Home

The keys to the kingdom :“Rip & Ship” Law of the Sea treaty

12 Comments

Marti Oakley       © Copyright 2012  All Rights Reserved  Reposting and reblogging:  Retitling to redirect traffic will be treated as [theft of content].  No modifications of any kind are allowed.  Original URL must be embedded in the repost and all author credits clearly visible, including copyright.

___________________________________________________________________

Business liars and military hawks testify on the Law of the Sea Treaty

On June 28th, 2012, Senator John Kerry (D)MA, convened a hearing on behalf of the Council of Foreign Relations in support of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). Senator Kerry, acting on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) obviously forgetting that he is a Senator of  a state and who, instead represented himself as the representative of a foreign interest, claims he will not bring the LOST Treaty up for a vote until after the election so as not to politicize it. I am wondering what the delay is?

The LOST treaty would in effect be full capitulation to maritime law (admiralty law) within the United States and would effectively obliterate what is left of the Constitution and the laws and protections associated with it. “Maritime law is the law that exclusively govern activities at sea or in any navigable waters.” (1)

The question now becomes: How to use definitions and terms to imply or dictate the application of LOST terms within and upon the land mass of the nation? Simple: you simply redefine the description “navigable waters“, to “waters of America”. This covers everything, allows for broad interpretations of the treaty and the law, (meaning it can mean anything they want it to mean at any time) and then include provisions that put any complaints outside the US court system. More

Today’s EPA: A virtual River of Waste

4 Comments

Marti Oakley           Copyright 2012 All Rights Reserved

_______________________________________________________

Today’s EPA:  A virtual River of Waste

A recent set of guidelines has been proposed by yet another dysfunctional and totally worthless federal agency, the Environmental Protection agency. (EPA)  Although the proposed guidelines do not have the full force and effect of law, regulatory decisions could still have an impact. (Not only do they not have the full force and effect of law, the only place they can be applied with any authority is in the District of Criminals.)

So here are my thoughts on this: 

If the proposed guidelines do NOT have the full force and effect of law as admitted……create all the regulations you like……but stay out of my state!

The EPA, the agency that has given a pass to gas and oil cartels on everything from the Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act and virtually any other environmental protections, is now coming after water on private lands.  This is the same agency that expended huge amounts of money collecting cow farts in order to create a system of fee permits (taxes) that could be applied to every cow.  That didn’t quite get off the ground.

This 2009 documentary will give you an idea of the proficiency and clarity with which the EPA operates on a daily basis.  If you can get through this documentary without getting sick,… good for you!  And keep in mind that the EPA was fully aware of the massive and continuing contamination of coastal and inland waterways when all this was taking place.  They refused to act until areas like Chesapeake Bay were rendered virtual dead zones.

River of Waste: The Hazardous Truth About Factory Farms

More

Defining the “United States”

16 Comments

Guest Author:  Danny Martinez (c)copyright 2011

_____________________________________________

“To fully understand the impact of changing the wording from navigable waters to waters of the United States one must understand the clear meaning of what “United States” means.”

________________________________________________

UNITED STATES

In April 2, 2009, S. 787 the Clean Water Restoration Act was introduced to the 111th Congress,  which was a bill to amend the “Federal Water Pollution Control Act” to clarify the jurisdiction of the United States over waters of the United States. Section 1 Short Title says “This Act may be cited as the Clean Water Restoration Act.”  The purpose of the Act was to (1) to reaffirm the original intent of Congress in enacting the Federal Water Pollution control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500; 86 Stat. 816) to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States; and (2) to clarify define the waters of the United States that are subject to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)as those features that were treated as such pursuant to the final rule (including the preamble that final rule) published at 53 Fed. Reg. 20764 (June6, 1988) and 51 Fed Reg 41206 (November 13, 1986) and other applicable rules and interpretations in effect on January, 8, 2001.” [emphasis added]

This act has caused a lot of reaction from the states in regards to their sovereignty and their jurisdiction over waters within the boundaries of their respective states. This has not been diminished in any manner as Sect. 3 Findings (5) “Congress Supports the policy in effect under section 101(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251(g)), which states that the authority of each State to allocate quantities of water within its jurisdiction shall not be superseded, abrogated or otherwise impaired by this Act. ….” [emphasis added]

To fully understand the impact of changing the wording from navigable waters to waters of the United States one must understand the clear meaning of what “United States” means.

In 1945 the Supreme Court in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) defined the term “United States” as having three distinct meanings ; The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty to the United States [672] extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.” More

HR 5088: Minnesota gears up to fight land and water theft

Leave a comment

NATIONAL WATER & CONSERVATION ALLIANCE

St. Paul, Minnesota – Vancouver, Washington

_____________________ 

St. Paul, Minnesota
October 6, 2010
(612) 558-2859     
don@nationalwaterconservation.org


A Clean Water Fallacy
by
Don Parmeter

(498 words)

     There are several disturbing aspects about H.R. 5088, America’s Commitment to Clean Water Act, authored by Minnesota Congressman James Oberstar and introduced in April.
There’s the bill itself, arguably the biggest federal power grab in American history, given the proposed change in language to the 1972 federal Clean Water Act.  Mr. Oberstar’s bill would replace the term ‘Navigable’ with ‘Waters of the U.S.,’ which would include: all waters currently used, used in the past, or susceptible to use in future commerce; all interstate and international waters; and all other waters and their tributaries, including intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, ponds, meadows and sloughs. More

The United States Doesn’t Own the Mississippi River

4 Comments

LIVE LINK:  LLSTULER.com

Reprinted with permission

_______________________________________________________

The United States does not have exclusive ownership of the Mississippi River.  This is evidenced by the statutes within the United States Code (U.S.C.).  Let’s start with the Constitution at Article VI.

The first paragraph of Article VI of the Constitution reads as follows:

“All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before    the  Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United   States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.”

This simple paragraph lays waste to the commonly held opinion that the Articles of Confederation were simply abandoned with the ratification of the Constitution.  To understand the history of the United States one must study the official historical legislative documents of the United States.

After the revolution, the Peace Treaty of 1783 was made between the United States and Great Britain.  A copy of the Peace Treaty of 1783 is included:  Peace Treaty of 1783.  This was during the time that the Articles of Confederation were the governing law of the land.  Article 8 of the Peace Treaty of 1783 follows:

“The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great  Britain and the citizens of the United States.”

At the time that the Peace Treaty of 1783 was made, the Mississippi River was basically the western border of the new United States of America.  The Spanish, the French, and Great Britain were all still vying for the remaining land of the New World. More

%d bloggers like this: