• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Last year a United Nations-designated panel, at the behest of the
Clinton administration, called for the creation of uninhabited “buffer
zones” around several U.S. national parks. Since then roughly two dozen
U.S. parks and preserves, covering millions of acres of public land,
have been included in the plan.

Now, however, new plans to expand these zones are in the works, and
the outrage has reached a near fever pitch among experts who say these
U.N.-designated sites are merely attempts to “globalize” huge portions
of the United States — with taxpayers picking up the tab.

Henry Lamb of Eco-Logic — a watchdog
organization that monitors U.N. activities and U.S. sovereignty issues
– told WorldNetDaily that one example — at Yellowstone National Park,
where the creation of a larger buffer zone is well under way — was “just
a sign of things to come.”

“Inside Yellowstone, the U.S. Park Service is shutting down
campgrounds as the park is being prepared to become the core of a huge
biosphere reserve, as part of the United Nations global biodiversity
plan,” he said. “Once established, no human activity will be permitted
in the area,” even though U.S. taxpayers must continue to fund the
maintenance and upkeep of Yellowstone and other popular outdoor tourist
sites.

Lamb said that in order to increase the buffer zone around
Yellowstone, the Park Service drove local businesses away by refusing to
maintain access roads. When the businesses folded as a result of heavy
financial losses, the land was bought with taxpayer money and a larger
zone of inaccessibility was created by default.

“Once they buy the land, the government is obviously not going to
resell it,” he said, thus creating permanently larger buffer zones.

“The purpose of establishing sites as U.S. national parks was to have
people in them enjoying them,” Lamb added. “But the Clinton
administration has completely bought into this U.N. notion that our land
ought to be their land, managed by them. And as such, it ought
to be uninhabited as well.”

He said if most Americans “knew what was going on (with their
national parks), the uproar would be deafening.”

In the case of Yellowstone, Lamb said the government’s acquiescence
to the U.N.’s agenda cost a gold mining company about $30 million and in
the end prevented them from mining one ounce of known gold reserves,
even though the government indicated they initially would have allowed
it.

“The owners of the Crown Butte New World gold mine, which is
outside of Yellowstone National Park,” he said, “were told by the
government to comply with a list of environmental requirements before
they could move in and begin mining.”

But after being threatened with non-stop litigation from
environmental groups funded by U.N. agencies that could have lasted
decades, the mining company finally agreed to a deal that leaves at
least $650 million of known gold reserves in the ground instead. That
deal provided the company with about $65 million dollars for “more
exploration.” Of that amount, the government said about $21 million had
to be used for “environmental clean-up.”

Lamb said that Congress has consistently ignored Clinton
administration orders and directives designed to implement many of the
U.N. mandates. Clinton, he said, is implementing U.N. directives via
executive order and presidential directive “because then he doesn’t have
to worry about getting Senate treaty ratification.”

At present a U.N.-sponsored biodiversity treaty, designed to limit
U.S. public access to so-called “World Heritage Sites” and “Biodiversity
sites” is languishing in the Senate. No action is scheduled on its
ratification.

Lamb added that in the course of the next several years, with no
congressional oversight, the addition of more U.S. parks to the
“Heritage” and “Biodiversity” sites lists will follow.

“It is a well-documented fact that the U.N. is trying to gain control
over vast amounts of U.S. territories to herd more people into cities
where they are more manageable,” Lamb said. “That can’t be done without
at least tacit approval from Congress, regardless of the political
agenda of any administration.”

Lamb said he has “allies” in Congress that are opposed to the
implementation of this, and other, U.N.-mandated land use plans.

“But they’re relatively few and as such equally unsuccessful” in
stopping such initiatives, he added.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.