Posted on 09/20/2007 5:15:17 AM PDT by foxfield
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)is the biggest giveaway of American sovereignty and resources since Jimmy Carter’s Panama Canal Treaty. It creates a global tax on American companies and turns the riches of the oceans, including oil, gas and minerals, over to the United Nations.
|
The 202-page treaty document was described by the late leftist Senator Alan Cranston as "the most far-reaching and comprehensive system created thus far by the global community." UNCLOS mandates a global tax on corporations which exploit ocean resources, an International Seabed Authority to collect the revenue, and an International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea to govern ocean affairs. It also:
UNCLOS was written by members and supporters of the World Federalist movement, a group dedicated to world government through passage of treaties and expansion of the U.N.
From Eagle forum:
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2007/june07/psrjune07.html
Deep-Six the Law of the Sea
Borrowing the famous words of General Douglas MacArthur that “old soldiers never die, they just fade away,” we can now see that old treaties never die, they can be resurrected years or even decades after taking what we thought was a knockout punch.
President George W. Bush has announced that he is breathing new life into the old United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which President Ronald Reagan rejected in 1982. Bush’s National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley has asked Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden (D-DE) to secure Senate ratification “as early as possible.”
To defuse expected opposition, the Bush Administration has pursued a most unusual lobbying campaign: two or three prominent conservatives at a time are invited to the White House without telling them the purpose of the invitation or who will be present. The conservatives are subjected to aggressive lobbying by Administration heavy hitters: usually the chief counsel for the State Department and the Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy.
The 202-page Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) entered into force in 1994 and has been ratified by 153 countries. The LOST created the International Seabed Authority (ISA), giving it total jurisdiction over all the oceans and everything in them, including the ocean floor with “all” its riches (“solid, liquid or gaseous mineral resources”), along with the power to regulate seven/tenths of the world’s surface.
Headquartered in Jamaica, the ISA has an Assembly, a Council, a bureaucracy and commissions, all drawing tax-free salaries. If the United States ratifies the treaty, we would have the same vote in the ISA as Cuba, an unprecedented surrender of American sovereignty, independence of action, and wealth.
Even worse, the LOST gives the ISA the power to levy international taxes. We are not fooled by the LOST’s attempt to conceal this by labeling the taxes assessments, fees, permits, payments, or contributions.
The real purpose of the taxing power is to compel the United States to pay billions of private-enterprise dollars to the ISA bureaucrats, who can then transfer our wealth to socialist, anti-American nations (euphemistically called “developing countries”) ruled by corrupt dictators. The LOST piously asserts that this is for “the benefit of mankind as a whole.”
The LOST gives the ISA the power to regulate “all” ocean research and exploration and to deny access to strategic ocean minerals, many of which we need for our national defense or industries. The LOST gives the ISA the power to impose production quotas for deep-sea mining and oil production.
The ISA can require us to share our intelligence, technology, and even military information. The Treaty puts restrictions on our intelligence-gathering by our submarines, activities that are essential to our national defense.
The LOST also created the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, headquartered in Hamburg, Germany, with the power of a super supreme court to decide all disputes and enforce its judgments. Of course, there is no guarantee that the United States would have even one judge on this 21-member international court, and it’s reasonable to assume inherent bias against the United States by the anti-American countries whose representatives will make all decisions. There can be no appeal from this Tribunal’s decisions, even though they would affect our sovereignty, national security and economic interests. There is no restriction on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Administration lobbyists claim that the original problems with the LOST have been fixed. That is not believable because the text of the treaty can’t be changed unilaterally. It was after changes were made in 1994 that Reagan’s favorite foreign policy advisor, Jeane Kirkpatrick, joined a news conference to denounce the treaty.
Bush apparently expects conservatives to be mollified by the argument that the Navy supports LOST. But conservatives are smart enough to know that it’s impossible for the Navy to oppose the Commander in Chief’s position. The notion that our great U.S. Navy needs approval from foreign bureaucrats in Jamaica in order to enjoy passage through international straits, or for permission to do what our Navy is already doing (such as moving our ships to the waters near Iran), is offensive and insulting to U.S. sovereignty.
It’s not only dangerous to our national security for the Administration to promote the Law of the Sea Treaty, it is a stupid political move that will diminish the shrinking percentage of conservatives who still support Bush. He is ignoring his supporters and instead pushing the agenda of the globalists determined to erase our sovereign borders and integrate us into various multinational structures and tribunals.
They sit and dream of ways to steal our country and our money.
Here's a little snip of an article.
[snip]
A leading liberal non-governmental organization, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, makes the same point, noting that “public opposition [to a global gas tax] in times of high oil prices would make a campaign for such a tax very difficult politically.” 27 Nevertheless, the group considered a 5 cent per U.S. gallon tax to be “small” and “would be barely noticeable for consumers.” Such a tax, it said, would raise about $60 billion “for global purposes.” In a graph, entitled, “Potential revenue generated by innovative sources of finance,” the organization referred to an air-ticket tax, now being implemented by France, as a “short-term mechanism” to raise international revenue, and a “carbon tax” as a “potential mechanism in the longer run.”
Here's the complete article--warning pdf.
Hell, I was on a page today that had several hundred links alone.
If people knew what was in those thousands of links, the real nuts and bolts of it, concerning the un's take over of this country they'd.......
Forest Warden at The Conservative Voice provides a very good summary of the current status of LOST in in his article UN given authority over US Navy.
There is a Web site Reject The Law Of The Sea Treaty that really nails down all of the problems and concerns.
I just finished reading the treaty from cover to cover. I am no lawyer, but my plain English understanding of this document makes me think that all of the concerns about ratifying it are justified. I just wonder what it would take to generate enough interest among Conservatives to stop this thing before September 27.
>>>a single concentration of power located in every country - the un.
History:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1235065/posts?page=28#28
EXCERPTS FROM NAKED COMMUNIST
by Former FBI agent, Cleon Skoussen,
Page 171:
Creation of the United Nations
During August and September 1944, the representatives of Britain, China, Russia and the United States , met at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington DC. At this conference the constitutional foundation for the United Nations was laid. In it Russia was not only made a full partner, but a dominant stockholder. A most significant development was the fact that, while other nations objected, Russia insisted on the right to exercise the veto power even if she were a party to the dispute. This violated the very foundation of international jurisprudence but the democracies consented. They were ready to pay almost any price to get Russia to participate.
(snip)(snip)
On April 25, 1945, 1,400 representative from 46 nations met in San Francisco, and after due deliberation agreed upon a United Nation Charter.
Anyone familiar with the Communist Constitution of Russia will recognize in the United Nations Charter a similar format. It is characterized by a fervent declaration of democratic principles which are sound and desirable; this is then followed by a constitutional restriction or procedural limitation which completely nullifies the principles just announced. For example, the Russian Constitution provides for universal suffrage and voting by secret ballot. Then, in Article 126, it provides for a single political party (the Communist Party) which will furnish the voters with a single roster of candidates. This, of course, renders completely meaningless all the high flown phrases dealing with universal suffrage and secret ballots. (snip)
In precisely this same way the United Nations Charter provides for the “the sovereign equality of all its members” (article 1) and then sets up a Security Council which is dominated by five permanent members (Britain, Russia, China, France, and the United States) anyone of which can nullify the expressed desires of all other member nations by the simple device of exercising the veto power.
(snip)
This makes the Security Council the only legally binding legislative body in the UN. ...any nation which joins the UN must “agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council”.
(snip)(snip)
As some authorities have since pointed out, the UN provided for a world-wide police commission and then made the top international gangster a member of that commission.
(snip)
Page 174:
Communist Attitudes at the Close of World War 2
A clear indication of what the United States could expect from post-war Communism came May 24, 1945, when the leading French Communist, Jacques Duclos, wrote a letter on behalf of his Russian superiors demanding that the Communists in the United States be required to immediately abandon their policy of friendly collaboration with capitalism and return to their historic mission of world revolution. Back in 1940 the Communist Party of America had formally withdrawn from the Third International to avoid having to register as a foreign agent under the Voorhis Act. Later the Communist Party of America was dissolved in an attempt to attach the Communist membership to one of the major US political parties. For this purpose they called themselves the Communist Political Association.
All of this twisting and turning was in complete harmony with Soviet policy until 1945. After World War 2, the announced policy reverted to traditional Marxism. To justify the complete switch in policy, Earl Browder, the American Communist leader, was accused of being personally responsible for the “errors” of the former policy. He was expelled from the party.
The party leadership was immediately taken over by William Z. Foster. Foster had written an inflammatory book in 1932 called Toward Soviet America. Just before World War 2 he had testified before a Congressional Committee: “when a Communist heads a government of the United States, and that day will come just as surely as the sun rises, that government will not be a capitalistic government, but a Soviet government, and behind this government will stand the Red Army to enforce the dictatorship of the proletariat”.
It is no longer difficult to understand why Moscow wanted men like Foster at the head of its Communist Parties throughout the world. We now know that the Russian leaders approached the conclusion of the world’s greatest war with the conviction that World War 3 might be in the near offing. In their secret circles they hopefully speculated that this next war might be Communism’s final death struggle with capitalism.
(snip)
(snip)
Then what are those documents that are listed as ratified?
And how are states doing it locally?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563271/posts
Healthy People 2010
and
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1607436/posts
NAIS Spawned by International Entanglements (farm bill)
My concerns with LOST are pretty simple.
Regardless of what you read, there are vital pieces missing. This one isn’t all available from an FOIA.
We don’t know what those documents were that Clinton attached with his signature and we don’t know anything about the current dispute filed by the USA.
These two pieces of info are vital before we take any action. Because we could actually end up protesting something that is being fixed.
Great site, thanks for the link. I'll put it in my un folder.
Alger Hiss.
bttt
I think it was Leon Trotsky that started the CFR with Moscow funds too.
I got didn’t finish that bit of research yet because of the Presidential Campaign.
Too much stuff to do and not enough time.
That's not by accident. Nafta was incremental, too. Like the Mexican truck part. If they pulled this stuff all at once, someone might notice.
Death of a thousand cuts/slowly boiled to death...take your pick.
You're going to have to find a way to get the message across in a sound bite. I don't know how that can be done. A bunch of us tried to stop Nafta...way back when, pre internet. We rented spaces at the fair, walked with billboards on our backs, formed meetings. My Gawd, it took forever to get through that thing..well, over a 1,000 pages. We told people that illegal immigration would get worse, that Mexican trucks would be driving in Oregon. You can imagine what we were called.
Fine! Just tell us how to get rid of it! lol
I was saying on another thread, this must have all been written up as one entire piece, than broken out into section (Farm Bill, Health People, NAFTA, LOST, et al).
Because, not only are these pieces being fed incrementally, they compliment each other and effect each other with the wording that isn’t seen in pieces.
When I was researching Healthy People, I saw it was starting to be implemented by sections by Jimmy Carter.
I want to know who wrote this up initially and when.
> we have been seeing individual states ratifying with the UN since.<
The UN has a separate terminology which is used in all their documents.
individual states = countries, (not states as we have in the US of A.) The countries in Europe are states of the European Union.
Yes, but I’ll add, the states have been groups into regions within the U.S.
So the UN recognizes the area of the U.S. broken out into 10 regions and not states.
But, my question still is, how are the U.S. recognized states able to ratify with the UN?
I don’t blame you. I tossed a ton of AQ stuff once I found them as the puppets for the commies.
I stopped researching the Agenda 21 stuff and refocused on the 2008 elections.
It is really wasting my time when we only have a few months to fix it.
Bookmarked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.