Oceans & Law of the Sea United nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea
Video from un.org
LOST is Centralized Control of the World by the UN
From Occupy Corporatism
The UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) will deliver American sovereignty and seven-tenths of the world’s surface through allocation of oceans and seas to the UN by way of the entanglement of global bureaucracy.
Over three decades ago, then President Ronald Regan rejected LOST, saying “no national interest of the United States could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth’s surface over to the Third World.”
The writers of LOST want to give the UN power to draw oceanic boundaries to impose environmental regulations and restrict business on the high seas.
LOST would give critical US naval and drilling operational decision making and final word to the UN.
Regan believed LOST was an “effort to promote global government at the expense of sovereign nation states — and most especially the United States.”
On Capitol Hill, supporters of LOST include Senators Richard Lugar (who now heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), Chuck Hagel, John Warner, Trent Lot.
The coalition of the US Navy, multi-national oil corporations led by Shall and radical environmentalist lawyers are providing advocacy for the UN’s usurpation of our individual rights as an independent nation.
Big oil supports LOST because of its provisional extension of jurisdiction over the continental shelf beyond the current 200 mile limit.
However, LOST requires that royalties of between 1 and 7% be paid to the International Seabed Authority (ISA) on the value of oil and minerals produced from those waters.
Effectively, the UN would regulate offshore and deep-sea production all over the world. The financing would come from American taxpayers. The taxation collected by the ISA would be redirected to the UN.
Larry Bell of Forbes magazine wrote that “as much as 7 percent of U.S. government revenue that is collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast” and then reallocated by the UN to “poorer, landlocked countries.”
In the name of environmental justice, trillions of dollars would be siphoned from Americans.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta believes that “the time has come” for the Senate to ratify LOST. Panetta said about LOST: “Not since we acquired the lands of the American West and Alaska have we had such an opportunity to expand U.S. sovereignty.”
The US Navy supports LOST because it supposedly classifies navigational rights and freedoms that would assist the US Navy in key operations; however there is no need to ratify a treaty that empowers the UN to govern the US Navy to do what they already do. The necessity of an international body to give the US military permission to perform as it normally does is ludicrous.
Still, the US Navy and Joint Chiefs of Staff forcefully repeat to Congressional committees that LOST is crucial to the success of US military operations.
The US Navy contends that LOST will preserve American freedom of transit in dangerous waters, such as the Strait of Hormuz and the South China Sea.
Panetta retorts: “How can we argue that other nations must abide by international rules when we haven’t officially accepted those rules?”
For decades, admirals have warned that the US cannot guarantee navigational rights without ratification of LOST through Congress.
In 1995, one admiral wrote: “This may be our last opportunity to ‘lock in’ those critical navigational and overflight rights.”
In 2007, a vice chief of Naval Operations stated to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “We need to lock in the navigation and overflight rights and high seas freedoms contained in the Convention while we can.”
LOST will give the UN jurisdictional claim that may interfere with navigation of the seas by military or commercial ships. The Freedom of Navigation Program provides the US diplomatic protest through the State Department when warships are prohibited from navigating foreign waters. LOST would remove the US Navy’s right to diplomacy by right of global and international governance.
Under LOST, since the UN has no navy, America would be expected to protect the world’s sea lanes and punish piracy by mandate of international law.
The International Tribunal of LOST (ITLOS) would have jurisdiction over “maritime disputes”. This tribunal of 21 members resides in Hamburg. ITLOS’s judgments could be enforced against Americans, but not appealed in US courts.
Maritime disputes would essentially be turned from accidents at sea between ships, to issues of global warming with power to create binding mandates on climate change.
Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation published a paper that outlines how radical environmentalist lawyers and climate change alarmists could use LOST to file lawsuits to advance man-made climate change agendas.
John Bolton, former UN ambassador, asserts LOST has become more dangerous “with China emerging as a major power, ratifying the treaty now would encourage Sino-American strife, constrain U.S. naval activities and do nothing to resolve China’s expansive maritime territorial claims.”
In 2010, Obama issued an executive order National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Coasts and Great Lakes that seized total control from states and localities for “conservation, economic activity, user conflict and sustainable use of the ocean, our coasts and the Great Lakes.”
Obama installed a National Ocean Council (NOC), a 27 member group that will implement ocean management plans “in accordance with customary international law, including as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention.”
NOC is chaired by John Holdren , Obama’s Science Czar, (who supports eugenics, mass sterilization and forced abortions; as well as geo-engineering for the sake of saving the planet) and Nancy Sutley, White House on Environmental Quality.
The NOC also seats Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and a former high-ranking official at the left-wing Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). The EDF is known for supporting draconian declines of commercial fishing ships and leisure fishing to pursue centralized control.
Elisabeth Mann Borgese, co-author of LOST is quoted saying: “He who rules the sea, rules the land.”
LOST gives all-encompassing power and global governance over the world’s water sources in the name of environmental protection.
Updated June 9, 2012 to fix links
Updated June 10, 2012 to fix links…again
Body of Letter:
Dear Mr. Leader,
We understand that Chairman Kerry has renewed his efforts to pursue Senate ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We are writing to let you know that we believe this Convention reflects political, economic, and ideological assumptions which are inconsistent with American values and sovereignty.
By its current terms, the Law of the Sea Convention encompasses economic and technology interests in the deep sea, redistribution of wealth from developed to undeveloped nations, freedom of navigation in the deep sea and exclusive economic zones which may impact maritime security, and environmental regulation over virtually all sources of pollution.
To effect the treaty’s broad regime of governance, we are particularly concerned that United States sovereignty could be subjugated in many areas to a supranational government that is chartered by the United Nations under the 1982 Convention. Further, we are troubled that compulsory dispute resolution could pertain to public and private activities including law enforcement, maritime security, business operations, and nonmilitary activities performed aboard military vessels.
If this treaty comes to the floor, we will oppose its ratification.
The Spanish people were angered when King Juan Carlos went on an expensive elephant hunt during their current economic crisis. In this case however, it’s not just because it is a frivolous use of money that has people upset, but King Juan Carlos is also the president of the Spanish branch of the World Wildlife Fund.
Florida Governor Scott embarrassed the King when he asked him about the hunt, causing an “international stir.” Governor Scott said, “I’ve ridden elephants, I’ve never tried to shoot one,” as he walked in to shake King Juan Carlos’ hand.
Tampa Bay Times
“All the news outlets highlight the absolute lack of tact of the Florida governor, which can only be attributed to poor preparation for the meeting,” TV personality Sandra Sabatés says on the satirical news show El Intermedio (Halftime). “Gov. Scott continues, obstinate in his error. He adds insult to injury and asks the king increasingly uncomfortable questions about the details of the hunt.”
Read the rest here
Save the animals…so royalty can shoot them?
Edited May 27, 2012 at 6:30 PM to embed video.
This is a wonderful article that really resonated with me. The underlined parts are lines that truly sung to my innate, undying need to be free. It brings on a sort of nostalgia, remembering American History and school plays about the Founding Fathers and Betsey Ross. I can still hear all the songs we so proudly and cheerfully sang in music class, praising this once great nation: “Our Country ‘Tis Of Thee,” “You’re a Grand Old Flag,” “America the Beautiful,” “I’m Proud to Be An American,” “This Land is Your Land,” and of course “The Star Spangled Banner.” I don’t know what else to say except that my heart has sunk into the pit of my stomach.
“You grow a garden; you expect to be able to harvest the food from that garden and eat it. You raise a cow; you expect to be able to milk that cow and consume the milk. You raise chickens; you expect to gather eggs and eat them. It’s uncomplicated, simple, a fundamental right. Perhaps you wouldn’t feel this way if you lived under some other form of government, but here, now, in America and other democratized countries, this is what you expect.
According to Wisconsin Judge Patrick J. Fiedler, you do not have a fundamental right to consume the food you grow or own or raise. The Farm To Consumer Legal Defense Fund, the pioneers in defending food sovereignty and freedom, recently argued before Judge Fiedler that you and I have a constitutional right to consume the foods of our choice. Judge Fiedler saw no merit to the argument and ruled against the FTCLDF. When they asked him to clarify his statement, these were his words:
“no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;”
“no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;”
“no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice…”
Talk about hammering a point home.
Sometimes I think I’ve woken up in a surreal alternate reality. I was raised in a patriotic glow where the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” was a well-defined, well-reasoned expectation. America is the “land of the free.” I do not think this means what I once thought it meant, particularly if we have no fundamental right to drink the milk from our own cows.
Constitutional law is not my thing, but perhaps it should be. That way I could develop a more cogent argument against the likes of Judge Fielder. As it is, I simply say, “But what of liberty? What of privacy? What of the right to do with my body and my property what I see fit, so long as I do no harm to others?”
How is it that I could have lived this long, and assumed that I had a right to eat the foods of my choosing?
I know how. It is our collective experience. In our day to day experience,we choose. In our day to day experience, we sow a garden and we harvest its fruit. In our day to day experience, we feed and milk our cows. In our day to day experience, we visit our local farms and buy foods from people we trust. In our day to day experience, we walk down the aisles of our grocery stores, and we choose. In our day to day experience, we open our pantry doors, let imaginary flavors roll over our tongues, and we choose.
We choose. We choose. We choose.
It’s like breathing. It is so common an experience, so personal, so much a part of our everyday existence, that I had (silly me!) come to assume that it was a fundamental right.
I certainly act like it is. And is that not, in the end, the measure of what is true? Is not truth that which matches our experience, that which is in accordance with reality?
If so, then food freedom and food sovereignty can’t be so casually stripped away, even by zealous judges.”
(photo by jsewell)
Fundamental rights, from Wikipedia:
Fundamental rights are a generally regarded set of entitlements in the context of a legal system, wherein such system is itself said to be based upon this same set of basic, fundamental, or inalienable entitlements or “rights.” Such rights thus belong without presumption or cost of privilege to all human beings under such jurisdiction. The concept of human rights has been promoted as a legal concept in large part owing to the idea that human beings have such “fundamental” rights, such that transcend all jurisdiction, but are typically reinforced in different ways and with different emphasis within different legal systems.
Some universally recognized rights as fundamental, i.e., contained in the U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the U.N. Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, are as follows:
- Right to equal protection under the law 
- Right to freedom of thought
- Right to freedom of speech and press (cf. freedom of expression)
- Right to freedom of association
- Right to freedom of movement within the country
- Right to vote in general election
- Right to direct a child’s upbringing 
- Right to privacy
- Right to marry
- Right to property
See how The Food Safety Modernization Act has changed the way Americans will think about their unquestioned, unenumerated right to eat the food they choose; to eat, share, and sell the food they grow. Hello Nanny State. I’m a big girl now, so please move along. Go find someone else who wants your help. We’ve managed this long, we certainly don’t need you now.
In this video, you will see Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, make some bold admissions about EPA’s tactics that more resemble those of bullies than caretakers. In 2010 he said,
“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said:
“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.
“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”
“It’s a deterrent factor”