PDA

View Full Version : So now we are giving control of US waters to the UN?!!!



fishdogs
11-22-2010, 01:43 PM
BREAKING NEWS: US House puts oceans, coasts under UN: Senate vote will seal the deal (No, our fishing/hunting rights are not being threatened...just taxed to "redistribute" resources to poorer countries!)

The story is long, but well worth reading. You should be shocked into taking action by calling your senators. Forward this to your friends. Even non-coastal states should weigh in as they are certainly affected. READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE AT http://www.boogai.net/top-story/breaking-us-house-puts-oceans-coasts-under-un-senate-vote-will-seal-the-deal/

This is only a senate vote away from becoming LAW!
If you prefer the actual bill, just Google "HR 3534 vote"

Below are some excerpts from the article:

All air space above the oceans, what operates in, through, on or is derived from underneath the water, will be subject to taxes as a world resource to the United Nations – Agenda 21. These areas will no longer be owned and managed solely by the United States, as they are newly defined as a global revenue, “social justice” source per the Law of the Sea Treaty.

The Consolidated Land, Energy, Aquatic Restoration Act of 2009 (aka: CLEAR Act, HR 3534) gives away ownership of America’s oceans to the United Nations, and sectors America into nine geographic areas. This bill possesses a cap and trade/climate change component as well.

America will be forced to become a member of the UN Law of the Sea Treaty (aka: LOST), circumventing the normal two-thirds U.S. Senate vote necessary for ratification of any treaty.

The Law of the Sea Treaty calls for technology transfers and wealth transfers from developed to undeveloped nations, and requires parties to the treaty to adopt regulations and laws to control pollution of the marine environment – all under the authority of the United Nations.

Previously, there was no money for National Marine Fisheries Service to implement its mandates and to update its fisheries data collection system. But now with the “international flavor,” $900 million a year will be dedicated to a “global” approach to our land, oceans, coastal areas and Great Lakes.

…current management of our oceans within the United States will be superseded by the National Ocean Council, comprised of some of the most radical environmentalists in our Administration, co-chaired by Nancy Sutley, White House Council on Environmental Quality and Dr. John P. Holdren, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

All air space above the oceans, what operates in, through, on or is derived from underneath the water, will be subject to taxes as a world resource to the United Nations – Agenda 21. These areas will no longer be owned and managed solely by the United States, as they are newly defined as a global revenue, “social justice” source per the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Buzz
11-22-2010, 02:03 PM
That's some serious right wing paranoid stuff there.

troy schwab
11-22-2010, 02:17 PM
Granted this has been going on for some time....... but BUZZ, I wouldnt discount it entirely.... read the bill. Its pretty messed up.

fishdogs
11-22-2010, 05:53 PM
That's some serious right wing paranoid stuff there.

How is it paranoid if it is in the bill? And how is it paranoid when it's already passed the house and waiting on a senate vote? and how is it paranoid that the president signed an executive order in July giving control of the Great Lakes to the federal government...so the federal government can "share" with the UN?

fishdogs
11-22-2010, 05:59 PM
Try this article if you prefer one with less bias
http://www.infowars.com/us-house-puts-oceans-coasts-under-un-senate-vote-will-seal-the-deal/

luvmylabs23139
11-22-2010, 07:37 PM
Why would anyone in the US want UN control of anything? The UN should be thrown out of the US and the US should get the heck out of that crazy place!

Julie R.
11-22-2010, 08:05 PM
I worked at the U.S. State Dept. right out of college, and I was a U.S. delegate to the U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea when the final version of the treaty was negotiated and adopted in the early 1980s. The very one the U.S. rightfully refused to be a party to. Let me tell you, there are literally thousands of U.N. bureaucrats who've spent decades on this boondoggle, creating another uber-global agency full of plum jobs in plum spots for the many good folks who wear the title diplomat but would do anything to escape the squalor and ever-multiplying masses of their own countries south of the equator.

The UN LOS is nothing but a massive global wealth transfer of U.S. money, technology, intellectual property rights and more. It's the biggest giveaway since the Panama Canal. I've already written to my congressional delegation and urge everyone to do the same. Why am I not surprised all the global pimps in this administration are pushing for it?

One of the treaty provisions sets up a tribunal (I believe Jamaica was the chosen nation) to oversee all deep sea mining. For any company or country to apply, it must have two projects ready to rock n roll--one for itself and a second one, before the application can get approved. Then the U.N. tribunal will pick the one the filthy capitalist country putting up the money, technology and talent will run, while the other will be graned to some deserving, intelligently-run nation like Haiti or Uganda. (Hell, Uganda wants a space program, why not deep sea mining?) There's more, it's been awhile but it's an outrageous, steaming crock of jenkem for any developed country, not just the U.S. Most of the OK stuff the LOS codified was already accepted international law, not something that needed a bureaucracy of tens of thousands more diplomats from south of the equator. All of Africa's a party to it, and look at how piracy has expanded exponentially. Just another example of the U.N. at work.

Gerry Clinchy
11-22-2010, 08:06 PM
Are No Korea and China agreeing to do this, too?

david gibson
11-22-2010, 08:53 PM
How is it paranoid if it is in the bill? And how is it paranoid when it's already passed the house and waiting on a senate vote? and how is it paranoid that the president signed an executive order in July giving control of the Great Lakes to the federal government...so the federal government can "share" with the UN?

fishdog - you have to understand that buzz is a liberal. liberals think that everyone should just sit around and sing kumbaya together and share everything. its all about spreading wealth and apologizing for our successes and excesses.

although i love the song and the concept as a dream, liberals truly think john lennons "Imagine" is attainable in reality on a worldwide scale.

they are incapable of understanding that if we let out guard down and love everybody that states like China and N Korea and Iran and Venezuela and Russia will punch us right in the face. they have no ability to understand how grave things will be if we let them attain world power status. they truly believe we can and should just all get along.

now think back 2 yrs ago during The Half Muslim Apologist's campaign - he just thought all we had to do was sit down with the likes of Iran and terrorists and talk - remember?

and how far has that gotten us?

so to oppose these types of utopian ideas means you are a paranoid right wing fanatic.

Buzz
11-22-2010, 10:04 PM
Try this article if you prefer one with less bias
http://www.infowars.com/us-house-puts-oceans-coasts-under-un-senate-vote-will-seal-the-deal/

Same article, same authors, different website.

Buzz
11-22-2010, 10:11 PM
so to oppose these types of utopian ideas means you are a paranoid right wing fanatic.


Maybe I don't believe everything I read on the internets.

Anyone want to show me where in the law that it:

-gives away ownership of America’s oceans to the United Nations

-America will be forced to become a member of the UN Law of the Sea Treaty (aka: LOST), circumventing the normal two-thirds U.S. Senate vote necessary for ratification of any treaty.

-All air space above the oceans, what operates in, through, on or is derived from underneath the water, will be subject to taxes as a world resource to the United Nations – Agenda 21. These areas will no longer be owned and managed solely by the United States, as they are newly defined as a global revenue, “social justice” source per the Law of the Sea Treaty.

-This is the globalist bill designed to give away our land, oceans, adjacent land masses and Great Lakes to an international body, and makes us pay $900 million per year until 2040.


I searched the law. Can't find a mention of the UN, UNLOS, the great lakes, or anything else.

I call BS.

Eric Johnson
11-22-2010, 10:28 PM
Where in HR 3534 does this "gives away ownership of America’s oceans to the United Nations, and sectors America into nine geographic areas..."? I looked for something as simple as "9" or "nine". That's not there.

Where is there any reference to the Law of the Sea Treaty or even the word treaty? From what I can see, the Law of the Sea isn't referenced and the word "treaty" is merely used in a definition of a classification of Indian tribes.

I've not read HR 3534 for details but appears to re-organize certain Dept of Interior components. Here's the summary of the bill:

"To provide greater efficiencies, transparency, returns, and accountability in the administration of Federal mineral and energy resources by consolidating administration of various Federal energy minerals management and leasing programs into one entity to be known as the Office of Federal Energy and Minerals Leasing of the Department of the Interior, and for other purposes."

Now, the practical side of the issue is that the bill must be passed before the end of December or it's dead. While it has passed the House, it hasn't even been assigned to a Senate committee yet. What is particularly telling is that the bill has but one sponsor and he's not in the Senate. IOW, there's no one to move this along even if there were more time or there weren't other weighty pieces of legislation.

Eric

david gibson
11-22-2010, 10:31 PM
Maybe I don't believe everything I read on the internets.

Anyone want to show me where in the law that it:

-gives away ownership of America’s oceans to the United Nations

-America will be forced to become a member of the UN Law of the Sea Treaty (aka: LOST), circumventing the normal two-thirds U.S. Senate vote necessary for ratification of any treaty.

-All air space above the oceans, what operates in, through, on or is derived from underneath the water, will be subject to taxes as a world resource to the United Nations – Agenda 21. These areas will no longer be owned and managed solely by the United States, as they are newly defined as a global revenue, “social justice” source per the Law of the Sea Treaty.

-This is the globalist bill designed to give away our land, oceans, adjacent land masses and Great Lakes to an international body, and makes us pay $900 million per year until 2040.


I searched the law. Can't find a mention of the UN, UNLOS, the great lakes, or anything else.

I call BS.

i didnt read anything,i just explained to a reader why you libs scream and point - "right wing paranoia!!" all the time.

but its the camel's nose under the tent knocking over the first domino. give them an inch and they take a mile. can you blame people when they take any move by the left and exagerrate its consequences?

lets roll the clock back. all this worry and concern about hurting someones feelings has caused our govt. to grope and search 5 yr old kids the same as a 19 yr old exchange student from Yemen. so to avoid offending a male muslim smack in the middle of the terror profile description we find it acceptable to traumatize a 5 yr old kid with a groping strip search.

liberalism brought us to this point, plain and simple.

and liberalism WILL NOT get us out of it.

i rest my case.

Buzz
11-22-2010, 10:41 PM
Where in HR 3534 does this "gives away ownership of America’s oceans to the United Nations, and sectors America into nine geographic areas..."? I looked for something as simple as "9" or "nine". That's not there.

Where is there any reference to the Law of the Sea Treaty or even the word treaty? From what I can see, the Law of the Sea isn't referenced and the word "treaty" is merely used in a definition of a classification of Indian tribes.

I've not read HR 3534 for details but appears to re-organize certain Dept of Interior components. Here's the summary of the bill:

"To provide greater efficiencies, transparency, returns, and accountability in the administration of Federal mineral and energy resources by consolidating administration of various Federal energy minerals management and leasing programs into one entity to be known as the Office of Federal Energy and Minerals Leasing of the Department of the Interior, and for other purposes."

Now, the practical side of the issue is that the bill must be passed before the end of December or it's dead. While it has passed the House, it hasn't even been assigned to a Senate committee yet. What is particularly telling is that the bill has but one sponsor and he's not in the Senate. IOW, there's no one to move this along even if there were more time or there weren't other weighty pieces of legislation.

Eric

Law of the Sea is mentioned in this executive order signed by Obama. It's not in the law.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-18169.pdf


Sec. 2. Policy.

(a) To achieve an America whose stewardship ensures that
the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are healthy and resilient, safe
and productive, and understood and treasured so as to promote the wellbeing,
prosperity, and security of present and future generations, it is the
policy of the United States to:
(i) protect, maintain, and restore the health and biological diversity of
ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources;
(ii) improve the resiliency of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems,
communities, and economies;
(iii) bolster the conservation and sustainable uses of land in ways that
will improve the health of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems;
(iv) use the best available science and knowledge to inform decisions
affecting the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes, and enhance humanity’s
capacity to understand, respond, and adapt to a changing global
environment;
(v) support sustainable, safe, secure, and productive access to, and uses
of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes;
(vi) respect and preserve our Nation’s maritime heritage, including our
social, cultural, recreational, and historical values;
(vii) exercise rights and jurisdiction and perform duties in accordance
with applicable international law, including respect for and preservation
of navigational rights and freedoms, which are essential for the global
economy and international peace and security;
(viii) increase scientific understanding of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
ecosystems as part of the global interconnected systems of air, land, ice,
and water, including their relationships to humans and their activities;
(ix) improve our understanding and awareness of changing environmental
conditions, trends, and their causes, and of human activities taking place
in ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes waters; and
(x) foster a public understanding of the value of the ocean, our coasts,
and the Great Lakes to build a foundation for improved stewardship.

(b) The United States shall promote this policy by:
(i) ensuring a comprehensive and collaborative framework for the stewardship
of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes that facilitates cohesive
actions across the Federal Government, as well as participation of State,
tribal, and local authorities, regional governance structures, nongovernmental
organizations, the public, and the private sector;
(ii) cooperating and exercising leadership at the international level;
(iii) pursuing the United States’ accession to the Law of the Sea Convention;
and
(iv) supporting ocean stewardship in a fiscally responsible manner.


I don't see how perusing accession constitutes an "end run" around the normal approval in the Senate by a 2/3 vote.

You can read about the history of UNCLOS here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea


I have not been able to find any discussion of this in any "mainstream news resource." Not even FOX.

Buzz
11-22-2010, 10:52 PM
lets roll the clock back. all this worry and concern about hurting someones feelings has caused our govt. to grope and search 5 yr old kids the same as a 19 yr old exchange student from Yemen. so to avoid offending a male muslim smack in the middle of the terror profile description we find it acceptable to traumatize a 5 yr old kid with a groping strip search.

liberalism brought us to this point, plain and simple.

and liberalism WILL NOT get us out of it.

i rest my case.

Liberalism brought us to this point. Are you serious? It's been liberals who have been screaming for years about the government taking away rights in the name of "national security and safety." You're unbelievable.

david gibson
11-22-2010, 11:20 PM
Liberalism brought us to this point. Are you serious? It's been liberals who have been screaming for years about the government taking away rights in the name of "national security and safety." You're unbelievable.

are you serious? yes, govt needs to take away the rights of those that fit the profile of our enemy! so it is conservatives that decided we cant profile air passengers?????

see what i mean about liberals?? to them even people that fit the profile of those that want to or have killed fellow americans in the name of the peaceful religion of Islam deserve the same scrutiny as a 5 yr old born in Shiner, Texas. so using the same rules we have now, how would WWII have turned out? you libs give too many rights to too many people, so therefore:

we have 5 yr old kids getting searched the same as 19 yo foreign exchange students from yemen because we dont want to offend anyone.


now please - address the above statement as true or false. if false, please tell me what is going on with TSA today.

you will literally defend obama even if he spat on a nun, so you have zero credibility but try anyway! ;-)

IMAGINE regards.....

JDogger
11-22-2010, 11:23 PM
Liberalism brought us to this point. Are you serious? It's been liberals who have been screaming for years about the government taking away rights in the name of "national security and safety." You're unbelievable.

If these threads cause the loss of gray matter, why do you keep on reading them?
When you quote him, we have to see them again. At least pretend that you have him on 'ignore'....please.

JD

depittydawg
11-23-2010, 12:15 AM
are you serious? yes, govt needs to take away the rights of those that fit the profile of our enemy! so it is conservatives that decided we cant profile air passengers?????

see what i mean about liberals?? to them even people that fit the profile of those that want to or have killed fellow americans in the name of the peaceful religion of Islam deserve the same scrutiny as a 5 yr old born in Shiner, Texas. so using the same rules we have now, how would WWII have turned out? you libs give too many rights to too many people, so therefore:

we have 5 yr old kids getting searched the same as 19 yo foreign exchange students from yemen because we dont want to offend anyone.

N
now please - address the above statement as true or false. if false, please tell me what is going on with TSA today.

you will literally defend obama even if he spat on a nun, so you have zero credibility but try anyway! ;-)

IMAGINE regards.....
None of us 'defend' Obama as you say. We often criticize him for his policies. But you, and many on this site, attempt to demonize everything about the man. You don't acknowledge what he HAS accomplished. And you go so far as to criticize him vehemently for implementing and / or sticking to the policies of his predecessor, in whom you fail to acknowledged for the same failures.
There is a word worth mentioning. Ideologue. From dictionary.com

An ideologue may be defined as a mad intellectual. He is not interested in ideas, but—almost the exact contrary—in one idea. When he erects this idea into a system and forces the system to give birth to a way of life, confusion often results, usually to his great surprise. Two examples are Robespierre and Lenin. The intellectual is occasionally blamed for the work of the ideologue, which is like condemning the psychiatrist because he and the patient are both involved in the same thing, mental illness. The ideologue is often brilliant. Consequently some of us distrust brilliance when we should distrust the ideologue.... The ideologue is often more persuasive than the intellectual because he has a simpler line of goods to sell and never questions its value. Sometimes he achieves great success by attacking the real intellectual

depittydawg
11-23-2010, 12:17 AM
If these threads cause the loss of gray matter, why do you keep on reading them?
When you quote him, we have to see them again. At least pretend that you have him on 'ignore'....please.

JD

Well, it's fun. Besides, we all have one thing in common here. We care enough to have an opinion.

Hew
11-23-2010, 04:36 AM
Liberalism brought us to this point. Are you serious? It's been liberals who have been screaming for years about the government taking away rights in the name of "national security and safety." You're unbelievable.
No, more accurately, it was liberals who screamED for seven years about the govt. "taking away rights" when they thought it was a convenient point to oppose Bush. Now that Obama is President, with the Patriot Act left unchanged and the new administration fighting tooth and nail in court defending the Bush national security agenda, the liberals (including all the liberals, progressives, socialists or whatever you're calling yourselves nowadays on this message board) have largely remained as quiet as church mice about our rights. So spare us your unbelievable notions of liberal high-mindedness about our civil rights because it's all just cheap political rhetoric.

dnf777
11-23-2010, 07:51 AM
No, more accurately, it was liberals who screamED for seven years about the govt. "taking away rights" when they thought it was a convenient point to oppose Bush. Now that Obama is President, with the Patriot Act left unchanged and the new administration fighting tooth and nail in court defending the Bush national security agenda, the liberals (including all the liberals, progressives, socialists or whatever you're calling yourselves nowadays on this message board) have largely remained as quiet as church mice about our rights. So spare us your unbelievable notions of liberal high-mindedness about our civil rights because it's all just cheap political rhetoric.


I call BS on that!

I have spoken out against his continuation of Bush policies since he started doing it! In case you haven't noticed, his base is eroding and the independent voters have LEFT the building, largely because of things like republican-style deficit spending, and continuation of unconstitutional justice dept practices.

Sorry there's no neon signs spelling it out for you, but just listen to the voters, and you'll see they're pissed. And not just TPers.

Hew
11-23-2010, 09:17 AM
I call BS on that!

I have spoken out against his continuation of Bush policies since he started doing it! In case you haven't noticed, his base is eroding and the independent voters have LEFT the building, largely because of things like republican-style deficit spending, and continuation of unconstitutional justice dept practices.

Sorry there's no neon signs spelling it out for you, but just listen to the voters, and you'll see they're pissed. And not just TPers.
I call BS to your BS. For starters, my post was directed at liberals. You claim you're an independent, middle-of-the-road guy, remember? So you either have a guilty conscience or a more-than-healthy ego to think what I wrote applied to you.

In retrospect, however, deppitydog is owed an apology, as he routinely bashes all sides as an equal-opportunity sh!t disturber. Also, if a gun is put to his head, Cotts will also disagree with Obama for the same reasons he disagreed with Bush (but I don't see him starting 3 threads a day like he used to when the discussion was about Bush). As for the rest of ya....
"Obama, Obama, he's our man, if he can't do it no one can!"

dnf777
11-23-2010, 09:32 AM
I call BS to your BS. For starters, my post was directed at liberals. You claim you're an independent, middle-of-the-road guy, remember? So you either have a guilty conscience or a more-than-healthy ego to think what I wrote applied to you.

In retrospect, however, deppitydog is owed an apology, as he routinely bashes all sides as an equal-opportunity sh!t disturber. Also, if a gun is put to his head, Cotts will also disagree with Obama for the same reasons he disagreed with Bush (but I don't see him starting 3 threads a day like he used to when the discussion was about Bush). As for the rest of ya....
"Obama, Obama, he's our man, if he can't do it no one can!"

All right...got your point.
But you did imply that liberals are silent on Obama's privacy invasions, which is not the case. That's what I called BS on. I wasn't responding as if it were a personal shot.

Eric Johnson
11-23-2010, 09:36 AM
I guess that one good BS deserves another....

Buzz
11-23-2010, 09:49 AM
I guess that one good BS deserves another....


I'm still trying to figure out if what the OP posted is BS or not. I think it is, but I could be convinced otherwise if someone would point to the language in the bill that should concern me.

Eric Johnson
11-23-2010, 10:54 AM
The OP quoted a story or opinion piece taken from a website. No sense is using primary sources when they don't prove the point.

Eric

YardleyLabs
11-23-2010, 03:45 PM
I'm still trying to figure out if what the OP posted is BS or not. I think it is, but I could be convinced otherwise if someone would point to the language in the bill that should concern me.
Eris has this one pegged. The bill does not even mention most of the things the article says are in it -- on page 14 or anywhere else.

BonMallari
11-23-2010, 04:28 PM
I smell a troll...I think the OP also posted on the main forum about a 175 lb wolf sighting in Boise

Buzz
11-23-2010, 04:31 PM
Eris has this one pegged. The bill does not even mention most of the things the article says are in it -- on page 14 or anywhere else.


I knew that. I was challenging the OP or anyone else to prove to me that I should worry about the beloved great lakes that I grew up on and around. Cricketts so far. Honestly I'm not beyond being concerned if I can see proof, but that article ain't it.

I did learn a thing or two looking into it, so all isn't lost.