Posted on 07/16/2012 6:21:06 PM PDT by Eagles6
LLS
Understood, but what I was driving at is that for years, maybe decades, the feral government and various state governments have been siphoning off BILLION$ from exploration and production of oil and gas resources in what is for all intents and purposes INTERNATIONAL waters. No?
That depends on where it's happening.
Which is why so many, including myself, were ticked when a foreign company was given permission to operate inside the EEZ.
@Petrobras: Chinook Field in US Gulf Leaked Fluid Sunday Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Petrobras is lead operator at Chinook with a 66.7% stake, while a unit of France's Total SA, Total E&P, holds the remaining 33.3%. Petrobras holds a 100% stake in the Cascade field.
Directly to your question...in one word...royalties.
siphoning off BILLION$ vs getting paid royalties.
You decide.
Lemme try once again: The enabling language of EEZ is part and parcel of LOST is it not? The US has not ratified LOST. Now, it's entirely possible I could be missing something but again, under what authority does the feral and state governments collect $$$'s on operations in international waters?
I'm just guessing but it seems the US has decided to implement the piracy parts of LOST, that is expanding to the 200 mile EEZ to collect $$$'s but forsaking much of the rest. Not necessarily a bad thing but a bit of chicanery nonetheless IMHO. IOW, and in the words of Nobel laureate and Oscar recipient algore, what is the "controlling legal authority"?
Your answers can be found there.
Far too extensive an issue to make a short, concise reply.
As a matter of curiosity, do you know what if anything the mercantilist Hamilton and his band of merry men may have brought to the party? He apparently was not enamored with the notion of people's sovereignty and felt a more enlightened aristocracy could better guide the country. In any case, I suppose it just goes to show that power is a necessity that without a moral influence can create all manner of unholy alliances.
Odd thing, or maybe not, for much of my life I felt Americans were a breed apart. Somehow different from other free peoples, past or present. That Americans would never let tyranny in its many forms come to our shores. Over the past 20 years or so I've come to believe there's little difference between Americans and other people around the world. We can and HAVE been manipulated very nearly to the point of serfs on the plantation of corporatism. What's next???
Negotiated in the 1970s, the treaty was heavily influenced by the "New International Economic Order," >>(sounds like "New World Order", doesn't it)<< a set of economic principles first formally advanced at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). That agenda called for "fairer" terms of trade and development financing for the so-called under-developed and developing nations.
Another way the New International Economic Order has been described is "redistributionist."
Simply put, the treaty calls for technology transfers and wealth transfers from developed to undeveloped nations.
That's what it's really all about...redistribution of wealth and technology.
And remember...OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT THE ACT OF AUGUST 7, 1953.
Who started what and when?
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state (public) and corporate (private) power." Benito Mussolini
What's next???
Need you ask? Just more of the same.
Search "agenda 21 public private partnership"
I can answer that question, but to understand our predicament thoroughly, go back to the site, click "Articles," and read the next two articles, one on the 14th Amendment and the other on the NRDC. At that point, you'll understand completely the motives and means of our common enemies.
In 2001, I authored a book proposing a free-market environmental management system on which I hold the first business method patent of its kind, predating the Bartels patent that underlies carbon trading. The idea was to create businesses that would slowly displace government agencies in environmental management as a risk management enterprise. There is reason to believe that they would have both the legal standing and technical authority to stake that claim. Then I set about making our land such an outstanding example of restoration ecology as to acquire the standing as an "expert in the field." It took a decade to get our land to that point. I am in pursuit of the credential now.
The pluto-thug population control strategy is summarized in the Agenda 21: force the residual middle class into unlivable cities, infuse them with a restive underclass, and (if they don't do as they are told) cut the power and watch them starve or die of crowd diseases, unable to flee because the "greenbelt" thereabout cannot support them.
Along the way I fell across the Biblical counter-strategy to our predicament focused in the Hebrew of Exodus 23:11 re the Sabbath for the Land. The original meaning has been lost and misunderstood for about 3,500 years. It was to be a reunion of pastoral and agro-urban peoples every seven years, to stock food for the people in the wild, maintain evacuation and mustering capabilities, and build a national defense and emergency life support infrastructure. Effectively, this was a brilliant civil defense strategy for a national guerrilla militia. The story is summarized in a second book. In fact, even the old Cain and Abel story is about exactly that principle, where Cain destroys Abel by assimilation, not conflict, and ends up losing his city having destroyed the soil thereabout. I'm in the process of closing out that Hebrew translation work now and will be setting up a monster web site this winter to lay out this multidisciplinary case: political, economic, historic, environmental, and scriptural.
So as far as I'm concerned, "what's next" is to promulgate the results of that research. I'm not interested in waiting for what the pluto-thugs of this world might bring. I'd rather focus upon how to cut their legs out from under them.
An interesting read you may enjoy...
Fascism by Sheldon Richman
To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domesticroads, buildings, stadiumsthe largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.
Cleared it right up didn't it!!!Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301)
§ 1301. Definitions
When used in this Act [43 USC § § 1301-1315]-
(a) The term "lands beneath navigable waters" means-
(1) all lands within the boundaries of each of the respective States which are covered by nontidal waters that were navigable under the laws of the United States at the time such State became a member of the Union, or acquired sovereignty over such lands and water thereafter, up to the ordinary high water mark as heretofore or hereafter modified by accretion, erosion, and reliction;
(2) all lands permanently or periodically covered by tidal waters up to but not above the line of mean high tide and seaward to a line three geographical miles distant from the coast line of each such State and to the boundary line of each such State where in any case such boundary as it existed at the time such State became a member of the Union, or as heretofore approved by Congress, extends seaward (or into the Gulf of Mexico) beyond three geographical miles, and
(3) all filled in, made, or reclaimed lands which formerly were lands beneath navigable waters, as hereinabove defined;
(b) The term "boundaries" includes the seaward boundaries of a State or its boundaries in the Gulf of Mexico or any of the Great Lakes as they existed at the time such State became a member of the Union, or as heretofore approved by the Congress, or as extended or confirmed pursuant to section 4 hereof [43 USC § 1312] but in no event shall the term "boundaries" or the term "lands beneath navigable waters" be interpreted as extending from the coast line more than three geographical miles into the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, or more than three marine leagues into the Gulf of Mexico, except that any boundary between a State and the United States under this Act [43 USC § § 1301-1315] which has been or is hereafter fixed by coordinates under a final decree of the United States Supreme Court shall remain immobilized at the coordinates provided under such decree and shall not be ambulatory;
(c) The term "coast line" means the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters;
(d) The terms "grantees" and "lessees" include (without limiting the generality thereof) all political subdivisions, municipalities, public and private corporations, and other persons holding grants or leases from a State, or from its predecessor sovereign if legally validated, to lands beneath navigable waters if such grants or leases were issued in accordance with the constitution, statutes, and decisions of the courts of the State in which such lands are situated, or of its predecessor sovereign: Provided, however, That nothing herein shall be construed as conferring upon said grantees or lessees any greater rights or interests other than are described herein and in their respective grants from the State, or its predecessor sovereign;
(e) The term "natural resources" includes, without limiting the generality thereof, oil, gas, and all other minerals, and fish, shrimp, oysters, clams, crabs, lobsters, sponges, kelp, and other marine animal and plant life but does not include water power, or the use of water for the production of power;
(f) The term "lands beneath navigable waters" does not include the beds of streams in lands now or heretofore constituting a part of the public lands of the United States if such streams were not meandered in connection with the public survey of such lands under the laws of the United States and if the title to the beds of such streams was lawfully patented or conveyed by the United States or any State to any person;
(g) The term "State" means any State of the Union;
(h) The term "person" includes, in addition to a natural person, an association, a State, a political subdivision of a State, or a private, public, or municipal corporation.
You keep referring to LOST as if it has some relevance to the U.S. Since it's never been ratified, it doesn't, except to the extent our "leaders" choose to abide by it.
No, it is not true.
In fact, most of the treaty raqtifications of the last 100 years or so are null and void because the senate failed to include a statement of their finding that the treaty is in compliance with the provisions of out constitution.
Since it's never been ratified, it doesn't, except to the extent our "leaders" choose to abide by it.
I've never claimed it was ratified nor that it applies.
I've merely shown what should apply (USC 43) compared to what has been implied to apply (EEZ) though no treaty has been ratified.
I'll wait for your reply as to which specific reply of mine you're talking about.
For my part I'm impatiently waiting to see what the upcoming elections hold. Will Pubbies make a clean sweep in the house and senate even if Willard can't seem to find his bearings and elicit enough support to take back the white hut? Will an energized fresh crop of conservative representatives and senators finally begin to haul out the trash even if jug ears is still around? I confess I was anticipating that very thing when "W" was elected. Silly me.
Maybe an assumption on my part from your several links and references to and excerpts from UNCLOS III/LOST. Now, how about that OUTER CONTINENTL SHELF definition??? It was about as clear as mud to me but maybe you can make something out of it.
You should know you have to look at more than one spot for answers.
Try here to help you along...
@Accession to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea Is Unnecessary to Secure U.S. Navigational Rights and Freedoms
And here...U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea Erodes U.S. Sovereignty over U.S. Extended Continental Shelf
You should know that definitions in US Code are highly ambiguous.
Does up mean down or does it mean sideways?
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.