quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Not much George. Irrelevant question anyway. Even if I earned .01 an hour, I would feel the same way about the enslavement of our country.

more of the same...
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...479#post4783479

quote:

Originally posted by myself Our very own CFR, perhaps just like a phoenix, was born from the ashes of the Fabian Society.

How come nobody ever talks about the Fabians, damn it!?!?



I love it when I find new puzzle pieces that fit together.

___________________

quote:

"Learn, child, to catch a hint through whatever agency it may be given. 'Sermons may be preached through stones." - Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Letters from the Masters of Wisdom, first series, p. 74, letter 31

How the hell do you find these videos trancer?

I totally forgot I posted this article...It's amazing that in 2005, the budget was 2.6 trillion, and just two years later we have already hit the $3 trillion mark.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt How the hell do you find these videos trancer? I totally forgot I posted this article...It's amazing that in 2005, the budget was 2.6 trillion, and just two years later we have already hit the $3 trillion mark.

It often takes a lot of searching but sometimes they're right there under your nose and you don't even realize it until the last minute

Being a nerd kind of helps, too.

I actually had a discussion about this with a friend recently and we both seemed to agree that they appear to be trying to spend what they can on our line of credit, giving many of the lucrative contracts to their buddies in the Good ol' boys network just before they declare insolvency for one last time and then finally start liquidating our Country's assets and whatever other valuable resources that they might have earmarked.

We've already given away a lot of our land but I think that there were too many vocal critics for the powers that be, particularly Alaskan Rep. Don Young (who's now of course under investigation for not rolling over for the UN, err, I mean bribery.)

quote:

There are currently 20 World Heritage Sites and 47 Biosphere Reserves comprising more than 51 million acres on U.S. territory, including 68% of all U.S. National Parks, monuments and preserves. Many more World Heritage Sites are contemplated in the U.S. "Decisions about American land should be made by Americans," said David Ridenour, vice president of The National Center for Public Policy Research. "Although presently the United Nations is not controlling U.S. property, as the United States enters into international agreements, the use of private property held in America by American private citizens can be affected. Rep. Don Young's bill is a basic good government bill. Congress _ which is responsive to the American people -- should have the right to legislate, not some international body." "Land designations under the World Heritage and Biosphere Reserve programs have been created with virtually no congressional oversight and no congressional hearings, " Representative Don Young, sponsor of the legislation, has said. "The public and local governments are rarely consulted." Many of the 67 current and proposed UN World Heritage sites in 40 U.S. states are man-made, such as the Statue of Liberty, Philadelphia's Independence Hall, Frank Lloyd Wright's home and studio and 10 other sites in Illinois, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Bell Telephone and General Electric Research Laboratories in New York, Eads Bridge in Illinois-St. Louis, Fallingwater outside Pittsburgh, Monticello, Moundville Site in Alabama, Louisiana's Poverty Point, Mound City Group National Monument in Ohio, Fallingwater outside Pittsburgh and the Washington Monument. Others, such as the Grand Canyon, the Everglades, Yosemite, Grand Teton National Park, Crater Lake, Yellowstone, Bryce Canyon, Smoky Mountains and the Mohave Desert, among many others, are natural. A list of current and contemplated World Heritage sites in the U.S. is available on the Internet at http://www.cr.nps.gov/worldheritage/list1.htm (excerpted from http://www.nationalcenter.org/PRLandSov299.html)

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X

Wait, let me get this right, the UN is trying to help preserve sites that Americans should be proud off, and you are scoffing at the fact that what, they shouldn't be? Maybe your congress should hire more people then and waste resources on having a committee that evaluates potential sites and preserves them. It's not like you people complain all the time of how bloated government is, I am sure they should be taking on more costs and responsibilities.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Wait, let me get this right, the UN is trying to help preserve sites that Americans should be proud off, and you are scoffing at the fact that what, they shouldn't be? Maybe your congress should hire more people then and waste resources on having a committee that evaluates potential sites and preserves them. It's not like you people complain all the time of how bloated government is, I am sure they should be taking on more costs and responsibilities.

You guys really like to twist things to make them seem all fine and dandy, don't you? Yeah, ceding land to another country is going to help preserve American landmarks.

Your (what seems to be a counterfactual conditional) argument is fallacious, btw. I need to brush up on my list of fallacies but I'm still able to gather that much.

quote:

The Fabian Window

Notice the wolf in sheep's clothing on their crest. It's pretty indicative of what they're about.

"I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition."

It's true, we destroy ourselves with our own simple-minded ideologies and rigidity of stance on issues we understand very little the consequences of.

Vote Debs.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X You guys really like to twist things to make them seem all fine and dandy, don't you? Yeah, ceding land to another country is going to help preserve American landmarks. Your (what seems to be a counterfactual conditional) argument is fallacious, btw. I need to brush up on my list of fallacies but I'm still able to gather that much.

quote:

A UNESCO World Heritage Site is a specific site (such as a forest, mountain, lake, desert, monument, building, complex, or city) that has been nominated and confirmed for inclusion on the list maintained by the international World Heritage Programme administered by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, composed of 21 State Parties (countries) which are elected by the General Assembly of States Parties for a fixed term.[1] (This is similar to the United Nations Security Council.) The programme aims to catalogue, name, and conserve sites of outstanding cultural or natural importance to the common heritage of humanity. Under certain conditions, listed sites can obtain funds from the World Heritage Fund. The programme was founded with the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, which was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 16 November 1972. Since then, 184 (as of July 2007) States Parties have ratified the convention. As of 2007, a total of 851 sites are listed: 660 cultural, 166 natural, and 25 mixed properties, in 142 States Parties. UNESCO references each World Heritage Site with a unique identification number; but new inscriptions often include previous sites now listed as part of larger descriptions. As a result, the numbering system currently ends above 1200, even though there are fewer on the actual list. [b[Each World Heritage Site is the property of the country on whose territory the site is located[/b], but it is considered in the interest of the international community to preserve each site for future generations of humanity. The protection and conservation of these sites are a concern of all the World Heritage countries.

Link

First off, last time I check the UN isn't really a country, although it may enjoy country-like priviledges. Second, World Heritage sites are not ceded to the UN, they don't become UN territories that the host country can not touch, use or modify. So again, what's the problem with having World Heritage sites. And mind you there are 142 countries participating in this.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Link First off, last time I check the UN isn't really a country, although it may enjoy country-like priviledges. Second, World Heritage sites are not ceded to the UN, they don't become UN territories that the host country can not touch, use or modify. So again, what's the problem with having World Heritage sites. And mind you there are 142 countries participating in this.

I don't want to sound like a dick but I'm getting tired of talking about this so I'll just leave you with a couple of quotes and a link to the bill that was passed.

quote:

"Like so many other agencies within the United Nations, the Heritage Area program has become a power hungry, bureaucracy that seeks to override the laws of nations" - Rep. Richard Pombo (R - CA)

quote:

H.R. 883 - American Land Sovereignty Protection Act PURPOSE OF THE BILL H.R. 883 will restore the Constitutional role of Congress in managing lands belonging to the United States, preserve the sovereignty of the United States over these lands, and protect State sovereignty and private property rights in non-federal lands adjacent to federal lands. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act (H.R. 883) asserts the Constitutional power of Congress over management and use of lands belonging to the United States. Under Article IV, section 3 of the United States Constitution, the power to make all needful rules and regulations governing lands belonging to the United States is vested in Congress. Yet over the last 25 years, an increasing expanse of our nation's public lands have been included in various international land use programs, most notably United Nations Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites, with virtually no Congressional oversight or approval. The international agreement covering World Heritage Sites, for example, largely leaves Congress out of the nomination process. United Nations World Heritage Sites, Ramsar Sites and Biosphere Reserves are under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). World Heritage Sites and Ramsar Sites are recognized by UNESCO under `The Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage' (World Heritage Convention) and `The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat' (Ramsar Convention), respectively. Biosphere Reserves are part of the U.S. Man and Biosphere Program which operates in conjunction with a worldwide program under UNESCO. The U.S. Man and Biosphere Program is not authorized by Congress and has no legislative direction. Over 68 percent of the land in our national parks, preserves and monuments have been designated as United Nations World Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves or both. Biosphere Reserves alone cover an area about the size of Colorado, our eighth largest state. There are now 47 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, 20 World Heritage Sites and 16 Ramsar Sites in the United States. In becoming a party to these international land use agreements through Executive Branch action, the United States may be indirectly agreeing to terms of international treaties, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, to which the United States is not a party or which the United States Senate has refused to ratify. For example, The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves recommends that participating countries `integrate biosphere reserves in strategies for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, in plans for protected areas, and in the national biodiversity strategies and action plans provided for in Article 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity.' Furthermore, the Strategic Plan for the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program published in 1994 by the U.S. State Department states that a goal of the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program is to `create a national network of biosphere reserves that represents the biogeographical diversity of the United States and fulfills the internationally established roles and functions of biosphere reserves.' Also disturbing is that designation of Biospheres and World Heritage Sites rarely involve consulting the public and local governments. At the five hearings held on the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act since the 104th Congress, state and local elected officials as well as grassroots citizen activists from Alaska, Arkansas, Missouri, Minnesota, New Mexico and New York testified that no one consulted with the public or local governments when international land designations were made in their states. The domestic designation process for World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves is so controversial that the Alaska, Colorado and Montana state legislatures have passed resolutions in support of the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. In addition, the Kentucky State Senate recently passed a resolution opposing creation of any biosphere reserves within Kentucky and supporting the concepts embodied in this legislation. In fact, UNESCO policy apparently discourages an open nomination process for World Heritage Sites. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention state: In all cases, as to maintain the objectivity of the evaluation process and to avoid possible embarrassment to those concerned, State [national] parties should refrain from giving undue publicity to the fact that a property has been nominated * * * pending the final decision of the Committee of the nomination in question. Participation of the local people in the nomination process is essential to make them feel a shared responsibility with the State party in the maintenance of the site, but should not prejudice future decision-making by the committee. By allowing these international land use designations, the United States promises to protect designated areas and regulate surrounding lands if necessary to protect the designated site. Honoring these international agreements could force the federal government to prohibit or limit some uses of private lands inside or outside the designated reserve unless our country wants to break a pledge to other nations. At a minimum, this puts U.S. land policy-makers in an awkward position. Federal regulatory actions could cause a significant adverse impact on the value of private property and on the local and regional economy. The involvement of the World Heritage Committee (WHC) in the National Environmental Policy Act review process for the New World Mine Project near Yellowstone National Park, a World Heritage Site, exemplifies this problem. The New World mine project is outside of the boundary of Yellowstone National Park and is not included in the World Heritage Site. In fact, nearly all of the proposed minesite is located on private property, and U.S. law (16 U.S.C. 470a-1(c)) prohibits including any non-federal property within a U.S. World Heritage Site without the consent of the owner. The fact that the proposed project was not a part of the Yellowstone World Heritage Site did not prevent the WHC from holding a `hearing' on the project. Creation of a buffer zone, possibly ten times as large as the Park, was suggested by at least one member of the WHC. However, by excluding the federal lands on which a small part of the New World Mine Project lies from an adjoining wilderness area, Congress had already determined not to create such a buffer zone and to make these lands available for multiple uses, including mining. It is clear from this example, that at best, World Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve designations give the international community an open invitation to interfere in U.S. domestic land use decisions. More seriously, these international agreements potentially have several significant adverse effects on the American system of government. Domestic land use policy-making authority is further centralized at the federal/Executive Branch level, and the role that ordinary citizens have in the making of this policy through their elected representatives is diminished. The Executive Branch may also invoke these international agreements in an attempt to administratively achieve an action within the jurisdiction of Congress, but without consulting Congress. The current framework for implementing the World Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve programs has eaten away at the power and sovereignty of the Congress to exercise its constitutional power to make the laws that govern U.S.-owned land. Perhaps the most serious problem with international agreements, such as the World Heritage Convention, is that the international bodies which administer them do not represent the American people and cannot be held accountable by them. In a May 5, 1999, letter to Congressman Bruce Vento, former U.N. Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick says it best: In U.N. organizations, there is no accountability. U.N. bureaucrats are far removed from the American voters. Many of the States Parties in the World Heritage Treaty are not democracies. Some come from countries that do not allow the ownership of private property. The World Heritage and Man and the Biosphere committees make decisions affecting the land and lives of Americans. Some of these decisions are made by representatives chosen by governments not based on democratic representation, certainly not on the representation of Americans. What recourse does an American voter have when U.N. bureaucrats from Cuba or Iraq or Libya (all of which are parties to this Treaty) have made a decision that unjustly damages his or her property rights that lie near a national park?

quote:

"Our public lands are an American treasure. But the executive branch has decided American land can be put into international reserves, without the consent of Congress. The American Land Sovereignty Act says to the president, 'No more'" - Rep. Mike Simpson (R - ID)