The U.N. Controls Our National Parks and Monuments.

[Windship]

Why Does U.N. Now Control U.S. National Parks? (must see video)
BY LINSAY MORGAN ON OCTOBER 14, 2013ARTICLE, EMAIL, VICTORIAJACKSON.COM

• 52
• Share
• Tweet
• Plus

by Victoria Jackson





As the Obama ‘Regime’ childishly uses our National Parks and Monuments as weapons against it’s own veterans, citizens, and especially to threaten the Tea Party, and it’s values (The Constitution), few people are aware of the fact that we the people, United States citizens, do not control our own treasured landmarks. The United Nations (of which most member countries are our enemies) now controls most of our U.S. National Parks and Monuments including Yellowstone, the Everglades, the Washington Monument, the Statue of Liberty, Thomas Jefferson’s home at Monticello, the Brooklyn Bridge, Yosemite,and the Grand Canyon – to name just a few….while U.S. taxpayers still foot the bill.

Jon Doughtery of WND said, “…if most Americans “knew what was going on (with their national parks), the uproar would be deafening.” Dougherty explains , “…(the U.N.) attempts to “globalize” huge portions of the United States — with taxpayers picking up the tab.”

Watch the above 2 hour documentary on the globalist agenda. One World Government. (Read “When The World Will Be As One” by Tal Brooke).

Agenda 21 is a United Nations document that was signed by Clinton and Bush that will allow the implementation of a one world government by gradually separating American citizens from their private property and “redistributing the wealth” globally. Globalists like Obama, Hilary, international bankers and George Soros are using many means to accomplish this including the implosion of the U.S. economy, the destruction of the U.S. family unit, and the ‘fake science’ of man-caused (anthropomorphic) global-warming/climate change’ endorsed (knowingly and unknowingly) by the environmentalist (earth worship) movement.

“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,” says Henry Lamb of Eco-Logic — a watchdog organization that monitors U.N. activities and U.S. sovereignty issues.

Continue Reading at VictoriaJackson.com

# 341
July 2001





1972 Treaty Grants the United Nations Control Over American Historical Landmarks


by [EMAIL='mwiedbrauk@nationalcenter.org']Melissa Wiedbrauk[/EMAIL]



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.

 

[Windship]

I remain hopeful mr trump will do what he said hed do.


Trump urged to abolish national monuments, an unprecedented move
created during the Obama and Clinton administrations, an idea that could threaten two newly created monuments in New Mexico.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, head of the House Natural Resources Committee, is getting push-back from conservation groups and some in the New Mexico congressional delegation for his suggestion that Trump could take back monuments preserving public lands from California to Maine.

Obama designated the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument in Taos County and the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument in southern New Mexico.

Doing away with national monuments created by presidential proclamation under the 110-year-old Antiquities Act has never been done, but also has never been legally tested. The act was passed in 1906 during the Republican administration of President Theodore Roosevelt, an early leader in the conservation movement.

Story continues below advertisement.

“If any administration thinks they’re going to start divesting us of a hundred-year history of lands that belong to every American, they’re going to have to do it over my dead body,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich.

Heinrich was joined in his condemnation of Bishop’s idea by New Mexico Democrats U.S. Sen. Tom Udall and U.S. Rep. Ben Ray Luján.

“Extremists in Congress may be urging President-elect Trump to take radical and unprecedented actions against our public lands, but I will fight any such actions every step of the way. I urge Western communities to join me in informing Mr. Trump about the value these lands hold for New Mexicans and all Americans,” Udall told the Journal in a statement.

“No president has ever overturned a previous president’s decision to designate a national monument and I sincerely hope that the president-elect respects this precedent so that this treasure of northern New Mexico will be protected and preserved for future generations,” said Luján, referring to the Rio Grande del Norte monument.

But U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico’s only Republican member of Congress, pointed out this week that he had introduced legislation to protect 60,000 acres of the Organ Mountains, as opposed to the 496,000 acres Obama set aside.

“The Antiquities Act requires that a President designate the smallest possible footprint in order to achieve the desired environmental preservation. Americans have witnessed the Obama Administration disregard that part of the law,” Pearce said in a written statement to the Journal.

He called on Trump to review the Organ Mountains designation and others around the country, reducing their footprint “to an acreage supported by existing federal law.” He added, “Additionally, Congress should work with President Trump in the years to come on changing the designation process — so that no future President may unilaterally restrict lands from the people. These decisions must be made in Congress.”

Bishop has said on his website that “communities across the West live in constant fear of unilateral monument declarations.”

He also visited Maine back in June to conduct a field hearing of the House Natural Resources Committee in East Millinocket, where he joined many locals in voicing opposition to a proposed national monument in northern Maine.

Conservation by pen
During the just-concluded presidential campaign, Trump raised a red flag for conservation groups after Obama used a proclamation to designate 87,500 acres of donated Maine woodlands the Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument.

“This decision, done at the stroke of a pen without the support of the local community, undermines the people that live and work right here in Maine,” Trump said in October.

Obama used his pen to designate the two new monuments in New Mexico on land that was already under the federal Bureau of Land Management’s umbrella. The Rio Grande del Norte Monument’s creation in 2013 was supported by a wide range of business, environmental and community groups as a boon for Taos-area tourism, while the Organ Mountains designation was more controversial.

Conservation groups now are urging Obama to make a last-minute national monument proclamation of the Bears Ears area of Utah, which Bishop opposes.

Using the Antiquities Act, Obama has burnished his conservation credentials with the establishment of a total of 28 national monuments across the country. There were 19 designated during the Clinton administration. President George W. Bush created two.

Asked if Trump has authority to rescind monuments, a Department of Interior spokesperson responded in a statement, “We’re not going to speculate on what any new Administration will or won’t do. For over 100 years, both Republican and Democratic presidents have designated monuments to conserve America’s natural, historical and cultural heritage.”

“No president has ever rescinded a national monument,” said Kristen Brengel, vice president of government affairs for the Washington, D.C.-based National Parks Conservation Association. “There is no precedent.”

Bishop and his Utah supporters think it can be done and they especially dislike a Utah monument designated by President Bill Clinton two decades ago.

“Just because somebody who created mistakes like the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument says you can’t do it, or you shouldn’t do it, or it’s questionable — bull crap,” Bishop recently told E&E News, which tracks environmental issues.

“It’s never been done before and that’s why people are saying you can’t do it … of course you can do it. It’s always been implied.”

John Leshy, a former chief attorney for the Department of Interior, said the legally untested Antiquities Act has become a partisan issue.

“The Republican platform calls for eviscerating the Antiquities Act,” Leshy, now professor of law emeritus at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law, said by email. The GOP platform approved at this past summer’s national convention calls for a requirement that Congress and state legislatures sign off on any new national monuments.

Because no president has tried to take back a national monument, “there’s no track record on this,” Leshy said. He said there’s a U.S. Attorney General opinion from the 1930s that examined the issue “and concluded that a president cannot undo a monument.”

“That’s not been litigated because no president has ever tried,” Leshy added. “Perhaps Trump can be the first and we’d have a test case.

“In a very few instances, presidents have shrunk the boundaries of monuments proclaimed by their predecessors,” he said. “The extent of that power has not been litigated either.” Leshy said that much more often “Congress or subsequent presidents expand previous presidents’ proclamations, or convert the monument into a (national) park.”

Wilderness Alliance concern
“We are certainly deeply concerned about the Trump administration’s posture on conservation issues,” said Mark Allison, executive director of the Albuquerque-based New Mexico Wilderness Alliance.

Allison thinks there is a distinction between executive actions Trump might take to reverse Obama’s actions on immigration issues and what Obama did under the 1906 Antiquities Act.

“Our interpretation is he (Trump) would be unable to completely rescind a national monument under the Antiquities Act. He may have the authority to modify boundaries or acres, but we think this is extremely unlikely,” Allison said in a phone interview.

“From a political standpoint, these national monuments have widespread support,” Allison said of the two recently created New Mexico monuments. “It is inconceivable for him (Trump) to rescind them.”

Udall’s statement noted a broad coalition that supported the Taos-area monument. “The Rio Grande del Norte National Monument also supports cultural traditions like hunting, grazing and irrigation — and it has been embraced by the local community,” said Udall. Any reversal “would be a massive betrayal of the public interest, putting many of our most precious natural landscapes at risk, and such an action would face strong legal challenge,” he said.

Rio Grande del Norte extends from Pilar along the Rio Grande south of Taos north to the New Mexico-Colorado border and includes over 242,000 acres of volcanic cones and the 800-foot deep Rio Grande Gorge.

The 496,000-acre Organ Mountains monument is home to ancient petroglyphs and lava flows, rare plants and animals, and vast recreational and hunting areas. Ranchers said the monument designation could complicate the already strict rules governing use of federal lands and make ranching tougher.

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

 

[Coloradomtnman]