It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Could please expand upon the accusation??
I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS THREAD BUT WHEN i SEE SOMETHING LIKE YOUR POST i PUT THE BREAKS ON.
Should I set the emergency or relax???
Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
Bah, that guy sounded like 90% of ATS does these days.
Wow what an oportunity for a guy like ljb to ask WHAT the the heck are you two saying with these one liners??
Are you Dissin ATS??
Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by sting130u
WND and Fox News? Must be true.
Whoops I meant it must be more corporate political propaganda.
The Federal government has been handing huge chunks of American land over to United Nations control, including Yellowstone National Park, Mammoth Caves, the Florida Everglades, and even the Statue of Liberty. A whopping 68% of US National Parks have been handed over to the UN. Designated as "World Heritage Sites", these National Treasures are now fully under the control of The United Nations.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Yes, in fact it is true. WND or Fox news has nothing to do with it. Land around Yellowstone has been handed over to the UN as a World Heritage Site, and that is not the only place of course. Radical environmentalists have been involved for decades in declaring lands to be unavailable to humans in order to preserve some kind of wildlife. The World Heritage Foundation is part of that.
The United States initiated the idea of combining cultural conservation with nature conservation. A White House conference in 1965 called for a ‘World Heritage Trust’ to preserve "the world's superb natural and scenic areas and historic sites for the present and the future of the entire world citizenry." The International Union for Conservation of Nature developed similar proposals in 1968, and they were presented in 1972 to the United Nations conference on Human Environment in Stockholm. A single text was agreed on by all parties, and the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 16 November 1972.
Proponents of the UN Heritage Sites say such designations are nothing more than a great “honor” to the nation. They assure us that there is no threat to American sovereignty and that all designated sites remain firmly under control of the United States government.
If true, then the question must be asked, why is an international treaty with the United Nations necessary? The United States has already designated most of the UN Heritage Sites as United States parks or preserved historic sites. The land is already being preserved and protected for AMERICAN heritage purposes. These lands are valuable for their historical significance to this nation. REPEAT: WHY DO WE NEED AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY TO DO WHAT THE UNITED STATES HAS ALREADY DONE FOR ITSELF?
There is strong evidence of close collaboration between the U.S. Park Service and the UNESCO World Heritage Site Committee. There is also strong evidence that the designation of UN World Heritage Sites goes hand in hand with the Administration’s Sustainable Development program. That program is nothing less than a massive federal zoning program that dictates property development on the local level, in the name of protecting the environment. The goal of Sustainable Development is to lock up vast areas of American land, and shield it from private use.
The designation of United Nations’ World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves can and does result in the centralization of policy-making authority at the federal level, particularly by the Executive Branch. Once a UN designation is made and accepted by the Federal Government there is literally no opportunity for private American land owners to dispute it or undo the designation.
Private property rights literally disappear, not only in the officially designated area, but worse, in buffer zones OUTSIDE the designated area
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by stanguilles7
"You people"? I am just one person, making a comment here. Unless by saying you people you mean all the other conservative people who believe in the Sovereignty of our nation, then I will gladly say yes sir I am with all the other America Patriots who are sick and tired of the bogus balogna coming out the tailpipes of environmentalists and other radicals.
Title III also prohibits further oil and gas leasing, geothermal leasing, and mining patents in a stretch of the Bridger-Teton National Forest; this provision was based on a bill being crafted by Senator Craig L. Thomas of Wyoming before his death.
Republicans in Congress have recently become more vocal against some of the irrational policies of the Obama Administration, and Senator Jim DeMint (R – SC) is no exception. His op-ed appeared in the Washington Times on Tuesday calling for the White House to stop the incessant land-grabs across the nation. Senator DeMint argues that, aside from bringing large areas of land under federal control for no apparent reason, the land-grab actually takes potential jobs out of the market. Much of the land targeted for government takeover holds great oil and natural gas resources which could provide jobs in the energy industry and a flow of resources from our own American supply. Once those lands become “monuments”, access to those natural resources is limited and in the hands of the federal government. The Senator emphasizes the severity of the government land takeover, saying “This is a nationwide problem. The government currently owns 650 million acres, or 29 percent of the nation's total land.”
The government offers little explanation for the land-grab frenzy, but there are plenty of reasons to oppose it. First and foremost, it is unconstitutional for the government to simply take land from states without compensation. Second, government-controlled land takes away opportunities for development, particularly when it comes to accessing much needed resources. The land designated as “monument” space could have created dozens of employment opportunities – opportunities which will go wasted under the thumb of the federal government.
Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
So your argument is we should turn Yellowstone into a giant oil well and mineral mine?