National parks off-limits U.N.-designated panel calls for increased 'buffer zones'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jon E. Dougherty © 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
Last year a United Nations-designated panel, at the behest of the Clinton administration, called for the creation of uninhabited "buffer zones" around several U.S. national parks. Since then roughly two dozen U.S. parks and preserves, covering millions of acres of public land, have been included in the plan. Now, however, new plans to expand these zones are in the works, and the outrage has reached a near fever pitch among experts who say these U.N.-designated sites are merely attempts to "globalize" huge portions of the United States -- with taxpayers picking up the tab.
Henry Lamb of Eco-Logic -- a watchdog organization that monitors U.N. activities and U.S. sovereignty issues -- told WorldNetDaily that one example -- at Yellowstone National Park, where the creation of a larger buffer zone is well underway -- was "just a sign of things to come."
"Inside Yellowstone, the U.S. Park Service is shutting down campgrounds as the park is being prepared to become the core of a huge biosphere reserve, as part of the United Nations global biodiversity plan," he said. "Once established, no human activity will be permitted in the area," even though U.S. taxpayers must continue to fund the maintenance and upkeep of Yellowstone and other popular outdoor tourist sites.
Lamb said that in order to increase the buffer zone around Yellowstone, the Park Service drove local businesses away by refusing to maintain access roads. When the businesses folded as a result of heavy financial losses, the land was bought with taxpayer money and a larger zone of inaccessibility was created by default.
"Once they buy the land, the government is obviously not going to resell it," he said, thus creating permanently larger buffer zones.
"The purpose of establishing sites as U.S. national parks was to have people in them enjoying them," Lamb added. "But the Clinton administration has completely bought into this U.N. notion that our land ought to be their land, managed by them. And as such, it ought to be uninhabited as well."
He said if most Americans "knew what was going on (with their national parks), the uproar would be deafening."
In the case of Yellowstone, Lamb said the government's acquiescence to the U.N.'s agenda cost a gold mining company about $30 million and in the end prevented them from mining one ounce of known gold reserves, even though the government indicated they initially would have allowed it.
"The owners of the Crown Butte New World gold mine, which is outside of Yellowstone National Park," he said, "were told by the government to comply with a list of environmental requirements before they could move in and begin mining."
But after being threatened with non-stop litigation from environmental groups funded by U.N. agencies that could have lasted decades, the mining company finally agreed to a deal that leaves at least $650 million of known gold reserves in the ground instead. That deal provided the company with about $65 million dollars for "more exploration." Of that amount, the government said about $21 million had to be used for "environmental clean-up."
Lamb said that Congress has consistently ignored Clinton administration orders and directives designed to implement many of the U.N. mandates. Clinton, he said, is implementing U.N. directives via executive order and presidential directive "because then he doesn't have to worry about getting Senate treaty ratification."
At present a U.N.-sponsored biodiversity treaty, designed to limit U.S. public access to so-called "World Heritage Sites" and "Biodiversity sites" is languishing in the Senate. No action is scheduled on its ratification.
Lamb added that in the course of the next several years, with no congressional oversight, the addition of more U.S. parks to the "Heritage" and "Biodiversity" sites lists will follow.
"It is a well-documented fact that the U.N. is trying to gain control over vast amounts of U.S. territories to herd more people into cities where they are more manageable," Lamb said. "That can't be done without at least tacit approval from Congress, regardless of the political agenda of any administration."
Lamb said he has "allies" in Congress that are opposed to the implementation of this, and other, U.N.-mandated land use plans.
"But they're relatively few and as such equally unsuccessful" in stopping such initiatives, he added.
Options >>.
Whatever you do don get involved dont join an organizatin opposing such out right betrayal of our rights and sovreignty.
www.jbs.org
------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jon E. Dougherty © 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
Last year a United Nations-designated panel, at the behest of the Clinton administration, called for the creation of uninhabited "buffer zones" around several U.S. national parks. Since then roughly two dozen U.S. parks and preserves, covering millions of acres of public land, have been included in the plan. Now, however, new plans to expand these zones are in the works, and the outrage has reached a near fever pitch among experts who say these U.N.-designated sites are merely attempts to "globalize" huge portions of the United States -- with taxpayers picking up the tab.
Henry Lamb of Eco-Logic -- a watchdog organization that monitors U.N. activities and U.S. sovereignty issues -- told WorldNetDaily that one example -- at Yellowstone National Park, where the creation of a larger buffer zone is well underway -- was "just a sign of things to come."
"Inside Yellowstone, the U.S. Park Service is shutting down campgrounds as the park is being prepared to become the core of a huge biosphere reserve, as part of the United Nations global biodiversity plan," he said. "Once established, no human activity will be permitted in the area," even though U.S. taxpayers must continue to fund the maintenance and upkeep of Yellowstone and other popular outdoor tourist sites.
Lamb said that in order to increase the buffer zone around Yellowstone, the Park Service drove local businesses away by refusing to maintain access roads. When the businesses folded as a result of heavy financial losses, the land was bought with taxpayer money and a larger zone of inaccessibility was created by default.
"Once they buy the land, the government is obviously not going to resell it," he said, thus creating permanently larger buffer zones.
"The purpose of establishing sites as U.S. national parks was to have people in them enjoying them," Lamb added. "But the Clinton administration has completely bought into this U.N. notion that our land ought to be their land, managed by them. And as such, it ought to be uninhabited as well."
He said if most Americans "knew what was going on (with their national parks), the uproar would be deafening."
In the case of Yellowstone, Lamb said the government's acquiescence to the U.N.'s agenda cost a gold mining company about $30 million and in the end prevented them from mining one ounce of known gold reserves, even though the government indicated they initially would have allowed it.
"The owners of the Crown Butte New World gold mine, which is outside of Yellowstone National Park," he said, "were told by the government to comply with a list of environmental requirements before they could move in and begin mining."
But after being threatened with non-stop litigation from environmental groups funded by U.N. agencies that could have lasted decades, the mining company finally agreed to a deal that leaves at least $650 million of known gold reserves in the ground instead. That deal provided the company with about $65 million dollars for "more exploration." Of that amount, the government said about $21 million had to be used for "environmental clean-up."
Lamb said that Congress has consistently ignored Clinton administration orders and directives designed to implement many of the U.N. mandates. Clinton, he said, is implementing U.N. directives via executive order and presidential directive "because then he doesn't have to worry about getting Senate treaty ratification."
At present a U.N.-sponsored biodiversity treaty, designed to limit U.S. public access to so-called "World Heritage Sites" and "Biodiversity sites" is languishing in the Senate. No action is scheduled on its ratification.
Lamb added that in the course of the next several years, with no congressional oversight, the addition of more U.S. parks to the "Heritage" and "Biodiversity" sites lists will follow.
"It is a well-documented fact that the U.N. is trying to gain control over vast amounts of U.S. territories to herd more people into cities where they are more manageable," Lamb said. "That can't be done without at least tacit approval from Congress, regardless of the political agenda of any administration."
Lamb said he has "allies" in Congress that are opposed to the implementation of this, and other, U.N.-mandated land use plans.
"But they're relatively few and as such equally unsuccessful" in stopping such initiatives, he added.
Options >>.
Whatever you do don get involved dont join an organizatin opposing such out right betrayal of our rights and sovreignty.
www.jbs.org
------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
