American land grabs by the United Nations
Snip: 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.
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.
Kofi Annan owns Old Faithful? 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.
You are correct, as usual:-)
I have a UN Biodiversity map, which I wish I could figure out how to post. Anyhow, the actual amount of pivately owned land in the U. S. is a very small amount.
I think they must have figured they should include the Smoky Mountains after the feds occupied for two years a little, sleepy mountain town in western North Carolina, during their alleged hunt for Eric Rudolph.
Snippets: ... A small group of Republican senators, led by Jim Inhofe of land-locked Oklahoma, has blocked American ratification of the treaty, claiming that it would impinge upon U.S. sovereignty. The Bush administration, a majority of the United States Senate, and the Pentagon favor ratification, as do representatives of scientific, international legal scholar, mining, and environmentalist groups.
"The treaty... would put 70 percent of the Earth's surface under the despot-loving, corrupt and unaccountable "governance" of the United Nations." -Oliver North
The arguments against the treaty fall into these main categories:
-National sovereignty: The treaty limits US legal authority by granting power to a United Nations-created agency with its own court and bureaucracy, as part of a general expansion of international power. Ultimately treaty-based laws could be enforced against the US.
-War on terror: The treaty limits US military activities especially relevant to anti-terror operations, such as intelligence collection and submerged travel in coastal waters (Articles 19, 20) and the boarding of ships for anti-terror purposes (Art. 110). Other provisions such as Articles 88 and 301 limit the sea to "peaceful purposes," which is said to restrict all military operations.
-Navigation rights not threatened: One of the treaty's main selling points, legally recognized navigation rights on, over, and under straits, is unnecessary because these rights are not currently threatened by law or by any military capable of opposing the US.
-Redistribution of wealth: The treaty would force the US to pay taxes to the United Nations, further increasing the UN's power.
-Redistribution of technology: The treaty would force US businesses to turn over economically and militarily relevant technology to other countries.
-Undesirable precedent: The treaty paves the way for increased power of Non-governmental organizations over the US and other nations.