SOMETIMES THE BEST REALITY IS A SKEWED REALITY : Opinion by Bruce W.

Sometimes the best reality is a skewed reality, or so it appears the proponents of World Heritage Site designation of White Sands National Monument would have us believe. On the evening of August 16th, the Otero County Commissioners voted unanimously to support a resolution not to support World Heritage Site designation of White Sands. The proponents of such a designation of White Sands described the prestige and global status a World Heritage Site would bring to our ‘global neighborhood’. With the exception of Cliff Spencer, the Superintendent of White Sands National Monument, the few voices in favor of the designation were either ignorant or too emotional to raise a strong argument in their favor. Superintendent Spencer gave an eloquent and courageous defense of his advocacy for World Heritage Site designation. He and his staff do a great job in managing White Sands National Monument.

Otero County residents who are in favor of World Heritage Site designation, sadly, advocate their position without facts and resort to stereo-typing the other side. Repeatedly the accusations of conspiracy nuts, propagandists, and John Birchers are used by ‘green’ environmental advocates to describe concerned citizens who have legitimate questions about what such a designation of White Sands would mean to Otero County.
Environmentalists and the non-governmental organizations that advocate the green agenda claim the moral higher ground as a defense of their agenda. Armed with little more than moral relativism and stereo-typing, green advocates create a scenario of environmental doom for ‘the children’. Only they and their spiritual understanding of the true dilemma facing our planet can save the world from environmental disaster brought on by careless disregard for natural resources and corporate rape of the environment. The reality of global environmentalism and the machinery behind this moral agenda is just the opposite.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, (UNESCO), is the umbrella organization under which the World Heritage Site Committee sits. UNESCO and the World Heritage Site Committee enjoy a cozy relationship with non-governmental organizations, (NGOs), who advise both organizations on environmental policy and potential World Heritage Site designations. When pressed for facts on the process of how a site is designated for World Heritage Site status, proponents say the listing is voluntary with local input and support. When presented with the fact that NGOs consult and advise UNESCO and the World Heritage Site Committee, greens immediately resort to stereo-typing such facts as part of the ‘black helicopter crowd’ worn out rhetoric.

One has only to read Tom Barry’s book: ‘The Next Fifty Years: The United Nations and the United States’, to understand the relation NGOs enjoy with the United Nations. Barry’s book is a fluff piece which gives the United Nation’s a glowing review while condemning the United States’ constant hampering and sabotage of U.N. programs.
On page 39 of Barry’s book, he writes, “The Economic and Social Council are authorized by the U.N. Charter to ‘make suitable arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organizations which are concerned with matters with in its competence.” By the early 1990s nearly one thousand NGOs had been grated consultative status at the United Nations. In 1975 the United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (NGLS) was established to foster greater cooperation between U.N. agencies and NGOs. The NGLS plays a key role in organizing NGO participation in the U.N. development conferences.”

Obviously the U.N. is relying on NGOs to report on every square inch of the planet as to what strategy is best for specific areas deemed desirable or vulnerable for U.N. occupation. Barry’s book is so biased against the Unites States that he concludes in his discussion on U.N. principles, on page 153, “Dominating the U.N.’s agenda are the peace and security of the United States, the organization’s most powerful member. Pushed to the side are the developmental and humanitarian needs of the poorer, influential neighbors”. More of the blame it on the U.S. agenda, excusing the U.N.’s ineffectual performance in Darfur or the Sudan, or anywhere else the blue helmeted U.N. peace-keeping troops show up and watch genocide and forced starvation occur. I don’t recall the last time I heard of U.N. peace-keeping troops suffering from starvation.

The blue helmeted U.N. peace-keeping troops haven’t arrived in Otero County, yet. Their green thinking NGOs have already made their presence known to residents of southern New Mexico. The Forest Guardians, one of the environmental NGOs active in the United States, initiated a series of lawsuits in 1995, pursuing an agenda of banning cattle grazing on public lands and logging in the Lincoln National Forest. Their lawsuit was based on destruction of habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl. The Forest Guardians claimed cattle grazing was to be blamed for the destruction of this ‘endangered’ owl’s natural habitat. In RANGE MAGAZINE’S 2004 fall issue, Steve H. Rich presents the truth behind this myth concerning the Mexican Spotted Owl. Rich cites Bent’s “Life History of North American Birds”, in which Bent observed there were no Mexican Spotted Owls in the Sacramento Mountains before 1929. The owls prefer a habitat in deep canyons, inaccessible to cattle. The owl moved into the area as logging began, on a large scale, because of the clearing of underbrush, combined with cattle grazing. The loggers and cattle grazing cleared the forest floor of underbrush and concealment for wood rats. As the wood rat became easier prey, the owls naturally extended their habitat into the Sacramento Mountains.

The result of the Forest Guardians desired goal of banning public grazing and logging in the Lincoln National Forest is the creation of thick, unmanaged undergrowth, an increase in tree density, and the potential for massive and destructive ‘fire storms’. The underbrush and the overgrowth of trees in the forest drain the water from the mountain, creating a dry tinder box that is unmanaged and now, off limits to mechanized fire fighting equipment. Today, the Mexican Spotted Owl’s populations have dropped in the Sacramento Mountains because the overgrowth has again given the wood rat amble concealment. The owls, like any predator, prefer to hunt where they can find prey. Has anyone asked the Forest Guardians how many wood rats and Mexican Spotted Owls are lost every time the forest burns? Another fascinating fact Rich uncovered in his report on junk science and the lawsuits that are filed, using biased and false facts, was that cattle eat endangered fish. The article by Rich in RANGE MAGAZINE is one of the best refutations of junk science and further reveals the agenda of radical environmentalists and the experts who sign-on with them. An interesting fact about the Forest Guardians relationship and influence on the Forest Service is that former Lincoln County District Ranger, Rick Newman, was at one time a member of the Forest Guardians. He revealed this fact in court testimony. Shortly after he was promoted and transferred to Albuquerque. Conspiratorial? Not the least.

The Forest Guardians, and other environmental NGOs, like the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, and the Wild Lands Project are successful because they have money. They are well financed by 501 (c) (3) foundations that collectively have over $220 billion to ‘donate’ to environmental NGOs. Ron Arnold’s excellent book, “UNDUE INFLUENCE”, reveals the power and control these foundations have in determining the future of the West. Arnold provides valuable insight into the workings of the radical environmental agenda in the United States. Arnold describes these foundations as ‘prescriptive, rather than responsive’. Most of these foundations, that are located in the Eastern United States, have a stated agenda of ‘social engineering’, that includes ‘the rural cleansing’ of America. Rural cleansing is the removal of ranchers, farmers, loggers, miners and the communities that depend on these industries for survival. Multi-million dollar non-profit foundations like the W. Alton Foundation, the Pew Foundation, and the Bullitt Foundation are run by the children or grandchildren of American tycoons who passed on their wealth to their heirs. These ‘heirs’, are people who have never worked a day in their lives, yet they initiate lawsuits that close down logging, ranching and put other ‘less sophisticated’ Americans out of work and out of their homes.

If you’re wondering what the term ‘prescriptive, rather than responsive’ means; Arnold explains it as million dollar non-profit foundations, intent on social engineering at the expense of rural America, actually recruit NGOs who can do the job for them. These environmental NGOs, with their wild life photography adorning their websites and coffee table books claim to have a stated mission, but in reality they do the bidding of the self-indulgent emotional cripples residing in mansions on the east coast. Not all the foundations are in the East. The Bullitt Foundation is based in Seattle, Washington. New Mexico is a part-time home to one of the most notorious of these Foundations. The Turner Foundation, created by Ted Turner, donates to the Forest Guardians. According to Arnold, Turner bought the 580,000 Vermejo Park Ranch, in northern New Mexico. Turner grazes bison, cattle and sheep on his ranch, harvests his own timber for sale, and drills for natural gas with in the boundaries of his ranch. Here in Otero County, grazing on public lands is prohibited, harvesting the forest is prohibited, and drilling for natural gas on Otero Mesa is currently in litigious limbo-land. Yet Turner funds the NGOs, who advise the World Heritage Committee. I think I know who those black helicopters belong to, now.

Currently, in San Francisco, Councilman Chris Daly has submitted a resolution to ban flyovers of the city by the Navy’s prestigious Blue Angels during Fleet Week. Daly claims flyovers by the Blue Angels are an environmental noise hazard; emit tons of pollution into the air over San Francisco, and terrorizes traumatized war veterans and pets. Daly has attracted the support and lobbying power of numerous anti-war and environmental groups. The same foundations that fund the Forest Guardians and other NGOs are funding these bizarre and blatantly anti-American groups in San Francisco. Not wanting to be affiliated with ‘anti-Americanism’, the foundations ‘wash’ their money through the Tides Foundation, which is a charity. The Tides Foundation enjoys 501 (c) (3) status as well as 501 (a) (1) status. Tides can make anonymous donations to anonymous anti-war groups with out getting its hands dirty. The April 2004 issue of the Capital Research Center exposes this cozy relationship the foundations have with Tides.

The same foundations, backing this effort to convince the public in San Francisco to back Daly’s resolution, could finance environmental lawsuits to ban flyovers at Holloman AFB and missile testing at White Sands Missile Range, if White Sands National Monument becomes a World Heritage Site. Too close for comfort? Only a fool would deny the possibility.

Otero County citizens have stated in the past that they will take their demands to their elected officials. Good luck. Senator Pete Domenici supported the World Heritage Site Designation. Now he’s unsure, after an interview with Alamogordo Daily News reporter Karl Anderson. Domenici had stated in a live interview on Mike Hayme’s provocative talk show on KRSY that he didn’t know too much about how UNESCO or the World Heritage Site Committee worked. Yet, in 1984, Ronald Reagan praised Domenici for a bill the New Mexico Senator sponsored to reduce the 60% funding of the U.N., by the American taxpayer, to 10%. Domenici cited the fraud and corruption in UNESCO, as his reason for sponsoring the bill.

The story of South Dakota’s Tom Daschel is even more telling of our elected officials conniving in Washington D.C. In December 2001, Daschel snuck in a rider bill on a defense appropriations bill, to grant immunity to the Home Stake mine, located in the Black Hills. Home Stake, owned by Barrick Gold Company of Toronto, was on the federal government’s Super Fund list of cleanups to the tune of $50 million. Where was Tom Daschel when the World Heritage Site Committee raised the status of World Heritage Site Yellowstone National Park to ‘endangered’, when environmentalists demanded Crown Butte Mine, outside the boundaries of Yellowstone, be closed. New World Mine Company had spent $30 million on a three-year Environmental Impact Statement before starting operations at Crown Butte. Environmentalists, geologists, and government officials all agreed the New World Mine EIS was the most comprehensive and detailed and environmentally considerate statement ever submitted. Yet, because of pressure from the U.N., the Clinton administration and Al Gore, the Governor of Montana intervened and offered New World Mine Company an alternative site, away from Yellowstone National Park. Home Stake Mine in South Dakota still has not paid for the clean up of its own mine, thanks to Tom Daschel.

In 2002, Daschel hid another rider on a spending bill that allowed logging in South Dakota’s state and national forests to continue, while he supported bans on harvesting timber in Colorado, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, and California. He explained to Senate Colleagues he wanted to ‘avoid costly, time-consuming lawsuits’ and ‘get the forest thinned and protect private property”. It’s nice to know we have one elected official who is concerned about American’s private property.

We risk allowing more socialized engineering and rural cleansing into Otero County if White Sands is designated a World Heritage Site. We already have the loss of jobs and income due to the ban on public grazing and logging in the forest, not to mention the controversy over natural gas drilling on Otero Mesa. We as citizens have mobilized to fight this designation, and have made a correct and courageous statement, thanks to our Otero County Commissioners. What exactly does World Heritage Site designation mean and what are the possible implications to Otero County?

The World Heritage Site, in this case White Sands National Monument, is considered a ‘core zone’ by the World Heritage Site Committee and UNESCO. The site is recognized by a plague, proclaiming World Heritage Site status. The immediate area surrounding the ‘core zone’ is designated a ‘buffer zone’. The buffer zone doesn’t rate a plaque and anyone in the buffer zone has no say in this spurious designation. In White Sands case; Holloman AFB and White Sand Missile Range are in the buffer zone. The area immediately bordering the buffer zone, and extending as far as the World Heritage Site Committee designates, is the ‘transitional zone’. The transitional zone includes anything that can affect the core zone; like people, industry, water consumption, traffic and expansion. These terms and descriptions are readily available on the World Heritage Site website. Proponents for the World Heritage Site accuse detractors of being ‘John Birchers’. I guess the supporters of the World Heritage Site haven’t done their home work.

Otero County residents have legitimate fears of property right abuses brought on by World Heritage Site designation.

At the 2002 World Heritage Site Shared Legacy, Common Responsibility and Associated Workshops, held in Ferrara, Italy, the following Instruments for Protection and Management of World Heritage Sites was discussed.

On page 154: “In all cases this concerns a restriction of property rights, the authorization of which must be based on solid legal grounds. Protection will take the form of a public service or the control of all activity affecting the site.”

On page 157: “…cultural landscape law must delimit the jurisdiction of state law over cultural landscapes. Simultaneously, the law must carve out a place and a role for customary or traditional law and institutions in the management and protection of cultural landscapes”.

Are you ready to allow our customary laws to be subjugated to ‘globalist modern laws’? The irrational fear that Chinese blue helmeted guards will greet visitors at the White Sands National Monument if site receives World Heritage Site designation is unfounded. Don’t worry about the Chinese at White Sands. Our children and grandchildren will fill those positions. If you’re skeptical about this last scenario, just think about our national sovereignty ‘pooled’ with the United Nations. Still skeptical?

Our Otero County Commissioners did the right thing. I commend them for it. Cliff Spencer is doing an excellent job out at White Sands National Monument. I can’t think of anything the United Nations can do better than Mr. Spencer. I can think of a number of potential assaults on sovereignty, private rights, and litigious nightmares the World Heritage Site Committee and their legions of NGOs and foundations can bring to Otero County. Not here. Not now. Never. Don’t give up the fight to keep the World Heritage Site out of Otero Country. My thanks and gratitude to the people involved in this fight and who have aided me in my research.