What is happening to us?

[kjmatson]

I thought I just read that the U.N. could have control over our waterway's, including the Mississippi river. Did I read this correctly? I have read the article 3 times.

[Common Tator]

I think you forgot to provide a link. But for the record, I don't recognize any UN authority over the US!

[kjmatson]

sorry about that.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ion-un-treaty/

[p1gg1e]

Ack!

[kjmatson]

of course I can't find the story on any other news site.

[kjmatson]

apparently Bush tried this in 2007 but was not successful.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=55671

[The Paw]

I don't see anything in that article that gives the UN control over waterways. It says that if a domestic waterway is spewing pollution that goes beyond the 200 mile limit into international waters, then groups or nations have a right to file suit before an international court. This would be similar to rulings under the WTO, for instance. I think the Mississippi example is most fear-mongering.

The state of the worlds oceans is going to be a big issue. I just saw a bit on CBC where they report that the world's oceans are 30% more acidic than they used to be. (at least partially attributable to carbon and sulphur emissions). This does not bode well for any shellfish like mussels, clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, etc., which rely on calcium for quality shells. Since they are the bottom of the oceanic food chain, that eventually spells trouble for larger fish, and ultimately us.

[Common Tator]

Originally Posted by kjmatson

of course I can't find the story on any other news site.

I quit watching other news sites for the most part because of their bias and their refusal to publish news that didn't fit their agenda.

Here is the link to the UN website for LOST- Oceans and Law of the Sea http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm

[kjmatson]

Originally Posted by The Paw

I don't see anything in that article that gives the UN control over waterways. It says that if a domestic waterway is spewing pollution that goes beyond the 200 mile limit into international waters, then groups or nations have a right to file suit before an international court. This would be similar to rulings under the WTO, for instance. I think the Mississippi example is most fear-mongering.

The state of the worlds oceans is going to be a big issue. I just saw a bit on CBC where they report that the world's oceans are 30% more acidic than they used to be. (at least partially attributable to carbon and sulphur emissions). This does not bode well for any shellfish like mussels, clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, etc., which rely on calcium for quality shells. Since they are the bottom of the oceanic food chain, that eventually spells trouble for larger fish, and ultimately us.

That makes much more sense. Thank you. They way I read it nearly had me go through the roof

[kjmatson]

Originally Posted by Common Tator

I quit watching other news sites for the most part because of their bias and their refusal to publish news that didn't fit their agenda.

Here is the link to the UN website for LOST- Oceans and Law of the Sea http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm

Thank you Common Tator. I agree on the news channels agenda's. It use to be that you were to "report the news" not push your own agenda. Very sad.

[r93000]

I would only wonder about some of the things pointed out near the end of the article...

I am for protecting the ocean, etc however it has us and other nations paying royalties or percentages of profit to landlocked nations who have signed on. That's fine, so long as they plan to contribute manpower and monetary investments, however, this article made it sound like it would be divied up regardless of contribution.

[tn_junk]

I don't think it is fear mongering to be worried and seriously concerned about our diminishing rights as a nation, and the increasing rights of the "world community".

alan

[mnn2501]

the article is written from a fear mongering mode -- suspect anything found on FauxNews.
I'd like to see the actual bill the senate is looking at

[Common Tator]

Originally Posted by mnn2501

the article is written from a fear mongering mode -- suspect anything found on FauxNews.
I'd like to see the actual bill the senate is looking at

Actual the Fox News thing is "We report, you decide." You decided it is fearmongering. I posted a link directly to the UN website which proves this is indeed truthful reporting. If you don't like truthful reporting, don't watch Fox.

[The Paw]

Originally Posted by Common Tator

Actual the Fox News thing is "We report, you decide." You decided it is fearmongering. I posted a link directly to the UN website which proves this is indeed truthful reporting. If you don't like truthful reporting, don't watch Fox.

Well, all your link establishes is that there is a UN treaty, not that the analysis in the article is true or not.

But to be fair, it is really only the headline/sub-title and last few paragraphs that can be called fear-mongering. The first two thirds of the article does seem to point out the rationale for the treaty in a fair way.

[foxtrapper]

It's fear mongering. From the same people who scream that the UN World Court outranks the US Supreme Court, so Washington DC will appeal to the UN to get their gun ban back.

[Old Vet]

One thing that the senate should do is to repeal the part about the World Court. They have been trying to get the US to ratify some treaty that had the world court in it so that the US would fall under the world court. It hasn't happened yet but they have been trying since Nixon was President.

[Oggie]

I, for one, want to know just why the U.N. is making me older and fatter. And why are they putting that crusty stuff on my feet.

What the heck is up with that crusty stuff on my feet!?!

[uyk7]

I first heard about this in the 1980's. Do a search for "National Heritage Sites" (International?). I do believe that the UN controls many of our national parks such as Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, etc...


.

[Old Vet]

Originally Posted by uyk7

I first heard about this in the 1980's. Do a search for "National Heritage Sites" (International?). I do believe that the UN controls many of our national parks such as Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, etc...


.

If they do then quit spending my money on staffing and maintaining them. So the State department signed a agreement and agreed to do what UNESCO ordered? How will it be enforced? We have no treaty but a document that somebody in the State department signed and is no longer their? I doubt that it can be enforced. And since Regan took us out from under UNESCO since then it is probity not valid.