Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (101847)	5/13/2001 10:03:24 AM
From: At_The_Ask	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Nice research. I see they even got the Statue of Liberty. This refers to a bill hr801, which passed the house, but not the senate if I read correctly. It explains some of the concerns people have about "de facto" control by the UN. Although the debate on the American Land Sovereignty Protection bill was often couched in terms which included U.N. influence over U.S. parks and monuments, supporters of the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act were primarily concerned that a lack of a congressional role in designating the sites and a lack of congressional oversight of implementation of the act undermines the congressional role under the Constitution to make rules governing land belonging to the United States. As the House Resources Committee web site on the legislation states: "By using these international designations, the Executive Branch is able to guide domestic land use policies without consulting Congress" (2). Supporters express concern that even though there may be no international or U.N. direct control of U.S. sites, federal agency managers may take into account the international rules of the World Heritage program in making land use decisions, or use the designation to undermine local land use decisions, often without the advice or even the knowledge of local authorities or property owners. Many private property rights activists would have a problem with this. The use of tax dollars to remove private property from the market and add it to the governments already entirely too vast holdings. Many of the serfs in feudal England were imprisoned or worse for "trespassing on the Kings lands". Which was basically everything. Preventing the less fortunate from hunting or gathering food to feed their families. "The gold mine issue has been resolved. Congress appropriated funds to compensate the mine owners for not developing it."(I consider Gold bearing National Park lands to be part of the Federal Reserves Gold stocks btw.) After the market crash of 29 and throughout the depression many people were able to eke out a living by panning for gold or timbering on public lands. With the massive increases in National parks and monuments and more and more regulations on national forest and BLM lands I guess all the serfs will have to starve in the next K winter.