Back in the 1970s, the United Nations launched its plan for a global program of taxation. The objective was the transfer of wealth and technology from the developed world to the Third World, under the direction of the UN. A cornerstone of this international wealth transfer scheme was the so-called "Law of the Sea Treaty" (LOST).

 

 

 

LOST would give the UN power to tax businesses that wanted to develop the oceans' resources, which has been a long-time dream of the global government enthusiasts. LOST also would establish an international court system to enforce its provisions and rulings.

 

 

 

The treaty attempts to conceal the power to levy international taxes by labeling the taxes with such euphemisms as "assessments," "fees," "permits," "payments," or "contributions."

 

 

 

Under LOST, an "International Seabed Authority" would control the minerals and other resources of the oceans' seabed. After taking its own cut, this UN body would transfer whatever is left to select Third World governments and non-governmental organizations.

 

 

 

Fortunately, when LOST came before President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, he refused to sign the treaty. It appeared that the push toward global governance was halted, at least temporarily.

 

 

 

But that was not the end of LOST. Determined proponents of the treaty worked to "fix" its most objectionable parts, in hopes that the United States would then support it. The UN and its supporters know that, without the participation of the United States, their schemes will not succeed.

 

 

 

In the 1990s, LOST supporters sent the treaty to President Bill Clinton, who quickly signed the treaty and sent it to the Senate for ratification. Fortunately, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then headed by Senator Jesse Helms, concluded that, despite cosmetic changes, LOST remained hopelessly flawed. Taking no action on the treaty, he sent it back to the president in 2000.

 

 

 

It appeared that LOST was finally dead. But it wasn't. Undeterred, LOST supporters in the State Department sent the treaty back to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2003. The Committee voted to send the treaty to the full Senate for ratification in February of 2004. LOST currently sits before the Senate, available at any time for a full Senate vote on ratification.

 

 

 

Let us hope that the Senate does the sensible thing and rejects LOST, along with any future UN encroachments on our sovereignty!

 

 

 

 

 

You can send a message to your Senator's to Oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty here.

 

 

 

http://capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=9848421

Do you understand what the treaty is actually for or are you just regurgitating propaganda you heard? Pretty much every other country in the world has agreed to this with only a few countries (including the US) boo hooing about it because they think they are going to get shafted (or more realisticly arnt going to be able to shaft other countries).

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... of_the_Sea

I think it's a great idea.

So, a body controls all the sea materials and tax companys for taking them and give that tax to third world countrys to stop people dying.

 

 

 

 

 

Those bastards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, a body controls all the sea materials and tax companys for taking them and give that tax to third world countrys to stop people dying.

 

 

 

 

 

Those bastards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Whats wrong with world government....

Since when did the US have any "sovereignty"? The UN should have the right to use our resources.

Thread failure :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:-k

matt... this is more practical:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

;)

What the crap? Why should the UN control everything?? Stupid Illuminati....

What the crap? Why should the UN control everything?? Stupid Illuminati....

 

Actually, since the United Nations is a governing body made up of representatives from many countries, they already, essentially, run the global government. Any countries belonging to the UN have to follow their guidelines, and they intervene in armed conflicts with the Security council. In a way, they already control everything.

 

 

 

As for you, cryztalwing, do you understand what LOST actually involves? any organizations wanting to use the oceans or their resources will be taxed for doing so, and the income goes to third world countries to aid them in becoming developed nations. It doesn;t seem like a such a bad idea, but of course some people absoultely abhor the thought of helping people in need of aid. maybe stop and digest what you read instead of automatically thinking "Tax? ZOMG TAXES!!! THEY CAN;T DO THAT! TAX=BAD!"

So, a body controls all the sea materials and tax companys for taking them and give that tax to third world countrys to stop people dying.

 

 

 

 

 

Those bastards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

LMAO.

 

 

 

because everybody's doing it :wink:

Since when did the US have any "sovereignty"? The UN should have the right to use our resources.

 

 

 

No...humans are too ignorant for one-world government.

 

 

 

The UN doesn't care about the third world. No one does. That's not where the oil is. :wink:

I kept seeing LOST, and it was making me think of the TV show :XD: Made it kinda hard to focus on the point of the thread.

 

 

 

Still trying to focus on it. . .

 

 

 

Ah, I think I got it. . .

 

 

 

PINECONES!?!?!?!?

I kept seeing LOST, and it was making me think of the TV show :XD: Made it kinda hard to focus on the point of the thread.

 

 

 

Still trying to focus on it. . .

 

 

 

Ah, I think I got it. . .

 

 

 

PINECONES!?!?!?!?

 

 

 

Lol I know what you mean. Kinda like a forced charity if you ask me, but then again thats a good thing.

The Senate may vote at any time to ratify the decades-old United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

 

 

 

[hide]It seems as though warnings about the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) have become somewhat of a case of "the boy who cried wolf." The treaty was rejected in 1982 under President Ronald Reagan because it did not "satisfy the objectives sought by the United States." The treaty has been a lingering threat in the Senate since it was rejected 25 years ago.

 

 

 

If ratified, LOST would pose a huge threat to the security and economy of the United States. Briefly, LOST would transfer maritime jurisdiction to the UN's International Seabed Authority (ISA), and establish international laws to govern areas that are currently protected by the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard. Furthermore, LOST would also give the ISA the power regulate ocean research and exploration as well as impose quotas for deep-sea mining and oil production. Since 70 percent of Earth's resources are covered by the oceans and other water-ways, relinquishing such control could result in the loss of control over vital undersea resources that have not yet even been discovered.

 

 

 

The Law of the Sea Treaty runs to over 200 pages. Within the LOST text are several problematic mandates that would damage the sovereignty of the United States. One mandate includes the continuation of the ISA, which is headquartered in Jamaica. But another lesser-known mandate involves an environmental agenda which could lead to ratifying the highly criticized Kyoto Protocol by default. Article 213 of LOST requires states to adopt "laws and regulationsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæto prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources."

 

 

 

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on LOST on October 4. The prepared testimony given by the several witnesses is evidence of the fact that LOST is a real threat, and could be ratified at any time by the Senate. Even statements made by the treaty's supporters are interesting. Consider:

 

 

 

Opponents seem to think that if the U.S. declines to ratify the Law of the Sea, the United States can avoid any multi-lateral responsibilities or entanglements related to the oceans...the Law of the Sea will continue to form the basis of maritime law regardless of whether the U.S. is a party. Consequently, the United States cannot insulate itself from the Convention merely by declining to ratify.

 

 

 

--Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

 

 

 

In other words, Senator Lugar is arguing that LOST will determine maritime law if the United States refuses to ratify the treaty. This begs the obvious question: if that were the case, why would the Senate have to vote to ratify it at all?

 

 

 

Here is another statement of support for LOST:

 

 

 

The Law of the Sea Convention supports our ability to operate wherever, whenever, and however needed under the authority of widely accepted law.

 

 

 

--Admiral Vern Clark, USN (Ret.) Former Chief of Naval Operations

 

Notice that Admiral Clark affirms that the United States would be subject to the authority of a "widely accepted law." The law he is referring to is not U.S. law, but the governing body of LOST, the International Seabed Authority. It is this broad acceptance of international law that could trap the U.S. into being forced to accept other agendas such as the aforementioned Kyoto Protocol.

 

 

 

The same day the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee conducted their hearing on LOST, the Oregon Republican Party adopted a resolution to oppose the treaty. Readers who oppose this treaty can contact their Senators and urge them to reject LOST when it comes up for ratification by clicking here.

 

 

 

The United States must maintain control over our territorial waters in order to protect us against foreign threats, as well as for the exploration of off-shore resources (both known and unknown) that may boost our economy and energy needs

 

 

 

http://www.jbs.org/node/5949 [/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember you can send a message to your Senator's to tell them to Oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty!

 

 

 

http://capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=9848421

Sooo...if we get oil or something from under the ocean bed, the UN taxes it and sends the proceeds to developing countries?

 

 

 

...Sounds like foreign aid to me, which we're already doing enough of. Why is this even necessary?

 

 

 

Whatever though, big business can get taxed into the ground for all I care, as long as the people are not.

Seriously, what is so bad about this? If you're going to oppose something so avidly, the least you could do is give us some reasons why a global government would be so bad and "evil"?

 

 

 

In times like these, with wars coming out of every governmental orifice, we need some kind of stability and way to control the extreme (mostly violent actions) of many countries.

 

 

 

I'm not really in favor of a world government. But, from how you're making this "treaty" sound, it just provides badly needed infrastructure to Third World Countries and badly needed regulation for the world.

 

 

 

What's so bad about that, and where's the substantial evidence? Something this big would be greatly featured in the media and would be highly controversial. Aside from you, I've heard almost nothing about it and have not seen anything about it in the media. So, why should I oppose this?

Sooo...if we get oil or something from under the ocean bed, the UN taxes it and sends the proceeds to developing countries?

 

 

 

...Sounds like foreign aid to me, which we're already doing enough of. Why is this even necessary?

 

 

 

Whatever though, big business can get taxed into the ground for all I care, as long as the people are not.

 

 

 

Hmm... and how does that work out?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TO ANYONE who is calling Cryztalwing a conspiracy theorist, sensationalist, radical, propaganda-ist, freedom lover, individualist or what-have-you. (And just when did alternative news become propaganda? whats their motivation to deceive?)

 

 

 

 

 

To help you better understand Cryztalwing's news articles and the real motives behind these political acts, I invite you to read the following documents.

 

 

 

A tenet of collectivism is that anything can be justified simply by claiming that it is for the greater good of the greater number. Therefore, whatever is going on, when it eventually is disclosed to the public, it will be explained as a wonderful humanitarian measure that is in the best interest of all mankind, and we will be expected to be tingly all over with gratitude for the wisdom and benevolence of those great leaders who initiated it.

 

 

 

http://freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf

 

http://freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling2.pdf

 

http://freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling3.pdf

 

http://freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling4.pdf

What do you mean how does that work? Big business making a billion dollars and having 7% taken is far better than a single worker having 35% of his money stolen from him...Like it is now via the income tax.

 

 

 

I was asking...Is this just a tax on big business's profits? If it is, why should I be concerned at all? I'd be concerned if they were taxing me individually for stuff being taken from the ocean (which...wouldn't even make sense, lol).

What do you mean how does that work? Big business making a billion dollars and having 7% taken is far better than a single worker having 35% of his money stolen from him...Like it is now via the income tax.

 

 

 

I was asking...Is this just a tax on big business's profits? If it is, why should I be concerned at all? I'd be concerned if they were taxing me individually for stuff being taken from the ocean (which...wouldn't even make sense, lol).

 

 

 

There seems to be a lot of details missing from this, but it seems that it would tax the companies that take the resources. Of course, they would pass those taxes onto the public though.

What do you mean how does that work? Big business making a billion dollars and having 7% taken is far better than a single worker having 35% of his money stolen from him...Like it is now via the income tax.

 

 

 

I was asking...Is this just a tax on big business's profits? If it is, why should I be concerned at all? I'd be concerned if they were taxing me individually for stuff being taken from the ocean (which...wouldn't even make sense, lol).

 

 

 

There seems to be a lot of details missing from this, but it seems that it would tax the companies that take the resources. Of course, they would pass those taxes onto the public though.

 

 

 

Indeed.

TO ANYONE who is calling Cryztalwing a conspiracy theorist, sensationalist, radical, propaganda-ist, freedom lover, individualist or what-have-you.

 

 

 

:shock: Try saying THAT when you're drunk!!