In an astonishing discovery the Kentucky State Legislature learned that the future of thousands of its citizens is in jeopardy, and a large portion of its land as well. In a move that would force families from their homes and private property, legislators uncovered a plan by the United Nations to implement the Convention of Biological Diversity. The possibility for this kind of planned disaster happening is real enough that Kentucky lawmakers passed a formal resolution May 29, 1997 stating their opposition to the inclusion of any private or public lands in Kentucky coming under control of the United Nations.
The grassroots organization, Constitutional Campaign Committee, issued the following statement condemning the land forfeiture, "The present Administration of the Federal Government plans to give thousands of square miles of Kentucky land to the control of agents of the United Nations. This action is being taken without permission of the Kentucky Legislature and without the advice and consent of our elected members of Congress. Even worse, this plan is being quietly implemented without the consent and, in many cases, without even the knowledge, of the citizens of Kentucky."
In an interview with The WINDS, State Representative Virgil Moore said the plan would involve surrender of approximately 35 to 40 percent of the total land in the state and involve hundreds of thousands of families. The plan, however, is not localized to the state of Kentucky according to a map referred to by the State Legislator. It also involves the states of Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama. The map is titled, "Existing and Proposed Biosphere and Wildlands for the Central Appalachian Mountains."
This is all part of a much larger picture which began to reveal itself at the UN sponsored Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The major document to emerge from that conference was Agenda 21 along with the Biodiversity Treaty. The document was signed by all participating members of the United Nations including the United States, but has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate. The treaty came up for consideration in September of 1994, "expertly packaged and promoted as a desperately needed measure to protect the earth's "endangered species" and ensure "sustainable development" of its dwindling resources.
"At the start of this (ratification attempt) North Carolina's Senator Jesse Helms stood virtually alone in opposition to (as he put it) 'this preamble falsely described as a treaty.' He forced into the open the troubling fact that the Senate was being pressured to ratify an unfinished document, to, in effect, sign a blank check. Incredibly, the treaty's 'protocols' (i.e. mandates) were to be drafted after ratification (at the November, 1994 Conference of Parties in Paris) by representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the World Resources Council, the World Wildlife Fund, and other organizations". New American 4-23-95.
To date, the treaty has never been ratified by the United States Senate, however, President Clinton endorses it. Consequently, the Administration has been moving forward as if the treaty were ratified. Virgil Moore, (R) Kentucky, indicated the only authorization for the unauthorized land give away in his state was a Presidential Executive Order. There are currently 47 Biosphere Reserves and 26 World Heritage Sites within the United States, giving foreign entities control over land owned by the Federal Government and private citizens. The only authority for this control and transfer of private and public land is executive order.
United States Representative Helen Chenoweth, (R) Idaho, testified before the House Committee on Resources on June 10, 1997 where she stated, "over 51 million acres in the United States have been designated by the United Nations as either World Heritage Sites or Biosphere Reserves." These "approximate an area the size of Colorado, our 8th largest state.
"Also disturbing is that designation of Biosphere Reserves rarely involves consulting the public and local governments. In fact, United Nations Educational, Scientific (UNESCO) policy apparently discourages an open nomination process for Biosphere Reserves. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention state: 'In all cases, as to maintain the objectivity of the process, State (national) parties should refrain from giving undue publicity to the fact that a property has been nominated (for Biosphere Reserve designation) pending the final decision.' "
Tim Wirth, Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, said the Biological Diversity Treaty has the "top priority among all treaties" and agreements awaiting approval. Vice-President Al Gore is said to be willing to make almost any deal for its passage. The President, as noted above, is not waiting for approval, he is moving ahead as if ratification were an accomplished fact, using the executive order tactic.
The UN Biodiversity Treaty has a counterpart in the U.S. known as the Wildlands Project (WP). Its goals are similar, if not identical to the UN treaty, and is endorsed by the "Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, The Nature Conservancy, and the Sierra Club", says Henry Lamb who publishes Eco-Logic.. "The Wildlands Project wants to return at least 50 percent of the land area in America to 'core wilderness areas' where human activity is barred." Rewilding America, 12-95. The program would ultimately lead to the forced relocation of multiplied millions of United States citizens. But Reed Noss, WP Director, states that "the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans." ibid.
Maurice Strong, head of the Earth Summit in 1992 made this telling statement. "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
It is important to understand the methods used by the "real power brokers" to insinuate their programs into the national agenda to achieve their objectives. They work by means of "gradualism" to implement their goals. The initial focus has been the endangered species which opens avenues to accomplish their true agenda, the collapse of civilization. In the West, the environmental crises have "almost nothing to do with spotted owls or salmon; it is a planned method to force humans off land that is to become core wilderness areas", according to Lamb. He also notes that the Wildlands Project is primarily the product of the United Nations Environmental Programme and the environmental lobby community.
In an ominously prophetic declaration, Daniel Sitarz, editor of the UN-approved version of Agenda 21 says, "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE A PROFOUND REORIENTATION OF ALL HUMAN SOCIETY, UNLIKE ANYTHING THE WORLD HAS EVER EXPERIENCED-- a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals, and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. There are specific actions which are intended to be undertaken by every person on Earth."
To understand the full intent of this statement, it must be realized that beneath the seemingly benign words and ambiguous phrases lies a power that only awaits the opportunity to unleash its fury and horror upon unsuspecting humanity. We have had glimpses of the strategy to be used in far-off Rowanda and Zaire, but that scenario is to engulf the entire world. How else could the world's population be reduced by 3 billion? In statements aimed at the public they talk of human rights, etc., yet with their peers they are more real in their discussions. Jacques Cousteau indicated that, "In order to stabilize the world population we must eliminate 350,000 per day." Prince Phillip says "If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
Clearly, the "forces of change" at work in America and the world have a plan that is designed for all of mankind. A "profound reorientation of ALL human society" will precipitate a direct confrontation to every true conviction which God has instilled in mankind. Those who cannot compromise conscience to accommodate this "major shift" will face consequences; it will doubtless be a "time of trouble" for all who maintain integrity.
Throughout history, as humanity has been terrorized by tyrants, the wilderness has offered a place of security. During the Dark Ages when persecution pursued those who were true to conscience, the mountains offered protection from the (then) new world order. Today that option is designed to be eliminated. Virgil Moore, the Kentucky Legislator, said that no one will be allowed to go into that area (Biosphere Reserves) except scientists. But the Scriptures says, "the Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nought, He makes the plans of the people of no effect." In contrast with UNESCO, God has declared, "I WILL make a way in the wilderness," for the protection of My people. Ps 33:10, Is. 43:19.
Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of
material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.
This site is in the public domain.