FEDERAL BIOSPHERES ARE STILL ILLEGAL

Fiedor Report On the News #300 ^ | 2-2-03 | Doug Fiedor

[forest]

Today, over 68% of public land -- land belonging to the people of the United States -- the land in our National Parks, Preserves and Monuments, is designated as a United Nations World Heritage Site, Biosphere Reserve or both. Worse yet, United Nations' land designations, such as UNESCO Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites, currently take place without the approval of Congress and with no Congressional oversight. Nor are State and local officials, or even private landowners, usually consulted.

By allowing these international land designations, the U.S. is indirectly agreeing to terms of international treaties, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, to which the U.S. is not a party or which the U.S. Senate has refused to ratify. That is, by agreeing to form UNESCO biospheres in the United States, federal bureaucrats allow a group of foreigners to make land-use regulations for our property and the federal bureaucracy uses the guns of the federal government to force the American people to obey the foreign regulations.

So, although the United Nations has no direct enforcement of land management -- they have no police here yet -- decisions in the use and operation of Biosphere Reserves or World Heritage Sites are set in accordance with UNESCO rules and regulations. There is no treaty or agreement. Some federal bureaucrats(1) took this power upon themselves. Which means, they unlawfully gave the international community an open invitation to interfere in U.S. domestic land use decisions -- decisions which often limit the use of privately owned property, and thereby negatively impact on its value.

For instance, the actions of the World Heritage Committee in condemning a proposed mining development on privately-owned land outside the boundaries of Yellowstone National Park, a World Heritage Site, provides an example of the havoc these foreign programs can create. A member of the World Heritage Committee, Adul Wichiencharoen from Thailand (of all places), requested that a 12 million acre (18,750 square mile) buffer zone be created around the 2 million acre Yellowstone National Park. Federal bureaucrats are attempting to work that foolishness in, but the pesky people living in the area won't cooperate. One bureaucratic suggestion is that the people be removed so the weeds, bugs and wild animals can live in peace.

According to the U.S. National Committee MAB, as adopted on July 26, 1995: "The mission of the United States MAB Program is to explore, demonstrate, promote, and encourage harmonious relationships between people and their environments building on the MAB network of Biosphere Reserves and interdisciplinary research. The long-term goal of the U.S. MAB Program is to contribute to achieving a sustainable society early in the 21st Century. The MAB mission and long term goal will be implemented, in the United States and internationally, through public-private partnerships and linkages that sponsor and promote cooperative interdisciplinary research, experimentation, education and information exchange on options by which societies can achieve sustainability."(2)

Another mission statement is available by the Department of State.(3) Their Environmental and Scientific Affairs office also posted a page of informative links.(4)

Back in the Carter Administration there was an international agreement which many countries signed onto. The United States agreed, in part. And, as always, the American taxpayer got stuck paying big bucks for something that had zero benefit for the American public. The key word there was "agreement." It was not an international treaty. President Carter agreed to participate only in part, and implemented that part of the agreement through an executive memoranda. The administration then secured minimal program funding from Congress.

President Reagan saw the fallacy in the program and canceled the whole thing. However, federal bureaucrats did not conform and continued making more biospheres.

On April 24, 1997, Rep. Coburn offered an amendment to the National Science Foundation budget stating that: "No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act shall be used for the United States Man and Biosphere Program, or related projects." Coburn spelled out the law for the House:

"It is important that the people recognize that the Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage sites are under the guidance of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization also known as UNESCO. The United States withdrew from that Organization in 1984 because of gross financial mismanagement.

"Over 68 percent of our national parks, preserves, and monuments have been designated as United Nations World Heritage sites, Biosphere Reserves or both. There are currently 47 of those sites [97 actually] in the United States, covering an area the size of Colorado. Under the relative agreements, the United States is promising to manage lands in accordance with international guidelines.

"Many times local governments, [and] private property [owners] are never consulted in these management plans. This is a clear violation of private property rights. The biosphere programs, including the United States Man and Biosphere Program, have never been authorized by any Congress, never been authorized, but still received [funds] this past year and this year will receive over $700,000 of taxpayers' money. The National Science Foundation distributed more than $400,000 in grants to this unauthorized program despite the fact that the program has never had a consideration or vote in Congress and has never been approved by a body of the Congress."

That amendment easily passed, as did a number of subsequent amendments to various budget bills specifically defunding the biosphere project -- even though the project never had authorization. Yet, the biosphere reserves are still with us and third-world foreigners from UNESCO are still wandering our nation with the intent of directing our land usage.

Still today, the U.S. and UNESCO Man and Biosphere Program (MAB) seems to be chugging along like the Little Engine that Could. No matter what, it will not quit.(5)

Legally, the Man and the Biosphere program does not exist. Yet, an American citizen can still get arrested for entering one of their many restricted zones. Congress never funded the program, and even stated in a number of bills that no money may be spent on it. Yet, the program is still in full operation.

For more on exactly what a biosphere is, as per UNESCO, and what they have planned for the American People, see the Biospheres in a Nutshell FAQ.(6)

Clearly, this is a gross misappropriation of funds. Stealing of taxpayer money, in other words. That being so, a few dozen bureaucrats should be fitted up with some prison uniforms. That's the only way this nonsense will ever be stopped.

-----------------------------

1. <http://www.euromab.org/general_information/nat_comm.html>

2.<http://www.euromab.org/home2.html>

3. <http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/fs_mab.html>

4. <http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/mab.html>

5. <http://refuges.fws.gov/> (see map)

6. <http://www.unesco.org/mab/nutshell.htm>

 

 END

[forest]

68% of our public land is controlled by UNESCO (which is the UN) without ratification by Congress. Rep. Coburn defunded it, yet it thrives. Private land owners are seldom consulted. Take a look at the alphabet soup Congress has poured on us:

UN - United Nations

World Heritage Sites

Biospheres

Biosphere Reserves

UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Convention on Biological Diversity (which Congress refuses to ratify)

U.S. National Committee MAB

MAB - Man and the Biosphere

National Science Foundation

Environmental and Scientific Affairs office of the Department of State.

 

Dig this mouthful of political wordwash: " ... The MAB mission and long term goal will be implemented, in the United States and internationally, through public-private partnerships and linkages that sponsor and promote cooperative interdisciplinary research, experimentation, education and information exchange on options by which societies can achieve sustainability." [That sounds almost as smooth as the California Framework for textbooks. ]

A member of the World Heritage Committee, Adul Wichiencharoen from Thailand (of all places), requested that a 12 million acre (18,750 square mile) buffer zone be created around the 2 million acre Yellowstone National Park. Federal bureaucrats are attempting to work that foolishness in, but the pesky people living in the area won't cooperate. One bureaucratic suggestion is that the people be removed so the weeds, bugs and wild animals can live in peace.

Carter made an international agreement. Reagan dumped it.

Clearly, this is a gross misappropriation of funds. Stealing of taxpayer money, in other words. That being so, a few dozen bureaucrats should be fitted up with some prison uniforms. That's the only way this nonsense will ever be stopped.

[forest]

Supreme Court rulings on agreements as opposed to treaties will be found by clicking here. (Run a search for agreement. There will be many hits.)

There is an issue of unconstitutionality by Congress and/or the President at issue here.

[Fiddlstix]

Bookmark

[Jack Black]

Personally I like the idea of visiting these sites, particularly the ones that are "off limits" where we can get "arrested". I'd like to learn more about this. A test case may be in order.

[Spirited]

"A test case may be in order."
Do you have any idea of how many people are in prison without a "trial" or "case" ever having happened? I do not think that if you were "arrested" it would ever come up in any court anywhere. You would be legally "detained" for an indeterminate length of time at the pleasure of the government according to provisions of current "law".

[Ff--150]

Uh?? The constitution!?? Probably 999 of 1000 folks have no idea what was written in this article...the giving away of the USA without firing a cannon. With our first female president doing the honors... .

[Jack Black]

Well thats why you plan the whole thing, video tape it, have people ready to follow up. BTW: do you have any information on people being detained with out trial, except for the illegals targeted in the terrorist probe.

[marsh2]

Forest - your thesis has some holes.

When the Constitution was approved, there were a handful of States. One of the sticking points in the agreement to evolve from a Confederation to a federal nation, was the mutual debt for the war. Some States had western wasteland claims east of the Mississippi that they could sell to pay their debt, some did not. Also there were conflicting claims to these "Western Wastelands." Agreements were reached where some of the States ceded the deed to these wastelands to the national federal government to dispose to pay the war debt. Some actually ceded the jurisdiction as well. Authority over these lands is covered in Article IV, Section 3(2)

The Constitution did not apply to lands West of the Mississippi. These belonged to other countries. West of the Mississippi, lands were acquired in various ways. One of the most common was the acquisition by treaty. If the land had been held by another country previously, then under International law, the laws continued unless repugnant to the Constitution and until replaced. This is why Roman Civil Law and not English common law continues in Louisiana and why Spanish (Roman law) continues as the underlying tenet of land ownership in the West (west of the Mississippi.) (This is why the east has English riparian rights and the West has Roman appropriative rights of acqusition - "first in time, first in right".)

Territorial governments similar to the colonial governments were established with Congress appointing Governors, judges, etc. This was not like government of the original States.

When Alaska was made a state, areas were actually retained by the federal government in ownership as enclaves. In the rest of the Western states, they were supposed to be on an "equal footing" with the original states, but the courts ruled that this did not apply to their own wastelands. The courts ruled that the federal government retained right of disposal. In Kleppe vs. New Mexico (which I consider a very bad decision,) SCOTUS recognized an almost separate federal police power - at least as regards lands and resources - in the federal government over federally managed lands.

In 1972 (I believe) FLPMA stated that henceforth it would be policy to retain all public lands in the ownership of the federal national government. "Public lands" are lands surveyed and available for public disposal, so now we have "federal lands" with not quite exclusive legislative jurisdiction, but with quasi police powers in excess of an ordinary property owner.

This is an extremely complex subject and not as simple as jurisdiction limited to "forts and arsenals" would appear. That refers to exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction over enclaves. There are other layers of pre-emptive legislative power over Interstate Commerce and the treaty powers that have leveraged additional control. Also, there is the practice of the federal government, in effect, purchasing jurisdiction through conditions upon states for recipt of federal money for welfare and other programs.

You need to go a bit deeper in your research, but beware, it can get pretty foggy in there and you may see medusa. I found her hiding in the Interstate Commerce Act under interstate navigation. It is like visually trying to trace the path of a piece of string through a ball of twine.

[Celtman]

marsh2 - your reply has some holes, too.

      First, while it's true that the Constitution did not apply to territory west of the Mississippi before the various statehoods, this was also true of territories east of the Mississippi before statehood.  The Constitution as such has only been in force only within states, and does not apply to territories today. 

      I'm not sure what the basis for state law (English vs Roman) has to do has to do with Federal control of land.  (Actually, I believe that Louisiana law is based on the Napoleonic Code.)  Are you saying that the Constitution is to be applied differently, depending on whether or not a state recognizes English Common Law?

      This just seems to be another area where the Constitution is being ignored.  Big surprise?  No.

[marsh2]

(1)The Constitution did apply in the eastern territories. Art. IV, Section 3(2) "The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

(2) No, I am using the fact that land law in the West is not based on English common law as it is in the East to show that the Western territories were assumed under the International law I mentioned. The law in existence under Spain was the Roman civil law and that is still the basis for Western land law. This has caused some misapplication of case law concerning public lands that was applicable to the eastern territories to the western lands.

(3) In my opinion, if the public land was not specifically reserved to the federal government when the state was created, then it should have transferred to the state as its sovereign lands - just like the original 13 states. Otherwise, there is no equality of footing between the states.

The public land in the eastern states was disposed of to private parties. All parks, etc. there today were purchased or given to the federal government. The Federal government was trustee of the public lands for the people of the future states, but it held onto the lands after statehood and then declared themselves to be the permanent owner.

[B4Ranch]

Repeat:beware, it can get pretty foggy in there and you may see medusa. I found her hiding in the Interstate Commerce Act under interstate navigation. It is like visually trying to trace the path of a piece of string through a ball of twine.

[hedgetrimmer]

Keep reminding us. Maybe we can get enough people educated so that something can be done to undo these illegal designations.

[nunya bidness]

Agenda 21 is alive and well in Southwest Florida. Between the citrus canker and the manatee preserves, the place is crawling with usefull idiots.

[B4Ranch]

In my opinion, if the public land was not specifically reserved to the federal government when the state was created, then it should have transferred to the state as its sovereign lands - just like the original 13 states. Otherwise, there is no equality of footing between the states.

This didn't specifically hurt Nevada until Yucca.

[nightdriver]

"Today, over 68% of public land -- land belonging to the people of the United States -- the land in our National Parks, Preserves and Monuments, is designated as a United Nations World Heritage Site, Biosphere Reserve or both."

So, until we can get the hippies out of our gubmint and reclaim our country, let's send a huge tax bill to the UN. If they don't pay it, we not only reclaim the land, but we throw the UN right out of the US. Sort of like forclosing on a mortgage!

[farmfriend]

Agenda 21 ping. Are we ever going to win?

[B4Ranch]

No

[E.G.C.]

bTTT!!!!!

[SierraWasp]

UN=USELESS NUISANCE!

[farmfriend]

Leave it to you, man, leave it to you. You do have a gift.