia� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��
Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
White Sands National Monument, New Mexico� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

The Tentative List of the 14 sites listed above was transmitted to the UNESCO World Heritage Center on January 24, 2008.� No more than 2 of these sites can be nominated each year.

PROPERTIES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE INCLUSION IN THE TENTATIVE LIST� � �

Cultural Properties:

Colonial Newport, Rhode Island
Eastern State Penitentiary, Pennsylvania
French Creole Properties of the Mid-Mississippi Valley, Illinois-Missouri
Gamble House, California
Moravian Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Moundville Site, Alabama
Olana (Home of Frederic Church), New York
Pipestone National Monument, Minnesota
Shaker Villages, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, and New York
Underground Railroad Sites (John Rankin and John Parker Houses), Ohio

Natural Property:

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, Massachusetts

These properties have been judged to possess varying degrees of potential to meet the World Heritage criteria.� Additional work in a range of areas is needed before they can receive further consideration for inclusion in the Tentative List.

jofortruth	Posted: Aug 2 2009, 09:52 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,480 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	The US MAB Concept and Program�A Chronology Addressing Biosphere Reserves http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/USAMAB/MAB_web_doc...0Chronology.pdf

jofortruth	Posted: Aug 3 2009, 11:14 AM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,480 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	Sustainable Development, Agenda 21, and how they relate to this: http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...p?showtopic=209 Is the Presidio in San Francisco being used for another Sustainable Dev site? http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...?showtopic=4515

jofortruth

Posted: Sep 3 2009, 11:00 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,480
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

United Nations Biosphere Reserve Land Grabs
http://www.infowars.com/united-nations-bio...rve-land-grabs/

QUOTE

Spy Witness News
September 3, 2009

What do the Statue of Liberty, Independence Hall, and Monticello have in common? The average American with a smattering of historical knowledge might say that those historic sites are all symbolic of America�s unique heritage of freedom.

Jefferson�s Monticello is controlled by the United Nations.

Monticello, of course, was the home of Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence. That document (as well as the U.S. Constitution, later) was signed in Independence Hall. The Statue of Liberty memorializes the free nation under God that those founding documents created.

What about the Great Smoky Mountains, Yellowstone Park, and the Grand Canyon? Well, these priceless natural resources are all managed by the U.S. National Parks Service. They are among the most frequently visited natural recreation areas in America, where millions of American families vacation every year.

Would it surprise you to learn that every one of these unique American landmarks is also controlled by the United Nations? It�s amazing but true. Every one of the natural and historic treasures listed above � plus more than a dozen more in America � has been designated an official World Heritage Site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which is headquartered in Paris, France.

Sites included in the World Heritage program are considered to have �outstanding universal value� as part of our common world heritage. They are designated as protected areas under the 1972 World Heritage Treaty, which is itself an outgrowth of the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference � where the currently ubiquitous concept of �sustainable development� first saw the light of day.

But, wait � there�s more. There are 47 OTHER locations in America designated as UN Biosphere Reserves, which are vast parcels of land set aside for conservation and scientific study. Symbolized by the Egyptian ankh, the UN�s Man and Biosphere program is designed to help humans achieve a �balanced relationship with the natural world� � again, through �sustainable use�of natural resources.

Button, button, who�s got the button?

What does this mean in real life? Well, nothing, if you believe the UN. �Biosphere Reserves have no international or other authority,� claims the website of the U.S. MAB program. Their list of common �myths� about MAB includes denials that the program results in any �loss of sovereignty� or threat to private property.

Others see it differently. Henry Lamb, executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International, says that the �Operational Guidelines� developed by the UN are effectively enforced by the U.S. government agencies managing the sites locally.

�Neither Congress, nor any state legislature, has ever voted to approve any of the 47 UN Biosphere Reserves in the United States. The management policy for millions of acres covered by these reserves is crafted by international committees of bureaucrats, none of whom is elected. To comply with �international obligations,� the United States conforms its management policy and, in some cases. its law to accommodate the wishes of bureaucrats that are completely unknown to the people who are governed by the policies,� Lamb insists.

�This reality is but a hint of what is in store for those governed by the rule of international law. Massive documents, such as the 1140-page �Global Biodiversity Assessment,� the 300-page �Agenda 21,� and the 410-page �Our Global Neighborhood,� all paint a picture of the international law that is being devised to govern the world in the 21st century.� (For more information visit www.eco.freedom.org .)

The core of the buffer zone is the transition area

Every Biosphere Reserve site consists of a protected CORE area, set aside strictly for conservation; a surrounding BUFFER ZONE, with limited human activity allowed; and a larger TRANSITION area, where otherwise legal human use may be severely restricted when the site is judged to be �in danger.�

For example, in 1995, Bill Clinton got the UN to declare Yellowstone Park a �World Heritage Site in Danger.� That gave him the �international obligation� to close down a coal mine on private property three miles away � despite the fact that coal had been mined in the area for 150 years before Yellowstone Park was created, and the Crown Butte Mines had won an award for excellence in 1992.

Today, Yellowstone Park is still considered to be �in danger,� according to the UN, because of �year-round visitor pressure.� Too many U.S. tourists taking their kids to see Old Faithful, the global bureaucrats in Paris say.

The President has the sole authority to approve these UN designations. Congress has no oversight, and average American citizens have no input. The House of Representatives has twice passed a bill requiring Congressional approval before any more precious pieces of America can be designated either Biosphere Reserves or World Heritage sites. So far, the Senate has refused to even bring the measure up for a vote.

Call me old-fashioned, but I still think Americans ought to control American land, not UNESCO bureaucrats. Why are both Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives, allowing the UN to wield this kind of influence inside our nation�s borders? U.S. taxpayers should be outraged!

jofortruth

Posted: Oct 6 2011, 11:32 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,480
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Our Land - Collateral for the National Debt: (Written in 2007)
http://www.newswithviews.com/brownfield/brownfield59.htm

QUOTE

When James Baker made his keynote speech in 1987, he stated that, �No longer will the World Bank carry this debt unsecured. The only assets we have to collateralize are federal lands and national parks.� Baker�s definition of federal lands includes Heritage sites, of which there are about 20 in the United States. I say �about� 20, because they are being added on a regular basis. As I write this article Congress is about to vote on a proposed Rim of the Valley National Park that would include over 500,000 acres of National Forest land and 170,000 parcels of private property including many farms and ranches. At the same time there is a bill before Congress called the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act that would increase the acreage of designated wilderness by 50% in the lower 48 states. *** While our Heritage sites take in quite a large amount of territory, such as Yellowstone National Park and Mesa Verde, the Grand Canyon and the Everglades, other countries have much greater areas. Brazil for example has the Amazon Conservation Complex and Canada has the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks. As I write this story the list includes 851 properties in 141 countries, comprising over one third of the earth�s land mass. Will all this land collateralize the world�s debt? Probably not, so along comes NAIS (the National Animal Identification System).

0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

0 Members:

« Next Oldest | United Nations / Agenda 21 / ICLEI / Redevelopment Agencies / Land Use / Planning Commissions | Next Newest »

Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.

Learn More · Sign-up Now