Friday, December 28, 2007

Another Threat to Sovereignty

It seems that our fearless leaders who hang out around the beltway seem to believe that it's not a good thing to be a US citisen anymore. It's far better, evidently, to be subject to a universal, world organisation. And they haven't even chosen or invented a good one to hand national sovereignty to, they've decided the United Nations is the one world organisation of choice.

I could give reasons based on creditials alone as to why this particular body would not be a good choice even if forking over national sovereignty actually WAS a good idea. Honestly, has this body ever done anything right? Where are the WMD that the UN was supposedly wanting to monitor in Iraq? The UN never said they were disappearing, they just whined what they couldn't look at them. UN sanctions against "rogue nations" have never worked. The body is rife with scandal, mismanagement and violations of it's own laws. It sucks up money from it's members (or the ones who pay them anyway) and deliver very little back to them. WHO ON EARTH would want this brain trust in charge of anything!!

However, that's not what has me irritated. I don't believe forking over national sovereignty is a good idea in the first place. I have several fairly old articles posted explaining how things related to the UN undermine said sovereignty. These would be
CEDAW, , the creation of world heritage sites , Conference on Human Settlements , the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. These articles explain in detail why each of these things are a bad idea and what it would mean to the United States if they were applied to citisens here. And just because I've not said anything at Screw the UN recently does not mean threats have disappeared. They haven't.

Today's threat Du Jour...H.R. 2421, "Clean Water Restoration Act." But wait, isn't that federal legislation, not a UN treaty? Oh, but don't run off so fast, lately things are never what they seem. According to this Act, water is very important. (Um, duh.) This legislation claims to Sounds good so far. It protects intrastate waters and "OTHER WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES." (always get suspicious of government paperwork which has the word "other" in it. It's a frivolous term used to mean "everything else I can think of" or "whatever we decide later") The legislation does attempt to define these "other waters" and here is what our hacks have come up with...


"All waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and
all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes,
rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands,
sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all
impoundments of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters, or
activities affecting these waters, are subject to the legislative power of
Congress under the Constitution."

Now, what word DON'T you see in this lovely masterpiece of legal mumbo jumbo? Well I suppose fishtank isn't in there and neither is bathtub, but those aren't what I was thinking about. The important word missing is "navigable." See, water that can't support ships and stuff has always been the property owner's property to do with what he or she likes, that's the way previous legislation has always defined it. Standing water, farm ponds, sink holes and such are automatically private property cause, well you can't run a ship through it.

This bill has nothing to do with making sure we have safe drinking water for all the people and animals that depend on it. It's about restricting land use. It used to be said that if a person had a large puddle on their property and the government wanted your land it would be labelled a "wetland" and had to be protected...Now the government doesn't need to contort itself that much. Your mud puddle, creek, personal swamp, whatever, are "other waters of the United States."

Now, in case you think you're lost, you're really not. So far I have not mentioned the UN. This, so far, has ended State Sovereignty and Private Property rights if the government so chooses to exercise the power vested in this abominable legislation. That is bad enough. However, there is more.

There is the "LAW OF THE SEA TREATY." (aka as LOST). The Law of the Sea Convention is a set of rules for the use of the world’s oceans, which cover 70 percent of the earth’s surface and a treaty resulted in 1982. To date 154 countries and the European Community have joined. So far the US has not joined this treaty. At the time Reagan was in power and refused to sign the abomination. He even fired people for suggesting he do so. Eventually Clinton did sign it, but the Senate has refused (so far) to ratify it.

If we did we would be subject to the UN Court and UN rules about various things including fishing, environmental protections, and navigation. IF the US Senate ratifies LOST and HR 2421 kicks in, the United Nations will in effect have jurisdiction over our private property. Remember how inclusive the "other waters of the United States" can be. You really want some uneducated nutcase from some minor third world nation telling you what to do with the sink hole in your backyard?

Labels: , , , , ,