U.S. NATIONAL PARKS TO BE OFF LIMITS TO AMERICANS


By Patricia Neill

At Yellowstone National Park, United Nations' delegates who surveyed the area last year, called for a "buffer zone" around the Park. So, the Park Service is choking off the local economy by refusing to maintain certain highways and by buying up any property available. Of course, there will be plenty available as more and more owners are denied the use of their own private property which causes businesses to shut down and the economy to show.

Inside Yellowstone, the 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 plan. Once established, no human activity will be permitted in the area. This represents fulfillment of plans outlined in the United Nation's Biodiversity Treaty - which, though still unratified by the U.S. Senate, is being implemented by the Clinton Administration.

The way it is done is illustrated by what happened to the owners of the Crown Butte New World gold mine, which is OUTSIDE Yellowstone National Park. After being threatened with non-stop litigation that could have lasted decades, the mining company finally agreed to a deal which leaves at least $650 million of known gold reserves in the ground. In exchange, the mining company was given the right to explore other federal lines for mining purposes and paid $65 million dollars ($21 million of which must be used for "environmental cleanup."

Another recent example was Clinton's declaration of Kaiwoporwits non-polluting coal reserves in Utah a "National Monument" by executive order. This "monument" will cost the Utah Public School system alone $60 BILLION in lost education fees. It will cost the future economy of Utah over a TRILLION dollars. The "monument" consists of 1.5 million acres of Utah land which the people of Utah not only did not KNOW was about to be snatched by Clinton as a key part of a future United Nations "biodiversity" area, but were vehemently opposed to.

Other United Nations designations as "biodiversity" areas include the following National Park Service lands:

Biosphere Reserves:

World Heritage Sites


1972 Treaty Grants the United Nations Control Over American Historical Landmarks

by Melissa Wiedbrauk

When our Founding Fathers sparked the American Revolution and signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, they sought self-government for the American colonies and an escape from the dominance of England.

The Founding Fathers would be shocked to learn that some of their successors have given control of key American sovereign territory to other nations.

Through an international treaty, the United States is allowing the United Nations and its member countries access to and control of American soil - in particular, our historic buildings and treasured wilderness.

In 1972, our government signed the United Nations' World Heritage Treaty, a treaty that creates "World Heritage Sites" and Biosphere Reserves." Selected for their cultural, historical or natural significance, national governments are obligated to protect these landmarks under U.N. mandate.1 Since 1972, 68 percent of all U.S. national parks, monuments and preserves have been designated as World Heritage Sites.2

Twenty important symbols of national pride, along with 51 million acres of our wilderness, are World Heritage Sites or Biosphere Reserves now falling under the control of the U.N. This includes the Statue of Liberty, Thomas Jefferson's home at Monticello, the Washington Monument, the Brooklyn Bridge, Yellowstone National Park, Yosemite, the Florida Everglades and the Grand Canyon - to name just a few.

Most ironic of all is the listing of Philadelphia's Independence Hall. The birthplace of our Republic is now an official World Heritage Site. The very place where our Founding Fathers signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - the documents that set America apart from other nations and created the world's longest-standing democracy - is no longer fully under the control of our government and the American people.

Protection of our treasured places is a sound undertaking, but doing so by ceding control of our sovereign territory to a foreign power is wrong and threatens our rights and freedoms.

In 1995, Crown Butte Mines in the New World Mining District in Montana was forced to abandon a mine development project after the U.N. listed Yellowstone National Park as a "World Heritage Site in Danger."3 Crown Butte proposed to mine a medium-size underground operation on private property three miles from the boundary of Yellowstone. The project would have employed 280 people and generated $230 million in revenue.4

This mining project was not unique. The area had been mined for 150 years before Yellowstone National Park was established. Crown Butte had worked along with the U.S. Forest Service to ensure that all of the necessary precautions were being taken to ensure that the project would be environmentally responsible. Crown Butte had won an award for excellence in 1992 and was considered to be a "showcase operation."5

None of these factors mattered to the U.N.'s World Heritage Committee. Citing the project as a potential threat, the U.N. exerted its authority to force the abandonment of the project. It did not matter to the U.N. that this violated Crown Butte's exercise of its private property rights under the U.S. Constitution. Nor did the U.N. care that its action also went against U.S. federal law prohibiting the inclusion of non-federal property within a U.S. World Heritage Site without the consent of the property owner.6

Although it has not happened yet, under the World Heritage Treaty the U.N. has the legal right to someday restrict us, as American citizens, from visiting our national treasures.

Many environmentalists believe that the mere presence of humans disturbs the environment. As such, it is not farfetched to wonder when the politically-correct U.N. will ban the American public from Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, the Florida Everglades and other precious natural wonders now visited annually by millions of tourists.

Ironically, banning generations of young people from visiting our natural wonders would undermine the public's appreciation for the spectacular gifts of nature, and undercut support for environmental protection.

Unfortunately, the World Heritage Treaty is just one of a series of government actions that is stripping away the gift of freedom we received from our Founding Fathers.

To stop this erosion of sovereign rights, federal legislation has been introduced to restore the rights of Americans against this threat to freedom. The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act seeks to preserve the sovereignty of the United States over public lands and preserve the private property rights of private citizens. It would require congressional oversight of U.N. land designations within the U.S.7

We should not turn our backs on the Founding Fathers by surrendering the precious gift of sovereignty. We should treasure and protect it.
 

Footnotes:

1 "World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves Fact Sheet," United States House or Representatives Committee on Resources.
2 "American Land Should Be Controlled By Americans," press release, The National Center for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C., February 24, 1999, available on the Internet at http://www.nationalcenter.org/PRLandSov299.html.
3 Kathleen Benedetto, National Wilderness Institute, testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, D.C., May 26, 1999.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 "American Land Should Be Controlled By Americans."

Melissa Wiedbrauk is a research associate with The National Center for Public Policy Research, a Washington, D.C. think tank.

SOURCE

END


National parks off-limits
U.N.-designated panel calls for increased 'buffer zones'

By Jon E. Dougherty
 2008 WorldNetDaily.com |  July 15, 1999

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.

SOURCE: National parks off-limits

END


The United Nations

Executive Orders