It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.N. Land Grab

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I came across this very well-written edtiorial while looking for info on Biospheres in my area. Does anyone remember ever voting the U.N. co-owner of the country?

"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."

A must-read!
www.sierratimes.com...




posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Your link does not work TC
I heard somewhere that the water rights to the great lakes was signed over to the UN by the US & Canada and that Clinton had given the rights to all American monuments to the UN, as well. I have no links or proof just heard some where, anyone else hear of this?

uhm you link works now


[edit on 25/8/2005 by Sauron]

LOL this is what I was talking about.

[edit on 25/8/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Wow! I had no idea. But this line bothers me:



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


Seems to me that this Biosphere Reserve thing is mostly a tool for political maneuvering. A way for politicians to get done what they want to get done without having to bring it to the American public. I assume that if we wanted to start mining coal in the middle of Yellowstone, we could and the U.N. really would not be able to do anything. Although, I have to admit that if this program is really working to protect parts of the Earth from human destruction, then it is a good thing.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I think this is an important story to keep an eye on, but until the U.N. tries to do something with U.S. land over the consent of the United States government, I think it's more of a curiosity than anything to worry about.

[edit on 8/25/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
They don't do things just to waste money and make a lot of speeches over it afterward.

WEll, ak, they do have a propensity for doing just that, but I suspect that is not the reason for this. I suspect that this is setting up for a larger move at a later date.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
How's this for a biosphere? This isn't just a simple park:

"The Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve (SABR) encompasses a series of ancient mountain ranges in six states--the highland portions of northern Georgia, northeastern Alabama, western South Carolina, eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, and southwestern Virginia--an area of 247,028 hectares. The region contains a variety of national and state parks, recreational and wildlife areas, national and state forests, experimental forests, lands administered by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and Cherokee Indian lands. About a third of the land in the region is owned by federal and state agencies.


The Southern Appalachians are recognized as having perhaps the greatest diversity of tree and shrub species in North America. In the UNESCO classification system the biome is temperate broadleaf forest and the biogeographic province is eastern forest. This region is primarily second growth temperate forests and contains a diversity of habitats ranging from remnant prairie grasslands and swamp forests to high elevation spruce-fir forests and grassy meadows. More than 130 species of trees and 1,500 species of flowering plants are found in the region."


I live in a biosphere.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   

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.

This is an interesting point, however the managment of these things was voted on by congress in congress voting on the treaties thru which they are managed. The US agreed, via congress, to join the UN and partake in programs like this, and then the bureaucrats that mangage them are the ones actually running it. I don't see how its really a loss of sovereignty, but it is interesting to consider it in terms of Tory arguments that the american colonists had Virtual Representation in Parliament. That sort of indirect democracy didn't fly with the founders.
And then again, on the parliamentary case, we're talking about some serious stuff, here, we're talking about guidelines to manage parks.


I live in a biosphere.

Intersting. One the one hand, 'they can't tell you what to do' but only so long as its not interfereing with the environment, which is a rather broad class.

[edit on 25-8-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I really wonder how people can look at this as just a curiosity! Do you really think the US government gives a rat about our envioroment? As long as politicians can be paid off by corporations, they will let just about anything take place, as long as they can get away with it. They dont protect anything except there own interests, unless the public makes a big stink about it.

I dont think the U.N. should have any say what we do inside our country. If they were actually concerned then why arent they doing more about the deforestation of the heart and lungs of our planet, the south American rain forest?

One day the feces will hit the artificial wind machine.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Although the initial treaties were voted upon by Congress, they, like many treaties and laws and rulings, have been abused and are not used for the initial purposes stated in those treaties. However, when Clinton signed over the lands he gave the UN, he did it via executive order, and the Senate never revisited the issue. To say that Congress truly had a hand in this is irresponsible.

Why do you think the Statue of Liberty was closed for so long after 9-11? Because Liberty Island is under UN jurisdiction. UN helicopters and international police do police the island. Yet, we still pay taxes for the upkeep of these facilities. Hey - I'm all for America taking care of these treasures, we should be proud to. So why aren't they ours?



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:36 AM
link   
So what if Congress voted it in?

How many people actually have a clue or are able to under-stand the law?
How many people want the U.N. controlling these areas that live in them? Is it the majority?
How do you know? Because congress were voted in by the people?
Who didn't know what they were up too...



new topics




 
0

log in

join