Posted on 01/12/2002 4:39:37 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Some years ago, I left Florida in the midst of a rainstorm, driving north. Just across the Georgia line, I noticed that the rain seemed to be accumulating on the windshield wipers. I noticed that the fences along the road seemed to glisten. Before I knew it, the centerline disappeared and the road was white. Unfamiliar with these conditions, I touched the brake, which resulted in a spin-out and a backward slide down a 20-foot embankment. I was stuck.
Like the unexpected Southern snowstorm, global governance is likely to ensnare us before we recognize what it is, or its power to stifle our freedom.
I get letters from readers regularly, who say things such as: "I'll never accept world government!" The truth is, we are already in its grip.
Global governance will not march on Washington in the form of blue-helmeted troops. It is marching into our towns in the form of "smart growth" proposals; into our schools in the form of "tolerance" curricula; into our churches in the form of "The National Religious Partnership for the Environment"; and into our government in the form of a parade of bills to promote everything from global taxation, to a Department of Peace inspired by UNESCO.
Global governance is all around us; we just don't recognize it as such. Nowhere is global governance more apparent than in our land-use policies. Way back in 1976, the U.N. set forth its policy on land use, saying:
Land ... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable. ..."
Since then, through a series of treaties, agreements, laws and administrative initiatives, the federal government has moved relentlessly to acquire land where possible, and control its use through regulation – where acquisition has not yet been achieved.
The Convention on Biological Diversity requires that each State Party initiate "a system of protected areas." The instruction book for implementation, the Global Biodiversity Assessment, identifies The Wildlands Project as the ideal system for protecting biodiversity.
The Wildlands Project seeks to set aside 50 percent of the total land area as wilderness. John Heilprin reports in the Anchorage Daily News that since 1970, designated wilderness areas have grown from 247 to 741 million acres – to encompass about 15 percent of the total land area of the continent.
When congressmen introduce wilderness bills, they never say that the purpose of the bill is to comply with the U.N. policy of land-use control. They say it is to "protect" the land and its resources for future generations. When Bill Clinton designated his monuments and "roadless areas," he didn't say it was to advance the policy of the United Nations, he said it was to "protect" the land and its resources for future generations.
If the land and its resources are owned or controlled by the government, it will be of no more value to future generations than it is to the present generation from which it is being taken. Once land is owned by, or under the control of a government entangled in land use treaties, our government becomes little more than an administrative unit for the implementation of global-governance policies.
The rash of "sustainable communities" initiatives that continue to plague cities in every state did not emerge as the result of a spontaneous demand by citizens. It has been carefully calculated, orchestrated and implemented by the international community of U.N. agencies and organizations, and a host of cooperating non-government organizations (NGOs).
As people are forced off their rural lands in pursuit of the 50 percent wilderness panacea, they are to move to "sustainable communities," designed by government bureaucrats for easy control. The idea that a person should live where he chooses, in the home he chooses, is anathema to global governance. The 1976 U.N. policy statement on land actually recommends a national commission on population distribution. Global governance presumes the wisdom, and the authority, to dictate not only where, but how, private citizens should live.
I sat in my car until just before dawn, watching the snow accumulate around me. Finally, an old farmer on an even older John Deere tractor came down the road. He hooked a chain onto my bumper, and with considerable effort, dragged my car back onto the road and helped me get headed in the right direction.
When enough people recognize that global governance is burying our freedom, we may be able to collectively pull our country back onto the road paved by our Constitution and get this nation headed, again, in the right direction.
As people are forced off their rural lands in pursuit of the 50 percent wilderness panacea, they are to move to "sustainable communities," designed by government bureaucrats for easy control. The idea that a person should live where he chooses, in the home he chooses, is anathema to global governance. The 1976 U.N. policy statement on land actually recommends a national commission on population distribution. Global governance presumes the wisdom, and the authority, to dictate not only where, but how, private citizens should live.
Folks, It IS coming. Henry's pretty well got a handle on the problem. Peace and love, George.
Henry has a better handle on what the globalists are up to than any individual I've ever met...when Henry Lamb speaks, the wise will pay heed..
George, it is here. Blue helmets and Marxist politicians make good targets...
Sorry, you are correct.
Well, shucks...since you've ruled out violence, this won't be any fun. ; )
How about something like: block access to the UN building. Not sure exactly how it's situated on the island, but I know it's more or less right on the water. This means that there's a limited number of roads that would go right to the building. So a dedicated (and soon to be thoroughly demonized in the media) group of patriots could completely block land access one morning. Do the annoying lib thing of chaining themselves to barricades or cars or whatever the hell they can drag onsite. If a large enough number of people showed up, they'd be in the camera's eye for a while, until the NYPD got everyone hauled off.
Makes me wonder: what's the body responsible for security at the UN building? If there's some boundary inside which it's UN security zone, then that zone could be crashed with enough bodies. The "activists" would then be outside the jurisdiction of NYPD, who would likely be more prepared to deal with such a situ than the UN punks. In such a scenario, if the UN punks could be made to overreact against US citizens, that might make for some nice anit-UN coverage.
....I'm still wondering--
BH, And still hoping and plugging away. Hang tough not high. Peace and love, George.
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using UN_List, click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | UN_List | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.