Globalism. Should the U.N. call on the United States to return Mt. Rushmore to Native American tribes?

No, we need to withdraw from the UN. There is a UN treaty that may be voted on soon for ratification that would give the UN power over the seas, including our territorial waters and would mean that half of the revenue we collect from oil companies would be paid to the UN. There are other possible pitfalls with this treaty as well. With each new treaty and agreement we enter with the UN we lose more sovereignty.

http://news.investors.com/art...

The Rockefellers would simply gift them with a new location. We have to get through to our congress critters, state and local officials and the president that we want out!

Where in the Law of the Sea Treaty does it say that we in the US would lose sovereignty over what we already hold?

Part XI, Section 2, Part XII, Sections 5 and 6, Annex III...

Ok. Just read the UNCLOS Part XI Section 2. I don't see anywhere in there where the US gives up jurisdiction over its territorial waters. Are you sure you have the right section?

Part XII is just about the ratifying states agreeing to actively work to reduce pollution and abide by pollution regulations. Where is the loss of sovereignty there?

BTW, I'm not inclined to take any presentation by the Heritage FOundation as gospel. They are a right wing organization dedicated to the expansion of free market capitalism and de-regulation of business. They have a very clear agenda and I'd take everything they say about UNCLOS with a substantial grain of salt.

Sovereignty is also freedom from outside control. Our laws would have to conform to international law. Also, where we now go into ISA freely, we would have to ask for permission, wait for approval, pay a $500,000 application fee and if approved pay a minimum of $1,000,000 annually for each project.

The video that you didn't watch is a senator speaking who goes into various reasons why we shouldn't ratify the treaty. You apparently wouldn't be satisfied with him either as he is Republican.

"Sovereignty is also freedom from outside control. Our laws would have to conform to international law"

Only if we agree to abide by them. No one is forcing us to abide by laws we don't agree to. But if we DO sign on to a UN treaty, we should keep our word. I guess I don't understand what the big deal is. We don't have rights to international waters. The UNCLOS seeks to produce a guardian agency to ensure that people don't abuse and overexploit the resources in those areas. It has nothing to do with US sovereignty.

"Also, where we now go into ISA freely, we would have to ask for permission, wait for approval, pay a $500,000 application fee and if approved pay a minimum of $1,000,000 annually for each project. "

So? We don't have a right to international waters. I think it's high time that there was a regulatory agency to keep people from polluting the ocean.

"The video that you didn't watch is a senator speaking who goes into various reasons why we shouldn't ratify the treaty. You apparently wouldn't be satisfied with him either as he is Republican."

Don't make the mistake of thinking I didn't watch the video. I did. I just don't take things any politician says (particularly the right wing these days) as gospel. They have their own agenda they're pushing and have proven, repeatedly, that they're quite willing to lie, misrepresent and twist facts to serve that agenda.

Since you posted your reply almost immediately after I posted the video which is 41:29 long, I know you didn't watch it.

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I and I don't think it is a good idea. We already fund a large portion of the UN as well as freely give foreign aid to countless nations and I don't agree with mandatory redistribution of wealth, which is what this is.

I watched it after that. I was simply informing you, before I watched it, that I was going to take what I saw with a hefty grain of salt. I didn't mean for that to be unclear.

"I don't agree with mandatory redistribution of wealth, which is what this is."

Then you think our country should not have any taxes? How are we to support our military, among other programs, without taxes?

Supporting our military is not redistributing wealth, it is for our protection and a valid expense.

Oh, I see. So you support taxes to pay for things you agree with. So do other people. Until and unless we can get everyone in the country on board with every government expense, you're just going to have to deal with tax money being spent in ways you don't like. And that's "mandatory redistribution of wealth".

Of course I support things that I agree with...which also happen to be Constitutional. Supporting the rest of the world is not.

Why should the US not abide by the same rules as other nations?

Why should we? Why should we abide by laws that others made?

One, because we expect other countries to abide by them and bully them into doing so when they step out of line.

Two, because if we agree to abide by them we should honor our word. I support our right not to sign a document if we don't want to abide by the rules it sets down. That's fine. BUt if we DO sign it, we should abide by the rules we agreed on.

I totally agree that anything we do sign, we should honor...my disagreement comes in what we should be signing. We should not be bullying other countries to do so, nor should they be bullying us to do so.

I don't think anyone is trying to bully the US into doing anything. The very notion is silly.

I DO think that other countries are asking us to take a leadership role in making the earth cleaner and being more ecologically responsible. I have no problems whatsoever with that.

In any case, I don't see how the Treaty we're talking about infringes upon our sovereignty, even if we DO sign it. It's talking about international waters, not our territorial waters.

Yes, others are trying to "bully" us into signing this and other treaties. No, the notion is far from silly.

Other countries are "asking" us to foot the bill! I do have a problem with that.

It infringes upon our sovereignty, as I stated earlier, in that we must conform our laws to equal international law. And yes, it does infringe upon our rights in our territorial waters by making us liable to international law.

"Yes, others are trying to "bully" us into signing this and other treaties. No, the notion is far from silly. "

The notion of them succeeding in bullying us is silly.

"Other countries are "asking" us to foot the bill! I do have a problem with that."

To what extent? I didn't see anything about the US providing all, or even most, of the funding.

"It infringes upon our sovereignty, as I stated earlier, in that we must conform our laws to equal international law."

If we agree to it, sure. If those laws are reasonable it's not a big deal. If they are not, we don't sign the treaty. Simple.

"And yes, it does infringe upon our rights in our territorial waters by making us liable to international law."

Liable to international law in our own territorial waters? I don't think it says that.

The notion of them succeeding in bullying us in not silly at all.

The US already provides a goodly portion of all UN funding. Those who are considered to be disadvantaged in any way will be given a free ride, while others will be expected to foot the bill.

Who decides if those laws are "reasonable"? You? Or me? Or people who while supposedly representing us do not have our best interests in mind?

Indeed it does, my friend, we must conform to international law, therefore we are under it even within our own territory.

"Indeed it does, my friend, we must conform to international law, therefore we are under it even within our own territory."

I would be obliged if you were to show where, in the treaty, it says that the agency responsible for overseeing international waters has any rights whatsoever to enforce rules in a country's territorial waters.

"Who decides if those laws are "reasonable"? You? Or me? Or people who while supposedly representing us do not have our best interests in mind? "

The government. For better or worse.

Why don't you actually read it for yourself...I provided a video that was immediately discounted without being watched, do your own research.

The government is not :"for better or worse"...it is not a marriage. Our founders knew that at times the government would need reigning in.

"Why don't you actually read it for yourself."

I have. I didn't see anywhere that said the agency would have jurisdiction over any nation's territorial waters. It's only for international waters, that I could see.

"I provided a video that was immediately discounted without being watched"

Did you miss the part where I told you I watched it? Apparently you did.

I discounted it because it was a biased video of a biased politician produced by a biased organization to further their own agenda. Of course I would discount something like that.

"The government is not :"for better or worse"...it is not a marriage. Our founders knew that at times the government would need reigning in."

Agreed. I just don't think this is a time where that needs to happen.

Any time that other law trumps our law it infringes upon our rights.

No, I didn't miss that. Nor did I miss that you totally discounted it before seeing it...personally, I check things before passing judgement.

I do believe it is a time to do so.

"Any time that other law trumps our law it infringes upon our rights."

BS. We don't have the "right" to do whatever we want regardless of the cost. We have a responsibility to use our power, prestige and resources responsibly so that we don't harm the rest of the people on Earth. If we do something that inflicts harm on someone else, why should we not answer for it?

"Nor did I miss that you totally discounted it before seeing it...personally, I check things before passing judgement."

I viewed it with suspicion and did my own research. Judging by what I read, I was right to wonder about their fairness.

Where did I promote being irresponsible, harming others or the planet? Nowhere. We can do the right thing without submitting to global governance and there is no reason for us to distribute more of our wealth via this treaty. We already pay plenty to the UN and freely give foreign aid...voluntarily.

It's good to do your own research. You did, however, immediately discount it without watching it. The proof was in the fact you posted your reply within minutes of my posting the video. I checked your link before commenting on it, and when I did, I pointed out that there were some things I agreed with on it...it is a biased website though, in the same way the one I provided is...both promote the beliefs of their creators.

"We can do the right thing without submitting to global governance"

Then why haven't we?

"You did, however, immediately discount it without watching it."

No, I did not. I told you before watching the video that I was inclined to view it with suspicion based on the clear bias it had. That's all. And I was right to view it so.

What link are you talking about that I posted? I don't recall posting a link for you.

With the possible exception of the wars, I highly doubt we would agree on what exactly it is that we are doing wrong. I don't believe there is nearly the problem you do and we do more to help other countries/people than anyone.

http://putpeopleoverprofit.org/

Who knows? We might. I have a wide variety of beliefs all over the poltical spectrum.

One thing I believe wholeheartedly is that we, as a country, have not done enough to protect the environment.

I agree, as it is scary...

Yes I favor the UN meddling in our affairs because we want them to meddle in other countries' affairs.

That's a novel way to look at it. lol

I believe there is already an international law of the sea.

Personally I think all nations should sign a treaty or agreement to a basic minimum set of human rights standards, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, no torture, the right to a fair trial, etc., and it should be enforced by world law. That's kind of what we are doing now but we pick and choose which rules we want to follow and which ones we don't.

Who knows, 200 years from now we may be celebrating the upcoming bicentennial of the United States of Earth.

No, the criminal UN should be defunded and kicked out of this country entirely. The federal government is already too damn big, abusive and out of control and the idea of a central world government authority telling us what to do is quite simply insane.

Native Americans have been incorporated into the national populations of North America and thus, have all the benefits and freedoms that other Americans enjoy and so, have no claim on a separate statehood. You cannot have a state within a state and as I believe they still have occupation of land on the old reservations.

The UN, does not have a mandate to define who or what should occupy any piece or pieces of land, considered to exist within the confines of a bona fide Nations borders.

NO, UN needs to stay out of our affairs.

Seriously.....most Indian tribes were nomadic and they did not have "towns" on those lands. They hunted, but they did'n't "own" them nor did they settle on the land. They actually engaged in stealing and pillaging land from each