And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

>>Public input period for federal fishery strategy has ended and by Executive Order of President obama the federal government now controls most of what goes on in our Nations Water ways and coastal waters.

Posted on: March 10, 2010

Public input period for federal fishery strategy has ended – ESPN

Way back a year or so ago I warned that Obama was hell bent on turning the United States over to the World Government under the United Nations.   Now he has made the first step in this direction by using his powers under Executive  Orders  to stop and/or greatly limit fishing in all of the nations coastal waters, Great Lakes, major rivers and some other inland waterways.  Beware of those words “some other inland waterways” because this is where the real kicker lies and it means the government is taking over control of reservoirs and  other sources of the nations drinking water.  This action is far reaching and is typical Obama in that it is just one tiny step, or the tip of Obama’s treachery.

Read these articles and posts:  LOST: Law of the Sea Treaty

YouTube – Stop the Anti-American U.N. “Law of the SeaTreaty

and my own rendition: Throwing away our sovereignty to the United Nations with Law of the Sea Treaty is Obama’s Goal

You will  wonder what this article has to do with the LOST or Law of the Sea Treaty when you read it because the author is concerned with recreational fishing and doesn’t say a thing about the United Nations.  He does however name the agencies working within and for the United Nations and the one world government coalition.  This article is one of the dots in connecting the dots.  Most people would read it and say well I guess the fishermen have their pants in a wad but I don’t fish so it’s no big deal to me.  Oh but it is!   With what is happening in Washington one must be aware of what is going on now and what has been happening this entire year.  These people are not stupid and they are as underhanded as a thief in the night.

In the meantime, we all and the media have been dithering over Obamacare  and  naked guys in the Congressional shower room yelling at each other.  This is where they want our focus.  This is also why Friday is the most active day on the White House calendar so if you get lazy about reading the Internet any day then make it Monday thru Thursday but don’t skip Friday or the weekend.

One other thing I want you to understand:  steps have already been taken and passed in other bills towards this goal.  They are hidden deep in the Stimulus Bill and the budget and the Health Care Bill and this $107 billion Jobs Bill passed today that won’t create any jobs  but merely adds $107 billion to the deficit (that is our IOU to China, Japan and India among others still willing to buy our Treasury Notes). BB

“When the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) completed their successful campaign to convince the Ontario government to end one of the best scientifically managed big-game hunts in North America (spring bear), the results of their agenda had severe economic impacts on small family businesses and the tourism economy of communities across northern and central Ontario,” said Phil Morlock, director of environmental affairs for Shimano.  (I put this paragragh in because of the two organizartions mentioned because they are up to their ears in the Law of the Seas Treaty and the plan for the United Nations to control the water of the world.  BB)

“Now we see NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the administration planning the future of recreational fishing access in America based on a similar agenda of these same groups and other Big Green anti-use organizations, through an Executive Order by the President. The current U.S. direction with fishing is a direct parallel to what happened in Canada with hunting: The negative economic impacts on hard-working American families and small businesses are being ignored.

“In spite of what we hear daily in the press about the President’s concern for jobs and the economy and contrary to what he stated in the June order creating this process, we have seen no evidence from NOAA or the task force that recreational fishing and related jobs are receiving any priority.”

Unless more anglers speak up to their Congressional representatives so their input will be considered, it appears the task force will issue a final report for “marine spatial planning” by late March. President Barack Obama then could possibly issue an Executive Order to implement its recommendations.

Led by NOAA’s Jane Lubchenco, the task force has shown no overt dislike of recreational angling. As ESPN previously reported, WWF, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, Pew Environment Group and others produced a document entitled “Transition Green” shortly after Obama was elected in 2008.

What has happened since suggests that the task force has been in lockstep with that position paper, according to Morlock.

In late summer, just after the administration created the task force, these groups produced “Recommendations for the Adoption and Implementation of an Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes National Policy.” This document makes repeated references to “overfishing,” but doesn’t reference recreational angling, its importance, and its benefits, both to participants and the resource.

Additionally, some of these same organizations have revealed their anti-fishing bias with their attempts to ban tackle containing lead in the United States and Canada.

Also, recreational angling and commercial fishing have been lumped together as harmful to the resource, despite protests by the angling industry.

Morlock’s evidence of collusion — the green groups began clamoring for an Executive Order to implement the task force’s recommendations even before the public comment period ended in February.

See also:  UN-Style Zoning For US Coastal and Inland Waters?

The latest Obama power grab would restrict the coastal and inland waters of the United States according to the zoning model of the United Nations. The plan, titled Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning, was prepared quietly below the radar this past December. It creates new government regulatory agencies to control every drop of water — even your own private lake contained entirely on your property that you own. You can read it here.


8 Responses to ">>Public input period for federal fishery strategy has ended and by Executive Order of President obama the federal government now controls most of what goes on in our Nations Water ways and coastal waters."

So much misinformation on the Law of the Sea Convention that it is hard to know where to start.

First, it was George W. Bush who in 2003 asked the Senate to act favorably on the Law of the Sea Convention. He did so after thorough review of the Convention and the 1994 Agreement that changed tot regime for deep seabed mining so that it met all six of President Reagan’s criteria. He did this in large part because the navy, the Coast guard and the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that locking in the provisions of the Convention was essential because otherwise our rights at sea would gradually be eroded through practices and actions of other states.

Second, when Pres. Reagan opposed the Convention in 1982, he said that he did so because of 6 very specific reasons and that if those 6 items to be fixed to his criteria, then his administration would sign the Convention. In 1990, those criteria became the agenda for consultations and for the negotiation of the 1994 Agreement that met the criteria in full.

Third, in 1983, after declining to join the Convention (which at that time did not meet the six criteria), Pres. Reagan directed the US government to, as far as possible, implement the remainder of the Convention and, particularly, to establish the Exclusive Zone in line with both the Convention and the 200 mile US fishing law.

Fourth, trying a guilt by association approach of linking environmental organizations to the Law of the Sea Convention is misleading. Strong supporters of the US joining the convention include the American oil and gas industry, the US shipping industry, the US fishing industry and the US international telecommunications industry whose cables must run over the continental shelves and through the EEZs of foreign countries. Every living chief of naval operations and every living commandant of the US Coast Guard have endorse US joining the Law of the Sea Convention.

If people want to oppose the Law of the Sea Convention, they should be open about their reasons. Taking a position counter to the security recommendations of the uniformed services, counter to the economic interests of major segments of American industry and, most telling, counter to our interest in recognition of future claims to 1.25 million square kilometers of seabed beyond the exclusive economic zone in which deposits of oil and gas and strategic minerals may be found deserves an explicit accounting of how foregoing the benefits of the Law of the Sea Convention could possibly serve the true interests of the nation.

With the convention supported by the military, industry, conservationists and professional organizations in science and law – virtually all the front line groups dealing with international ocean affairs, it is time for opponents to be direct about why the oppose the convention and how they think their opposition makes the nation better rather than much worse off, and to do so without misinformation and rhetorical tricks.

Thank you Cathy, I welcome all points of view and opinions on my site. You have been very informative. I do not agree with one thing you have said and retain my opinion. I might add that I am in good company of those who do not welcome this Treaty and feel our territorial waters will be taken over and controlled by other than ourselves. I do not even want our own government having this much power over water and waterways!

As for those who have approved this treaty and it’s provisions that you refer to I know well that our entire system of government and industry has been infiltrated with those who would destroy America. Look at those who overlooked and excused the Fort Hood killer, look at the Main Stream Media and their misinformation and lack of reporting on what is really happening in the country. I could go on and on.

LOST Law of the Sea Treaty is bad for any country that wants to maintain its sovereignty. Take a good look at the countries that have signed it and those who haven’t.

Thank you for stopping by and please feel free to come back and comment any time. Sincerely, BB

Hi Brenda,

That was a pretty broad statement of disagreement. Do you really disagree with everything I said? Do you disagree that President Reagan only objected to the seabed mining provisions? Do you believe that he disagreed with the exclusive economic zone that recognized our sovereign control of sea territory larger than the lands of the entire United States? Do you disagree that George W. Bush endorsed US accession to the Convention and asked the senate to give its advice and consent?

Do you think that all the leaders of the Navy and Coast Guard since 1970 have been trying to sell the country down the river?

There are now 159 nations that have signed the LOS Convention, including every other developed nation. Over half of the 37 countries that haven’t joined the convention are poor land-locked states that have other things on their mind than law of the sea.

The Convention is recognized as the agreed upon definition of international law at sea. In the Navy, it is written into the Commander’s Guide to International Law and the Officer of the Deck’s workbook. That isn’t surprising since the Navy helped negotiate the convention.

Perhaps a better question is “how does sitting on the sidelines do better for us?” and “how does a convention that extends our control over oceans and seabeds that weren’t ours to claim before the Convention somehow reduce our sovereignty?”

I think it might be possible that you assume every international treaty and convention is bad for the US, or perhaps it is only conventions that begin with “United Nations” in the title?

When you speak of power over waters and waterways, you are talking about the sovereign rights of the national and state governments, not the LOS Convention because all it does is let nations make their own rules with regard to managing their interior waters and territorial seas. The only exclusion to total control of the territorial sea is the right of innocent passage, and that right has been around for more than a century before the United States was founded and is considered essential by both our navy and merchant marine. If you don’t like that, it isn’t the fault of the Law of the Sea Convention.


Caitlyn, I stand behind and believe everything I have written in the blog and in my comment to you. Did you go to the sites I referenced? Did you go to my own post on the LOST that begins “Throwing away our sovereignty…..” and listen top all the videos I have posted there. Have you even googled LOST and read articles written by others? I think not. I think you have bought into the kool-aid because you are touting the party line in both your comments.

The facts are so very different when you truly understand the bland words. In international law the nations own their territorial waters AND the air space above those water. This being the case: If approved by the US Senate this Treaty becomes a part of our Constitution as law. It gives the United Nations absolute authority over all waters and THE AIR ABOVE these waters. This means the United Nations on which we like all nations have only one vote will not only control our ships at sea but our Air Force when they are over these waters. An example: The United Nations can stop the United States from flying supplies to our armed forces overseas because to get to them we must fly over water.

Last but certainly not least, the United Nations will have the right with this treaty to tax the people of the United States! A tax of 7% of gross national product is proposed, but it can and will certainly go up. I personally wish the United States would get out of the corrupt and inefficient do nothing worthy United Nations. We pay for over one half of the upkeep of this farce while other nations use the forum to beat on us. Name one issue where the United States has gotten a fair and impartial judgment from the United Nations. Look at the list of countries who have ratified this agreement and tell me what stake they all have in it and how giving them a say over the oceans and our own territorial waters will benefit the United States. Then turn the question around and see how it will benefit them.

And I beg to differ with you Reagan disagreed with and was against every portion of this gigantic grab for power over the United States and he said so in his speeches and in his writings. He diplomatically gave several points of disagreement and then put the whole idea behind him and when about bringing down the Communist Soviet Union.

By the way just for a side light here: Reagan knew that we were much richer than the Soviet Union and so just by up keeping them in the arms race and spending their resources on more and more missiles they would eventually go bankrupt and the government would fall. Obama and the fanatics and fools in Congress are doing that to the United States right now. It’s a simple plan and it always works–guaranteed.

What I am saying is that when the United States is a Banana Republic it won’t really matter whether or not we have control over our territorial waters or not because we won’t have the ability to defend our rights anyhow, and the question of this treaty will be moot. BB

Oh yes, I have been to all the links.

Brenda, you are absolutely wrong about Reagan. I served on his delegation to the conference and had his instructions with me. He told the world what was needed to gain his approval and the criteria he set were the same that were in our instructions.

Here is what president Reagan said in sending us back to the negotiating table:

Our review has concluded that while most provisions of the draft convention are acceptible and consistent with U.S. interests, some major elements of the deep seabed mining regime are not acceptable.

I am announcing today that the United States will return to those negotiations and will work with other countries to achieve an acceptable treaty. In the deep seabed mining area, we will seek changes necessary to correct those unacceptable elements and to achieve the goal of a treaty that will:

• Not deter development of any deep seabed mineral resources to meet national and world demand;

• Assure national access to these resources by current and future qualified entities to enhance U.S. security of supply, to avoid monopolization by the operating arm of the international authority, and to promote the economic development of the resources;

• Provide a decisionmaking role in the deep seabed regime that fairly reflects and effectively protects the political and economic interests and financial contributions of participating states;

• Not allow for amendments to come into force without approval of the participating states, including, in our case, advice and consent of the Senate;

• Not set other undesirable precedents for internatiional organizations; and

• Be likely to receive the advice and consent of the Senate. In this regard, the convention should not contain provisions for mandatory transfer of private technology and participation by and funding for national liberation movements.

The United States remains committee to the multilateral treaty process for reaching agreement on law of the sea. If working together at the conference we can find ways to fulfill these key objectives, my Administration will support ratification.

That was not a bit of diplomatic subterfuge, it was a considered statement based on a year-long review of our national interests in the law of the sea. I know that Reagan did not lie, either to the public, to foreign diplomats or those of us on his delegation. I am certain you don’t have any evidence that he lied and I think it is inappropriate for you to say he “diplomatically gave several points of disagreement and then put the whole idea behind him.” He clearly identified the points he needed fixed and said the rest of the convention was satisfactory.

You may not like it, but he clearly stated that he had objections to six provisions related to deep seabed mining and if they were rectified then he would support the convention.

You can check out what I am saying at: (I hope the URL comes through. I am not sure what codes are allowed by your site’s comment system)

By the way, by staying outside the convention we have foreclosed the opportunity for US firms to engage in deep seabed mining, the very industry the President Reagan wanted to protect. Now there are 8 firms and consortia, from Germany, France, Russia, Japan, India, South Korea, China and eastern europe preparing to mine while our can’t take part because we aren’t party to the Convention, can’t get foreign partners and can’t get capital to invest – all in spite of other countries having finally agreed in 1994 to make the changes Reagan wanted.

Regarding the territorial sea, the 1982 LOS Convention is nearly identical to the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea. Both give the coastal sate sovereign control over the territorial sea and the air space above them.

The second article of the LOS Convention reads:

1. The sovereignty of a coastal state extends, beyond its land territory and internal waters and, in the case of an archipelagic State, its archipelagic waters to an adjacent belt of sea, described as the territorial sea.

2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the territorial sea as well as to its bed and subsoil.

Article 3 defines the breadth of the territorial sea:

Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measures from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention

In addition, when our ships need to pass through straits that are narrower the 24 miles wide (so that they are entirely the waters of the coastal states), our ships can steam through and our planes can fly over. This right, which is called Transit Passage, did not exist before the convention. When the 12 mile territorial sea was declared, under customary law we would not have been able to fly above the straits without permission and for some countries that control major straits, as a non-party they argue that we don’t have rights created by the convention and that Transit Passage rights only apply to members of the convention.

nice is your information. thanks..

Caitlyn, I did not say that President Reagan lied. Nor did I intend to intimate that he lied. What he did do with his conditions is totally change the game plan of the world gamesters by taking the teeth out of their treaty. The intent of the United Nations Security Council members and the others who signed this treaty was to take total control after the treaty was agreed to by the United States. Read his conditions. He has agreed to sign the treaty “if” his provisions are put in, but if his conditions are placed in the original treaty then each little movement the world body or any of the organizations want to make must come back for approval by the individual states. Meaning having again to go thru congress and the President. Reagan knew exactly what he was doing. He didn’t want any part of this treaty and so he made it impossible for the UN to reach it’s goals and at the same time satisfy the United States. He didn’t at all lie and had no intention of lying, he merely rendered the treaty useless to any entity who wished to use it to usurp our sovereignty.

It must have been so exciting to be a member of his delegation! I remember when this was happening but really didn’t read the actual treaty until the late 1990’s and that was when I understood fully his stipulations and saw that they changed the entire intent of the treaty. Maybe you were/are a little too close to see the forest for the trees. This often happens when one is charged with accomplishing an objective the focus becomes too narrow. Stand back and really see what President Reagan was doing. He was a brilliant strategist but in his laid back smiling way no one saw him as the devious politician he really was! He also had speech writers who understood his personality as well as his perceived and exactly how to portray this personality and his beliefs in words that would appear to be more natural to him.

Reagan had an almost holy love of the United States and everything the Founding Fathers intended for this new nation. I understand this and know where it came from. My grandparents (immigrants from Russia) were the most loyal Americans I have ever met and they passed this on to their children and grandchildren. Probably I got an extra dose since I spent the years from 2-6 living with my grandparents while my father and uncles were in the WWII. The talk at home was all about the war and the war effort as could be expected with three men of a small family in the armed services. I didn’t learn about American history and the Founding Fathers or Constitution at home because these things were not known well by my grandparents, but I certainly learned to believe with all my heart that America is the bravest, most free and wonderful country on Earth. I believed it then and I know it now. President Obama and the communist thugs he has surrounded himself with want to destroy this nation. He is the last in a line of people in high places whose agenda was the defeat from within of the United States. The difference is he is much more blatant about his aims and it is this arrogance that has finally aroused the country from their complacent sleep. The Law of the Sea Treaty will not be approved by Congress.

You have been so nice to talk with! Thank you. Much good information even if we do disagree on the intended outcome and the current form of the document. Sincerely, BB

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

See topic cloud at bottom of page for specific topics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 97 other followers

BB’s file cabinet

%d bloggers like this: