US taxpayers are forced to finance an unelected, openly criminal gang, the UN. US elites believe the UN is a good vehicle to get us to shut up as the EU silenced Europeans. Imaginary things are in the process of being globally taxed and regulated like global warming, species diversity, and Law of the Sea Treaty. Proceeds can end up in Swiss bank accounts with no questions asked.
6/2/12, "American Independence vs. Global Government: Are We Losing the Struggle?" Breitbart, Avi Davis
"The globalist dream did not end with H.G. Wells nor those of his generation. In fact, the movement he and the other Fabian romantics spawned was really just beginning.
Today, although few advocates talk about a world government in which a single political entity would govern all humanity, a sophisticated and extremely well financed movement to advance global governance has taken root in most western countries. Insisting on the UN as a conduit for enacting international protocols and regulations, almost all of which would override national legislation, globalists use international environmental accords, humanitarian law and international treaties as their vehicles to advance an agenda that is becoming increasingly aggressive and unwilling to brook opposition.
This well-financed campaign designed to strip sovereign governments of their ability to regulate and monitor human rights and environmental protection, has naturally put the globalist agenda on a collision course with constitutional democracy. Put simply, transnationalists in the UN and the European Union, but more importantly among America’s elites, are using the demands for a global rule of law to make American constitutional law subservient to a global authority. And in many respects they are succeeding.
To examine how this is happening and what the consequences might be for the United States and other Western nations, the American Freedom Alliance has convened a two-day conference in Los Angeles titled "Global Governance vs National Sovereignty: Is It the West’s Next Great Ideological War?" Drawing upon an international list of speakers and panelists, with representatives from Australia, Central Europe, the U.K. and France, the conference will cover the full gamut of issues regarding the global governance movement’s assault on national sovereignty -- from the politicization of international law to the uses and abuses of lawfare to the role of non–governmental organizations as purveyors of global rule.
The conference will be headlined by three national leaders who have made firm commitments to the defense and preservation of national sovereignty: John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the United Nations; Vaclav Klaus, the current president of the Czech Republic; and John Howard, the former Prime Minister of Australia. Other speakers include John Yoo, former deputy assistant attorney general in the Bush Administration; John Fonte, author of Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves?; and Pierre Prosper, Ambassador-at-Large under the Bush Administration.
The conference will conclude on Monday, June 11 with a discussion amongst all the speakers of a strategy for resisting global governance activism and with a carefully crafted declaration, signed by the conference participants,
- calling world leaders to action on the issue.
It is fitting to remember that H.G. Wells, who died in 1946 just months after the defeat of Nazi Germany, lived to see to the devastation that Britain's policies of appeasement brought upon the West. But strangely enough, his 1933 book, which had accurately predicted the onset of the Second World War, failed to predict the causes of that war -- proposing that it would be Poland who would be the aggressor against an innocent Germany, not the other way around.
In this there is an important lesson for the modern world: In a brutal time, we are lost when we don’t respond immediately to obvious threats as soon as they appear. The global governance movement is one of those threats. We ignore it at our peril."
"Avi Davis is the president of the American Freedom Alliance and the coordinator of the Global Governance vs National Sovereignty Conference."
5/17/12, "The European grand coalition," presseurop.eu, Stefan Kornelius
"Until now, ideological discussion has been off the menu in a Europe which lacked a genuine culture of debate. Now that we have a French President and a German Chancellor from opposing sides of the political divide, perhaps the EU can revive the interest of its citizens with public exchanges of views on important issues...
10/20/11, "The lost decade," Claremont Institute, Angelo M. Codevilla
"Federal prosecutors in New York City were forced to drop criminal and civil cases because the U.N. officials have immunity,"...
4/16/09, "Report: U.N. spent U.S. funds on shoddy projects," USA Today, Ken Dilanian
"Due to the refusal of the United Nations to cooperate with this investigation, questions remain unanswered," the report says....
Commissioner Dov Zakheim, a former Pentagon controller, asked Gambatesa whether the agencies have immunity "if they siphon (their U.S. grants) all off into Swiss banks? Is that accurate? They will be totally immune, no matter what they do with the money?"
"My understanding is, yes," Gambatesa replied." (item at end of article)
3/30/10, "UN immune from criminal prosecution. Did you know?," SciForums
2/26/12, "Rio+20 meets Agenda 21," WUWT, Willis Eschenbach
"Well, the rent-seekers, money-hungry NGOs, grifters, post-normal “scientists”, con-men, Eurotrash, and the usual camp followers are gearing up again for another monumental waste of money. This time, it’s for the upcoming extravagarbonza, the new Rio+20 Climate Carnival.
The meeting features the usual dangerous bafflegab, which conceals wholesale theft under layers of rhetoric....
Rather than figuring out if there was a danger, Agenda 21 instructed people to establish an imaginary level of “dangerous interference”....
It’s your money that they are planning to run out of, in the process of propping up some of the planet’s most despotic regimes in the name of “combatting climate change”."...
6/24/04, "U.N. LAW OF THE SEA TREATY THREATENS U.S. SOVEREIGNTY," Tom DeWeese, NewsWithViews.com
"Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) and his allies are mad because they had hoped to sneak LOST through the Senate before anyone noticed....Does the Law of the Sea Treaty give the UN decision-making power over the world’s oceans? Of course it does....The Law of the Sea Treaty is closely integrated with the Convention on Climate Change, the World Heritage Treaty, the Convention on Desertification Treaty, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Ozone Depleting Substances and its Montreal Protocol, the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species, and several more
that can be traced back directly to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Six departments of our federal government (including the Department of State) and 44 U.S. environmental organizations are members of the IUCN. The IUCN uses the United Nations as the conduit to funnel the treaties to member countries for ratification. As such, the United Nations becomes the monitor for enforcement and implementation of the treaties. For Sen. Lugar to imply that the UN is not even part of the process is beyond disingenuous; it’s downright deceitful."...
"So who would benefit from this American largesse? The final say regarding distribution of Article 82 royalties is the “assembly,” a body made up of more than 160 countries. The United States would be powerless in the assembly, where it has only a single vote, to prevent the transfer of royalties to repugnant regimes. The assembly may vote to distribute royalties to undemocratic, despotic or brutal governments in Belarus, Burma, China or Zimbabwe—all members of LOST.
Perhaps the funds will go to regimes that are merely corrupt. Thirteen of the world’s 20 most corrupt nations according to Transparency International are parties to LOST. Even Cuba and Sudan, both considered state sponsors of terrorism, could receive these “international royalties.”
Those who favor U.S. accession to LOST must ask themselves why the United States should siphon off wealth from its own continental shelf for the benefit of foreign countries that cannot or will not spend the necessary resources to develop their own continental shelves. Instead of diverting U.S. revenues to such dubious purposes, the Treasury should retain any wealth derived from the U.S. ECS for the benefit of the American people."
7/23/2009, "“ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT”: A STEALTH VEHICLE TO INJECT EURO-STYLE PRECAUTION INTO U.S. REGULATION," Lawrence A. Kogan, Washington Legal Foundation
4/20/12, "The tab for U.N.’s Rio summit: Trillions per year in taxes, transfers and price hikes," George Russell, Fox News
3/22/12, "Mammoth new green climate fund wants United Nations-style diplomatic immunity, even though it’s not part of the UN," George Russell, Fox News
"The Green Climate Fund, which is supposed to help mobilize as much as $100 billion a year to lower global greenhouse gases, is seeking a broad blanket of U.N.-style immunity that would shield its operations from any kind of legal process, including civil and criminal prosecution, in the countries where it operates."...
1/23/12, "Attack on U.S. Sovereignty - The Law of the Sea Treaty," Dr. I.L. Paugh, Canada Free Press
"To spread the wealth, the UN “Authority” (of Law of the Sea Treaty) must regulate and exploit mineral resources by asking companies to pay an application fee of half a million dollars, recently changed to $250,000, and to reserve an extra site for the Authority to “utilize its own mining efforts.”
A corporation must also pay an annual fee of $1 million and up to 7% of its annual profits and share its mining and navigational technology. Mining permits are granted or withheld by the “Authority” which is composed of mostly developing countries. (Heritage Foundation)
Any kind of maritime dispute, fisheries, environmental protection, navigation, and research, must be resolved under this treaty through mandatory dispute resolution by the UN court or tribunal which limits autonomy. Disputes should be resolved by U.S. courts. (Heritage Foundation)
The United States provisional participation in the Laws of the Sea treaty expired in 1998. Should we consider the ratification of another treaty that has the potential to further chip away at our National sovereignty?...
“According to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, National sovereignty is deemed a social injustice.” United Nations treaties and programs want to force “social justice” through socialist/communist redistribution of wealth from developed nations like the U.S. to third world countries."...
Hideous Trent Lott is lobbying to turn America over to global courts and taxation via Law of the Sea Treaty: