FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
[ Last | Latest Posts | Latest Articles | Self Search | Add Bookmark | Post | Abuse | Help! ]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Our National Parks Now Belong to United Nations

Government News Keywords: UNITED NATIONS, NATIONAL PARKS, LAND GRAB, WORLD HERITAGE SITES,
Source: Choosing Life.net
Published: various Author: various
Posted on 12/31/2000 13:28:23 PST by Bump in the night

Grabbing Our Land?

U.S. News and World Report, July 21, 1997, Cover Story: "Parks in Peril"

"The national parks have been called the best idea America had. But their wild beauty and historical treasures are rapidly deteriorating from lack of funds, pollution, encroaching development, overcrowding, and congressional indifference."

This is true, but there's a lot more to it that we are not being told. Our parks, national and state, are being taken over by forces that are beyond our control. The problem is not only congressional indifference, but public indifference due to media misinformation. It is time to quit mainstream media and sample some alternatives. The following info comes from the website of the Concerned Women for America (www.cwfa.org)

Fact: The Clinton administration is implementing United Nations treaties without congressional or voter approval. Already 68% of our national parks and preserves are under U.N. administration.

Fact: U.N. committees are empowered to visit "World Heritage Sites" within the U.S. to judge whether human activity poses an environmental risk and if it need to be curtailed.

Fact: The Clinton administration is transferring tens of millions of acres of land to the federal government to be placed under U.N. control.

Fact: Towns in the Cuyahoga River Valley near Akron, Ohio, have lost much of their population as the National Park Service under U.N. provisions, has condemned and torn down homes, farms, forcing people to leave their land.

Fact: The U.N. Biodiversity Treaty supports the Wildlands Project, which calls for turning 50% of the U.S. into "wildlands" where humans would not be allowed, but animals could roam free.

Our National Parks Now Belong to United Nations

A newsletter photo of a sign at the park entrance reads, "Great Smoky Mountains National Park, An International Biosphere Reserve...you and I will continue to pay taxes for the maintenance and upkeep of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. But we no longer own it. Now, the UN has ultimate jurisdiction. This alone is startling evidence that the once independent nation-state known as the United States of America is going out with a whimper and not a bang. Our sovereignty is coming to an end...

"The UN and its elitist masters don't want you on their property! And in case you do trespass and enter forbidden areas of these pristine UN lands, you might just be shot. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agents and park personnel are now taught to love nature's Mother Earth and to despise and loathe human beings. They are being given firearms and instructed to use them. Meanwhile, foreign immigrants from India, china, Pakistan, Bulgaria, Russia and other nations are being recruited for this national park service police duty because, unlike U.S. nationals, non-English speaking foreigners will not hesitate to care out order and shoot American intruders." Flashpoint's June Newsletter (1708 Patterson Rd, Austin TX 78733)


1 Posted on 12/31/2000 13:28:23 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

I thought many of the parks were now under the Chinese ...that they own the mineral rights. What was the park where Clinton took over the area without even telling the Govenor? It seems to me that he was doing this only to save the minerals...not the animals or the land.....he was selling the last ore to the Chinese? Where did I get this from?

2 Posted on 12/31/2000 13:40:18 PST by Sungirl
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Sungirl

Wow... good one! I'd like to know about that one. Anyone else know the details on this?

3 Posted on 12/31/2000 13:43:58 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]


To: Sungirl

I may be wrong, but I believe you were referring to land in Utah. Clinton had to make a photo shoot from AZ.

4 Posted on 12/31/2000 13:44:13 PST by undergroundwarrior
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]


To: amom

I thought many of the parks were now under the Chinese ...that they own the mineral rights. What was the park where Clinton took over the area without even telling the Govenor? It seems to me that he was doing this only to save the minerals...not the animals or the land.....he was selling the last ore to the Chinese? Where did I get this from?

Hey, Ma! Have you heard about this?

5 Posted on 12/31/2000 13:45:19 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

Fact: Towns in the Cuyahoga River Valley near Akron, Ohio, have lost much of their population as the National Park Service under U.N. provisions, has condemned and torn down homes, farms, forcing people to leave their land.

To my knowledge there is not a single National Park in the State of Ohio.

I would be interested to know under which article or Amendment to the Constitution State or private lands are confiscated and placed under foreign control.

6 Posted on 12/31/2000 13:45:28 PST by Pontiac
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Pontiac

I would be interested to know under which article or Amendment to the Constitution State or private lands are confiscated and placed under foreign control.

Me too! But I have a sneaking suspicion that we're not going to find any such thing, and if we do, I'm sure that it's totally and completely unconstitutional.

7 Posted on 12/31/2000 13:48:44 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

No offence intended...Do you have some solid evidence I could show skeptical friends?

8 Posted on 12/31/2000 13:48:44 PST by jonatron
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Pontiac

It's called the Article of No Balls in Congress. They are the ones who can get it back or prevent it from being given away.

9 Posted on 12/31/2000 13:48:53 PST by B4Ranch
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]


To: jonatron

No offense taken. :) I don't. I just found this on a website. But I'm sure that I've seen this topic a lot on FR, but not recently. I'm sure somebody out there must have something more solid than this post. I'll bump this to a few people I think might know. Hopefully, we'll find something for you. (I'd like to know, too.)

10 Posted on 12/31/2000 13:51:16 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ]


To: Alamo-girl

Do you know where we can find some solid evidence on this type of thing?

11 Posted on 12/31/2000 13:52:46 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

The trend is clear. I have seen hundreds of people forced off their property as lands were federalized, and some of the best hunting, camping, and fishing were then made illegal .

After all the national parks are under UN control, or prohibit hunting and fishing, the next step is to prohibit hunting, fishing, and camping in the national forests.

The last step is telling the states to prohibit hunters, fishermen and campers to stay out of state forests, or else the federal government will withhold returning money back to the states.

At that point, only the rich will be able to use the outdoors, and the people wont have anything to do with our guns, fishing poles, horses, and tents.

12 Posted on 12/31/2000 13:53:26 PST by phylliswaterstraat
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: jonatron

No offence intended...Do you have some solid evidence I could show skeptical friends?

You mean a conspiracy website isn't evidence enough for you?

This is old news. The National Parks have always been under the control of squirrels, who find plenty of nuts to keep them fed for the winter.

13 Posted on 12/31/2000 13:54:19 PST by sinkspur
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ]


To: sinkspur

The National Parks have always been under the control of squirrels, who find plenty of nuts to keep them fed for the winter.

He,he,he,he,he,he,he!!!! I like that!

14 Posted on 12/31/2000 13:59:44 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | Top | Last ]


To: jonatron

World Heritage Sites in the U.S.


http://www.cr.nps.gov/worldheritage/sites.htm

15 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:00:50 PST by Thinkin' Gal
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ]


To: sinkspur

Even if these parks are under putative "UN control" (which we really have no reason to believe is true as far as that one website's claim is concerned), it doesn't really mean much as long as the US President's administration is all for the same things in these parks that the UN would be. It's when the UN tries to flex some muscle that they will find out who really controls the parks.

16 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:01:57 PST by Timesink
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | Top | Last ]


To: Thinkin' Gal

Ooooooh..... Thanks!

17 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:04:04 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | Top | Last ]


To: Sungirl

Clinton stole the land in my state of Utah--the supposed Grand Staircase National Monument. Our governor, congressmen, and senators were hopping mad about this. Didn't know a thing about it until it happened. This move took away the land and livelihoods of many of the cattlemen, farmers, miners, etc. in that part of the state. It was at this point that I knew there wasn't anything I could trust about Clinton. Not that there was much in the first place to trust about him.

18 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:07:01 PST by Nan48
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night/Harry Callahan

Calling Dirty Harry. You are needed over here. Harry will fill you all in, I am sure!

19 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:12:13 PST by blam
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | Top | Last ]


To: Nan48

I remembered something about this. I also remember somehting about this Heritage Foundation...seems to me there were TWO (2) Heritage org.s and one was under Chinese control. I would love to know the story behind this because for years now I am in belief (and have told people I know) that the Chinese have rights to our ore and minerals in these so-called federal parks.

20 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:12:37 PST by Sungirl
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

The World Heritage List
Alphabetically by State Party


The 690 properties which the World Heritage Committee has inscribed on the World Heritage List (529 cultural, 138 natural and 23 mixed properties in 122 States Parties)

The World Heritage Committee has inscribed the following properties on the World Heritage List. The List, arranged alphabetically by nominating State Party, is current as of December 2000. The list will be updated following the next meeting of the Committee in December 2001.

See list here:

http://www.unesco.org/whc/heritage.htm#debut

Here's an interesting listing:

JERUSALEM

1981 Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (site proposed by Jordan)
 

21 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:13:16 PST by Thinkin' Gal
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | Top | Last ]


To: Pontiac

Actually, it is the 'Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area'. To my knowledge, towns have not become de-populated due to houses being condemned under the auspices of that mentioned in the article.

Anything of that nature, the intentional omission of such activities by the media notwithstanding, would create an uproar in the area. It is not going on as the article intimates.

22 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:18:04 PST by Tench_Coxe
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]


To: Thinkin' Gal

Do you all see the spots marked on this map? They are already gone. The US no longer has sovereigty over these sites. The US Congress has sold us down the drain. Have you all seen the signs, "Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US?" That's just the tip of the iceberg!! Wake up!!

23 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:18:14 PST by blam
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump In The Night, Hamiltonian

BITN: I have flagged Hamiltonian for you. I'll continue to look.

Hamiltonian: Do you happen to have any handy links regarding the landgrab in the US Northwest and cliton's buddies and coal? Thanks in advance for any help you can be here. Salute

24 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:18:33 PST by amom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | Top | Last ]


To: blam

Thanks! Where are you, Harry?

25 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:30:57 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | Top | Last ]


To: amom

Thanks, Ma!

26 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:36:00 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

LAST WYOMING COAL MINE TO CLOSE

Coal veteran's $312 million effort could help make U.S. energy independent
not related to national parks but thought you might find this of interest.

27 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:38:26 PST by amom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night/Inspector Harry Callahan

Sorry Bump, It was Inspector Harry Callahan.

28 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:42:46 PST by blam
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night, Thinkin' Gal

Thank you!

29 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:43:13 PST by jonatron
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | Top | Last ]


To: Grandma C, Aunt B, blackie,Rowdee,Washington Minuteman,sauropod

BUMP......

redrock

30 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:47:22 PST by redrock
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

Check out Ted Turner's land purchases and the National Momuments Clinton has made.

31 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:50:30 PST by Yellow Rose of Texas
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Sungirl

It was Escalante Park in Utah. Big Coal Deposit. He was in Arizona when he did the dastardly deed.

32 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:50:42 PST by Gmax
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]


To: amom

Here's a few about Grand Escalante

Lippo Group Donations Prompted Coal Lock-up in Utah

Real motive for locking up 7 billion tons of coal?

Clinton's `mother of all land-grabs'

33 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:52:22 PST by Hamiltonian
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night


MEGA-


IS ANY ONE WATCHING THE CRIMINAL IN CHIEF????


Freep-on!!!

34 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:53:47 PST by fuzzy122
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Tench_Coxe

I live about 20 miles from the Cuyahoga Valley,and yes it is true that throughout this area the feds have went on a major land grab and have displaced at least 50 families,all under the guise of immennent domain.I dont know the exact details but there are 2 plans..leave immediately at current market value or stay till you die for nothing.Driving thru the area you will see skulls and crossbones with "death of a neighborhood " signs thanks to the National Park Service..and the date.

35 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:54:18 PST by Bowhunter40
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | Top | Last ]


To: fuzzy122

Cooooooooooollllllll!

36 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:56:30 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | Top | Last ]


To: Yellow Rose of Texas

Here's that article we were discussing in private chat. Order may hit half Utah's U.S. forests

OK I gotta run for awhile. Check in when I get back. Happy hunting folks.

37 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:57:01 PST by amom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | Top | Last ]


To: Sungirl

check out reply number 27 and 33. This may help.

38 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:58:00 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]


To: Hamiltonian

Thanks so much. Exactly what I was thinking of. I'll bookmark em this time. :-)

39 Posted on 12/31/2000 14:59:53 PST by amom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | Top | Last ]


To: jonatron

Do you have some solid evidence I could show skeptical friends?

Check out the links on reply #27 and #33. I haven't had a chance to look at them yet, but they come from good sources.

40 Posted on 12/31/2000 15:00:03 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ]


To: blam Sinkspur

Thanks for the flag, blam. I see SpinkSpam has already been here, decrying the "conspiracy" for global control. Imagine the look on his face when a blue-helmeted thug with an MP-5 pokes him in the back and tells him to "get aboard the boxcar".

He'll shriek, "You're not supposed to be here! This is America! I'm calling my Congressman!"

It will be too late. Enjoy the "work" camps, Spink. I have already decided that I won't be joining you there. That's all right, you'll get shackled with my share. Enjoy Utopia!

41 Posted on 12/31/2000 15:03:03 PST by Inspector Harry Callahan
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | Top | Last ]


To: Yellow Rose of Texas

Ted Turner is the largest land owner in the US. He and Jane have 10,000 acres and a stocked compound in Patagonia. When asked about the Patagonia site, Ted said, "It's where we'll go during the revolution." (no kidding)

42 Posted on 12/31/2000 15:04:29 PST by blam
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

This is a very old Internet legend. You do no one a service by reprinting a four-and-a-half year old piece of yellow journalism.

"Nothing to see here folks. Let's move along."

43 Posted on 12/31/2000 15:06:05 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

The World Heritage List Scroll down to UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

NUMBER AND SIZE OF PROTECTED AREAS There are 90 Biosphere Reserves in the United States, including 29 national parks.
List of Biosphere Reserves Scroll down to UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

44 Posted on 12/31/2000 15:09:20 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | Top | Last ]


To: Pontiac

To my knowledge there is not a single National Park in the State of Ohio.

Cr*p like this never worries about trivial details like "facts".

I'll tell you this: These kinds of things, plus the continual harping on Ron Brown and Vince Foster, chap my hide!

Why?

Because they are DETERENTS, I think PURPOSEFULLY drummed up so that concerned Americans waste their time on this kind of junk and don't see the REAL (but more subtle and much more complex) issues and problems going on around us.

We have a REAL BATTLE going on for the hearts and minds of America! We are slaughtering innocent babies in the womb, families are disintegrating, and we worry about doctored photos of head-wounds and Internet legends so old the headers on the email messages that bear them are three times longer than the messages!

GET A GRIP, PEOPLE! WE'VE GOT REAL ISSUES TO WORRY ABOUT!

GET RID OF THE DRECK LIKE THIS THREAD!

45 Posted on 12/31/2000 15:09:49 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

Same to you, fella!

46 Posted on 12/31/2000 15:11:25 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | Top | Last ]


To: Inspector Harry Callahan

It will be too late. Enjoy the "work" camps, Spink. I have already decided that I won't be joining you there.

Harry, if you're not there, it can't be all bad.

Are these the same camps we read about here last year, where Metalbird was telling us about the abandoned department stores and Food Lions' that had wire fence around them?

Are those the camps? I've got an old Wal-Mart not far from here; but it looks like they're tearing it down?

Could that be a ruse?

Huh, Harry?

47 Posted on 12/31/2000 15:14:30 PST by sinkspur
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

You better go take your prozac now.

48 Posted on 12/31/2000 15:17:30 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | Top | Last ]


To: Thinkin' Gal

Notice that they haven't tried to take Texas, yet!

They know better!!

49 Posted on 12/31/2000 15:18:34 PST by I_Publius
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

www.state.gov/www/global/oes/brpamh.html">U.S. Biosphere Reserves
In the U.S. most biosphere reserves are either national parks (22) or national forests (15). Others are under federal, state, or private ownership and management.
The official state.gov view of things. (read excuse to parents)

Texas - Campgrounds

Texas - National Parks

Texas - National Forests

Texas - Wilderness Areas
Hmmm...Wilderness Areas...

Not a directly related story, but...IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE!

50 Posted on 12/31/2000 15:18:44 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | Top | Last ]


To: jonatron

No offence intended...Do you have some solid evidence I could show skeptical friends?

Okay... here ya go! Check out the links on reply #44!

51 Posted on 12/31/2000 15:20:42 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

Biosphere Reserves
Thirty National Park Service units are part of a select group of internationally recognized sites that have been designated International Biosphere Reserves.
Link in article to NPS.

52 Posted on 12/31/2000 15:27:29 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

Prozac is for depression. I am not depressed, and I don't think you're a physician, nor are you authorized to prescribe drugs over the Internet.

It's time to grow up. That's my message to you.

53 Posted on 12/31/2000 15:31:25 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

Yes...it helps alot!!..Thanks to all...will bookmark this one.

54 Posted on 12/31/2000 15:33:32 PST by Sungirl
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

The World Heritage List...As of December 2000, 161 States Parties had ratified the Convention, the United States being the first to do so. As of December 2000, the number of sites on the World Heritage List stood at 691. The Committee named 12 sites in 1978, 45 in 1979, 28 in 1980, 26 in 1981, 24 in 1982, 29 in 1983, 23 in 1984, 30 in 1985, 31 in 1986, 41 in 1987, 27 in 1988, 7 in 1989, 17 in 1990, 22 in 1991, 20 in 1992, 33 in 1993, 29 in 1994, 29 in 1995, 37 in 1996, 46 in 1997, 30 in 1998, 48 in 1999, and 61 in 2000.

55 Posted on 12/31/2000 15:36:55 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | Top | Last ]


To: Thinkin' Gal

Thanks for the links! Funny, what with all the excitement on previous posts concerning the Denver Int'l Airport's murals I had expected to see the Rocky Mtn. National Park on this list -- I don't think it was included in the graphic you provided in post #15. However RMNP did show up in Philman 36's Biosphere Directory (post # 44.) Guess I need to figure out the difference in the designation of "Heritage" and "Biosphere."

(The DIA murals links: Mural A, Mural B.)

56 Posted on 12/31/2000 15:45:00 PST by MissLuluBelle
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | Top | Last ]


To: MissLuluBelle

Guess I need to figure out the difference in the designation of "Heritage" and "Biosphere."

Ahhh...the diversity of language. And the term "Wilderness Area" too possibly? Re: post 50

57 Posted on 12/31/2000 15:50:46 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | Top | Last ]


Boy, ya got yer Clinton land grabs, UN taking over national parks via Clinton, and aliens (NWO crazies?) in tunnels underneath the Denver airport. What's this world coming to?????

58 Posted on 12/31/2000 15:51:26 PST by Nan48
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

Hysterical headline which gives credence to your screen name!

59 Posted on 12/31/2000 15:52:06 PST by verity
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

RE: Post #45 - You have it reversed. While creating the havoc with society (abortion, failing schools, mediscare, social security etc.) they created the cover to do all the land grabs, EO's and the like to make themselves rich at the expense of our country. These are not God fearing people that care about the afterlife. They only care about their quality of life for the next 10-30 years, and passing along the riches to their kids. For cripe sake, if you want a good example look at the Kennedy's. Can anyone name ONE good thing Ted Kennedy has done in his entire political career? I'll wait for a response from anyone....

60 Posted on 12/31/2000 16:04:39 PST by Go Gordon
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | Top | Last ]


To: Nan48

Hee, hee. Something for everyone. Ha.

61 Posted on 12/31/2000 16:04:42 PST by blam
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

yep.. when I went to the Smokie Mountains there was a huge sign .. I can't recall exactly what it said, but something to the effect of International Biodiversity reserve. I thought HUH? What the heck does that mean?

62 Posted on 12/31/2000 16:08:07 PST by Zipporah
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

BUMP for Bump! We'll have to get to work on GWB and the Congress Critters and make sure these are overturned. And while we're at it, let's make sure that ALL foreign troops are off American soil. There are more foreign troops in this country than there are American based troops..most of our troops are overseas babysitting the UN/NWO takeovers.

63 Posted on 12/31/2000 16:48:29 PST by brat
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: redrock

Stop government tyranny, now!!

Freedom from the UN!!

64 Posted on 12/31/2000 17:03:59 PST by blackie
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay Sinkspur

This isn't fantasy, this is real.

Maybe you don't care if the U. N. runs our National parks but others do.  Myself included.

Warhawk42

65 Posted on 12/31/2000 17:06:39 PST by WH42
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

You better go take your prozac now.

And how's your Clozapine prescription holding out?

Illbay has a point.

66 Posted on 12/31/2000 17:14:32 PST by Kevin Curry
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

Thanks for the post. I can't believe how many people think this is a hoax. I took a two-week trip to Europe this past summer and in virtually every city we toured, the guide PROUDLY said that the place we had just visited was a "world heritage site." Later, when I mentioned this to others in the tour group, none of them (our group numbered 42) remembered hearing the guide say that. I guess they won't pay attention until the U.N. knocks on their door!

67 Posted on 12/31/2000 17:21:22 PST by The Energizer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: The Energizer

Just why has Congress let this happen? Where's Harry? I have heard rumors; but don't know if this is true. Can we do something, if it is?

68 Posted on 12/31/2000 17:27:24 PST by freekitty
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | Top | Last ]


To: freekitty

Go here to read about how the U.S. got involved with this . . . http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1997/aug97/97-08-20.html

69 Posted on 12/31/2000 17:39:59 PST by The Energizer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | Top | Last ]


To: redrock, GrandmaC, blackie, AuntB, et al.

"The UN and its elitist masters don't want you on their property! And in case you do trespass and enter forbidden areas of these pristine UN lands, you might just be shot. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agents and park personnel are now taught to love nature's Mother Earth and to despise and loathe human beings. They are being given firearms and instructed to use them."

Good for them. They'd better teach them good because this citizen is always armed and will return fire!

70 Posted on 12/31/2000 17:50:16 PST by Washington_minuteman (Live Free Or Die@Don't Tread On Me)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | Top | Last ]


To: Nan48

Clinton stole the land in my state of Utah--

One of the things that made me declare, "No More of this !@# !!!"

Here's a link for you:

-Coalgate--that ugly Lippo-Klink-Redford connection to tyranny--

71 Posted on 12/31/2000 17:51:27 PST by backhoe
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | Top | Last ]


To: WH42

Warhawk42, Ref. your #65;

Chainsaws Anyone?

If I lived in the vicinity of that park, that sign would take on a very different appearance.

72 Posted on 12/31/2000 17:56:02 PST by Washington_minuteman
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

The revealing story of and rancher and the national debt

73 Posted on 12/31/2000 18:01:21 PST by Hammer Factor
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

This is a very old Internet legend. You do no one a service by reprinting a four-and-a-half year old piece of yellow journalism.

And that's not all that is being done under the umbrella of the UN.

74 Posted on 12/31/2000 18:02:19 PST by RightWhale
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

I agree with much of what you said.

Sometimes FReepers do get bogged down in nonsense--like the bizarre claims that Elian's photos had been doctored. We had self-acclaimed photoshop "experts" saying "See the catchlights in his eyes? See the shadows on the walls?" Well, I looked carefully at the "evidence," and I concluded that there was no very good evidence that the photos were doctored. I concluded that many of us FReepers (along with Drudge) were just making fools of ourselves.

(Where did you stand on that one, by the way? Did you think those photos were doctored, too?)

To change the subject, however, I still suspect that you are selling short the real evidence in the Vince Foster case. I would urge you to be more cautious.

Why do I think that caution is so important? It actually has to do with your concern that we are missing the more important issues.

To show you what I mean, let me first say that I happen to agree that the issues which you listed in your earlier post are more important in some ways than many of the things which get posted on FR. But you need to keep in mind what we need to do about it. We need to show how wickedly perverse liberal philosophy is.

But that's not easy to do. Gosh, we are never going to convince the liberals that they are murderers just because they murder babies. The problem is, they don't even agree with our definition of murder in the matter of abortion.

So, when we have a Vince Foster case or a Ron Brown case--both of which seemed to be true murder cases (i.e, the kinds of murders which even Dem-wits can understand as such when they realize what really happened)--we can show the liberals that they have been monstrously duped by their beloved leaders.

My point is that it is inordinately difficult to make a fool realize that he is a fool. But if enough of these really ugly facts from recent years were to be made known, then the cover-ups, the corruption, would be so repugnant to the average Democrat that many if not most of them would leave the Democratic Party.

(Quite a few already have as a result of the election frauds by Florida Democrats, by the way!)

My bottom-line point is that we have to smash the liberals with incontrovertible evidence of inarguable, serious crimes. This is also why we have to show that the Democrats committed massive election fraud everywhere in the nation and especially in Florida.

The Democratic Party has become a major criminal enterprise, a kind of mafia with an American flag on the wall. The liberals will never like our stance on abortion--but their thoughtless base of support for issues like that one will crumble if can get them to see that their Party rhetoric is not to be trusted in any matter.

So, we must not restrict our forum to the "more important" items which you have championed. It turns out that that is the surest way to lose in the fight with the libs. (Remember: The libs don't agree that abortion is murder--not even partial-birth abortion. Your arguments mean nothing to them.) We must hit the libs with the biggest hammers we have. And I say that the biggest hammers we have, secularly speaking, are criminal prosecutions for crimes against existing statutes.

P.S. I am a physician. I doubt that you need any Prozac, but if you do, drop me an e-mail. : )

75 Posted on 12/31/2000 18:07:28 PST by the_doc
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | Top | Last ]


To: RightWhale, others

It's very telling that sinkspur posted this article -- Clinton Signs On to War Crimes Court --- and then won't reply on it. Neither have any of his buddies like ILLbay. He seems to have an alter-ego on there that's trying to rabblerouse.

He's sure all over this one and others like it though. Go figger.

76 Posted on 12/31/2000 18:12:26 PST by rdavis84
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | Top | Last ]


To: Go Gordon

No, sorry, I believe in first principles. "Reasonable people can disagree" on a whole host of issues regarding the world and our place in it.

But the evil and wickedness we see happening around us as the result of moral degeneration transcends all of this.

77 Posted on 12/31/2000 18:22:08 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | Top | Last ]


To: WH42

Welcome, WarHawk. Haven't seen you in awhile.

While I can understand your concern, signs and slogans, "feel good" titles of all kinds, are just so much smoke and hot air.

Show me where the U.S. is prohibited from exercising its sovereignty. And I don't mean words on paper, I mean REAL ACTION.

78 Posted on 12/31/2000 18:24:33 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | Top | Last ]


To: the_doc

To change the subject, however, I still suspect that you are selling short the real evidence in the Vince Foster case. I would urge you to be more cautious.

It isn't the evidence in the Vince Foster case that leaves me cold. It's the attitude of those who insist it's all a HUGE conspiracy. Ken Starr's in on it; the Republican Congress is in on it. Even GWB is a party to it.

It becomes quite boring over time.

79 Posted on 12/31/2000 18:26:20 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | Top | Last ]


To: the_doc

so repugnant to the average Democrat that many if not most of them would leave the Democratic Party. (Quite a few already have as a result of the election frauds by Florida Democrats, by the way!)

I remain skeptical about statements like this, too. We all heard during impeachment, especially after the Senate refused to remove the man from office, that it was the "last straw" for many Democrats. We heard all kinds of tales about how they were changing their registration right and left.

I believed those stories because, like most of us here, I was so appalled at what was transpiring that I just KNEW there had to be scores of Democrats who had seen the light.

Well, we were wrong. If anything, the Democrats were as jazzed as ever. It was only the determination of the true patriots in this country that narrowly averted the catastrophe of a Gore presidency. It was ONLY because, to give one example, that FReepers and others in Miami-Dade were willing to bang on the doors and refuse to let corrupt Democrat "business as usual" go on in that fraudulent "vote recount" that we are here today to discuss the prospect of the next four years under George W. Bush.

So I most CERTAINLY believe in "the conspiracy", but it is the same old "conspiracy" of the corrupt Democrat party, the same we have known since the days of Hughie Long, Joe Kennedy Sr., and Richard Daley, that is continuing to work its magic on its duped followers.

There's nothing new here, there was nothing new with Clinton other than that his hubris was such that he didn't even try to HIDE some of the **** he was pulling. The problem isn't sinister outside forces, it's the state of New York electing Hillary Rodham Clinton.

It isn't Kofi Annan, it's Jesse Jackson.

It's not the blue beret of international cooperation, it's the unholy alliance of big media, the ACLU, GLAAD, GLSEN, NOW, AFL-CIO and a host of other alphabetic monikers that are RIGHT HERE in our backyard trying HARD to gain the hegemony they've always craved but never QUITE gotten.

In short, we have enough problems RIGHT HERE to worry about. It is SO much easier to see forces from without tearing us apart. But we've met the enemy, and "they is us"!

80 Posted on 12/31/2000 18:35:21 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

No, sorry, I believe in first principles. "Reasonable people can disagree" on a whole host of issues regarding the world and our place in it.

But the evil and wickedness we see happening around us as the result of moral degeneration transcends all of this.

Please see my number #75. I seriously doubt that your "first principles" are the ones we need to hammer on at this time. The libs won't listen. We need to hammer on grotesque violations of law, grotesque violations of the Constitution, and grotesque violations of the sovereignty of the United States.

Besides, I don't think that we can simply root out the moral degeneration which you lament. We can only restrain it to a degree. (If we are to see moral degeneration uprooted in any great measure, we need nothing less than a major religious revival. And I say that preaching about abortion and the loss of family values is not going to bring that about. These things are part of the correct message, but they amount to a surprisingly small part of the correct message--and therefore not the correct revival message after all.)

81 Posted on 12/31/2000 18:37:27 PST by the_doc
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

Ceding U. S. land to the U. N. is not smoke and not hot air.  Read what a biosphere site is.

Show me where the U.S. is prohibited from exercising its sovereignty. And I don't mean words on paper, I mean REAL ACTION.

It has already been shown, by our government giving control of U. S. land to the U. N..  Those actions are real.  This didn't happen by accident, it happened because our government sanctioned it.  If you choose not to believe it so be it, that doesn't mean it isn't true.

WarHawk42
 

82 Posted on 12/31/2000 18:44:32 PST by WH42
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

I tend to agree with your number #79. Not every ugly scenario is a conspiracy in precisely the form some FReepers assume, I'm afraid.

However, as I read your subsequent post, I conclude that you ought to be careful not to dismiss certain conspiracy theories too quickly. (For example, if you say that others definitely don't know whereof they speak, then you would have to tell me how you are so certain that your opinion is truth.)

Gosh, some of us may actually have more information than you do. Some of us did not just fall off the watermelon truck.

If you can't acknowledge that possibility, then the enemy is not necessarily Pogo's us. Then enemy may be you in particular. : )

I just couldn't resist the joke. But in all seriousness, I urge you to avoid tearing apart our forum while you are are claiming to oppose those who are supposedly tearing apart our forum.

Regards,

83 Posted on 12/31/2000 19:01:52 PST by the_doc
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | Top | Last ]


To: jonatron

"No offence intended...Do you have some solid evidence I could show skeptical friends?

Well... if'n you come on over to East Tennessee and go to Gatlinburg... drive through town until you get to stoplight #13 (yep they are all numbered), go 1.6 miles into the National Park you'll see a wooden sign on the right hand side of the road.

There is parking just before you get to the sign. And you will have to park and walk up to the sign to read the fine print which tells you that you have just entered into the "Smoky Mountains National Park - An International BioSphere Reserve." And in fine print, "Administered by the National Park Service and UNESCO."

We have been beating the drum about this since 1997. This all came about due a treaty that President Nixon signed with the United Nations that created the Barvarian BioSphere Reserve. By-the-way... a treaty automatically becomes the law of the land unless reversed by Congress.

Use your computer and look up Congressman Duncan's office (2nd Tennessee District) he has been very vocal about all this. Next use a search engine (I like Duncan Long's) and look up "SACEP Proposal" and "Man in the Bio-Sphere treaty signed by the State Department" (Yep, the State Department signed a treaty ...now that is really unconstitutional!).

Local merchants don't talk about it ...they are afraid it will hurt tourism. Its an uphill battle to get the word out as you might tell by some of these posts.

84 Posted on 12/31/2000 19:07:35 PST by Luke (from East Tennessee)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ]


To: sinkspur

IT took until Post #13 for the Professional Debunking Police to arrive.

What - were you in the bathroom or something?

I always bet on post #2 or #3 being yours.
You're slipping.

85 Posted on 12/31/2000 19:08:49 PST by DAnconia55
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

We all heard during impeachment, especially after the Senate refused to remove the man from office, that it was the "last straw" for many Democrats. We heard all kinds of tales about how they were changing their registration right and left.

I believed those stories because, like most of us here, I was so appalled at what was transpiring that I just KNEW there had to be scores of Democrats who had seen the light.

I don't recall hearing about anyone changing parties as a result of the Clinton impeachment debacle. On the other hand, I do know that a few reasonably prominent Democrats changed parties as a result of the Florida fraud--with unctuous public announcements of disgust.

The media has done damage control to try to prevent a hemorrhage in this regard. (You are not likely to hear of many changing parties even if they do change parties.) But if the truth comes out in spite of the mainstream media, the resulting hemorrhage will be disastrous for the Dems.

So, I still say that our biggest hammers are criminal prosecutions, not debates about family values. (Remember: The libs have convinced a huge chunk of our electorate that true libs are pro-family! Hillary Clinton is widely thought to be the model mom--when she obviously despises American families.)

86 Posted on 12/31/2000 19:17:29 PST by the_doc
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | Top | Last ]


To: Washington_minuteman,WH42

I would like to propose that we pick out one of these obscene signs,like the one pictured,......and have a litte "Spirit of Jarbidge" outing.....and chainsaw the sign down.

All with the proper news coverage etc.

What do ya think?

redrock

87 Posted on 12/31/2000 19:20:29 PST by redrock
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | Top | Last ]


To: sinkspur

If you need some solid evidence of Americans being kept away from our National Parks...and other lands....take a small trip out to Utah.

I will show you where the fences are being put up...

I will show you our "New" National Monument.....and all the road closures in order to keep it "Wilderness".

Doesn't matter that the roads...mines...etc have been there for at least 100 years.

The Forest Service...the BLM have been closing off roads...or trying to..for the last 8 years.

But..we are starting to fight back.....ala Jarbidge.

redrock

88 Posted on 12/31/2000 19:25:43 PST by redrock
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | Top | Last ]


To: redrock

I would rather that a state governor assert sovereignty over all 'federal' lands within that state's borders, then rip out every single 'federal' park sign down using uniformed, armed state troops, then forbid 'federal' agents to operate within state boundaries or carry weapons. Then multiply by 50.

89 Posted on 12/31/2000 19:27:55 PST by Tax Government
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | Top | Last ]


To: redrock

I think a little constructive surgery would be in order.:)  That won't solve the problem however.  The problem is our very own government which allowed this to happen.  Correction, caused this to happen.  It couldn't have happened had they not been a party to it.   We need a little constructive surgery there too.:)

WarHawk42

90 Posted on 12/31/2000 19:33:20 PST by WH42
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

I just went to the UN website, and it's true! I can't believe it! Holy.....you guys that are dismissing this, you need to check into this! I have always been skeptical, but the UN site proves this blatantly! Go to the UNESCO site. That is a UN site and it shows the nomination and everything for OUR national parks! Truly scarey folks. I am starting training tomorrow! That's it. I will shoot it out with any foriegner who threatens the sovereignty of our GREAT COUNTRY! Wow, I am appauled! I don't know what to think!

91 Posted on 12/31/2000 19:52:23 PST by rodeocowboy
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Tax Government, philman_36

Response To #89 by Tax Government:

I think it's interesting (and rather discouraging) that the matter of Federal ownership of land dates way back. It predates even the Civil War (when Federal power mushroomed, of course).

As it turns out, the only reason why the State of Texas owns more land in Texas than the Feds do is because all unclaimed land in Texas at the time of the Texas Annexation Treaty was reserved under that Treaty for the State of Texas. This land ownership negotiated by the State of Texas gave the State some enormous advantages over other states.

For example, a huge parcel of land was given to the University of Texas in its early days for the express purpose of providing revenues for the University. This is the greatest single reason why the University of Texas is the richest university in the world. (There was oil under the ground of that parcel. And it is still good land for other uses, too.)

Response to #50 by philman_36:

I have briefly scanned the links you presented concerning Biospheres and Texas, but I don't quite get the point you are trying to make. Please help me out here.

Sincerely,

92 Posted on 12/31/2000 19:54:09 PST by the_doc
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | Top | Last ]


To: brat

We'll have to get to work on GWB and the Congress Critters and make sure these are overturned. And while we're at it, let's make sure that ALL foreign troops are off American soil.

You're absolutely right! We have a lot of work to do. Just because our guy is in office, does not automatically mean that this is all over.

93 Posted on 12/31/2000 20:07:07 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | Top | Last ]


To: Luke

Thanks Luke!

94 Posted on 12/31/2000 20:13:08 PST by jonatron
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | Top | Last ]


To: Inspector Harry Callahan

Bump!

95 Posted on 12/31/2000 20:36:07 PST by bunkerhill2
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | Top | Last ]


To: rodeocowboy

I went there myself, too, and it all is completely true. Everyone must check this out. I'm shocked....this is so frightening!

96 Posted on 12/31/2000 20:40:29 PST by tefis
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | Top | Last ]


To: blam

"Ted Turner is the largest land owner in the US. He and Jane have 10,000 acres and a stocked compound in Patagonia. When asked about the Patagonia site, Ted said, "It's where we'll go during the revolution." (no kidding)"

I thought there were people with ranches twice that size all over Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. In fact I know of some 25,000 acre ranches in west Texas.

97 Posted on 12/31/2000 20:52:11 PST by rodeocowboy
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | Top | Last ]


To: tefis

Yes it is true.  The frightening thing about it is our government, both republicans and democrats put this through.

WarHawk42

98 Posted on 12/31/2000 20:56:42 PST by WH42
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | Top | Last ]


To: Luke

Fifty five gallon drums now have to be manufactured to UN specifications. Don't believe me. Find a new drum and see that it is pressed into the metal.

99 Posted on 12/31/2000 21:03:18 PST by blam
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | Top | Last ]


To: the_doc

It is just that "Wilderness Areas" serve the same purpose as "Heritage" and "Biosphere". It dilutes the overall concept so that one not associated with the other brings less notice.

Globalizing Mining in America: By Michael S. Coffman
The Wildlands Project is the master plan for both Agenda 21 and the Biodiversity Treaty, and represents a grandiose design to transform at least half the land area of the continental United States into an immense "eco-park" cleansed of modern industry and private property.
The next step would be to create wilderness corridors along streams, rivers and mountain ranges that interconnect the core reserves.

It sounds so much like "Wildlands"...

100 Posted on 12/31/2000 21:09:39 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

This has to be the worst conceived rumor(pack of lies) I have ever seen on this site!! Do we have an award category for the worst rumor?

101 Posted on 12/31/2000 21:09:42 PST by LucyRep
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: the_doc

www.house.gov
U.S. Biosphere Reserves Linked to the Wildlands Project

102 Posted on 12/31/2000 21:20:57 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | Top | Last ]


To: the_doc

www.un.org Agenda 21
Natural Resource

103 Posted on 12/31/2000 21:26:21 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | Top | Last ]


To: rodeocowboy

Patagonia is in the extreme south of South America it is an (desolate) area divided by Chile and Argentina. The Turner's have 10,000 acres there. Ted Turner (outside the Federal Gov.) is the largest land owner in the US. He just gave 1.25 billion dollars to the UN. I remember as a youngster reading that the safest place to be from the fall out from a nuclear war with Russia was, guess, extreme South America, because of the wind flow patterns. "The Mouth of the South," is up to something. Algier Hiss (the convicted spy) wrote the original UN charter. Fourteen of the original US representatives to the UN were later identified as Communist agents, re: "The Venona Secrets."

104 Posted on 12/31/2000 21:26:55 PST by blam
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

Egads! More alarmism!

Now that we are on the verge of having an adminstration which respects the Constitution (well, at least as well as any in recent memory), the laws will again be prioritized as we learned in our civics classes: the Constitution trumps treaties, which in turn trump statues, which in turn trump regulations.

Having the parks listed as World Heritage Sites, in theory at least, provides treaty protection for them from foreign powers. (Lots of good it did for Serbian religious sites in Kosovo which were so listed, but that's the theory.)

105 Posted on 12/31/2000 21:28:03 PST by The_Reader_David
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: LucyRep

You have no idea what you're talking about. Go and read the UN site.

106 Posted on 12/31/2000 21:30:54 PST by blam
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | Top | Last ]


To: Washington_minuteman, redrock, Illbay

Minuteman! Babe!! Happy New Year!! This one has to be better! But, I must admit it doesn't get much better than Jarbidge.....too bad EVERY American doesn't understand it all ends and begins with property rights.

redrock! My man!! Give that sweet wife a proper New Years kiss!

Illbay, you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny!

107 Posted on 12/31/2000 21:33:12 PST by AuntB
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

I certainly hope Bush is able to reverse this trend and with Cheney's help pass legislation quickly which will solve this problem. Having noted some of the meetings Cheney has had recently on the Hill, I suspect they are already hard at work writing legislation to stop the Clinton onslaught upon America.

108 Posted on 12/31/2000 21:52:41 PST by Sueann
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: the_doc

1998 Texas State Republican Party Platform

WE OPPOSE:
The current administration's concept of "sustainable development" inheritance and estate taxes because of their negative effect on the transfer of small businesses, farms and ranches as economic units and as unfragmented wildlife habitat the American Heritage Rivers Initiative nationalization and control of the watersheds of the United States through executive orders the theory of global warming and the Kyoto Agreement

Senate ratification of the Biodiversity Treaty and any its subsets of international authority over United States' resources the Endangered Species Act as currently authorized and its implementation as a land use control document the Wildlands Project, Border 21, the World Heritage Treaty, and the United Nations BioReserve program the vast acquisition of Texas land by conservancy groups and government agencies, which potentially reduces the local tax base this administration' s move toward the socialistic redistribution of our national wealth, as well as the wealth of individuals the economic intrusion of the United Nations into the affairs of the American people.

If there is a new platform, I haven't found it yet. These people knew what was going on in 1998!

109 Posted on 12/31/2000 21:54:07 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | Top | Last ]


To: AuntB

I believe the Washington Times did a blurb, it might have been in one of McCaslin columns that the UN had its fingers on our parks and national monuments.

Check out these sites

http://www.sovereignty.net/sovbkgrnd.htm

http://www.freedom.org/
Henry Lamb often has columns on WND

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_excomm/19990315_xex_property_rig.shtml

http://www.crossroad.to/
Berit Kjos is well thought of by the fine folks at Unraveling the New World Order which I get locally on AM 730 Christian Radio out of W. Memphis, AR.

http://www.discerningtoday.org/globalizing_america.htm

http://www.vvm.com/~ctomlin/index.htm
Rev. Tomlin has also written on occassion for WND

110 Posted on 12/31/2000 21:58:00 PST by GailA
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | Top | Last ]


To: WH42, Washington_minuteman

Thank you for this picture - I have been looking for this. I now have it on the front page of Stop Federal Land Grab, with a link to this article.

Thank you minuteman for the heads up. wooliespin was asking about you last night in chat on firetalk.

111 Posted on 12/31/2000 22:29:12 PST by GrandmaC
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | Top | Last ]


To: AuntB

Good to see you, seems we have the Jarbidge Gang all represented on this thread!

HERE IS A BIG BUMP!!

112 Posted on 12/31/2000 22:33:34 PST by GrandmaC
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | Top | Last ]


To: Sueann

Sueann, It is the Democrats and the Republicans who are doing this.

113 Posted on 12/31/2000 22:43:40 PST by blam
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | Top | Last ]


To: backhoe

Reply to #71-

Topic: Coal-gate
Utah Schools and Federal Land Exchange
State of Utah Website
May 8, 1998
On May 8, 1998 Governor Mike Leavitt and Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt unveiled a historic land swap between the state and the federal government. The agreement includes a $50million cash payment for the school children of Utah, plus additional land, coal and other mineral resources. The epic agreement also ensures protection for critical land in national parks, forests, Indian reservations and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The agreement will implement the largest public land exchange identified anywhere in the continental United States.

Web Posted: 05/09/98 22:19:00 EDT Posted by: Jim Robinson

If Utah got so much money to give to the school children, why have the teachers been so militant about salary increases lately? Something very fishy is going on.

114 Posted on 12/31/2000 22:44:16 PST by Nan48
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | Top | Last ]


To: AuntB

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!

This next year will see a lot of changes......changes that the people of this Nation will force upon those in Government.

redrock

p.s......I HAVE heard that about ILLBAY....(grin)

115 Posted on 12/31/2000 22:51:15 PST by redrock
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | Top | Last ]


To: GrandmaC

Grams!!!! Happy and Blessed New Year! Are ya ready for a whole new millineum??!!! I am!!!! Just couldn't miss checking in tonight! I trust you are behaving yourself! I think of you all so often! What do ya think of the new Interior nominee? She sounds pretty good so far, eh?

116 Posted on 12/31/2000 23:02:46 PST by AuntB
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

IT'S TRUE!!!! I didn't believe it so I drove up to the Grand Canyon to see for myself. There's nothing there but a big hole where the canyon used to be! The Chinese have stolen it and are shipping it back to China in all those empty COSCO containers! If anyone sees any shifty-eyed furriners with a big bag of nothing - it's our canyon! Whup up on 'em and make them bring it back.

117 Posted on 12/31/2000 23:13:14 PST by MARTIAL MONK
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | Top | Last ]


To: AuntB, GrandmaC

Happy New Year to you ladies. So good to see you. Hugs

118 Posted on 12/31/2000 23:22:00 PST by amom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | Top | Last ]


To: redrock, blackie

Thanks to people like you, blackie, GramC, Minuteman, Jeff Head and the others, I have a great deal of optimism that the people have awakened and they WILL be heard. We're nearing another Jarbidge in my back yard....It'd be worth it to see you all again.....do ya think I could coax you all if the need arises? Grant Gerber was on the radio a few weeks ago and said a US congressional committee had ruled S. Canyon road property of Elko County....don't know what clout it has, but I thought it was good news. Had you heard anything like that?

blackie, you good lookin' thang!! Are you out there tonight?? Happy new year, Darlin!! Kisses to Barb.

119 Posted on 12/31/2000 23:24:07 PST by AuntB
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | Top | Last ]


To: amom

You are the sweetest thing! Happy New year to you! How I've missed you all!

120 Posted on 12/31/2000 23:26:23 PST by AuntB
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | Top | Last ]


To: AuntB

Put me on your heads up list if you need a hand somewhere, ok?

121 Posted on 12/31/2000 23:44:53 PST by amom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

Thank you for posting this! I think we are in serious trouble.....but the first step is education and awareness.. So, we understand what is really going on.

122 Posted on 12/31/2000 23:53:40 PST by spunky lady
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

In short, we have enough problems RIGHT HERE to worry about.

You amaze me. The details of a massive land GIVEAWAY is right before your eyes and you don't think that it is a problem "RIGHT HERE". Where do you live?

Have you no idea of the resources hidden away (restricted from use) in all of this, or do you just ignore it?

Need some wood? Ask Uncle Sam...he's got several million acres (a rough guess) he could cull out for you. And even plant new ones in their place, just like private companies. No harm in some areas, just not the grand trees, IMHO. I don't think anyone would want to clear cut the redwood forests of California. Seems like it will all lie fallow.

123 Posted on 01/01/2001 00:22:18 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | Top | Last ]


To: WH42

It has already been shown, by our government giving control of U. S. land to the U. N.

WarHawk, I'm sorry but that's YOUR interpretation.

Where are the treaties, ratified by the Senate? Where are the U.N. employees taking over for U.S. Park Service people?

Where's the barbed wire, for that matter?

124 Posted on 01/01/2001 05:14:03 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | Top | Last ]


To: the_doc

...tell me how you are so certain that your opinion is truth.

It's not so much that I'm "certain", but that those who posit wild theories of this kind are far too certain. Yet "Occam's Razor" still applies.

In most instances--and I'm talking about the most outlandish of the conspiracy theories--there are far simpler explanations for things. But they are mundane, boring, and don't give us a chance to really "sock it to" our enemies.

Take a small one. Say, the theory that Bill Clinton "raped" scores of women in Arkansas. Now, we all know "our Bill" and how he loves to chase skirts. Yet of all the stories flying about, only ONE, that of Juanita Broaddrick, has any ring of truth. I believe Juanita, and it shows how utterly "rapacious" this man is at heart.

But in PRACTICE, it would be utterly impossible to be a "serial rapist" of the magnitude ascribed to WJC, without some eventual repercussion. It just doesn't pass the "smell test".

And when you press for details, all you get is "there are SO many, but they're all afraid, and won't come forward".

You can believe that if you wish, based on pure animosity toward the Resident. But you're not going to convince me, based simply on sheer will.

I'm simply suggesting a VERY healthy skepticism. I'm suggesting that a prosecuting attorney, for instance, can "feel in his gut" that a suspect is guilty of a crime, but know that he can't prove it, and thus move on (remaining watchful, however).

Much of the stuff we read in this vein, such as "the U.N. has taken over our parks system!" has understandable roots, but a very suspicious pedigree. It is based, at last, on the fervent belief that this is what powerful people WANT to be so, and they ARE, after all, "powerful people", and we all feel so helpless to stop it. So why not believe it has already happened.

In the end, I'm suggesting patience, fortitude, and even a trust in our sovereign institutions. I think we can agree based on his statements (and those of his underlings like Strobe Talbott) that Bill Clinton would have NO qualms about ceding land to U.N. control. He'd do it for his "legacy".

But he has no authority to do these things. And I do think there is enough opposition to him in Congress to make sure it doesn't happen.

He can run around pretending he has done it, or many things like it, to no effect. The Constitution is still, after all, the law of the land. We have to trust that it will continue to be so.

125 Posted on 01/01/2001 05:25:01 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | Top | Last ]


To: Luke

By-the-way... a treaty automatically becomes the law of the land unless reversed by Congress.

WRONG! A treaty never BECOMES a treaty unless ratified by Congress.

I'm really quite surprised that you don't know this. See the original SALT treaty for a very good example. The Senate essentially "vetoed" the thing by never ratifying it.

See also Article II Section 2 of the United States Constitution.

126 Posted on 01/01/2001 05:33:54 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | Top | Last ]


To: the_doc

I don't recall hearing about anyone changing parties as a result of the Clinton impeachment debacle. On the other hand, I do know that a few reasonably prominent Democrats changed parties as a result of the Florida fraud--with unctuous public announcements of disgust.

You may not have been here on FR during impeachment, or (in general) during the whole Lewinsky thing. The stories were legion. We (and I include myself) were convinced that Clinton had destroyed the Democrat party.

And you can make the case that he has, in part, because Gore should have won that thing going away, but didn't.

However, I think the predictions many of us made and believed were very much overstated.

Lastly, while I have no doubt a few Democrats may have changed over as a result of the Florida boondoggle, don't bet the ranch that there are any significant numbers involved.

127 Posted on 01/01/2001 05:36:59 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | Top | Last ]


To: rodeocowboy

Yep, you sound appalled. I'm sure this is all new to you, and you're buying your first gun, yadda yadda.

I'm very impressed.

128 Posted on 01/01/2001 05:38:33 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | Top | Last ]


To: the_doc

FWIW, I do agree with you that the Federal ownership of land is a big problem. They've had far too much for far too long, and the time has come for them to go.

It is more a holdover from the Federal government's very active role in expansion to the West. They have simply never left off having a role in that region.

It is something to write your Congressman about, if you are from a Western state.

129 Posted on 01/01/2001 05:40:49 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | Top | Last ]


To: blam

blam, the U.N. can say all it wants. They are pretty much a laughing-stock throughout the world. Only extreme conservatives in the U.S. take them seriously at all. Tin-pot dictators throughout the world never have.

We have much more to fear from our own home-grown "leaders" than we do from the U.N.

130 Posted on 01/01/2001 05:44:11 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | Top | Last ]


To: AuntB

Illbay, you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny!

Why? Because I happen to know the Constitution, and that saying something is so doesn't make it so?

131 Posted on 01/01/2001 05:45:14 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

I can see it now, hordes of bears in blue helmets descending on our houses. Led by hundreds of UN Park Rangers......Oh, the Humanity!!!!

132 Posted on 01/01/2001 05:45:56 PST by 1sthamiltonian
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | Top | Last ]


To: MARTIAL MONK

Pretty funny!

133 Posted on 01/01/2001 05:47:08 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

You want evidence? Go Here

134 Posted on 01/01/2001 05:47:21 PST by snopercod
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

You amaze me. The details of a massive land GIVEAWAY is right before your eyes and you don't think that it is a problem "RIGHT HERE". Where do you live?

What is being "given away" except a lot of empty words and rhetoric?

Where are the treaties ratified by the United States Senate? Do you know anything about the Constitution of the United States? Do you know that Article II Section 2 requires that ALL treaties be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate?

Where is your "proof" that this has happened? We see the Constitution working time and time again. Why do you distrust it so much?

135 Posted on 01/01/2001 05:50:26 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

The Chinese will claim all of the US when 1 billion Chinese figure out how to dig deep enough (12,000 miles).


BUMP

136 Posted on 01/01/2001 05:56:10 PST by tm22721
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

So when are we going to take the parks back, and how shall we do it? Where are our citizens militias on this?

137 Posted on 01/01/2001 05:56:38 PST by pamphleteer
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Go Gordon

I must admit it is very difficult to name 1 good thing about Ted Kennedy, but I can do it. He recently was 1 of the only 4 US Senators who voted against the H1-B visa expansion to 190,000 indentured servants per year. It is controversial admittedly, but I like Ted Kennedy for that.

Brother JFK of course was 1 of 4 best presidents of 20'th century.

138 Posted on 01/01/2001 06:35:40 PST by Red Jones
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

superbump!!!

this is an issue that I'd think is very important to FreeRepublic. It is one that I like to think most of us would oppose George W. Bush on if he were to not turn it back. Half the Republicans in the US Senate and most of the Democrats support this stuff. We cannot support it. We want to think that it will never mean anything in substance.

We must oppose this. There are great opportunities in America to develop our land to enrich our people. The federal government has engendered forest fires by its impossible management style of unprecedented size in terms of land-area burned every year. Now in their wisdom and with apparently only a voice-vote approval in the Senate on some of this they're taking land.

The liberals like to accuse conservatives of wanting to take or develop all of the land. However, nobody desires destroying the land or the wildlife or forests that go with it. There is such a thing as responsible use. They should take their hands off our land. It is each state, each county, each city and each property owner that should decide how land is used, not the federal government or a UN treaty. Let our people prosper as they should. Let the people in the rural areas rule themselves and not be ruled by an illegal tyrant consisting of tentacles in every major city in the world. These people are effectively being treated like serfs, evicted from their own homes and sent packing for the intellectual pleasure of the rich elite in the cities, not even for the benefit of the environment, just the idea that the environment is protected.

Under the influence of fashionably upper income elites of both coasts who openly express contempt for the people in these rural areas we are crushing them just as we are driving up housing costs through regulation in the big cities to create the homeless problem so that the fashionably upper income elites can feel smug and superior.

139 Posted on 01/01/2001 06:51:43 PST by Red Jones
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: the_doc

Well STATED!!!

140 Posted on 01/01/2001 06:54:48 PST by Navy_Air
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | Top | Last ]


To: AuntB

"blackie, you good lookin' thang!! Are you out there tonight?? Happy new year, Darlin!! Kisses to Barb."

Thanks Pretty One, alas, Barb and I were in bed when the fireworks started last night...sigh... :-)

Hugs and kisses...

Freedom!!

141 Posted on 01/01/2001 09:10:07 PST by blackie
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | Top | Last ]


To: redrock

"But..we are starting to fight back.....ala Jarbidge."

Don't give up, don't ever give up!

Stop government tyranny, now!

Freedom!!

142 Posted on 01/01/2001 09:21:01 PST by blackie
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

" Because I happen to know the Constitution, and that saying something is so doesn't make it so?"

You may know the Constitution by heart........but you should also know that we have NOT been living under it's rule......for a long time.

redrock

143 Posted on 01/01/2001 09:31:32 PST by redrock
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | Top | Last ]


To: Hammer Factor

Your link on "The revealing story of and rancher and the national debt" was very revealing. My blood is boiling!

144 Posted on 01/01/2001 09:57:19 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | Top | Last ]


To: Tax Government

...uniformed, armed state troops,...Are under federal command/jurisdiction, so you MUST have meant the "Unorganized Militia" in your post.

145 Posted on 01/01/2001 10:40:14 PST by S.O.S121.500 (!! ENFORCE !! The Bill of Rights !!-Learn the Constitution!!)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

WarHawk, I'm sorry but that's YOUR interpretation.

That's not an interpretation.  It is real, just like the sign.  Just like Jarbridge.  Do you pretend that didn't happen to?  Are we mining coal in Utah now?  That didn't happen either, by presidential proclamation?

Where are the treaties, ratified by the Senate? Where are the U.N. employees taking over for U.S. Park Service people?

Where is our congress to put a stop to it?  As long as they do nothing through their inaction then it is and will happen.  By the way, you did hear about that little sellout in the senate on those treaties just a few days ago didn't you?  You know the 34 treaties ratified by a show of hands.

Of course the Constitution forbids it, but since when have they worried about a little thing like that?

WarHawk42

146 Posted on 01/01/2001 10:45:09 PST by WH42
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | Top | Last ]


To: AuntB

Hey, AuntB! Put me on your list of people to call if you need help somewhere. Thanks!

147 Posted on 01/01/2001 12:11:08 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | Top | Last ]


To: spunky lady

...the first step is education and awareness.

I couldn't agree with you more. That is DEFINATELY what we are all about here at FR. Isn't this a great place?!

148 Posted on 01/01/2001 12:12:58 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | Top | Last ]


To: spunky lady

...the first step is education and awareness.

I couldn't agree with you more. That is DEFINATELY what we are all about here at FR. Isn't this a great place?!

149 Posted on 01/01/2001 12:13:08 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

Hey, Illbay... Thanks for keeping my thread bumped to the top so often!!!!!!!! I appreciate it!!!

150 Posted on 01/01/2001 12:20:21 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | Top | Last ]


To: tm22721

The Chinese will claim all of the US when 1 billion Chinese figure out how to dig deep enough (12,000 miles).

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!! Good one!!!!!!!

151 Posted on 01/01/2001 12:23:08 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

Where is your "proof" that this has happened?

Even though it is in your face, you will say..."I don't see anything." But anyway...

a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.
A companion treaty is now being developed by the U.N. Commission on Water for the 21st Century. The United Nations is, in fact, creating the structure in international law and, through its extensive bureaucracies, to control the use of all natural resources on earth.

That is just here at FR. Shall I pull from the net? How about a few .gov sites? Would that convince you?

152 Posted on 01/01/2001 12:26:06 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | Top | Last ]


To: redrock

Sorry, redrock, but this again comes under the heading of "reasonable people may disagree".

Yes, it's true, there are some aspects of our current governance that are not in harmony with what we understand as Constitutional principles. But there are many sides to the question.

I had a fellow give me a VERY good rendition, for example, of how the Tenth Amendment doesn't necessarily mean what many conservatives says that it means. I'm not saying that I subscribed to his theories, but it made for a good think-piece.

Sometimes I think we try to over-simplify things more than they deserve.

You can say, for instance, "well, we're not living under the Constitution and haven't been for some time", but that is patently false. We have freedom of the press, freedom of association, we have a functioning judiciary, and the forms of the Constitution regarding the structure of our government remain intact.

True, you can argue that too many are putting politics before principle in some of the minute details. I for one would not disagree. But one could ALSO argue that we're actually veering BACK on the Constitutional track we'd like to see.

Take the Rehnquist court, for example. Although we like to snipe and criticize all the 'wrong' things that have come down over the years from the high court, the fact is that many of the teeth have been put back into states' rights that had been forcibly removed in years past.

There have at the Federal judicial level, been many instances where "dusty old" constitutional principles have been invoked, such as the striking down of Congress' attempt to mollify radical feminists by allowing federal lawsuits in the case of rape. Appeals court judge said "no way, that's not within the purview of the Federal legislative, can't possibly contort the 'interstate commerce clause' to fit this one, folks!" And the law was GONE.

You can have a sour disposition about the state of our Constitution, but the fact is that it works, and it outlasts many "great" men who have tried to wrest it. I have great hopes that things are going in the right direction.

And to that end, I have confidence that any Clintonian silliness about National Parks being under putative "U.N. jurisdiction" is ephemeral. Maybe Clinton can tell himself that he has done this "great thing" for his legacy, but that doesn't make it so.

I would advise that those of us who are concerned with the very appearance of evil determine to begin writing the new Interior secretary, and even the White House itself, and ask that these signs simply be removed. They are there, believe me, at the "pleasure" of the current Resident of the White House, and can just as easily be made to "disappear" by our next President.

153 Posted on 01/01/2001 12:26:29 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

flags...

154 Posted on 01/01/2001 12:27:11 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | Top | Last ]


To: WH42

Do you pretend that didn't happen to?

All I know about Jarbidge is that the residents thereof (or a good many of them) took their shovels into the hills and opened the roads back up. Can you update me in any way that says this isn't so?

Can we agree that Resident Clinton has done a LOT of stupid and silly things that can EASILY be remedied by "a stroke of the pen", to quote the esteemed Mr. Begala?

I think you all put too much stock into what Clinton HAS done, as opposed to what he CAN do, legally. His silliness can easily be remedied. I suggest we all begin contacting our new President and the appropriate cabinet officials he will shortly put in place, and see if we can't remind them what needs (un)doing now that that silly man Clinton is gone.

155 Posted on 01/01/2001 12:29:19 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

Sure. I do think this is a valuable discussion.

156 Posted on 01/01/2001 12:30:00 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

I'm curious about this. Is there some reason why the word "Decerification" is consistently misspelled as "Desertification" throughout this article?

Is it a real article?

Just wondering.

157 Posted on 01/01/2001 12:31:57 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

I would advise that those of us who are concerned with the very appearance of evil determine to begin writing the new Interior secretary, and even the White House itself, and ask that these signs simply be removed. They are there, believe me, at the "pleasure" of the current Resident of the White House, and can just as easily be made to "disappear" by our next President.

You stated that it was not a problem "RIGHT HERE", now you change gaits and say that "those of us who are concerned" should do such and such. If there is no problem, why write?

I would disagree on your premise of "at the "pleasure"" of the current....yada yada yada
Wrong...some of this was done PRIOR to the current administration. The current administration has given more away, but... Just taking a sign away does NOT simply do away with the treaties...
Do you know anything about the Constitution of the United States? But of course you do!

The funniest thing you have said yet...What is being "given away" except a lot of empty words and rhetoric?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA....only YOU could not see the loss of these resources....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

158 Posted on 01/01/2001 12:46:24 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

Guess what folks...the land is still in the U.S. and we can do with it as we want. We can tell the U.N. to take a hike anytime we want to, just as we have in the past.

I don't see the connection here, but I am sure someone on this board will enlighten me.

159 Posted on 01/01/2001 12:53:21 PST by MissBaby
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

Is there some reason why the word "Decerification"...

Wrong again buckoo...The U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification...
the Desertification Treaty was included in the package.
The Desertification Treaty, however, is not

Other Treaty Status Actions www.senate.gov
TREATY DOCUMENT NUMBER: 104-29
TRANSMITTED TO SENATE: Aug 02, 1996
TREATY TYPE: International Law and Organization
FORMAT TITLE:
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in

Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa, with Annexes, adopted at Paris, June 17, 1994, and signed by the United States on October 14, 1994.
Oct 18, 00 Resolution of advice and consent to ratification agreed to in Senate by Division Vote.
Oct 18, 00 Treaty moved through its parliamentary stages up to and including presentation of the resolution of advice and consent to ratification.
Oct 18, 00 Considered by Senate.
Oct 04, 00 Reported favorably by Senator Helms, Committee on Foreign Relations with printed Ex. Rept. 106-25 and a resolution of advice and consent to ratification with five understandings, three declarations, and two provisos. Executive Calendar No. 48.

Looks like YOU can't spell either!! Surely YOU can do better than that...the great disrupting Illbay!!!
Hmmm...Reported favorably by Senator Helms...

160 Posted on 01/01/2001 13:02:35 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

You're a very silly man (I'm ALWAYS leery of those who use the "BWAHAHAH" thing. It usually crops up in lieu of any sort of thoughtful discussion).

But I'll play anyway.

I repeat, WHAT treaties? All I've seen so far are some "reports" of "a bunch of treaties" that were ratified. I remain skeptical, sorry.

And I continue to maintain that putting words on a sign, to the glory of the ignoble "Clinton legacy" is hardly something to get one's panties in a wad concerning.

161 Posted on 01/01/2001 13:04:52 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | Top | Last ]


To: MissBaby

...we can do with it as we want...

Then prove it...and I'll post articles where people have been FORCED off of their land to implement these treaties.

Oops...but since you are new, you may not know how to do that yet. Why don't you converse with Illbay...OOPS, can't talk to yourself, someone might think that you are....

But then again...I may be wrong!

162 Posted on 01/01/2001 13:08:41 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

I suggest we all begin contacting our new President and the appropriate cabinet officials he will shortly put in place, and see if we can't remind them what needs (un)doing now that that silly man Clinton is gone.

Well said! I'm right with you on this one!

163 Posted on 01/01/2001 13:10:31 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

"I repeat, WHAT treaties? All I've seen so far are some "reports" of "a bunch of treaties" that were ratified. I remain skeptical, sorry."

That's a really pathetic attempt. So you'd like the text of each of the Treaties posted, huh. Well take a try at "Google" for a search engine and learn something new. It's really not hard to do. Just type in the name of the treaty, then when it brings up a bunch of links you click on the likely sounding ones to read it.

It'll keep you from playing in the traffic for a while, so get some munchies to snack on, maybe a cola, have at it.

164 Posted on 01/01/2001 13:14:46 PST by rdavis84
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

It usually crops up in lieu of any sort of thoughtful discussion

Discuss post 160 that I have so cordially provided. I don't seem to notice ANY links from you supproting your position. Why is that? If others can link information supporting their positions, why can you not do the same instead of triping away. Refute me with evidence, not inanities!!!

165 Posted on 01/01/2001 13:20:39 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

Thats supporting Phil...

166 Posted on 01/01/2001 13:24:11 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

You're a very silly man

Humorous...not silly, Sir. Please apply correct adjectives when describing me please. I've worked very hard at being me!

167 Posted on 01/01/2001 13:27:57 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

Try this url for infor about bio-diversity and other treaties. Tens of millions of actes are now under effective zoning authority of not state officials, not local officials, not even federal officials, but international officials who are completely un-elected. Just because they didn't send you an e-mail about it doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/index.html

168 Posted on 01/01/2001 13:47:03 PST by Red Jones
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

UN VEHICLES and U.S. MILITARY DETENTION CAMPS

169 Posted on 01/01/2001 13:54:35 PST by Inspector Harry Callahan
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | Top | Last ]


To: Red Jones

www.eagleforum.org

Thank you Mr. Jones.

170 Posted on 01/01/2001 14:06:08 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

So I'm supposed to "prove a negative"? Are you aware of the rules of logic? If not, the point is that you can't prove a negative.

What is my position that I'm supposed to support? It is that the Constitution of the United States prohibits the sorts of treaties you're talking about unless they are ratified by the Senate (and even then, I would suspect you could get a court to agree with you that the Senate may not ratify a treaty that itself is unconstitutional).

For my "link" I refer you to the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2.

What else have I to prove?

171 Posted on 01/01/2001 15:03:43 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | Top | Last ]


To: Inspector Harry Callahan

Sorry, you continue to prove NOTHING except that you are apt to be paranoid. What "proves" these are U.N. vehicles? If they are, what PROOF have you as to what they will be used for?

How many U.N. troops are here? What is their mission? What documents do you have to back up your assertions?

Where were these photos taken? You say Beaumont, what PROOF have you that this is so?

Do you understand that you can make ANY allegation you want, and it doesn't PROVE anything?

Is that REALLY so hard to understand, and do you have to get hostile when PROOF is asked?

172 Posted on 01/01/2001 15:08:46 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

"All I know about Jarbidge is that the residents thereof (or a good many of them) took their shovels into the hills and opened the roads back up. Can you update me in any way that says this isn't so? "

A GREAT site for information about Jarbidge....is on this SITE

redrock

173 Posted on 01/01/2001 15:10:54 PST by redrock
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

How many U.N. troops are here?
don't know...don't see them everyday.

What is their mission?
don't know...again...sorry


What documents do you have to back up your assertions?
Where were these photos taken? You say Beaumont, what PROOF have you that this is so?

I don't know about proof in the photos, but I personally have seen these occurances frequently in the past myself. And don't even think about calling me a liar!! I live in the area, do you?
If more people in this area had more testicular fortitude they would say something too. Instead, they keep plodding down the same old beaten path!
I live in this area, and KNOW what I have seen. YES...BIG WHITE UN VEHICLES!! Incoming and outgoing. Desert Storm was a field day!

Do you understand that you can make ANY allegation you want, and it doesn't PROVE anything?
Do you understand that you can deny ANY allegation you want, and it doesn't PROVE anything?

174 Posted on 01/01/2001 16:23:14 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

READ MY LINK...Sealift
www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/sealift.htm

175 Posted on 01/01/2001 16:30:07 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | Top | Last ]


To: S.O.S121.500

I just think some state governor should assert sovereignty over that territory, and set an example for the other states.

176 Posted on 01/01/2001 16:48:11 PST by Tax Government
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | Top | Last ]


To: blam

I strongly suggest that you recheck your facts. You are misrepresenting the facts.

177 Posted on 01/01/2001 16:52:48 PST by LucyRep
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

Oops...but since you are new, you may not know how to do that yet. Why don't you converse with Illbay...OOPS, can't talk to yourself, someone might think that you are....

But then again...I may be wrong!

What are you talking about?

Anyhow, in reply to your comment about people being forced off their land, I have seen this also. But it was the federal government that forced them off the land, not the U.N.

In the cases you mention, it might have been the FED acting according to agreements it made with the U.N., but it was the Fed that made the move. And the Fed could have said no.

Now, please tell me what the heck you are talking about above.

178 Posted on 01/01/2001 17:18:40 PST by MissBaby
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

bump

179 Posted on 01/01/2001 17:32:21 PST by sport
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: MissBaby

But it was the federal government that forced them off the land, not the U.N.

If the "federal government" would not have signed the treaties, they would not have to be doing it in the first place. It would be owned by States and Citizens still.

So does that mean that we are already seeing the effects of said treaties? I'm no expert, so this is just MHO.

180 Posted on 01/01/2001 17:34:21 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | Top | Last ]


To: redrock, Navy_Air

You may know the Constitution by heart........but you should also know that we have NOT been living under it's rule......for a long time.

That may be that the most important post on this thread.

Our Constitution means nothing when our representatives and judges do not uphold it.

181 Posted on 01/01/2001 17:44:55 PST by the_doc
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

I live in the area, do you?

I live in Houston. I have seen nothing of this. I wonder if these are not private vehicles. I see a good many HUM-VEEs here in Houston, driven by private citizens, and painted all sorts of garish colors (which would account for shipping them here painted white, since they're going to be painted "something else" by the owner).

Sorry, I just find this EXTREMELY far-fetched. And I'm not calling you a liar, just possibly overreacting.

And as far as my "not seeing anything proves nothing", well, I don't have anything to PROVE, do you understand? You are the one making the outlandish assertion.

182 Posted on 01/01/2001 18:03:44 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | Top | Last ]


To: MissBaby

I do believe you when you say you've seen people forced off their land by the Feds. It is a matter of public record. It is also an example of the pendulum having swung to far in one direction. It is beginning to swing the other way.

Let there be no mistake about it: We have a right--even a duty--to mistrust our government in toto. The basis of our Constitutional Repubic is an abiding mistrust of government and the power it can arrogate to itself. History is replete with this story.

But let's not get so far off track we become ineffective in fighting the REAL tyranny.

183 Posted on 01/01/2001 18:05:56 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | Top | Last ]


To: the_doc

Our Constitution means nothing when our representatives and judges do not uphold it.

If the impeachment process taught us nothing, it taught us this. Also, as a corollary, that the ignorance of the people is virtually certain to encourage misuse, misreading and misapplication of the Constitution.

I think there are many, perhaps most of the citizenry, that are so ignorant of Constitutional principles that they are useless to the cause of freedom.

184 Posted on 01/01/2001 18:08:22 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

I live in Houston.

Well then, why don't you get a map, drive to the Port Authority of Beaumont...
AND ASK SOMEONE ABOUT IT!
Be sure and check out the ships at the dock.

185 Posted on 01/01/2001 18:10:16 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

Disprove your own doubts. Its only about 90-100 miles for you.

186 Posted on 01/01/2001 18:13:08 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

To redrock you said:

You can say, for instance, "well, we're not living under the Constitution and haven't been for some time", but that is patently false. We have freedom of the press, freedom of association, we have a functioning judiciary, and the forms of the Constitution regarding the structure of our government remain intact.

I say that redrock's statement is not "patently false." In fact, I happen to think that he just understands the subtlety of the enemy better than you do.

We have a corrupt mainstream press which has all but overwhelmed the media forces of freedom. That corrupt mainstream press is in the ideological hip pocket, at least, of the enemies of true freedom--which enemies. of course, are the radical socialists who have gained enormous power within our government.

That situation is not what Jefferson envisioned as a free press. It is, in fact, a form of tyranny against which he swore eternal hostility. You need to notice that! It reveals that our nation has only a pseudo-allegiance to Constitutional government and the First Amendment.

Furthermore, our "functioning judiciary" is being eaten alive by activist judges who have little more respect for our Constitution than the Florida SC does. Look at the Federal judges who rigged the dockets for Clinton in D.C.

(There are many more cases of judicial corruption which could be cited, of course. They underscore Jefferson's fears of a corrupt judiciary!)

Finally, your claim that the structure of our government is intact is not especially reassuring to a thoughtful person, i.e., one who understands the subtleties of the enemy.

Remember: The U.S. Senate came very close to censuring Clinton instead of obeying the Constitutional requirement of holding a trial. What is almost as bad, the trial which was ultimately held was not a real trial. It was an evidence-suppressing mockery of a trial.

David Schippers says the system is broken. So, why are you so confident that your Constitution will save you? Your leaders are not necessarily following it. Even when Phil Gramm demanded that the Dems follow it, they didn't. Trent Lott caved in.

There are many other examples of the structural failure of our government due to our cowardly legislative representatives being intimidated by media pressure, a dumb electorate, and perhaps, a blackmailing executive branch. The most timely example is the amazing volume of Executive Orders, most of which are un-Constitutional. The vast majority of Clinton's Executive Orders are regulatory laws with no statutory authority. They are illegal.

You might respond that Bush will change that. Maybe so. But Bush almost lost the election. These Constitutional issues should not be hanging by such a slender thread as a GWB. When the threads finally break, it will be too late.

My bottom-line point is that redrock's post was more important than your response was. And that is what FreeRepublic is all about.

187 Posted on 01/01/2001 18:28:43 PST by the_doc
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay, bump in the night, jonatron, sinkspur

I, while i agree that abortion is heinous and must be fought any way it can, the land grabbing problem is a serious one and does not deserve the minimization you have done.

All: www.wildlandsproject.com
www.landrights.org,
www.amerlands.com
www.rs2477roads.com
www.stopfedlandgrab.com
www.nodarbyrefuge.com
www.nwi.org
www.eco.freedom.org

188 Posted on 01/01/2001 18:30:59 PST by sauropod
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | Top | Last ]


To: redrock

thx for the bump, mike. The ignorance by some on this forum is appalling.

189 Posted on 01/01/2001 18:32:30 PST by sauropod
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | Top | Last ]


To: Kevin Curry

Illbay has a point.

No he doesn't. He hasn't done his homework and apparently neither have you.

190 Posted on 01/01/2001 18:34:33 PST by sauropod
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

Just remembered. Check out Ron Arnold's book Undue Influence. Invaluable. Available on Da Net.

191 Posted on 01/01/2001 18:35:43 PST by sauropod
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay, redrock

I agree redrock it appears that the contittution is hanging by thread and Illbay is trying to keep the faith. remember the story about the little hotdog stand,and his collage son, dad was doing a booming business with his road side hotdog stand. well the son being educated in the world top schools warn dad that he shouldn't have to much tied up in inventory for they are in a recession would lose money. Now unknown to the dad in his father world business is great.

Henry Ford once said; "if you think you can you can, than you can,and if you think you can't than you can't~ both are rigth!

Moral- is the mind and faith plays a greater roll in the unfolding events than we know!

"KEEP THE FAITH!"

We who believe in the Lord must always hold fast of what is of the Lord and that document is of the Lord! no matter what the UN thinks!

192 Posted on 01/01/2001 18:36:46 PST by restornu
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | Top | Last ]


To: amom, Yellow Rose of Texas

That order is now the "Final Environmental Impact Statement" and proposed rule. You can view it online at roadless.fs.fed.us. Unfortunately, it looks like a done deal. Not enough people cared about this.

193 Posted on 01/01/2001 18:43:42 PST by sauropod
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

As a follow-up to my most recent post, let me say that I'm not trying to be inflammatory with you or with anyone else on the thread.

I just want to warn you that FReepers are very serious about violations of the Constitution and violations of U.S. sovereignty. We have to be. The creeping nature of socialism is such that if we do not become alarmed quickly enough, we will be like frogs who get slowly boiled to death.

194 Posted on 01/01/2001 18:46:18 PST by the_doc
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

Most Excellent
Veteran's Memorial Bridge
RAINBOW BRIDGE The Rainbow Bridge See the new bridge in the background...side by side
The New Bridge: Veteran's Memorial Bridge
The City of Bridge City
BRIDGE CITY (ORANGE COUNTY) AND ADJACENT AREAS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY

PLEASURE ISLAND PORT ARTHUR

Oh...So pretty!! Sunset Behind the Martin Luther King Bridge

195 Posted on 01/01/2001 19:03:21 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | Top | Last ]


To: the_doc

I happen to think that he just understands the subtlety of the enemy better than you do.

Fine. In addition to certain anatomical features, everyone has an opinion, too.

196 Posted on 01/01/2001 19:09:24 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | Top | Last ]


To: the_doc

We have a corrupt mainstream press which has all but overwhelmed the media forces of freedom. That corrupt mainstream press is in the ideological hip pocket, at least, of the enemies of true freedom--which enemies. of course, are the radical socialists who have gained enormous power within our government.

But this has nothing whatever to do with the fact that we also have freedom of the press. That the "major" news media chooses to use their freedom in ways you or I don't consider helpful is beside the point.

We also have other voices, everything from Rush Limbaugh to samizdat newsletters to the Internet. Free Republic is a good example.

So you'll have to do better than "yeah, but I don't like what NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN have to tell me!" in order to make the point that First Amendment guarantees of a free press are being somehow abrogated.

197 Posted on 01/01/2001 19:12:03 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | Top | Last ]


To: the_doc

Furthermore, our "functioning judiciary" is being eaten alive by activist judges who have little more respect for our Constitution than the Florida SC does. Look at the Federal judges who rigged the dockets for Clinton in D.C.

Yes, we agree on this, but that just shows that judicial restraint is THREATENED, not that it is gone.

I mentioned the Rehnquist court of the last fifteen years as an example of how the SCOTUS, for one thing, is restoring much of state sovereignty that had been under attack for half a century. I also mentioned a landmark Fed appeals court decision reversing the encroachment of the Congress.

That things are not where they should be doesn't mean they're in the toilet, no matter how discouraged and frustrated you may be.

For pity's sake, the SCOTUS just went WAY out on a limb and reversed the Florida Supreme Court in that court's attempts to write election law after the election had been held! If that ain't an example of the system working correctly, I don't know what is!

So if we're going to play the "anecdote" game, well, show me yours and I'll show you mine.

198 Posted on 01/01/2001 19:17:00 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | Top | Last ]


To: the_doc

Furthermore, our "functioning judiciary" is being eaten alive by activist judges who have little more respect for our Constitution than the Florida SC does. Look at the Federal judges who rigged the dockets for Clinton in D.C.

Yes, we agree on this, but that just shows that judicial restraint is THREATENED, not that it is gone.

I mentioned the Rehnquist court of the last fifteen years as an example of how the SCOTUS, for one thing, is restoring much of state sovereignty that had been under attack for half a century. I also mentioned a landmark Fed appeals court decision reversing the encroachment of the Congress.

That things are not where they should be doesn't mean they're in the toilet, no matter how discouraged and frustrated you may be.

For pity's sake, the SCOTUS just went WAY out on a limb and reversed the Florida Supreme Court in that court's attempts to write election law after the election had been held! If that ain't an example of the system working correctly, I don't know what is!

So if we're going to play the "anecdote" game, well, show me yours and I'll show you mine.

199 Posted on 01/01/2001 19:17:50 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | Top | Last ]


To: AuntB

That away to go AuntB. How are you doing? Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family. Illbay needs to go back to the libs. He/she doesn't know what the @#$%^&*( they are talking about. Jerk.

200 Posted on 01/01/2001 19:25:07 PST by greatgranny
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

You are the one making the outlandish assertion.

What is outlandish in what I have asserted? What did I assert. What in particular is outlandish? What is is?

201 Posted on 01/01/2001 19:32:40 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | Top | Last ]


To: sauropod

These guys aren't talking about ATTEMPTS to grab land by the Feds. They're talking about a fait accompli by the U.N.

I believe it's two completely different things.

202 Posted on 01/01/2001 19:39:42 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | Top | Last ]


To: sauropod

In turn, I think you're jerking your knee. I don't think you're paying attention to what the actual debate is about in here.

Too much focusing on our pet issues, not enough stopping to check which way the wind is blowing.

Typical.

203 Posted on 01/01/2001 19:40:55 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | Top | Last ]


To: the_doc

And in turn, I'm simply saying let's concentrate on REAL threats, not rumors and conjecture about things that have little chance of happening.

204 Posted on 01/01/2001 19:42:13 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | Top | Last ]


To: greatgranny

Perhaps you should consider reinforcing your argument, instead of simply raising your voice.

What is your point? That I'm stupid? How does that convince me or anybody else here of...whatever it is that you're trying to say?

205 Posted on 01/01/2001 19:44:39 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

Ahem. That the United Nations is now in control of large sections of the United States, and that they are rolling in trucks and other vehicles right and left.

206 Posted on 01/01/2001 19:46:08 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

They're talking about a fait accompli by the U.N.

fait accompli : a thing accomplished and presumably irreversible

Do you have information that would trash this presumption then? If not, one is left to determine things as they appear to be, without concluding sources.

207 Posted on 01/01/2001 19:46:42 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

Again, it is not up to ME to prove that the U.N. ISN'T in control, but for you to prove that it is.

You can't prove a negative. The accused in a criminal case, for example, doesn't prove he DIDN'T do it.

208 Posted on 01/01/2001 19:49:17 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

Let me see....."REAL THREATS"............

and just what do you have in mind????

redrock

p.s.....you kind of remind me of a sentry......who,for reasons unknown, decides to only look in ONE direction for the enemy....and not in all directions. And all the time they look in that ONE direction......the enemy sneaks in on those the sentry is supposed to guard....and takes them prisoner.

209 Posted on 01/01/2001 19:50:40 PST by redrock
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

You really don't want to believe in what is happening do you? What is being said here is real. It is happening right now today. The media won't tell us because they only back the lib view point. Talking to people like you, and trying to convince you of the truth is a waste of my time. I don't know how old you are, but I remember a United States when we believed in God, Family and Country. We even supported it with our lives. At that time, even Hollywood and the media supported God, Family and Country. That is gone now. There are those of us who want that back and are willing to work to get it back, in spite of people like you.

210 Posted on 01/01/2001 19:58:20 PST by greatgranny
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

But can you disprove it? Can you refute an eyewitness of these events/movements, yet claim to not even live in the area to be aware of them in the first place. Do I know everything that happens in Houston? Of coarse not!

I claim no notion of their current location or plans, I've stated so. I can however, unlike you, admit that large parcels of land have been spirited away in treaties restricting the Citizens of their resources.
I can also speculate what ends a purported owner of said property might go to to keep the selfsame property.

211 Posted on 01/01/2001 20:01:59 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | Top | Last ]


To: sauropod

Thanks for the info.

Here's a link to that USDA Roadless Area Conservation site you referred us to. In case anyone cares to check it out.

Thanks again.

212 Posted on 01/01/2001 20:40:41 PST by amom
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | Top | Last ]


To: Timesink

As long as the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the US Forestry Police ("Freddies") can kick the stuffin' out of UN peacekeepers (and, believe me, they can) I wouldn't get too worried.

If that changes, however...

213 Posted on 01/01/2001 20:45:03 PST by Makhno
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

You put far to much blame on clinton.  Much of this was initiated long before clinton came into office.  Clinton has done more than his share, but he isn't alone in any of this.  Without the help of the republicans looking the other way much of what clinton has done couldn't have been done.

All of the EO's that clinton has pushed through, where was the congress to stop it?  They could have.  Those treaty's that were ratified by the senate by a show of hands by the cowardly senators, and you expect leadership and Constitutional law from them?

Your dream world must be nice, but reality will hit.  When it does I have to wonder how you will fool yourself then.

WarHawk42

214 Posted on 01/01/2001 20:56:37 PST by WH42
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

There are many good links and url's on this thread!!!

215 Posted on 01/01/2001 22:00:30 PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

In 1982 I watched the California Department of Parks and Recreation force 24 landowners to put their homes and property in a land trust with the State of California as the beneficiary. It gave the land owners 99 years to reside on the property. It was either this or the state was going to take it.

The land trust was the only "compromise" the land owners could work out. The State wanted the land for a national park. The Fed was not even involved.

216 Posted on 01/01/2001 22:21:39 PST by MissBaby
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

May I direct you to a thread entitled "Desertivication Treaty Stirs Controvery", in it, is the response by Jesse Helms in regards to all the irate phone calls placed by constituents over the passage of these treaties with a hand count.

217 Posted on 01/01/2001 22:28:35 PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | Top | Last ]


To: sauropod

To: Illbay, bump in the night, jonatron, sinkspur
I, while i agree that abortion is heinous and must be fought any way it can, the land grabbing problem is a serious one and does not deserve the minimization you have done.

Hey! Why did you send this to me? I can understand sending it to the other guys, but why'd you also address it to me?

218 Posted on 01/01/2001 23:12:18 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | Top | Last ]


To: MissBaby

In 1982 I watched the California Department of Parks and Recreation force 24 landowners to put their homes and property in a land trust with the State of California as the beneficiary.

And what can I answer this back with except that I was asleep at the time. My apologies. If perchance at another time...

219 Posted on 01/02/2001 00:05:36 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | Top | Last ]


To: I_Publius

July 31, 1998...http://lonestarreport.org
Texas gets an American Heritage Rio

Vice President Al Gore announced that the Rio Grande had been designated by the Clinton Administration as one of the first "American Heritage Rivers."

The long-delayed announcement of the waterways picked was made on July 27. The original list was supposed to be limited to 10 designations, but jumped to 14 by the time of Gore's announcement.

Other rivers receiving designations were the Blackstone and Woonasquatucket Rivers (MA, RI), Connecticut River (in CT, VT, NH, MA), Cuyahoga River (OH), Detroit River (MI), Hanalei River (HI), Hudson River (NY), New River (NC, VA, WV), Potomac River (DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), St. Johns River (FL), Upper Mississippi River (IA, IL, MN, MO, WI), Lower Mississippi River (LA, TN), Upper Susquehanna and Lackawanna Rivers (PA), and Willamette River (OR).

According to Gore, a federal employee will be designated as a "River Navigator" to help communities identify federal programs and resources to help carry out their plans.

The inclusion of the Rio Grande presents an interesting situation. The leading advocate for this designation was Land Commissioner (now gubernatorial candidate) Garry Mauro. Gore's announcement might help Mauro by energizing his environmental supporters. Yet the AHRI program itself is viewed with considerable suspicion by property rights activists. Mauro's intimate involvement could drive these folks headlong into Gov. Bush's camp, provided they're not already there.

220 Posted on 01/02/2001 00:27:07 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | Top | Last ]


To: MissBaby

The State wanted the land for a national park.

You've made an oxymoron.

221 Posted on 01/02/2001 00:33:04 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

It will be a moot point by the end of the month. W!

222 Posted on 01/02/2001 00:33:39 PST by illegal in CA
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay post #203

OK, my friend. Have you checked out the Wildlands Project? Agenda 21? "Sustainable development?"

Suggest you also look at Undue Influence by Ron Arnold. In there, he discusses the Turner Foundation. As in Ted. As in the same fella who gave $1 Billion to the UN not too long ago.

As i reread most of this thread, i think i understand your confusion.

Ever hear of the Kyoto treaty? What is that if it is not the UN trying to impose its will on America?

223 Posted on 01/02/2001 04:30:08 PST by sauropod
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

i thought you asked for concrete info on the topic which you posted.

224 Posted on 01/02/2001 04:32:44 PST by sauropod
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | Top | Last ]


To: redrock

Funny. I consider that of the two of us, YOU are the one fixed in one direction!

225 Posted on 01/02/2001 05:21:43 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

But can you disprove it?

I seem to be unable to get through to you.

It is impossible to "disprove" any such theory. "You can't prove a negative", have you heard that often enough?

I want you to look up the word "skeptic". I want you to visualize how skepticism MIGHT be a useful characteristic in this age of information overload.

I also state that YOU might be quite correct: The U.N. is coming for us all. It might already be a done deal; our government has sold us down the river.

The problem is that I can come up with plausible alternative explanations for everything you allege. This makes you crazy, I know, but that's the role of a skeptic. I simply insist on truth. If you HAVE the ultimate truth on this narrow question, then you must convince not only me, but many more like me, if you are to accomplish anything.

"Rambo" was a mythical figure. As we've seen here on FR, the only REAL way to accomplish anything is to band together in common cause. There are a few here on FR who are fixed on certain ideas, but when we do a little research of our own, it turns out the great majority of FReepers are more eclectic.

IOW, the extremist with the id�e fixe is actually a tiny minority of FReeperdom. Take that into consideration.

226 Posted on 01/02/2001 05:27:46 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | Top | Last ]


To: WH42

Those treaty's that were ratified by the senate by a show of hands by the cowardly senators, and you expect leadership and Constitutional law from them?

WHICH TREATIES!?!

The only link anyone gave was to a journal of questionable reputation that didn't even give details, just a number of "thirty-some" treaties that were ratified by voice vote.

I looked, couldn't find any record of this anywhere on THOMAS. Of course, you could say "AHA! Proof of the conspiracy" but my skepticism remains intact.

227 Posted on 01/02/2001 05:30:17 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | Top | Last ]


To: MissAmericanPie

Yes, that's the article in which "decertification" was consistently misspelled. I questioned the one who posted it as to its authenticity but got no response.

Do you realize that anyone can put ANYTHING on the Internet?

Do you recall the "authoritative proof" that Aspartame causes Lupus or M.D. or some such, that was rolling around the 'net for awhile a couple of years ago?

It was alarming, and very convincing. And thoroughly bogus. But that didn't stop it from spreading, nor did it stop people believing it.

The idea that this "desertification" (sic) treaty is staring us in the face is interesting. Is the word misspelled in the treaty as well?

228 Posted on 01/02/2001 05:33:28 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | Top | Last ]


To: sauropod

i thought you asked for concrete info on the topic which you posted. Here is reply #8:
No offence intended...Do you have some solid evidence I could show skeptical friends?

I was just trying to help this person out. That's all.

229 Posted on 01/02/2001 07:41:12 PST by Bump in the night
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

You are right...I AM fixed in one direction.

The direction is a RETURN to Constitutional Law......a RETURN to the Freedom and Rights that so many have given their lives for.

So...I AM guilty as charged.

But there IS one area that we are somewhat alike....we both seem to have to SEE it for ourselves....to be at the site of the danger.

So...come on out to Utah...I will show you the fences being erected to keep Americans off of their own land.

I will show you the U.N. signs......and then YOU can discuss with the Park Rangers just what new RULES have been put into place BECAUSE of that "U.N. Bio-Diversity" designation.

Come on out to Utah...and I will show you the towns,and more importantly...the PEOPLE, who have suffered because of a new "National Monument" has been declared......in order to shut off a source of "clean" coal. I will show you NEW "Wilderness" areas.....doesn't matter that they have mines...roads...over 100 years old.

Those mines are being shut down (with force)....those roads are being closed.Ranchers who have run cattle in those areas for years....are having their cattle confiscated...and being billed for it.

All done, if you will take the time to READ the treaties, in accordance with the U.N. guidelines.

The DANGER is real....not just something made up on the internet. Maybe you need to get out more often and LOOK.

redrock

p.s....The rancher who had her cattle taken by the Government.....went with a few of her friends...and TOOK them back. The local Sheriff is NOT prosecuting......much to the local citizens delight...and the Federal Governments dislike.

230 Posted on 01/02/2001 07:47:19 PST by redrock
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | Top | Last ]


To: redrock

I will show you the U.N. signs......and then YOU can discuss with the Park Rangers just what new RULES have been put into place BECAUSE of that "U.N. Bio-Diversity" designation.

That isn't what I'm doubting. I have no doubts that Clinton, hungry for his legacy and in thrall to the Gorish interests that have run rampant during his administration, would like to be able to say that all this is so.

I happen to know that stuff like this doesn't stand, not for long.

I believe that relief is on the way, but we don't do ourselves any good by accusing our friends as well as our true enemies.

I do have faith in the Constitution (though, if you're from Utah, you might know what I mean when I say I sometimes believe it is "hanging by a thread"). I think sometimes the pendulum swings a bit too far one way, and we have to work to bring it back in line.

I see things like the GOOD swing it took to help restore civil rights to ALL people, then going too far in the direction of the extremist race-pimps like Jesse Jackson. I see it swinging back more to the correct, central course that it invariably must take, as well.

I'm not saying "ignore all the problems" like you describe. I simply say "keep the faith, and keep working within the system to bring things back aright". This past election really encouraged my optimism, I must say.

231 Posted on 01/02/2001 09:03:47 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

Fact: The Clinton administration is implementing United Nations treaties without congressional or voter approval. Already 68% of our national parks and preserves are under U.N. administration.

This sounds reasonable to me, knowing the Clintons as I do.

Fact: U.N. committees are empowered to visit "World Heritage Sites" within the U.S. to judge whether human activity poses an environmental risk and if it need to be curtailed.

I'm sure they and the Clinton adminstration BELIEVE they have this right. We'll see.

Fact: The Clinton administration is transferring tens of millions of acres of land to the federal government to be placed under U.N. control.

Nope, can't buy this one. This'll have to be "proved" to me.

Fact: Towns in the Cuyahoga River Valley near Akron, Ohio, have lost much of their population as the National Park Service under U.N. provisions, has condemned and torn down homes, farms, forcing people to leave their land.

Again, where's the PROOF of this? Can we see at least newspaper articles, etc.? This sort of thing doesn't happen in a vacuum.

I mean, for pity's sake, we had a scream and outcry when the Federal Reserve was thinking about implementing the "Know Your Customer" rules that would have required disclosure of any and all information about how we access our personal banking accounts to the Government (supposedly part of the war on drugs).

As SOON as this was known, it was DEAD ON ARRIVAL.

I don't believe that actions like this take place with no one knowing about it.

So, proof, please.

Fact: The U.N. Biodiversity Treaty supports the Wildlands Project, which calls for turning 50% of the U.S. into "wildlands" where humans would not be allowed, but animals could roam free.

Yeah, I believe some Environmental Whackos would like to do this. But I submit it ain't worth the paper it's printed on so far as actually implementing it.

232 Posted on 01/02/2001 09:11:21 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

I simply say "keep the faith, and keep working within the system to bring things back aright".

It is true that liberty requires eternal vigilance, and that part of that vigilance has been, traditionally, keeping a watchful eye on laws and on lawbreaking lawmakers.

But given the current pace of law spewing and unconstitutional regulation-writing, you could watch, plead and struggle "within the system" 24 hours a day for your entire life and end up infinitely less free than when you began. Why throw your life away on a futile effort?

Face it. If "working within the system" could halt tyranny, the tyrants would outlaw it. Why do you think they encourage you to vote, to write letters, to talk to them in public forums? It's to divert your energies. To keep you tame.

"The system" as it presently exists is nothing but a rat maze. You run around thinking you're getting somewhere. Your masters occasionally reward you with a little pellet that encourages you to believe you're accomplishing something. And in the meantime, you are as much their property and their pawn as if you were a slave.

In the effort of fighting them on their terms and with their authorized and approved tools, you have given your life's energy to them as surely as if you were toiling in their cotton fields, under the lash of their overseer. The only way we're going to get off this road to Hell is if we jump off. If we, personally, as individuals, refuse to cooperate with evil. How we do that is up to each of us. I can't decide for you, nor you for me. (Unlike congresspeople, who think they can decide for everybody.)

But this totalitarian runaway truck is never going to stop unless we stop it, in any way we can. Stopping it might include any number of things: tax resistance; public civil disobedience; wide-scale, silent non-cooperation; highly noisy non-cooperation; boycotts; secession efforts; monkey-wrenching; computer hacking; dirty tricks against government agents; public shunning of employees of abusive government agencies; alternative, self-sufficient communities that provide their own medical care and utilities.

(Claire Wolfe)

233 Posted on 01/02/2001 09:28:37 PST by ActionNewsBill
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | Top | Last ]


To: ActionNewsBill

Sorry you've given up.

234 Posted on 01/02/2001 09:57:17 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | Top | Last ]


To: Sungirl

Wrong. Grand Staircase-Escalante NM was made in order to provide payback to the Lippo Group. It contains within its borders one of the largest, if not the largest, clean burning coal reserves in the world. They are now locked up, no exploration, no digging, no nuthin. Lippo has one of the other very large clean burning coal reserves in the world. Their coal stands to become more valuable, particularly since the EPA is forcing eastern US power plants to switch to cleaner burning coal. The Chinese won't get the coal, neither will we. But, they will get a sh!tload of extra US dollars.

235 Posted on 01/02/2001 10:17:55 PST by wattsmag2
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]


To: Tench_Coxe

Actually, it is the 'Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area'. To my knowledge, towns have not become de-populated due to houses being condemned under the auspices of that mentioned in the article.

This is just the opening salvo. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act will provide the States with the funds necessary to buy up all the desirable land the militant green weenies could want and buy the votes of liberals. For more info check;

1) May 9, 2000 Heritage Foundation Backgrounder Report, http://www.heritage.org/library/backgrounder/bg1370.html 2) Fatal Flaws Of CARA, Fred Kelly Grant, http://www.stewardsoftherange.org/fatal_flaws.htm

236 Posted on 01/02/2001 10:19:47 PST by Pontiac
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | Top | Last ]


To: Sungirl

Some more info for you

http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a360c73932037.htm

http://www.house.gov/resources/105cong/parks/staircase.htm

237 Posted on 01/02/2001 11:42:16 PST by wattsmag2
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

Because they are DETERENTS, I think PURPOSEFULLY drummed up so that concerned Americans waste their time on this kind of junk and don't see the REAL (but more subtle and much more complex) issues and problems going on around us.

Perhaps, but this is as real a problem as any of the others you mention. I prefer to see us in a war with battles on many different fronts. While it may seem like a low priority for our limited resources, we cannot lose sight of the fact that it is indeed an attack on our soverign nation.

The attacks on the US from outside (AND inside) sources are many; they're well funded, well organized, determined and their tactics are meant to overwhelm any opposition; by shear numbers and force of will. While we can get grassroots support for a few of these fronts, they are counting on the limited attention span, a complicit media, educational system and appathy from the populace at large.

Sadly, they know what they are doing.

We on the other hand are outgunned, out numbered, underfunded, disorganized and have basically been sold out by our would be masters in DeeCee and their allies abroad.

But I've always rooted for the underdog which this nation was at its birth, and which the average freedom loving American is today. I'll never surrender.

Oh yea - Happy New Year!

238 Posted on 01/02/2001 12:32:02 PST by AFreeBird
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

I looked, couldn't find any record of this anywhere on THOMAS. LIAR!!!!
Yes, that's the article in which "decertification" was consistently misspelled. I questioned the one who posted it as to its authenticity but got no response.

Question this authenticity...
EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - October 18, 2000) thomas.loc.gov

Page: S10658 thomas.loc.gov

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION IN COUNTRIES EXPERIENCING DROUGHT, PARTICULARLY IN AFRICA, WITH ANNEXES thomas.loc.gov About 3/4 of the way down. Page: S10664 If it doesn't load, use this Search engine thomas.loc.gov and type in the page number!

Everybody but Illbay can spell...Is the word misspelled in the treaty as well?
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

239 Posted on 01/02/2001 14:22:37 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | Top | Last ]


To: Sungirl, redrock, Bump in the night

You might want to look at post 239 and try the search engine in there. Don't believe ILLBAY...he says he looked up the DESERTIFICATION treaty, but was unable to come up with the same info I did.

He either lied or is lazy.

240 Posted on 01/02/2001 14:28:19 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | Top | Last ]


To: Sungirl, redrock, Bump in the night

Excuse me...just the number of the page when you search at that site...my apologies.

241 Posted on 01/02/2001 14:31:45 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | Top | Last ]


To: Jackie222

FYI...239

242 Posted on 01/02/2001 15:37:06 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

It must be nice to sit on the sidelines and watch.  You have one problem though.  Who will be left to stand up for you when they come after you?

None is so blind as those who refuse to see.  It doesn't take a genius to see what is happening, but it does take someone willing to open their eyes.

Don't worry..............be happy.:)

WarHawk42

243 Posted on 01/02/2001 15:47:50 PST by WH42
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | Top | Last ]


To: WH42

Nay igpay atinlay, ishay amenay isay Illbay.
In pig latin, his name is Bill!

244 Posted on 01/02/2001 15:56:53 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | Top | Last ]


To: Inspector Harry Callahan

Hoo boy...and I'm sure you believe every guy who comes on the radio who claims to have been a Colonel on the Joint Staff, and that THEY were in charge of the AMTRAK Maintenance Facility deathcamps...

245 Posted on 01/02/2001 16:09:13 PST by Poohbah
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

thanks.......bookmarked..

246 Posted on 01/02/2001 16:23:41 PST by Jackie222
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | Top | Last ]


To: Jackie222

fcnl.org
ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Congressional Field Hearing in Tannersville, NY to Examine United Nations Biosphere Reserves Tuesday, February 25, 1997
U.S. Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska)...in part..."One of these international programs - the Biosphere Reserve Program - is not even authorized by a single U.S. law or even an international treaty. This is wrong. Executive branch political appointees cannot and should not do things which the law does not authorize."

National Wilderness Preservation System
Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve � 1995 by National Wilderness Institute. GREAT MAP!
"This Land Is Whose Land?" � 1995 by National Wilderness Institute. GREAT MAP!

247 Posted on 01/02/2001 17:48:06 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

I apologize about the word "desertification". It is a newfangled, made up word; I thought it was a misspelling of "DECERTIFICATION". Then I finally realized the word was DESERT-ification.

The one who came up with that word should be shot.

248 Posted on 01/02/2001 19:47:47 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | Top | Last ]


To: WH42

None is so blind as those who refuse to see. It doesn't take a genius to see what is happening, but it does take someone willing to open their eyes. I think that those who are so myopic that they "see" only one side to an issue--and trash and denigrate anyone who intelligently questions some of the suppositions--has to question his commitment to his "cause".

Why so insecure, otherwise?

249 Posted on 01/02/2001 19:49:35 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

"One of these international programs - the Biosphere Reserve Program - is not even authorized by a single U.S. law or even an international treaty. This is wrong. Executive branch political appointees cannot and should not do things which the law does not authorize."

The very point I'm trying to make.

Now, for the prize, can any of you fear-mongers tell me what significant event occurs at 12:01 P.M., January 21, 2001?

250 Posted on 01/02/2001 19:51:39 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

I think that those who are so myopic that they "see" only one side to an issue--and trash and denigrate anyone who
intelligently questions some of the suppositions--has to question his commitment to his "cause".

You looking in a mirror?  It is you who has refused in the face of overwhelming odds to believe your lying eyes.:)

Your blind faith that bush is going to make everything better is amusing.  The democrats haven't accomplished this by themselves.  Whether you choose to believe it or not the UN with the blessings if not ratification of both republican and democrats have a foothold on these United States.

Time will tell what bush will do if anything, but time is already working against us.  The longer this goes on the harder it will be to stop.  Waiting till they knock on your door isn't the brightest thing to do IMO.

WarHawk42

251 Posted on 01/02/2001 20:08:38 PST by WH42
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

Now, for the prize, can any of you fear-mongers tell me what significant event occurs at 12:01 P.M., January 21, 2001?

Why don't you stop acting like a GRADE A A$$HOLE and just spit it out.

YOU ARE BEGINNING TO DISGUST ME!!! And from things I have read from you and ABOUT YOU, I don't seem to be alone!

FOR YOUR EDIFICATION....WHAT DID HAPPEN at 12:01 P.M., January 21, 2001?

That is, if His Majesty would be so kind as to fill us humble peasants ears with His words of experience and knowledge.

252 Posted on 01/02/2001 20:32:01 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

Or rather what will...despite the obvious!

253 Posted on 01/02/2001 20:38:00 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

Illbay... your comments have nothing to do with anything I've said.

But I'll play along..., are you aware of how many treaties the United States has now, right now, with other countries that have never been ratified? And yes, a treaty becomes law of the land WHEN IT IS SIGNED not when it is ratified ...according to the State Department. Check it out for yourself.

Are you aware of how many treaties the United States has signed thru-out history that were never ratified? Yet they were the law of the land. General Phillip Sheridan, Union General, negotiated several for President Grant and then made the famous statement, "The only good indian is a dead indian." I'd venture to say that 98% of those treaties were never ratified by Congress. Being ratified means very little when the President of the United States will allow the State Department to negotiate and sign a treaty for him.

Are you aware that treaties can only be signed with other countries? Now then... it the United Nations a country? No... it is not. (Check out Black's Law Dictionary.) Don't take my word for it... check out the State Departments own web site and look for Man in the BioSphere.

254 Posted on 01/02/2001 20:40:01 PST by Luke (from East Tennessee)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

I apologize about the word "desertification".

I notice that you forget to apologize for lying that you looked it up on THOMAS too.
Or did you just forget that part, not thinking it was relevant?

255 Posted on 01/02/2001 20:41:44 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | Top | Last ]


To: Luke

Did you see the graphic at Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve in post 247?

256 Posted on 01/02/2001 20:47:53 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

Er, well, it hasn't happened yet.

FYI, George W. Bush will be sworn in as the Forty-Third President of the United States.

The point is, that the shenanigans of the past eight years are about to come to a screeching halt.

257 Posted on 01/02/2001 21:57:37 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

The State wanted the land for a national park.

You've made an oxymoron.

Hey, watch who you are calling an Ox, y'Moron. :)

Guess I need to issue a correction: The state wanted the land for a State park. Actually, their stated objected was "to preseve the land and make it accessible to the millions of Californians denied coast access."

Now that was a real oxymoran for you...millions trampling the coastal redwoods and fragile bluffs.

258 Posted on 01/02/2001 21:59:31 PST by MissBaby
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | Top | Last ]


To: Luke

And yes, a treaty becomes law of the land WHEN IT IS SIGNED not when it is ratified ...according to the State Department. Check it out for yourself.

Find me in the United States Constitution where the U.S. Department of State has the power to decide these matters. FYI, the U.S. State Department doesn't even EXIST as far as the Constitution is concerned. Not to say it is "illegal" but that it is merely one arm of one branch of the Federal Government.

Don't let 'em rattle you.

And please, don't confuse the wretched determination of the Clinton White House to "observe" these treaties, with the LAW OF THE LAND.

In about 18 days from now, that's going to be a thing of the past.

259 Posted on 01/02/2001 22:00:54 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

I did look "decertification" up on Thomas, and couldn't find it.

260 Posted on 01/02/2001 22:01:44 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | Top | Last ]


To: All

Say I'm ready for a tin foil hat, but I believe all of this ties in to Vision2020/Agenda 21. Check my profile page for more information. (Click on my name below)

261 Posted on 01/02/2001 22:07:07 PST by Texas Yellow Rose
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

If Illbay would have been at Pearl Harbor, Decemeber 7, 1941, he would have taken until the middle of 1942 before he would have figured out the war had begun and it would be the end 1942 before he finally decided it was the Japanese who we were at war with. This guy is behind the 8 ball.

Regards,
CATO

262 Posted on 01/02/2001 22:26:57 PST by Cato
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

The point is, that the shenanigans of the past eight years are about to come to a screeching halt.

FYI...post 55...The Committee named 12 sites in 1978, 45 in 1979, 28 in 1980, 26 in 1981...

You are one slow person.....to convince that is.

263 Posted on 01/02/2001 23:02:25 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | Top | Last ]


To: Inspector Harry Callahan

Monticello - The Home of Thomas Jefferson
"Monticello is the autobiographical masterpiece of Thomas Jefferson, designed and redesigned and built and rebuilt for more than forty years. Jefferson described the house as his "essay in architecture," but today it is recognized as an international treasure. Monticello is the only house in America on the United Nations' prestigious World Heritage List of sites that must be protected at all costs."

UN-Sponsored Aliens Land In Yellowstone

BIOSPHERES - The Taking Of America and The China Connection

The Revealing Story of a Rancher and the National Debt

That "Something" Undermining Our Nation

Guard Against Being Made A Slave By The Environmental Elite

The Great Gold Heist - Desert Wilderness Protection Act

Almost Paradise

A Thank You Note From Hillary Clinton

EPA Says "We Haven't Decided On The Rules But We'll Prosecute You Anyway"

Burn Your Cabin or Go To Jail - Bob Learzaf

Does Anybody Care?

Eco-Scientists Deny Amazon's In Any Danger - (In Otherwords They're liars, cheats and swindlers)

Executive Order 13083 And Our Freedom - Both Parties Were Going To Finish You Off

AMERICA - A Fascilist Country?

The Final Solution: CARA Compromise - Is Rural America Doomed?

Both Parties Support Park-Land Bill

Senate committee OKs land bill - (See Links Also)

See Which Senators Signed Away Your Property

Sundown at Coffin Rock - A Little Gun Story

THE ALGER HISS SPY CASE and THE UN CHARTER

TELL THE UN TO STUFF IT!!!

"If just one animal on the endangered species list is found in your backyard, your property can be seized...for the 'public's good' "
Whatever Happened To The American Dream - Larry Burkett - 1993 - Page 99.

264 Posted on 01/02/2001 23:08:41 PST by Uncle Bill
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

FYI, George W. Bush will be sworn in as the Forty-Third President of the United States.

Post 253. Don't you read the thread?

265 Posted on 01/02/2001 23:11:47 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

No afterthought, perhaps....

266 Posted on 01/02/2001 23:24:44 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

I apologize about the word "desertification".
I thought it was a misspelling of "DECERTIFICATION".

Weasel...the hole ain't big enough...

267 Posted on 01/03/2001 01:59:38 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

Sorry you've given up.

I have given up "working within the system", but it's still to early to "shoot the bastards".

Sorry to see you wasting your time.

268 Posted on 01/03/2001 05:55:45 PST by ActionNewsBill
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | Top | Last ]


To: philman_36

"Did you see the graphic at Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve in post 247?

Yes I've seen it before, Philman. It dovetails with the SACEP Proposal which only became known due to FIOA. I stand amazed at how many traitors to the Constitution we have within the Federal government. But then again I stand amazed at the many Americans who push socialist agendas.

Few folk realize that if SACEP is implemented ...as currently proposed it would put 36 counties in East Tennessee, not to mention the other states included in SACEP, under Federal control as determined by the United Nations.

Private ownership of property will be a thing of the past within those counties. In SACEP even keeping cattle, chickens, hogs would require special permission - from the Federal government - no matter how rural. You could not grow tobacco - the only real legal cash crop in this area. Farms would be a thing of the past in East Tennessee. Realtors would be put out of business and forget Dollywood. There would be no tourism. No one could be buried within those counties. Cemeteries would be allowed to return to nature - just like it currently is within the no entry zone of the Smoky Mountains under UNESCO (It seems the only vocal voice over this comes from the Cherokee Indian tribe as they can no longer visit their ancestral burial grounds.). The SACEP Proposal is difficult to read but once you begin you realize you are in a living nightmare ...and the enemy is within your own government.

There is an agenda by the UN to restrict what one may or may not do in this area. Even today, merchants in Gatlinburg fear government intervention that would limit the number of vehicles which come into the area. UNESCO keeps pushing their agenda which is to close down tourist attractions like Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge. They do this by their claim that polution is encroaching on the Smoky Mountains ...which is their responsibility to protect.

269 Posted on 01/03/2001 06:09:58 PST by Luke (from East Tennessee)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | Top | Last ]


To: Luke

You folks have my sympathy. I'm still trying to find all of the strings attached here in my neck of the woods. As close as I am to the UN zone here...looks like I'm just in the way to some people.

US Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District
G50.12 PORT ARTHUR AREA. Port Arthur Area Office, Pleasure Island, disposal areas, Kirbyville, Orange, bridges, Pine Island Bayou, Port Arthur Hurricane Flood Protection Project, Sabine-Neches Water Way, Taylor's Bayou, Taylor's Bayou Salt Water Barrier, Sabine Pass, Big Hill Strategic Petroleum Reserve, mothball fleet.

TAYLOR BAYOU, TEXAS
Scattered residences remain in the area once known as Taylor's Bayou; larger numbers of inhabitants live in the nearby communities of LaBelle, Hamshire, and Fannett.

270 Posted on 01/03/2001 06:42:29 PST by philman_36
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

Find me in the United States Constitution where the U.S. Department of State has the power to decide these matters.

My point EXACTLY, Illbay! It does not!

So why does Congress allow it? Why do you and I allow it? It does not matter that the treaty will ever be ratified. It still stands! We have biosphere reserves don't we? Did you and I have a voice in all this? Did you and I know that this was going to happen? We allow elected officials to sell our liberty for profit, power, careers...

Why is this? Would it be ...because you and I no longer have a voice in a process where government works against us, or simply because you and I are no longer are willing to die to protect the Constitution of the United States?

I admire your passion for debate, Illbay, but your argument works against you.

271 Posted on 01/03/2001 06:50:40 PST by Luke (from East Tennessee)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | Top | Last ]


To: Luke

So why does Congress allow it? Why do you and I allow it?

I think that is the cogent question. Perhaps if we were a bit more active, changes would be made.

Those among us who don't understand how we got to this point, and don't understand that lack of action is one of the primary reasons, and yet say "the system is broken" are to me very naive.

272 Posted on 01/03/2001 08:02:28 PST by Illbay
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | Top | Last ]


To: sinkspur

From www.unesco.org:

1. Article 104. The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members
such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and
the fulfilment of its purposes.

Article 105. 1. The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of its Members such
privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes.
2. Representatives of the Members of the United Nations and officials of the Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connection with the Organization. 3. The General Assembly may make recommendations with a view to determining the details of the application of paragraphs I and 2 of this Article or may propose conventions to the Members of the United Nations for this purpose.

273 Posted on 01/03/2001 11:12:58 PST by rex havoc
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | Top | Last ]


To: sinkspur

You mean a conspiracy website isn't evidence enough for you?

From www.unesco.org:

1. Article 104. The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members
such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and
the fulfilment of its purposes.
Article 105. 1. The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of its Members such
privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes.
2. Representatives of the Members of the United Nations and officials of the
Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary
for the independent exercise of their functions in connection with the Organization.
3. The General Assembly may make recommendations with a view to determining
the details of the application of paragraphs I and 2 of this Article or may propose
conventions to the Members of the United Nations for this purpose.

274 Posted on 01/03/2001 11:16:48 PST by rex havoc
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | Top | Last ]


To: all

sorry for the double post...

275 Posted on 01/03/2001 11:17:21 PST by rex havoc
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

Our nation is not losing it's sovereignty with a whimper or a cry. It has been sold for the proverbial "thirty pieces of silver" by the Klinton-Kennedy Left. We watch as they line their own pockets with the wealth of the masses. They tell us that we would not know how to spend a returned Tax Surplus, so they keep it. Let the UN fight the next forest fires without our help.

276 Posted on 01/03/2001 11:48:11 PST by Constitution Jack
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: Timesink

"it doesn't really mean much as long as the US President's administration is all for the same things in these parks that the UN would be."

TS, Clinton's administration was in sync with the UN on these matters. We'll SOON see if sinkspur's saviors in there on Jan 20th feel any differently. Peace and love, George.

277 Posted on 01/04/2001 16:25:30 PST by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | Top | Last ]


To: AuntB

"Illbay, you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny!"

AuntB, Shame on you. ROTFLMAO!! Peace and love, George.

278 Posted on 01/04/2001 16:50:42 PST by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | Top | Last ]


To: Illbay

"Article II Section 2 requires that ALL treaties be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate?"

IB, NO IT DON'T!! It states by two-thirds of those Senators "PRESENT" during the vote. Peace and love, George.

279 Posted on 01/04/2001 16:57:58 PST by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | Top | Last ]


To: Bump in the night

..... the UN can't protect its Troops from third rate Serbian bandits or poorly organized underarmed African revolutionaries.Exactly how are they going to TAKE OVER and HOLD American Soil? Get a grip...Ten years ago it was UFO invaders and abductions ,Ten years befor that it was canibalistic Satanists. No Dout Ten Years from now McDonald's will be planting Mind Control drugs in our Burgers to convert us to Mormonism.....

280 Posted on 01/04/2001 17:16:23 PST by Grendelgrey
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]


To: George Frm Br00klyn Park

:<)......it was the New Year's celebratory concoction speaking.........

281 Posted on 01/05/2001 15:48:22 PST by AuntB
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | Top | Last ]


To: Pontiac

Dear Pontiac: IT IS CALLED EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND A BUNCH OF SENATORS APPROVING TREATIES (34 OF THEM) BY A SHOW OF HANDS.....this is not a joke! It happened!!!!! One is called the "Desertification Treaty"......I will attempt to forward these to you by mail or post them in a few.

282 Posted on 01/05/2001 15:52:31 PST by countrydummy (lrrh@inetone.net)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]


To: blam

Do you all see the spots marked on this map? They are already gone. The US no longer has sovereigty over these sites.

How do you know that because someone has designated someplace as a UN World Heritage Site means we have surrendered sovereignty over it? Unsubstanciated wild @ss claims make those of us who are concerned about legitimate sovereignty questions look like kooks to most people, even those who are generally supportive. Can you document that this in any way cedes sovereignty (let alone control) to the UN, and that it not just a matter of putting up a plaque like a historical landmark? I'm not attacking you here, but I really would like to know before getting too worked up over it.

283 Posted on 01/05/2001 16:07:39 PST by Hugin
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | Top | Last ]


To: Hugin

Well, I read this on a web site hosted by a guy named Bill Casey. It was an organization fighting this UN move. I don't remember the web site name but, I have friend who does. I'll check and get back with you. Try this site while I look. www.jbs.org.

284 Posted on 01/05/2001 16:21:58 PST by blam
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | Top | Last ]


To: Grendelgrey

Grendel, Nah, all that other stuff was just circuses to keep you occupied while the U.N.'s takeover has been going on for all the period you mention plus some. Check out The John Birch Society's archives. All while you were sleeping. Peace and love, George.

285 Posted on 01/05/2001 18:59:37 PST by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | Top | Last ]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

[ Top | Latest Posts | Latest Articles | Self Search | Add Bookmark | Post | Abuse | Help! ]

FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC