The Dark Side Of Globalism

Politically Right.com ^ | January 27, 2004 | Tom DeWeese

[Fitzcarraldo]

THE CASE AGAINST WORLD GOVERNMENT, by Walter F. Burns

[american spirit]

I went to that site and read that happy horse$hit....what collection of freaks and fags created all that nonsense?....the UN?

[hedgetrimmer]

H.R.5496
Public Law: 96-515 (12/12/80)
SPONSOR: Rep Seiberling (introduced 09/28/79)


Directs the Secretary of the Interior , in consultation with national historical and archeological associations, to establish or revise criteria for properties to be included on the National Register and criteria for National Historic Landmarks, and to promulgate or revise regulations as may be necessary for: (1) nominating properties for inclusion in, and removal from, the National Register ; (2) designating properties as National Historic Landmarks and removing such designation; (3) considering appeals from such recommendations, nominations, removals, and designations; (4) nominating historic properties for inclusion in the World Heritage List; (5) making determinations of eligibility of properties for inclusion on the National Register; and (6) notifying the property owners, any appropriate local governments, and the general public when a property is being considered for inclusion on the National Register, for designation as a National Historic Landmark or for nomination to the World Heritage List

[Destructor]

"Please give me an example of this. I've heard about it for years but haven't seen any evidence."

Give me a mailing address, and I will send you copy of an article on the subject complete with a photo of the sign Declaring the "Smoky Mountains National Park" to be an "International Biosphere." You can leave that mailing address on my Freep Mail.

[hedgetrimmer]

Twenty important symbols of national pride, along with 51 million acres of our wilderness, are World Heritage Sites or Biosphere Reserves now falling under the control of the U.N. This includes the Statue of Liberty, Thomas Jefferson's home at Monticello, the Washington Monument, the Brooklyn Bridge, Yellowstone National Park, Yosemite, the Florida Everglades and the Grand Canyon - to name just a few.

Most ironic of all is the listing of Philadelphia's Independence Hall. The birthplace of our Republic is now an official World Heritage Site. The very place where our Founding Fathers signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - the documents that set America apart from other nations and created the world's longest-standing democracy - is no longer fully under the control of our government and the American people.

Protection of our treasured places is a sound undertaking, but doing so by ceding control of our sovereign territory to a foreign power is wrong and threatens our rights and freedoms.

In 1995, Crown Butte Mines in the New World Mining District in Montana was forced to abandon a mine development project after the U.N. listed Yellowstone National Park as a "World Heritage Site in Danger."3 Crown Butte proposed to mine a medium-size underground operation on private property three miles from the boundary of Yellowstone. The project would have employed 280 people and generated $230 million in revenue.4

This mining project was not unique. The area had been mined for 150 years before Yellowstone National Park was established. Crown Butte had worked along with the U.S. Forest Service to ensure that all of the necessary precautions were being taken to ensure that the project would be environmentally responsible. Crown Butte had won an award for excellence in 1992 and was considered to be a "showcase operation."5

None of these factors mattered to the U.N.'s World Heritage Committee. Citing the project as a potential threat, the U.N. exerted its authority to force the abandonment of the project. It did not matter to the U.N. that this violated Crown Butte's exercise of its private property rights under the U.S. Constitution. Nor did the U.N. care that its action also went against U.S. federal law prohibiting the inclusion of non-federal property within a U.S. World Heritage Site without the consent of the property owner.6

Although it has not happened yet, under the World Heritage Treaty the U.N. has the legal right to someday restrict us, as American citizens, from visiting our national treasures.

Many environmentalists believe that the mere presence of humans disturbs the environment. As such, it is not farfetched to wonder when the politically-correct U.N. will ban the American public from Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, the Florida Everglades and other precious natural wonders now visited annually by millions of tourists.

Ironically, banning generations of young people from visiting our natural wonders would undermine the public's appreciation for the spectacular gifts of nature, and undercut support for environmental protection.

Unfortunately, the World Heritage Treaty is just one of a series of government actions that is stripping away the gift of freedom we received from our Founding Fathers.
--Melissa Wiedbrauk

[hedgetrimmer]

The Globalization of United States Domestic Land Use Policy
By Congressman Don Young (R-AK)


The Constitution gives Congress the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations governing lands belonging to the United States. Yet over the last 25 years, 68 percent of America's National Parks, Preserves and Monuments have been designated as a United Nations World Heritage Site, Biosphere Reserve or both by Executive Branch action with virtually no Congressional oversight or approval and out of the sight of the public scrutiny.

World Heritage Sites are natural sites or cultural monuments recognized by the "United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization" (UNESCO) under "The Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage."

U.S. Biosphere Reserves are part of the "Man and Biosphere Program," a worldwide program operated by UNESCO. Biosphere Reserves operate without legislative direction and are not authorized by Congress, nor is the program part of an international treaty.

What is a biosphere reserve? The model UN biosphere reserve is actually a federally zoned laboratory where social engineers have real life subjects to use in studies to testing their theories on biodiversity, conservation and sustainable development. The reserve consists of:

a core area, such as a national park, which has strict legislative protection and is used for scientific monitoring of minimally disturbed ecosystems;


a "managed use area," surrounding the core area, where allowable land uses and human activities are strictly regulated; and



an "area of cooperation" having an undefined boundary and managed for "Sustainable" production and uses in harmony with the biosphere reserve.


The "area of cooperation" is a sort of utopian neighborhood where, according to the State Department, "managing agencies, local governmental agencies, scientists, economic interests, nongovernmental organizations, cultural groups, local citizens and other biosphere reserve stakeholders educate one another in the process of linking conservation, economic development and cultural values." The "area of cooperation" includes non-federal property.

Dr. Jeremy Rabkin, professor of government at Cornell University, argues: "Lands of private owners, lands owned by state or municipal governments and U.S. government land seem to be thrown into this warm, bubbling stew of cooperating 'stakeholders' where actual owners seem to have no more status than advocacy organizations from outside, where 'local citizens' have no more status than 'cultural groups' from the other side of the country." Rabkin adds, "The whole point of that amorphous term 'stakeholder' is to blur distinctions between owner and spectator and between citizen and outsider."

Federal agencies use international land reserves to control and orchestrate local and state land use policy and steamroll the property rights of private land owners. This problem is illustrated by the "New World Mine" project located three miles beyond Yellowstone National Park, a World Heritage Site. The boundary of the World Heritage Site coincides exactly with the national park boundary. The Department of Interior (DOT), which wanted to stop the mine, brought in the World Heritage Committee to "inspect" the project, parading the Committee around Montana and Wyoming as if they had an important say in the development of the mine.

Ninety percent of the New World Project is located on private land and the remainder is in a National Forest. Under U.S. law, private land cannot be included in a World Heritage Site without the consent of the owner, and the owner of the mining project never consented to be included in the World Heritage Site. DOI's action also trampled on the decision made by Congress to manage Federal lands included in the project as part of the multiple-use National Forest System -- not as protected land in Yellowstone National Park.

DOI had no authority to invite a foreign entity to interfere with a domestic land use decision. D0I bureaucrats ignored U.S. law and infringed on personal private property rights by involving the World Heritage Comniittee in a project located on private land. They exhibited no concern or interest about protecting rights of U.S. citizens or respecting the decisions of Congress. These bureaucrats were incapable of seeing how these actions compromised U.S. sovereignty.

Why should we even think about involving an international body in making land policy decisions for lands within the United States? Congress must act to keep international commitments from interfering with Constitutional constraints. Otherwise, the rights of our citizens and the boundary between public land managed by government and private property can be too easily ignored.

[EagleMamaMT]

Thanks for the ping. Will read later after work.

[hedgetrimmer]

To achieve world government we must either create the universal trust without which there can be no freedom or impose a supervision that is complete, a police state

The UN's sustainable development program creates a police state where your behaviors are modified to meet their ideas of what is appropriate, your goals in life are modified to suit the needs of the global workforce planners,your food is modified to meet the 19th production and sanitation levels of sustainable agriculture, your home is modified to meet their idea of an inter-generational equity in resource uses (aka sustainable communities or employment villages) and your rights? Pah! What are those?

[sergeantdave]

The genesis of most any Land Use proposal begins with the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, organized early in the Clinton administration. This is where “smart growth” and “biodiversity conservation” starts.

The president’s council borrowed heavily from a United Nation’s document called Agenda 21. Written by NGOs pledged to the UN’s utopian vision of a sweeping world government, Agenda 21 calls for state control of individuals in every aspect of life.

Agenda 21 is an amalgam of half-truths, soviet collectivism, doom and gloom hysteria, junk science, utopian rants and socialist propaganda. It is hostile toward free enterprise, individual rights and private property, and it elevates the welfare of earth over the rights of man. To attain the utopian goals, man must be controlled by an unelected, unaccountable elite who know what’s best for all.

Thus, land use plans are a statement by a utopian “smart growth” movement whose core managing principles revolve around central state planning and state control of private property - fascism and communism.

[fire_eye]

May I point out that once a Government (such as the Third Reich), or an extra-governmental, multinational organization (such as the League of Nations), ceases to exist, all decrees it has issued and treaties into which it has entered no longer have any legal effect, and become mere historical curiosities.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[DustyMoment]

Here's a sample for you:

World Heritage Sites Controlled by the U.N.:

1.Mesa Verde National Park
2.Yellowstone National Park
3.Everglades National Park
4.Grand Canyon Park
5.Independence Hall National Historical Site
6.Redwood National Park
7.Mammoth Cave National Park
8.Olympic National Park
9.Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site
10.Great Smokey Mountains National Park
11.San Juan and La Fortaleza National Historic Sites
12.State of Liberty National Monument
13.Yosemite National Park
14.Monticello & University of Virginia Historic District
15.Choco Culture National Historic Park
16.Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
17.Pueblo de Toos
18.Carlsbad Caverns National Park
19.Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve
20.Glacier Bay National Park Preserve
21.Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park

Biosphere Reserves Controlled by the U.N.:

1.Aleutian Islands Wildlife Refuge
2.Beaver Creek Experimental Forest
3.Big Bend National Park
4.Big Thicket National Preserve
5.California Coast Ranges Reserve
6.Carolinian-South Atlantic Reserve
7.Cascade Gead Experimental Forect & Research Area
8.Central California Coastal Plains Reserve
9.Central Gulf Coastal Plains Reserve
10.Central Plains Experimental Range
11.Champlain-Adirondack Reserve
12.Channel islands Reserve
13.Coram Experimental Forest
14.Denali National Park and Preserve
15.Dessert Experimental Range
16.Everglades/Dry Tortugas national Parks
17.Fraser Experimental Forest
18.Glacier Bay-Admirality Island Reserve
19.Glacier National Park
20.Guanica State Forest
21.H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest
22.Hawaiian Islands Reserve
23.Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest
24.Isle Royale National Park
25.Jomada Experimental Range
26.Konzo Prairie Research Natural Area
27.Land Between the Lakes Area Reserve
28.Luquillo Experimental Forest
29.Mammoth Cave Area Reserve
30.Mojave and Colorado Desert Reserves
31.New Jersey Pinelands Reserve
32.Niwat Ridge Reserve
33.Noatok National Preserve/Gates of the Arctic National Park
34.Olympic National Park
35.Organ Pipe Cactus national Monument
36.Rocky Mountain National Park
37.San Dimas Experimental Forest
38.San Joaquin Experimental Range
39.Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks
40.South Atlantic Coastal Plain Reserve
41.Southern Appalacian Reserve
42.Stanislaus-Tuolumne Experimental Forest
43.Three Sisters Wilderness
44.University of Michigan Biological Station
45.Virgin Islands National Park
46.Virginia Coast Reserve 47.Yellowstone National Park

Our politicians have willingly turned these parks over to the UN who own and control them, but WE (US taxpayers) still pay to maintain them and staff them.

[DustyMoment]

Here's another source - FreeRepublic, no less:

**DOES THE UN CONTROL OUR PARKS ? **

Government Extended News News Keywords: IDAHO/YOSEMITE
Source: Deseret News/United Feature Syndicate
Published: May 10, 1999 Author: JACK ANDERSON & JAN MOLLER
Posted on 07/11/1999 22:00:46 PDT by Bluegoose

We didn't really believe the Idaho sportsman who called our office to complain their hunting and fishing privileges were being curtailed by the United Nations.

The Clinton adminisration has adopted some unpopular land-use policies in the West, but surely the UN does not have jurisdiction over some of our nations most treasured natural and historical sites.

Could a bureaucrat at the World Body really tell the United States what to do with Yellowstone Park?

It turns out the sportsman is right--and wrong.

But the issue they raised also cut to the heart of the never-ending debate over the care and preservation of still-unspoiled areas of the Great American West.

The current controversy began in 1973, during the Nixon administration, when the Senate ratified a treaty with the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Barely noticed at the time, the treaty gave UNESCO the rights to designate some 67 sites as historically important.

Sites listed include Yellowstone National Park, the Statue of Liberty and the University of Virginia. In all, more than 51 million acres of the United Stats land fall under UNESCO designation.

This doesn't play well in the West, where ranchers and hunters are ever-suspicious of government attempts to encroach on their land-use privileges.

Although UNESCO doesn't have an enforcement arm, Nixon's treaty pledges that the United States will care for these sites according to United Nations guidelines.

Very few Westerners appreciate being told what to do by a group of elected officials from more than 100 countries around the globe.

Enter the Clinton administration. The first family had barely moved into the White House when Clinton angered Western lawmakers by trying to reform ancient grazing land and mining laws that environmentalists believe are ludicrously outdated and harmful.

Things came to a head in 1995, when UNESCO tried to wield influence over the proposed New World Mine near Yellowstone. The mine was to be located on private property adjacent to the park, but environmentalists saw a dangerous precedent being set and wanted desperately to protect the parks "buffer zone."

UNESCO sided with the environmentalists, and so did the Clinton administration when it ponied up $65 milion to buy the land from the mining company and preserve it for future generations.

That was too much for some lawmakers to take. Rep Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho), and others quickly introduced the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, which seeks to remove the United Nations influence over domestic land-use decisions.

Sources at the World Body (United Nations) say the proposed bill is ludicrous.

For one, they argue, preservation sites are only designated with the approval of affected property owners, plus local and national authorities.

Sources in Chenoweth's office tell us that state and local governments are rarely consulted before a historic site is designated, and that such decisions are usually made by unelected Federal bureaucrats at the Department of Interior or higher-up.

It's too early to tell if the Chenoweth bill will even get a vote in the current Congress.

But if it does, consider it yet another signal that Clinton's War on the West has proven to be almost as difficult as the one being fought in Kosovo.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[Destructor]

"Please give me an example of this. I've heard about it for years but haven't seen any evidence."

I can give you proof that this is true (that is if you really want to know the truth). If you don't have the courage to face the truth, then don't question those that are trying to make others aware of it.

[webstersII]

Thanks for the update.

Sounds like it depends on who is in the White House how seriously they take the enforcement of the treaty. I knew there was some linkage to the UN there but it's not quite the same as direct control.

Still, though, it's ridiculous to have something like this under UN influence at all. Glad that someone in Congress is trying to do something about the move back toward some sovereignty for the US. These things take time; I can't imagine they will be successful with this to begin with, given all the UN-lovers who are still in public office.

[The_Eaglet]

Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 47

[hedgetrimmer]

The UN doesn't need direct control in order to control.

Take a look at OUR elected officials in Davos Switzerland-- meeting with their real constitutents, not American citizens.

These are statements made by our politicians which reflect the goals of the UN:

I bumped into Congressman Barney Frank and asked what he wanted to accomplish in Davos, and he said he wanted to get the message to the world's top business leaders and bankers that he is prepared to cooperate with worldwide economic integration

In a workshop on China, led by Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, he pointed out President Bush has been to China twice and he fully supports China's integration into the global market. Corporations are able to make large profits by moving operations there. Several on the panel testified about those opportunities. One Asian businessman said, "Chinese assets in 2004 is good monkey business." This year is their Year of the Monkey.

Now why is China so profitable? It is no secret that their people are being paid slave-labor wages to work in factories. With 1.4 billion people, their slave-labor benefits all the countries of the world, thus undermining economies with higher paid employees that are forced to downsize, outsource, privatize and reduce wages. You see, in a world without borders you can do that. Currently there are 200 million Chinese who need to be absorbed into the global workforce. This equates to finding jobs for the entire U.S. or European workforce! In America, we are confronted with the loss of steel, manufacturing and textiles moving overseas. In January, Levi Strauss announced – after 150 years of doing business in America – they were moving their last U.S. plant to China.

Commerce Secretary Don Evans said with excitement that the "U.S. is simply trying to create conditions for long term monetary growth. Those conditions that have made the U.S. the most important economic engine in the world – that is the key focus in China."

Wednesday U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft met in a closed-door session, and on Thursday he delivered his address to the plenary. Furthermore, Mr. Ashcroft said the United States was pleased to "reaffirm the U.S. commitment to the types of shared values the United Nations, the Organization of American States, the European Union, the Group of Eight and a variety of other institutions provide."

Those shared values, folks, are global socialism.

What does all of this point out? There is a "looking up," if you will, to international institutions for answers instead of the individual nation-state acting independently as they have in the past.
Joan Veon

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[Destructor]

"Please give me an example of this. I've heard about it for years but haven't seen any evidence."

So, do you want proof of this or not?