Big Media Won't Touch Agenda 21

SierraTimes.com ^ | Feb 3, 2005 | Nancy Levant

[sergeantdave]

FYI -

---

FEDERAL BIOSPHERES ARE STILL ILLEGAL
Fiedor Report On the News #300 ^ | 2-2-03 | Doug Fiedor

Posted on 02/01/2003 2:46:58 PM EST by 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.

[lodwick]

Thanks for mentioning Joan Veon, she was just on Derry Brownfield's radio show with a live report from our ruler's conference over in Davos, CH.

[cgbg]

Americans..have to be in it.

Please remember that the U.N. is the enemy of free people in many countries throughout the world. We have allies here just waiting for a way to make their voices heard.

[lodwick]

I like S.U.N. - also your tag, but our man LBJ pioneered campaigning to the cemetary crowd.

[cgbg]

The UN bureaucrats and their friends operate on the principle of cognitive dissonance.

By creating a concept of UN land and UN control they hope to present future generations with a fait accompli:

"Your Congress Did Not Object".

"This U.N. Provision Has Been In Effect For Decades".

It is the "fait accompli" of the U.N. that must be stopped before then.

[lodwick]

And what was one of bush's first moves?

Correct. To sign us back on with UNESCO.

Thanks for reminding me of this.

[Mudboy Slim]

Heh heh heh...MUD

[Mudboy Slim]

Hey there, my FRiend...I got a package a coupla days ago...thanks fer the DVD...MUD

BTW...I don't discount grand conspiracy theories like this outta hand, but I just think there is no reason to believe something like this will ultimately be successful...good to know about it, though, makes it easier to confront.

[sergeantdave]

I'm starting to see the footprints of George Bush I's New World Order socialists in this second term.

How many times did Bush Sr. publicly mention the phrase "New World Order?" Someone did a count and found over 400 instances.

That entire administration was infested with globalists, socialists and thieves.

Bush Jr. kept us out the ICC and rejected the Kyoto treaty. The fact that he's backing LOST tells me that his father's globalist crowd has infiltrated this administration. The president needs to remember the voters who brought him to the dance.

[lodwick]

The president needs to remember the voters who brought him to the dance.
+++
Now that he's in - why should he care about America?

It's off to do his handlers' bidding, hi ho, hi ho.

Cheers, Sarge.

[processing please hold]

Nice!!!!!

[processing please hold]

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)

Where would I find that article?

[Dixielander]

Derry Brownfield's program is well worth hearing. I've tuned in the last 15 minutes several times so that I would have access when Alex Jones' program following it came on, and agree that Brownfield is right-on, so to speak.

I purchased a video tape about how independent farmers and farms are being exploited by the powers that be. The plight of independent farmers and ranchers really deserves our attention and defense.

[lodwick]

Nice - you should try an entire hour of The Common Sense Coaltion - the man's been there, done that, and to me, is a calming voice of reason for landowners and ranchers and anyone concerned with the Bill of (not all that many) Rights.

Our family has grain-crop land in IA, and some grazing land in N.TX, so I'm very aware of the assaults on the private property owner in our country.

I need to get that video, btw. Thanks for the reminder.

[processing please hold]

I read on another thread yesterday that President Bush was slashing farm subsidies I believe.

[lodwick]

	site map | help | contact us

The Heritage Foundation > Research > Features > Appropriations Watch  

		Policy Archive: view by date
		Policy Archive: view by issue
		Policy Archive: view by type
		Features
		Events
		Heritage Experts
		Support Heritage
		Contact Us
		Return Home

Appropriations Watch

These pages demonstrate that during budget season lawmakers and lobbyists operate with a mindset that no federal government spending is bad government spending.

It all adds up. Pork-barrel spending continues to grow when defense needs are a priority, and lawmakers ignore the best way to create short-term and long-term stimulus for the economy: accelerating President Bush's tax cuts, and returning more money to the taxpayers.

FY 2005 Appropriations Bill

Department/Program	2004 Enacted	2005 President's Request	House Budget Resolution	House Approval	Senate Approval	Final Committee Report
Agriculture	$16.84b	$16.57b	$16.78b	$16.83b	---	---
Commerce, Justice, State	$37.6b	$39.6b	$39.8b	$39.8b	---	---
Defense*	$366.4b	$392.6b	$390.9b	$391.9b	$391.2b	$392.5b
Dist.of Columbia	$0.54b	$0.56b	$0.56b	$0.56b	---	---
Energy & Water ()	$27.3b	$27.94b	$27.99b	$28.0b	---	---
Foreign Operations	$17.5b	$21.3b	$19.4b	$19.4b	---	---
Homeland Security	$29.2 b	$31.1b	$32.0b	$32.0b	---	---
Interior (Wasteful Spending, )	$19.5b	$20.0b	$19.99b	$19.99b	---	---
Labor, HHS, Education	$139.0b	$142.0b	$142.5b	---	---	---
Legislative Branch** (WebMemo)	$3.5b	$4.0b	$3.6b	($2.7b)	---	---
Military Construction	$9.3b	$9.6b	$10.0b	$10.0b	---	---
Transportation, Treasury	$28.4b	$25.7b	$25.4b	---	---	---
Veteran's Affairs, HUD	$90.8b	$92.1b	$92.9b	---	---	---

---

© 1995 - 2005 The Heritage Foundation
All Rights Reserved.
Read our privacy guidelines. | Contact us. | Return Home.

[lodwick]

If this is slashing, dear God, don't let him cut anything.

[Boazo]

Bump for later

[lodwick]

HOW TO SPEAK ABOUT WOMEN AND BE POLITICALLY CORRECT:

1. She is not a "BABE" or a "CHICK" - She is "BREASTED AMERICAN."

2. She is not a "SCREAMER" or a "MOANER" - She IS "VOCALLY APPRECIATIVE."

3. She is not "EASY" - She is "HORIZONTALLY ACCESSIBLE."

4. She is not a "DUMB BLONDE" - She is a "LIGHT-HAIRED DETOUR OFF THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY."

5. She has not "BEEN AROUND" - She is A "PREVIOUSLY-ENJOYED COMPANION."

6. She is not an "AIRHEAD" - She is "REALITY IMPAIRED."

7. She does not get "DRUNK" or "TIPSY" - She gets "CHEMICALLY INCONVENIENCED."

8. She does not have "BREAST IMPLANTS" - She is "MEDICALLY ENHANCED."

9. She does not "NAG" you - She becomes "VERBALLY REPETITIVE."

10. She is not a "TRAMP" - She is "SEXUALLY EXTROVERTED."

11. She does not have "MAJOR LEAGUE HOOTERS" - She Is "PECTORALLY SUPERIOR."

12. She is not a "TWO-BIT HOOKER" - She is a "LOW COST PROVIDER." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HOW TO SPEAK ABOUT MEN AND BE POLITICALLY CORRECT:

1. He does not have a "BEER GUT" - He has developed a "LIQUID GRAIN STORAGE FACILITY."

2. He is not a "BAD DANCER" - He is "OVERLY CAUCASIAN."

3. He does not "GET LOST ALL THE TIME" - He "INVESTIGATES ALTERNATIVE DESTINATIONS."

4. He is not "BALDING" - He is in "FOLLICLE REGRESSION."

5. He is not a "CRADLE ROBBER" - He prefers "GENERATIONAL DIFFERENTIAL RELATIONSHIPS."

6. He does not get "FALLING-DOWN DRUNK" - He becomes "ACCIDENTALLY HORIZONTAL."

7. He does not act like a "TOTAL ASS" - He develops a case of "RECTAL-CRANIAL INVERSION."

8. He is not a "MALE CHAUVINIST PIG" - He has "SWINE EMPATHY."

9. He is not afraid of "COMMITMENT" - He is "RELATIONSHIP CHALLENGED."

10. He is not "HORNY" - He is "SEXUALLY FOCUSED."

11. It's not his "CRACK" you see hanging out of his pants - It's "REAR CLEAVAGE."

[processing please hold]

What a pittance Homeland Security is.

I believe 9-11 cost our economy a one day hit of 2 Trillion, financially speaking.