“How many more have to die before you recommend military action?” Mr. McCain asked Mr. Panetta on Thursday, noting that an estimated 60,000 Syrians had been killed in the fighting.The revelation showed the deep rift within the Obama administration over whether or not to aid the rebel forces against the Assad regime, when violence broke out in Syria last summer.
And did the Pentagon, Mr. McCain continued, support the recommendation by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Petraeus “that we provide weapons to the resistance in Syria? Did you support that?”
“We did,” Mr. Panetta said.
“You did support that,” Mr. McCain said.
“We did,” General Dempsey added.
"I'm not ruling it out. But I'm also not ruling it in," Obama told NBC News in an interview Tuesday evening.Senator Rand Paul (R –KY) asked Hillary Clinton during her testimony about the Benghazi attack if she was aware about U.S. involvement in the procuring of weapons that were transferred, bought or sold to Turkey out of Libya.
"It's fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could," Obama told ABC.
Gadhafi's forces had been held in abeyance by military strikes, the president said, and the administration was trying to gauge whether the Libyan leader's forces could be "sufficiently degraded" to the point where it was unnecessary to arm the rebels.
"But we're not taking anything off the table at this point," Obama said. "Our primary military goal is to protect civilian populations and to set up the no-fly zone. Our primary strategic goal is for Gadhafi to step down so that the Libyan people have an opportunity to live a decent life."
Lawmakers at the time cautioned that arming Libyan rebels could bring about other problems, however, citing al Qaeda factions had infiltrated Libyan opposition forces.:
"There are al Qaeda elements. But we need to pour it on, we need to stay behind the opposition forces, give them the military support just like we're doing now," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday night on CNN. "But when this is over and Gadhafi leaves, it would be a huge mistake not to help the Libyan people ... And if there are al Qaeda elements in that country, we will help the Libyan people take care of them."
Obama said in an interview with CBS that all of the Libyan dissidents with whom U.S. officials have met have been "fully vetted," but that that doesn't mean there might not be some elements within the faction opposed to U.S. interests.
CLINTON: To Turkey? I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.Senator Paul told reporters on a teleconference call on Thursday that he believes the CIA run annex that was attacked in Benghazi back in September was complicit in “the selling of weapons and that the U.S. was involved in some way with the collecting or distributing [of weapons] in Turkey.”
PAUL: It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?
CLINTON: Well, Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex and I will see what information is available.
PAUL: You’re saying you don’t know.
CLINTON: I do not know. I don’t have any information on that.
And it’s going to the rebels and I think that’s wrong that when it’s official stated policy of President Obama’s government that we are not selling arms or giving arms. Technically, the Turks are doing it, but are we complicit with that? I think if they were honest, they are being complicit with it and it may have had something to do with the attack. That’s why I think we were distracted by this movie. Now I think we’re being distracted by whether it’s movie or terrorism, when the real question we should be asking is did it have anything to do with the transmitting of arms out of Libya into Turkish hands.Senator Paul’s initial questioning about the issue was scoffed at by left wing critics. Paul responded to them saying:
I think there were some articles in the New York Times as well as the London Times, and so I’m a little bit appalled when the left comes forward and says this is a crazy conspiracy theory, because it’s been reported in mainstream newspapers.Senator Paul is not the first lawmaker to talk about the issue. In late January, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R – OH) discussed it with radio host Laura Ingraham.
In fact, not only has it been reported that the ship with arms had left from Libya, it was a Libyan ship, a week before the ambassador was killed. I read about this after the attack. I know where the ship was and, in fact, the captain they interviewed, he’s detailed what arms were on there.
He’s also detailed that there was a fight among some of the rebels on who was getting which arms. But it also listed grenade launchers as well as other significant weaponry. And I fully do think the annex there was involved somehow with this.
If you look at the answer from Clinton, her response was as if she never heard of the question. She’s not even keeping up with current event news if she’s never even heard of the question, but I still think the U.S. is involved in someway with the selling of weapons.
** FILE ** Under heavy guard: The Washington Navy Yard was closed ... more >
Facebook
** FILE ** Under heavy guard: The Washington Navy Yard was closed ... more >
“From
time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become
too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite
group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no
one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the
capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of
government, must bear the burden.” 
America belongs to Americans not the United Nations.
You
can not change the future if you do not know the past. Thank you to
all of the brave people who spent years to research and find the truth.
We recommend showing this documentary at any gathering for a great
introduction to Agenda 21. Thank you, Representative Curtis Bower, for
exposing the deliberate destruction of America in agendadocumentary.com
U.S. NATIONAL PARKS TO BE OFF LIMITS TO AMERICANS
By Patricia NeillAt Yellowstone National Park, United Nations' delegates who surveyed the area last year, called for a "buffer zone" around the Park. So, the Park Service is choking off the local economy by refusing to maintain certain highways and by buying up any property available. Of course, there will be plenty available as more and more owners are denied the use of their own private property which causes businesses to shut down and the economy to show.
Inside Yellowstone, the 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 plan. Once established, no human activity will be permitted in the area. This represents fulfillment of plans outlined in the United Nation's Biodiversity Treaty - which, though still unratified by the U.S. Senate, is being implemented by the Clinton Administration.
The way it is done is illustrated by what happened to the owners of the Crown Butte New World gold mine, which is OUTSIDE Yellowstone National Park. After being threatened with non-stop litigation that could have lasted decades, the mining company finally agreed to a deal which leaves at least $650 million of known gold reserves in the ground. In exchange, the mining company was given the right to explore other federal lines for mining purposes and paid $65 million dollars ($21 million of which must be used for "environmental cleanup."
Another recent example was Clinton's declaration of Kaiwoporwits non-polluting coal reserves in Utah a "National Monument" by executive order. This "monument" will cost the Utah Public School system alone $60 BILLION in lost education fees. It will cost the future economy of Utah over a TRILLION dollars. The "monument" consists of 1.5 million acres of Utah land which the people of Utah not only did not KNOW was about to be snatched by Clinton as a key part of a future United Nations "biodiversity" area, but were vehemently opposed to.
Other United Nations designations as "biodiversity" areas include the following National Park Service lands:
Biosphere Reserves:
World Heritage Sites
- Big Bend National Park, Tx. (801,163 acres)
- Big Thicket National Preserve, TX (85,750 acres)
- Congaree Swamp National Monument (SC (22,200 acres)
- Death Valley National Monument, CA (2,067,628)
- Denali National Park and Preserve, AK (6,500,000 acres)
- Everglades National Park and
- Fort Jefferson National Monument, Fl. (1, 571,199 acres)
- Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserver, AK (7,523,888 acres)
- Glacier National Park, Mt (1,013,572 acres)
- Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, AK (3,283,168 acres)
- Great Smoky Mountains National Park, TN/NC (520,269)
- Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, HI (229,177 acres)
- Isle Royale National Park, MI (571,790 acres)
- Joshua Tree National Monument, CA (559,954 acres)
- Kings Canyon National Park, CA (461,901 acres)
- Mammoth Cave National Park, KY (52,708 acres)
- Noatak National Preserve, AK (6,574,481 acres)
- Olympic National Park, WA (922,651 acres)
- Organ Pipe National Monument, AZ (330,689 acres)
- Redwood National Park, CA (110,232 acres)
- Rocky Mountain National Park (265,727 acres)
- Sequoia National Park, CA (402,482 acres)
- Virgin Islands National Park, VI (14,689 acres)
- Yellowstone National Park, WY (2,219,791 acres)
- Carlsbad Caverns National Park, NM (46,766 acres)
- Grand Canyon National Park, AZ (1,217,158 acres)
- Mesa Verde National Park, CO (52,122 acres)
- Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve and Preserve, AK (13,188,325 acres)
- Yosemite National Park, CA. (761,236 acres)
When our Founding Fathers sparked the American Revolution and signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, they sought self-government for the American colonies and an escape from the dominance of England.1972 Treaty Grants the United Nations Control Over American Historical Landmarksby Melissa Wiedbrauk
The Founding Fathers would be shocked to learn that some of their successors have given control of key American sovereign territory to other nations.
Through an international treaty, the United States is allowing the United Nations and its member countries access to and control of American soil - in particular, our historic buildings and treasured wilderness.
In 1972, our government signed the United Nations' World Heritage Treaty, a treaty that creates "World Heritage Sites" and Biosphere Reserves." Selected for their cultural, historical or natural significance, national governments are obligated to protect these landmarks under U.N. mandate.1 Since 1972, 68 percent of all U.S. national parks, monuments and preserves have been designated as World Heritage Sites.2
Twenty important symbols of national pride, along with 51 million acres of our wilderness, are World Heritage Sites or Biosphere Reserves now falling under the control of the U.N. This includes the Statue of Liberty, Thomas Jefferson's home at Monticello, the Washington Monument, the Brooklyn Bridge, Yellowstone National Park, Yosemite, the Florida Everglades and the Grand Canyon - to name just a few.
Most ironic of all is the listing of Philadelphia's Independence Hall. The birthplace of our Republic is now an official World Heritage Site. The very place where our Founding Fathers signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - the documents that set America apart from other nations and created the world's longest-standing democracy - is no longer fully under the control of our government and the American people.
Protection of our treasured places is a sound undertaking, but doing so by ceding control of our sovereign territory to a foreign power is wrong and threatens our rights and freedoms.
In 1995, Crown Butte Mines in the New World Mining District in Montana was forced to abandon a mine development project after the U.N. listed Yellowstone National Park as a "World Heritage Site in Danger."3 Crown Butte proposed to mine a medium-size underground operation on private property three miles from the boundary of Yellowstone. The project would have employed 280 people and generated $230 million in revenue.4
This mining project was not unique. The area had been mined for 150 years before Yellowstone National Park was established. Crown Butte had worked along with the U.S. Forest Service to ensure that all of the necessary precautions were being taken to ensure that the project would be environmentally responsible. Crown Butte had won an award for excellence in 1992 and was considered to be a "showcase operation."5
None of these factors mattered to the U.N.'s World Heritage Committee. Citing the project as a potential threat, the U.N. exerted its authority to force the abandonment of the project. It did not matter to the U.N. that this violated Crown Butte's exercise of its private property rights under the U.S. Constitution. Nor did the U.N. care that its action also went against U.S. federal law prohibiting the inclusion of non-federal property within a U.S. World Heritage Site without the consent of the property owner.6
Although it has not happened yet, under the World Heritage Treaty the U.N. has the legal right to someday restrict us, as American citizens, from visiting our national treasures.
Many environmentalists believe that the mere presence of humans disturbs the environment. As such, it is not farfetched to wonder when the politically-correct U.N. will ban the American public from Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, the Florida Everglades and other precious natural wonders now visited annually by millions of tourists.
Ironically, banning generations of young people from visiting our natural wonders would undermine the public's appreciation for the spectacular gifts of nature, and undercut support for environmental protection.
Unfortunately, the World Heritage Treaty is just one of a series of government actions that is stripping away the gift of freedom we received from our Founding Fathers.
To stop this erosion of sovereign rights, federal legislation has been introduced to restore the rights of Americans against this threat to freedom. The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act seeks to preserve the sovereignty of the United States over public lands and preserve the private property rights of private citizens. It would require congressional oversight of U.N. land designations within the U.S.7
We should not turn our backs on the Founding Fathers by surrendering the precious gift of sovereignty. We should treasure and protect it.
Footnotes:1 "World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves Fact Sheet," United States House or Representatives Committee on Resources.
2 "American Land Should Be Controlled By Americans," press release, The National Center for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C., February 24, 1999, available on the Internet at http://www.nationalcenter.org/PRLandSov299.html.
3 Kathleen Benedetto, National Wilderness Institute, testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, D.C., May 26, 1999.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 "American Land Should Be Controlled By Americans."
Melissa Wiedbrauk is a research associate with The National Center for Public Policy Research, a Washington, D.C. think tank.END
National parks off-limits
U.N.-designated panel calls for increased 'buffer zones'
By Jon E. Dougherty
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com | July 15, 1999
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 underway -- 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.
SOURCE: National parks off-limits
END
San Antonio, Texas Mayor Julián Castro is currently negotiating with the United Nations to designate the Alamo as a UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Site, meaning that a blue UN flag may fly above the historic shrine of liberty once it falls under UN control.We don’t need “collective assistance” to manage our historical sites. And we certainly don’t need the United Nations in control of the Alamo.
UNESCO, a specialized agency within the UN, created the World Heritage Site status out of a 1972 international agreement, which calls for nations to join together to manage historical sites through “collective assistance.”
“San Antonio has the opportunity for its five Spanish Colonial Missions [including the Alamo] to be nominated to be the first UNESCO World Heritage site in the State of Texas and the 22nd World Heritage designation in the United States,” the October 2013 City of San Antonio newsletter reads.
FILE - In this Dec. 6, 2013 file photo, former Secretary of ... more >
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton responds to the crowd after ... more >Facebook
