Heads up on biodiversity plan and other smoke signalsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
This is a heads up on bad, no, criminal acts in progress. If any of you are aware of the "unratified Convention on Biological Diversity" you will understand. This almost squeaked by congress in 1997 or early 1998. It was NOT ratified. However, the powers that be MUST REALLY WANT IT ENACTED because they have resorted to using executive orders to make it so. This is most definitely a heads up issue.
Sorry to use this forum for what would be considered a political issue, however, if you understood the ramifications, you would consider it a constitutional disgrace, and it is your country that is being handed over. Remember your right to dissent on issues: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Executive Order 13107, which, barring a congressional override this week will become the law of the land, is a perfect example of how global governance is overtaking self-governance in the United States. Despite the rejection by the U.S. Senate of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the refusal of the Senate to even consider many of the other 81 U.N. Human Rights Treaties, the president has laid the foundation through this EO to implement the objectives of those treaties. The will of the U.N. is being implemented voluntarily by the Clinton/Gore administration. The process was not initiated by this administration; George Bush, with his Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William K. Reilly, was eager to usher in the "New World Order." Nor is the process limited to Human Rights Treaties. This administration is actively implementing the unratified Convention on Biological Diversity, the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the policies of Agenda 21. With the implementation of each of these UN policies, another piece of America's national sovereignty is eroded. Defenders of these policies say "so what, these are good policies that should be implemented." Not all Americans agree, and therein lies the great danger to America. The U.S. Constitution provides a mechanism for grinding the differences of opinion out of public policy through public debate, and questions are resolved by the public, accountable votes of elected officials. When public policies are adopted by elected officials which differ from the will of the people, the people can change their elected officials and thereby change the public policy. When public policies originate in Geneva, Rio de Janeiro, or Kyoto, and are implemented by executive order and administrative decree, those who dissent, or who may have a better idea, are silenced. Policies are imposed upon the people who neither give their consent, nor have recourse to change those policies. The process is bad enough, in that it bypasses the fundamental process prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. But even worse is the underlying philosophy of governance upon which U.N. policies are based. Consent of the governed is the empowering principle of American government; control of the governed is the empowering principle of global governance. The Kyoto Protocol exemplifies this principle: to achieve its objective, the UN document would allow the UN to control the use of energy in rich nations in order to force industry to move to poor nations that have no controls on energy use. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights seeks to "create the conditions" to grant "freedom from want" to those who want. The only way to achieve that result is to "take" from those who have, and "give" to those who have not. Control of people is the essential ingredient in the implementation of virtually all U.N. policies because the underlying philosophy demands it. By contrast, the philosophy that underlies the U.S. Constitution is the belief that people who are free to pursue their own survival and prosperity will create the interpersonal and business relationships necessary to achieve their own objectives. In 200 years, this philosophy has demonstrated its validity by producing national prosperity unmatched by nations that have existed for thousands of years. Proponents of global governance deny a desire to control people. In fact, they claim their objective is to ensure a greater degree of freedom and prosperity to those who are now denied even basic freedoms and live in crushing poverty. That, they say, is the purpose, hope, and objective of the 81 Human Rights Treaties. What they fail to recognize, or admit, is the fact that neither freedom, nor prosperity, is a commodity that any government can give; they can only be limited, restricted, or denied by government. Any attempt by any government to expand either the freedom or prosperity of some, necessarily requires that the freedom and prosperity of others be limited, restricted, or denied. The American experiment in self governance is just over 200 years old. It has been incredibly successful -- so far -- a beacon of hope to the world. The only hope of the developing world to escape the cycle of impoverished servitude is to follow America's example of casting off governmental constraints and allowing free people to use the resources provided by their creator to pursue their own survival and prosperity. Executive Order 13107 diminishes the candlepower of America's beacon of hope. What's worse, it allows the United Nations a larger measure of control over the beacon. If the trend continues, even for another few years, the United Nations will extinguish the light altogether, and America will be stripped of its wealth in order to achieve "equity" in the new "sustainable" millennium, by those who think they know how everyone ought to behave. Henry Lamb is executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.
ALSO: scroll down to USA on this list to see the US site that would be given over to the U.N. (these are OURS, people. US citizens own these, for now that is).
-- Bumble (email@example.com), January 08, 1999
Personally, I think this *IS* a Y2K issue.
People's (and Government's) reaction to Y2K is, IMHO, more significant than the technological issues.
-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous.com), January 08, 1999.
Despite Anonymous99's thought, I see no connection between this thread and Y2k. Please stop cluttering up forums with off-topic threads.
>Sorry to use this forum for what would be considered a political issue,
If you were truly sorry, why did you do it? Obviously you were having that thought while composing your posting, so you could have stopped there without proceeding with what you claim to be sorry for.
>however, if you understood the ramifications, you would consider it a constitutional disgrace, and it is your country that is being handed over.
So? Post it in "The Government of the United States" forum, where it would be on-topic. (Besides which, your statement is ridiculously exaggerated, according to information at the site you reference. There's no hand-over, no transfer of ownership involved in the World Heritage program.)
The sloppiness of an off-topic thread here predisposes me to consider the poster a sloppy thinker and the subject of the posting not worth bothering about, but note that I did take the trouble to look up the sites you list, anyway.
That long run-on paragraph is difficult to read. A casual reader might overlook that it appears (I'm not going to compare every single word) to be a complete copy (minus formatting) of the copyrighted (") 1999 WorldNetDaily.com") article titled "The implementation of global governance" and authored by Henry Lamb.
So much for your concern about U.S. law.
You didn't even have the courtesy to cite the article's title, author (though you left in that final sentence about Lamb, it does not state authorship) or copyright. This bespeaks of guilt.
If you're willing to steal Mr. Lamb's article text, why should your reader consider your legal arguments to have foundation? (As I pointed out above, they don't.)
-- No Spam Please (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 09, 1999.