Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TideGlider who wrote (73066)	5/29/2012 2:47:57 PM
From: lorne	1 Recommendation Respond to of 103300

Back from the grave: Demand for U.S. wealth giveaway 'Like a vampire, the Law of the Sea Treaty is never quite dead' by Bob Unruh Tuesday, May 29, 2012 wnd.com A treaty proposal that was buried several times has been resurrected in the U.S. Senate, where alarmed critics are warning its ratification, quite simply, would mean the transfer of the authority and wealth that has made the United States the world’s leader to Third World countries. Or even to non-countries, as Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and John Cornyn, R-Texas, contend in a commentary published by Fox News. The senators point out that the Law of the Sea Treaty — which was flatly rejected by the Senate as long ago as Ronald Reagan’s presidency and then failed under Presidents Bush and Clinton — would extract global tax payments from the United States and transfer the revenue and the U.S. technology that generated it to Third World nations. “Under the treaty, the transfer of these funds does not end with nation states,” they write. “These royalty revenues would even be extended to ‘peoples who have not attained full independence or other self-governing status.’ That means groups like the Palestinian Authority and potentially other groups with terrorist ties. “U.S. companies would be forced to give away the very types of innovation that historically have made our nation a world leader while fueling our economic engine,” they write. “Under the best of U.S. economic circumstances, the Senate should say no to such an egregious breach of the trust Americans have placed in us. Our current economic struggles are all the more reason to say no to a treaty that is all cost and no benefit.” The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea would demand that massive new taxes be paid to the International Seabed Authority in Jamaica, which then would give the mostly American money away. “Ceding authority to the ISA would mean that the sovereignty currently held by the U.S. over the natural resources located on large parts of the continental shelf would be lost. That loss would mean lost revenue for the U.S. government in the form of lost royalties that the U.S. government collects from the production of those resources,” the senators write. Estimates are that the resources have a value in the range of “trillions.” Top officials such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey have argued on behalf of the treaty before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They say that losing the assets and launching a massive new tax campaign will help national security and economic development, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. This week, a key Democratic senator said he won’t push for a vote on the radical plan before the presidential election. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he doesn’t want the issue to be on the front burner during the election campaign. The Journal reported that Obama administration officials already have strategized that the vote could be held during the lame-duck period after the election, just as when the vast new taxes and regulations of Obamacare were adopted. Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation said in a Boston Herald column that it appears opposition to the treaty is on the rise. The Journal reported the hearing held this week by Kerry documented continuing opposition, such as from Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who argues it would allow the U.N. to tax the U.S. There also was strong opposition from Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho: “If we give up one scintilla of sovereignty the country has fought for … I can’t vote for it.” The Financial Times gushed with enthusiasm for the plan, however. “Far from taking Americans a step closer to world government, it would signal America’s willingness to stand by its own principles,” the paper said. The Heritage Foundation’s Groves argued against the “deeply flawed treaty.” “What if … the U.S. Treasury was raided for billions of dollars, which were then redistributed to the rest of the world by an international bureaucracy headquartered in Kingston, Jamaica? That’s what will surely happen if the Senate gives its advice and consent to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a deeply flawed treaty,” Groves said. “Like a vampire, the Law of the Sea Treaty is never quite dead. It rises from the grave every few years for Senate hearings,” he continued. “Of course, the vampire must feed and its sustenance is American dollars, sucked out of the U.S. Treasury by a provision of LOST known as Article 92. “LOST directs that the revenue be distributed to ‘developing states’ (such as Somalia, Burma … you get the picture) … The assembly may vote to distribute royalties to undemocratic, despotic or brutal governments in Belarus, China or Zimbabawe – all members of LOST,” Groves explained. Groves said it was interesting that Kerry allowed only supporters to testify. “After all, it is in the interests of those who favor U.S. membership in LOST that the treat not be exposed to direct sunlight,” Groves said.

To: TideGlider who wrote (73066)	5/29/2012 3:02:29 PM
From: John	1 Recommendation Respond to of 103300

Excellent points, Tide. I completely agree. I submit that virtually everyone today is a slave, except for those who own the central banks. Even Bill Gates could be imprisoned or worse if he steps out of line in the eyes of the families that own the central banks. Obama is like a top level-trustee on a slave farm, as is Bernanke, all of Clowngress, top business CEOs, etc. They can be imprisoned or worse if they step out of line in the eyes of the families that own the central banks. The rest of us simply labor and pay taxes literally at gunpoint. "Freedom" really only means that a man can choose what type of career he has that will allow him to pay taxes to the central bank owners. Even if one gives it all up, lives naked as a hermit in a cave in the woods, and eat wild berries from the forest for sustenance, he's probably guilty of trespassing, stealing, and public nudity. The only risk involved there is that they may or may not find you and come after you. Assume the man is very stupid and took a few hundred million dollars worth of gold bars with him. Further assume he wrote the IRS a nasty goodbye letter and basically said, "I'm declaring myself free and my gold free. Hands off! I've moved to these new coordinates with my $5m in gold and I'm not paying taxes anymore. Now leave me alone." What do you think would happen? The IRS would send armed agents to collect what's "theirs" at gunpoint, of course. -nfg- We're owned unless we want to go to jail or die. We're owned.