Treaty to Give the Oceans to the United Nations Now Before the Senate

Like a bad penny that one cannot get rid of, the idea of giving the world’s oceans, some 70% of the globe, to the United Nations is once again before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The “full court press,” led by Committee Chairman John Kerry, heard testimony favoring the idea from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey. Additional hearings are scheduled this month with a favorable vote scheduled, they hope, before July. President Barack Obama would like a full Senate vote before November to avoid the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty from becoming an election issue but is willing to wait, if need be, until December. Then, while his party retains control of the Senate, quietly force it through before January.

This is not a party issue. Presidents and secretaries of state from both Republican and Democratic Parties have favored this idea. Virtually all administration leaders from either party, and the advocates noted above, are Council on Foreign Relations members, an organization decidedly globalist in philosophy, and thought to be the mother of this idea.

The treaty evolved out of a series of United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea between 1973 and 1982, with the third such convention, known as UNCLOS III, being the most important. It is designed to create government dictating every aspect of the world’s oceans. What began as an effort “to codify certain navigational rights had … morphed into a ‘constitution for the oceans.’ ”

So what does the Law of the Sea Treaty, commonly, and hereafter, referred to as LOST, do? All ocean bordering nations were allowed a total jurisdiction outreach of 12 nautical miles from their shoreline, called Territorial Waters, plus another 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone with sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. All ocean water thereafter was International Water, controlled and managed by organizations created by the treaty but under the oversight of the United Nations. Under this new treaty the United Nations would own and control 70% of the earth’s surface.

Details

Remember thy Declaration of Independence

Lincoln said the Declaration of Independence is the apple of gold, while the Constitution is the mere frame of silver.

Lincoln meant that the Declaration lays forth the natural law of just government, and the Constitution is the framework to protect and carry out the Declaration’s principles.

In many respects the Declaration’s principles have been abandoned. Individualism, liberty and personal responsibility have been replaced with the religion of government, statism and paternalism. We now operate in a world where government grants us rights instead of their being inherent in our humanity.

This has lead to constitutional interpretation that, for the most part, broadly construes grants of government authority and strictly construes citizen rights; exactly the opposite of the Declaration’s and the Constitution’s core meanings.

Details

Getting the Message Out There

Through the social media such as Facebook and Twitter, one can gain a little insight into the mindset of elected officials at all levels of government.  As a New Jerseyan, I follow Governor Chris Christie through his Twitter feed, and frequently share my feelings about his actions, agree or disagree.  Another one who interests me, or did once upon a time, is Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, whom I follow via her Facebook page.

The first thing that got me interested was Governor Brewer’s rhetoric regarding the federal government’s handling of illegal immigration.  My interested doubled when SB1070 was signed into law.  The federal government was (and still is) doing little to nothing about our porous borders, and the costs were (and still are) passed down to state and local governments.  Arizona, being a border state, is one of those especially affected.  Echoes of the grievance in the Declaration of Independence, “He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection,” seem to rise throughout Phoenix, Tucson and other cities throughout the state.

The federal government’s response was to sue the state of Arizona, essentially saying, “You can’t enforce the laws we have on the books!”  Why isn’t that applied to the NDAA or drug laws?  The Obama Administration and the State Department even reported Arizona to the United Nations!  While appalling, this should not be surprising from a President who seeks UN and NATO approval for military action, but not from Congress.

Details