• Welcome to New Hampshire Underground.
 

News:

Please log in on the special "login" page, not on any of these normal pages. Thank you, The Procrastinating Management

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Main Menu

Secession Now Please

Started by MSTCrowT, June 10, 2005, 11:56 PM NHFT

Previous topic - Next topic

error

The feds are usually a little more discreet about it. Usually. And this incident has definitely brought out a lot of people who have been waiting for the federal government to pull another Waco so they can oppose it with force.

Henry

For me a sovereign New Hampshire is a great daydream, but before it happens we need to take over the public offices as we've started doing, and start preparatory steps such as cutting off the Fed bribes, pass bills which monetize gold, silver, or have our legislature begin printing our own public money, return the national park areas to the state, things like that. We're nowhere near there that I see, though honestly I can imagine a few years down the road after thousands more of us are present and populating all corners of the govoernment this starting to take shape. If that happens within 10 years that would be totally badass.

CNHT

#62
Look what BG said in 2005:

Quote
the ultimate goal of the SVR is a confederation of VT, NH, ME and the Canadian maritimes to form a new nation called "New Acadia" about the size of Denmark.

I just stumbled on this thread tonight and saw a post from long time ago in 2005 from 'hankster' who is someone who changed his name often before he left the forum after being exposed as a socialist. I could not believe what i was reading in the quote above.

I had accused that I suspected the Vt secession movement was nothing but a UN-driven ploy to form a new nation as one of with 8 new divisions based on the environment under their auspices and control, and they were getting fools to want to 'secede' to these regions under the guise of 'freedom FROM something'. He denied it, but now I see he actually even SAID it. It's a crock and he's been exposed because now I see the beginnings of the thread which proves what I was saying.

How is seceding to 'New Acadia' under the UN getting free? They even had something on their website to the effect that they would seek sanction by the UN until I exposed that and they took it off. You would be jumping into one of the 8 bioregions the UN has planned.

Boy are they playing these jerks from Vt like fiddles. Secession? Yeah. But watch what you are seceding TO. I am amazed that he said exactly what I said, no wonder he couldn't deny it!

It's really rather funny!

Next thing we'll have naive jerks on here from CA pushing the region of 'Pacifica...' as it's one of the 8. Now do you see how the NAU fits in?

Vermont 'Secession' = CROCK


error

California can just fall into the ocean for all I care. Damn socialists.

CNHT

Quote from: error on June 11, 2007, 02:26 AM NHFT
California can just fall into the ocean for all I care. Damn socialists.

I have even had people argue with me that the UN is not planning this or that and is not dangerous. My God if you read their many websites, they have a plan for EVERYTHING, even to tax space vehicles should we ever have them! They don't believe in gun rights or private property ownership. This is the reason for the Environmental movement. They can't execute their grandiose plan for even 'your very happiness' (I am still trying to find that quote from Kofi Annan - so Orwellian -- the ministry of happiness!) without money thus they want a carbon tax. It's the best way to get the most money out of the developed countries. After all you can't have power without the MONEY.

True the UN is a non-governmental organization but we sure do a hell of a lot of things because of agreements we've entered with the UN.  And I am always amazed at these people touting Vermont secessionism to 'New Acadia' as if it's some sort of true freedom movement and even arguing with me that the UN is a good thing! Ignorance is bliss I guess.

Revealed: U.N.'s plan for global governance
WND probe unearths plot for global taxation, gun control, standing army
Posted: May 20, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


The United Nations and the United States are engaged in a major battle over American sovereignty – the last major impediment to global governance – according to the May edition of WND's acclaimed monthly magazine, Whistleblower.

Titled "THE NEW WORLD RE-ORDER," this special edition lays bare the United Nation's plan for global governance.

The U.N.'s plan, dubbed "Our Global Neighborhood," is a 410-page final report of the Commission on Global Governance, and was first published in 1995 by Oxford University Press. That 28-member "independent commission," created by former German Chancellor Willy Brandt, developed the following strategy, as reported in the EcoSocialist Review: "To represent a shot-across-the-bow of George Bush's New World Order, and make clear that now is the time to press for the subordination of national sovereignty to democratic transnationalism."

Then-U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali endorsed the commission, and the U.N. provided significant funding. The plan calls for dramatically strengthening the United Nations, by implementing a laundry list of recommendations, including these:

Eliminating the veto and permanent member status in the Security Council;
Authorizing global taxation on currency exchange and use of the "global commons;"
Creating an International Criminal Court;
Creating a standing army under the command of the secretary-general;
Creating a new Economic Security Council;
Creating a new People's Assembly;
Regulating multinational corporations;
Regulating the global commons;
Controlling the manufacture, sale and distribution of all firearms.
None of the recommendations in the report is new; all have been proposed in a variety of documents for decades. This report, however, is the first time the comprehensive plan for global governance has been published with the approval and funding support of the United Nations, according to Whistleblower.

To justify the sweeping changes proposed by the commission, a new concept of "security" was offered. The U.N.'s mission under its present charter is to provide "security" to its member nations through "collective" action. The new concept expands the mission of the U.N. to be the security of the people – and the security of the planet.

Thus, in their speeches to the U.N.'s Millennium Assembly in 2000, both Secretary General Kofi Annan and President Bill Clinton made reference to this new concept, saying national sovereignty can no longer be used as an excuse to prevent the intervention by the U.N. to provide "security" for people inside national boundaries

To provide security for the planet, the plan calls for authorizing the U.N. Trusteeship Council to have "trusteeship" over the "global commons," which the plan defines to be: "... the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans beyond national jurisdiction, and the related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life."

Private land ownership under attack

Actually, the U.N. has been working to achieve this goal for more than two decades, reports Whistleblower, but the work has been pursued as a part of the environmental agenda. A first glimpse of the environmental agenda's magnitude came in 1992, when the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development presented for adoption a 300-page policy document called Agenda 21. This document made clear that the only way to protect the environment is to control the activities of the people who use it.

Each of the nations that endorsed Agenda 21 agreed to create a national council to implement its recommendations. Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12852 on June 29, 1993, which created the President's Council on Sustainable Development. This 28-member council included the heads of the government departments concerned with the environment and commerce, the heads of major environmental groups, and four representatives from business, one of whom was Ken Lay of Enron infamy.

This group worked through the end of 1999 to implement the recommendations of Agenda 21 throughout the United States, primarily by rewriting and refocusing the rules of implementation for existing legislation, and by encouraging state and local governments to implement the recommendations at the local level. With the coordinated assistance of the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation – all of whose executives sat on the President's Council on Sustainable Development – the message of "sustainable development" and "sustainable communities" spread rapidly across the country.

Among the many goals of the President's Council was to change the way public policy is made in the United States. Its "Belief Statements" include this: "We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, more sensible use of human, natural, and financial resources in meeting our goals."

The new collaborative decision process is the same consensus process used by the United Nations. It is a process that uses trained "facilitators" to assure a predetermined outcome. [this is very familiar because it is used here in business and educational jobs]

Every department of government has trained facilitators to transform public-input meetings into "consensus-building" sessions. With the support of various environmental groups, virtually every community in the country began to see "visioning councils" and "stakeholder councils" appear, to develop plans for a "sustainable community" for the 21st century. [you see why we wanted to run those global warming nutcases out on a rail? they've infiltrated NH town meeting now!]

These plans are remarkably similar, whether in Santa Cruz, Calif., where they call the process "Local Agenda 21," or in "Yourtown 2020," they all end up with the recommendations set forth in Agenda 21.

When examined from a national perspective, the local plans, arrived at by consensus, are elements of the broader plan to "provide security for the planet" by controlling the activities of the people.

To achieve this objective, private property has to be effectively eliminated. This U.N. policy was first adopted in 1976 at the U.N. Conference on Human Settlements in Vancouver, British Columbia. Its final report says:

"Land ... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. ... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable. ..."

Three years later, the U.S. State Department entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization to launch a Man and the Biosphere Program, which designated vast stretches of land as wilderness. The Convention on Biological Diversity began its life in 1981 and evolved until 1992, when it was formally adopted by the U.N. in Rio de Janeiro.

This international law requires the creation of wilderness areas, all connected by corridors of wilderness and surrounded by buffer zones, in which human activity is regulated by the government, while the population is forced to move into "sustainable communities." There are more than 400 of these wilderness areas, called U.N. Biosphere Reserves, throughout the world; 47 are in the United States, with another proposed for the Chicago area and yet another proposed for the Bay of Fundy on the Maine/Canada border.

Remarkable progress has been made toward transforming the United States into this United Nations vision of a "secure planet." Because each plan element operates at the local level, it is difficult to see the ultimate outcome. A picture of the dream is suggested, however, in the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development report authored by Andrew Euston for the U.N. Conference on Human Development meeting in Istanbul in 1996.

The report describes in considerable detail how "sustainable" communities of the future will be bounded by growth limits, surrounded by open space, with housing provided by public/private partnerships that require both economic and ethnic integration, and feature live-over shops and services. Transportation in these communities will feature light rail and bicycle, since automobiles will be unnecessary; people are expected to work within walking distance of their employment. Each complex in the community is a "neighborhood" that provides schools and day care, governed by a "neighborhood council."

Agriculture and light "sustainable" industry will occur in the buffer zones between the communities and the Biosphere Reserves, under the direction of the government, in public/private partnerships with non-government organizations that oversee day-to-day operations.

Policy decisions are to be made by the council closest to the people governed by the policy, providing that the policy is consistent with each of the councils in the hierarchy. The ideal system of governance in this utopian vision would see the government selecting a non-government organization, or NGO, for a particular neighborhood project. The majority of the neighborhood council would consist of board members of the NGO, with a few additional representatives selected by the NGO. The neighborhood council would choose a representative to sit on the community council, which would choose a representative to sit on the watershed council, which would choose a representative to sit on the bioregional council, which would choose a representative to sit on the national council, which would choose a representative to the People's Assembly at the United Nations.

Sound familiar? This system parallels the old Soviet system in Russia, in both design and function. It has been under development in the United States since launched in 1993 by the President's Council on Sustainable Development. Progress so far has been mostly voluntary – "to comply with international obligations." But success will come for the U.N. only when it has the power to enforce its international law. That's the next step.

The May edition of Whistleblower, perhaps as never before, lays bare the knock-down, drag-out fight between backers of American sovereignty and global governance.

"For a long time we have planned a Whistleblower issue on globalism and the United Nations," said WND Editor Joseph Farah. "Now is the time. The next few months may indeed define what kind of country and world we live in for the rest of our lives. If you care about America, read this issue."

###

Instead of phony secession movements you should all be hanging on to your sovereignty for dear life and for whatever breath there is left in the Constitution.
To those who say the UN is a bumbling inefficient unauthoritative bureaucracy I would say please do some reading on their own website to see how busy they've been in the last 75 years and how much control they've gotten over us.


CNHT

The "Re-Wilded" West
By William Norman Grigg
Published: 2001-01-29 06:00   

Does ... The Wildlands Project advocate the end of industrial civilization? Most assuredly. Everything civilized must go....
— John Davis, Editor, Wild Earth magazine

[The Wildlands Project] is a bold attempt to grope our way back to October, 1492, and find a different trail.... Local and regional reserve systems linked to others ultimately tie the North American continent into a single Biodiversity Preserve....
— Dave Foreman, Earth First! Activist, Wildlands Project co-architect

Our vision is simple: we live for the day when Grizzlies in Chihuahua have an unbroken connection to Grizzlies in Alaska; when Gray Wolf populations are continuous from New Mexico to Greenland.... Our vision is continental: from Panama and the Caribbean to Alaska and Greenland, from the Arctic to the continental shelves.... — The Wildlands Project Mission Statement

What do proponents of the Wildlands Project have in mind by the decree that "Everything civilized must go"? Writing in Science magazine, Charles C. Mann and Mark L. Plummer provide a partial answer. As the Wildlands scheme unfolds, "most roads would be closed; some would be ripped out of the landscape." Eventually, the Project will require "nothing less than a transformation of America [into] an archipelago of human-inhabited islands surrounded by natural islands." Environmental writer Alston Chase is even more blunt, warning that the Wildlands Project will require "the forced relocation of tens of millions of people ... the removal of human habitation from up to half the country's land area."

With each designation or expansion of a national monument by executive decree, Bill Clinton advanced the Wildlands design. When the Clinton administration issued regulatory guidelines designating nearly 60 million acres of national forests as "roadless areas," it was another significant step toward the creation of a Wildlands archipelago. Indeed, nearly every outrage against property and prosperity that has resulted from successful environmental lobbying during the previous decade fits comfortably into the Wildlands framework. But it would be a grave error to believe that the Wildlands Project was a product of the Clinton administration.

The basic outline for the Wildlands Project was created in November 1991 by Reed F. Noss and former Earth First! leader Dave Foreman. Noss later went on to become an adviser to the Interior Department under Bruce Babbitt, and to help compile the Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) for the United Nations Environmental Program. The purpose of the GBA was to provide the "operational protocols" for the UN's Convention on Biodiversity, which was the centerpiece treaty of the UN's 1992 "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro. Bill Clinton signed the Biodiversity treaty in June 1993, and the Senate came within a few hours of ratifying the pact in September 1994. The effort failed, however, after it was learned that the GBA — which was intended to guide implementation of the treaty — used the Wildlands Project as its template for protection of "biodiversity."

Section 13.4.2.2.3 of the GBA, which deals with "conservation of biodiversity," specifies that "representative areas of all major ecosystems in a region need to be preserved, that blocks should be as large as possible, that buffer zones should be established around core areas, and that corridors should connect these areas. This basic design is central to the recently proposed Wildlands Project in the United States...."

When this passage was brought to the attention of key senators, the treaty was withdrawn from consideration, and it remains unratified. However, the Clinton administration — as was its wont — simply proceeded as if the treaty had won Senate approval.

Bruce Babbitt's Interior Department, through an administrative directive, created a National Biological Survey intended to carry out a nationwide species inventory. The purpose of that inventory, explained Interior Department science adviser Tom Lovejoy, was to "determine development for the whole country and regulate it...." The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Forest Service (USFS) embraced the Convention's key ideological assumption — "biocentrism," the notion that human beings are just another species enjoying no special place in nature (see page 23). The BLM's leadership echelon captured that vision when it issued a policy statement declaring that "all ecosystem management activities should consider human beings as a biological resource."

Another key element of the Wildlands scheme fell into place on January 19, 1996 when Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12986, which granted to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) complete immunity from lawsuits. The IUCN is an advisory body to the United Nations, in which hundreds of state and federal agencies (including the EPA, BLM, and USFS) consult with representatives of 133 UN-approved non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to pursue the development of "eco-spiritual practice and principles." Composed entirely of bureaucrats and radical activists, and immune to civil lawsuits, the IUCN claims a mandate to "change human behavior."

The IUCN plays a key role in organizing and mobilizing eco-radicals as "stakeholders" — officials who will participate in policy decisions that will advance the Wildlands campaign. Although such stakeholders supposedly represent the "will of the people," they are neither chosen by the communities they presume to govern, nor are they accountable to them. But this arrangement is perfectly acceptable to IUCN, given its self-appointed mission to tutor and rule over "ignorant humans."

According to an article in the IUCN journal Conservation Biology, "we assume that environmental wounds inflicted by ignorant humans ... can be treated by wiser humans." If this means that "ignorant humans" come to harm, so be it: "Conservation biology is a crisis discipline. On a battlefield you are justified in firing on the enemy."

The "Y2Y" Menace

The IUCN's martial rhetoric aside, Wildlands activists have succeeded in seizing vast tracts of land without firing a shot. But their previous conquests would pale into relative insignificance should they succeed in their most ambitious undertaking yet — a binational landgrab that would span the U.S.-Canadian border.

Although Y2K came and went without causing lasting damage, the same may not be true of Y2Y — the "Yellowstone to Yukon" project, which seeks to create a transnational "bioregion" 2,000 miles long and 300 miles wide. The Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative describes its vision as one in which a "web of protected wildlife cores and connecting wildlife corridors has been defined and designated for the Yellowstone to Yukon region." All land-use and development decisions made in that region are to be "based first and foremost on ecological principles."

In order to achieve that vision, vast tracts of land within five states, as well as in two Canadian provinces and one territory, would have to be placed under strict environmental control. As the map on page 18 illustrates, implementation of the Y2Y plan would be particularly devastating to Idaho and Montana. Roughly two-thirds of Idaho and nearly half of Montana would be subsumed into the bioregion, which would eventually be administered by a UN-approved "bioregional council." Through such a council, the affected lands would be zoned for "sustainable use," with the UN acting as an absentee zoning board.

Ambitious though this landgrab may be, it would merely be a down-payment toward completion of the Wildlands Project. But this is to be expected, given that Harvey Locke, a founder of the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, is also president of the Wildlands Project board.

It is by creating a matrix of "cores," "buffers," and "connecting corridors" that Wildlands activists seek to re-primitivize the North American landscape — and the "web of protected wildlife cores and connecting wildlife corridors" envisioned by Y2Y would be a quantum leap in that direction. "A wilderness recovery network is an interconnected system of strictly protected areas (core reserves), surrounded by lands used for human activities compatible with conservation that put biodiversity first (buffer zones), and linked together in some way that provides for functional connectivity ... across the landscape," explains Reed Noss. In both core and buffer areas, Noss continues, "the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans."

Every environmental preserve — whether it's a national monument, a UN World Heritage Site or Biosphere Reserve, or a wilderness area — is a potential core area under the emerging Wildlands scheme. Dave Foreman urges radical eco-activists to "identify existing protected areas" and seek to have them identified as core areas. The agitators would then demand the creation of "corridors" to connect the core areas across the landscape. At this point, Foreman points out, eco-radicals could "look for gaps between wild lands or public lands" for future acquisition "by public agencies or by private groups like the Nature Conservancy." Human activity would be strictly regulated not only in the core and buffer areas but in the corridors as well.

The strategy, according to Wildlands activist John Davis, is to keep "expanding wilderness until the matrix, not just the nexus, is wild" — or, in Foreman's words, until eco-radicals have been able to "tie the North American continent into a single Biodiversity Reserve...." Woe betide any private landowner whose property falls in one of the "gaps" mentioned by Foreman, or any farmer, rancher, miner, or logger whose livelihood collides with "the collective needs of non-human species" within a bioregion.

Mr. Clinton's departure from Washington will not end the Wildlands threat, in part because of our country's entanglement with the United Nations. In fact, for American landowners living within the envisioned Y2Y bioregion, a recent decision by the provincial government of British Columbia may prove to be just as significant as any of Mr. Clinton's landgrabs by executive order during the last two years of his administration.

A "Gift to the World"

Last November, after eight years of negotiations, the Canadian province of British Columbia enacted the "Mackenzie Decision," setting aside an additional five million acres as part of the Muskwa-Kechika preserve. That preserve is now a 16-million-acre wilderness area — essentially a core area the size of West Virginia.

"I like to think of this as Canada's gift to the rest of the world," boasted B.C. Premier Ujjal Dosanjh. "We're very proud of what this accomplishes. In effect, it creates the largest protected area in North America and establishes an important precedent." That precedent is twofold. First, with the new designation, British Columbia becomes the first jurisdiction in North America to meet the UN's goal of setting aside 12 percent of its land base as "protected" areas. Second, the Mackenzie Decision was achieved by consensus among "stakeholders" — with the "consensus" representing a huge victory for the landgrabbers. Although these negotiations have been described by supporters as an example of "local land-use planning," it is, in fact, the same process through which UN-approved "bioregional councils" would operate.

In an earlier report on Wildlands-related initiatives in the United States (see "Sold Down the River" in our January 5, 1998 issue), Dr. Michael S. Coffman, executive director of Sovereignty International, noted that the concept of stakeholders — like that of the Wildlands Project — is contained in the UN's Global Biodiversity Assessment. "Under the GBA plan, land-use decisions would be made through a new form of governance whereby local people form 'stakeholder groups' or 'partnerships,' who would make land-use rules by 'consensus,'" warns Dr. Coffman. "Of course, this arrangement would effectively dispense with property rights altogether."

Henry Lamb, director of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), observes that Our Global Neighborhood, the report of the UN-aligned Commission on Global Governance, "calls for the creation of a 'Petitions Council' composed of five to seven representatives of accredited NGOs. They would help direct funding decisions, define administrative duties, and authorize enforcement actions. The world would be divided up into bioregions administered by bioregional councils under direct supervision of the UN and with enforcement authority through the petitions council."

A more suitable label for such "bioregional councils" would be "UN eco-soviets." The purpose of soviets in Communist Russia was to create local consensus on behalf of implementing policies enacted by the central committee. If such a "consensus" wasn't achieved voluntarily, it was imposed by force, usually involving the liquidation of those who resisted. Although the methods employed by the provincial eco-soviet in British Columbia were not as drastic as those used in Communist Russia, the process was quite similar in principle.

Mike Low, general manager of Abitibi Consolidated Inc., a forest products company in British Columbia, was among the industry representatives designated a stakeholder in the discussions that led to the Mackenzie Decision. "One of the fears we had was that if we couldn't reach consensus then the government would make the decisions for us, and none of the stakeholders wanted that," Low told the December 8, 2000 Christian Science Monitor. One incentive for forest products companies to participate as stakeholders, continued the report, was the prospect of being able to conduct approved logging operations "without encountering environmental activists every time they began felling trees." It is in this way that spikers, monkey-wrenchers, and other eco-terrorists help extort concessions from representatives of lawful industries.

After eight years, continued the Monitor, the "stakeholders" asked Premier Dosanjh "to approve the accord, rather than having the government render a top-down edict." Wayne Sawchuk, a stakeholder in the negotiations, insisted that the designation "proves that local land-use planning can work." Actually, the process referred to by Sawchuk illustrates how the charade of local control, carried out amid threats of terrorism and under the shadow of undisguised government coercion, can be used to carry out UN-mandated eco-socialist policies. And, as B.C. Premier Dosanjh pointed out, the process that created the Mackenzie Decision is intended to serve as a precedent throughout the Y2Y bioregion — and, indeed, across North America.

The Yellowstone Connection

The U.S. core area to be linked to the new 16,000,000-acre Muskwa-Kechika preserve in British Columbia is the "Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem," which includes not only the more than two million acres within the park but another 18 million acres in four states (Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah). Yellowstone Park was designated a "World Heritage Site in danger" by the United Nations Education, Social, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in December 1995. Environmental attorney William Perry Pendley noted that in making that designation, officials from UNESCO sought to review all policies dealing with mining, timber, wildlife, and tourism within the 20 million acres of affected land. This inspection was carried out in response to "petitions" made by a collection of eco-radical lobbies styling itself the "Greater Yellowstone Coalition."

Yellowstone Park offers a very useful case study of the UN-driven landgrab. Yellowstone is one of 20 UN World Heritage Sites dotting the U.S. landscape. To these have been added 47 UN Biosphere Reserves. Together, the Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves — each of which is a prime candidate to serve as a Wildlands Project core area — account for more than 50 million acres. The World Heritage Convention was ratified by the Senate in 1973; the Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB), through which the Biosphere Reserves were created, was implemented by the State Department through "memoranda of understanding" without the involvement of Congress. The designation of these sites was achieved through secretive collusion between unaccountable NGO stakeholders and eco-bureaucrats, usually without any input by the affected local citizenry.

In fact, such secrecy is mandated by the UN. Paragraph 14 of the 1994 Operational Guidelines for the World Heritage Convention dictates that governments bound by the convention "should refrain from giving undue publicity to the fact that a property has been nominated for inscription pending the final decision...." With reference to Biosphere Reserves, the UN also claims the power to circumvent public accountability altogether. UNESCO's 1995 Seville Agreement for Biosphere Reserves dictates that in the process of identifying and designating such sites, "national or local NGOs could be appropriate substitutes" for elected officials. It was through such covert machinations that the network of Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves was created.

Furthermore, where Heritage Sites are concerned, UN designation recognizes a state of "shared sovereignty" over a given parcel of territory within our country. As the October 6, 1992 issue of Environment magazine explained, the designation of World Heritage Sites "constitutes a unique precedent," as it "implies what might be called a voluntary limitation of sovereignty" and a recognition that "other countries have, through the [World Heritage] convention, an obligation — and therefore a right — toward these sites."

It was on this basis that the Clinton administration invited UNESCO to intervene to declare Yellowstone a World Heritage Site in danger. Yellowstone Park superintendent Mike Finley also deferred to the supposed sovereignty of the UN over the park by maintaining that the World Heritage treaty, despite the lack of federal implementing legislation, has "the force and statutory authority of federal law."

The UN panel used its "authority" to promote the use of Yellowstone as a Wildlands core area. Describing the 1995 visit by the UNESCO delegation to the Yellowstone area, the Billings Gazette reported that the officials "said the United States may be overlooking the commitment it made, by signing a treaty, to maintain an uncompromised buffer zone around the national park. The President of the World Heritage Committee said he is inclined to suggest that the international panel urge the United States to expand Yellowstone Park to encompass millions of [acres of] national forest that surround it."

With the Park as a core area and a buffer zone that absorbs territory in four states, the next phase of the program will be to begin work on the corridor between the "Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem" and its partner core area 1,500 miles to the north — the newly created Muskwa-Kechika preserve. In such fashion does the Wildlands cancer metastasize across the landscape.

To Control the Land

The Wildlands Project radicals enjoy several tactical advantages over their would-be victims — the most obvious being that the eco-radicals are well-organized, well-funded, supported by federal and UN environmental bureaucrats, and are following a detailed game plan. The very grandiosity of their designs also offers them another advantage: The notion of "re-wilding" North America and abolishing industrial civilization is simply incomprehensible to rational people.

It must be remembered, however, that the objective of the UN-created Wildlands Project is not to restore the land, but rather to control it. The UN plainly stated this socialist premise in the report of its 1976 Conference on Human Settlements in Vancouver: "Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market." But property rights are the literal, material foundation of all liberties; a government that controls the land will control the people thereupon. Through the Wildlands Project and subsidiary efforts such as Y2Y, the Power Elite that controls the UN is, quite literally, seizing control of the land upon which Americans live.

Although the UN's environmental agreements are usually portrayed "as pitiful gutless creatures with no bite," observed New York Times writer William K. Stevens, "they have hidden teeth that will develop in the right circumstances." Throughout the Western states, UN-aligned eco-radicals are busy sowing dragon's teeth, and a bitter harvest will result — unless Americans who cherish their liberties organize to extricate our nation from the UN and its designs.


CNHT

OK one more, here's just a teaser for those of you who don't think the UN has been a very very busy influential organization intent on controlling the world:

"Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development Commission. These two tandem agreements (not treaties) were signed by President Bush at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. The forty-chapter Agenda 21 represents an all-encompassing plan that seeks to "integrate...environment and development concerns [that] will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can - in a global partnership for sustainable development."
Agenda 21 literally establishes the framework for protecting everything -- from protecting the environment, to women and children's rights, and community development. This plan, if fully implemented, would have government involved in every aspect of life of every human on earth.
Agenda 21 is "soft law" or voluntary, but commits nations to set national goals to meet the provisions of this global plan. All other UN treaties and agreements are designed to implement Agenda 21. President Clinton has been aggressively implementing Agenda 21, even when the supporting treaty has not been ratified by the US"

Outline for World Government
http://www.discerningtoday.org/world_govn_outline.htm


/Vermont secession my BUTT!

Deanotrek

I believe that secession from the US by NH, and the other northern New England states is inevitable. I do believe that within 50 years this will happen, because people will eventually (hopefully) rise up and say that's enough. I also believe that New Hampshire will naturally separate itself economically, and socially from the rest of the nation due to its independent nature. That being said, if secession were to be able to happen sooner Individuals involved in the liberty, and freedom movement need to make their presence known, and influence the masses to bring about a paradigm shift in that direction.

CNHT

Quote from: Deanotrek on November 09, 2007, 10:41 PM NHFT
I believe that secession from the US by NH, and the other northern New England states is inevitable. I do believe that within 50 years this will happen, because people will eventually (hopefully) rise up and say that's enough. I also believe that New Hampshire will naturally separate itself economically, and socially from the rest of the nation due to its independent nature. That being said, if secession were to be able to happen sooner Individuals involved in the liberty, and freedom movement need to make their presence known, and influence the masses to bring about a paradigm shift in that direction.


Uhhhhhh right.....and then this is how NH would play right into the hands of the UN.  Nice.