Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), Redistribution of Wealth?

Adopted in 1982, the Law of the Sea Treaty was initially named the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) developing a set of detailed rules to control the oceans, replacing the 1958 (UNCLOS I) and 1960 U.N. Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS II). UNCLOS III was joined by 162 countries.

“Negotiated in the 1970s, the Law of the Sea treaty was influenced by the New International Economic Order, a set of economic principles advanced at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in the 1970s and 1980s,” calling for redistribution of wealth to the less developed countries.

President Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty in 1982 because it demanded technology and wealth transfer from developed countries to developing nations as well as adopting regulations and laws to control oceanic pollution. Jurisdictional limits on oceans included a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone limit. The treaty aimed to regulate economic “activity on, over, and beneath the ocean’s surface.”

Despite the many pros and cons of LOST, in March 2004, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended by unanimous vote that the U.S. sign the treaty.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) opposed the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) on several grounds, including the loss of National Sovereignty. According to Sen. Mike Lee, treaties must represent U.S. economic and security interests.

To ratify a treaty, the President needs two-thirds majority vote from the Senate. To this date, LOST has not been ratified.

The rejection of LOST has not affected our economy and navigation rights. Sen. Lee found the loss of National sovereignty and mandatory dispute resolution included in the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) quite troubling.

The International Seabed Authority (“the Authority”) has the power to distribute “international royalties” to developing and landlocked nations. “So hypothetically, a U.S. company that has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in developing clean and safe deep-sea mining machinery would be forced to give a portion of its profits to countries such as Somalia, Sudan, and Cuba – all considered to be developing nations by ‘the Authority.’” (Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah)

Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, supports the ratification of LOST. He believes that this treaty provides rules to oversee future underwater minerals, gas, oil exploration, and shipping on new water routes opened by receding Arctic icepack. Would, however, the Arctic icepack melt be a constant in the future?

According to Sen. Mark Begich, “The United States is the world’s leading maritime power. Only by ratifying the treaty can it protect freedom of navigation to advance our commercial and national security interests, claim extended continental-shelf areas in the Arctic – an area believed to be twice the size of California – as other nations are already doing, and use its provisions to protect the marine environment, manage fisheries and appoint Americans to help resolve disputes.” (The American Legion Magazine)

The January 2026 issue of The American Legion published another article titled, “Lost at Sea, America’s costly absence from the Law of the Sea Treaty.” The writer of the article, John Norton Moore, a former U.S. Ambassador for the Law of the Sea, pointed out the “critical costs of U.S. non-adherence:

1.      Loss of American deep-seabed mining industry and associated jobs, tax revenues, and scientific and technology knowledge.

2.      Loss of ability for the U.S. to shape environmental and mineral recovery rules.

3.      Death by a Thousand Cuts – he believes China undercuts U.S. navigational freedom for the Navya and Air Force.

4.      Loss of the strongest legal basis against Chinese ‘gray-zone’ challenges of Chinese illegal activities

5.      Difficulty cooperating with our allies who are all part of the treaty.

6.      Uncertainty concerning the status of the U.S. ‘extended continental shelf.’

7.      Inability of the U.S. to effectively participate in the most important oceans institutions

8.      Ignoring the U.S. national security community,” including the environmental community.

According to the Heritage Foundation, innocent passage through an area is already protected under “multiple independent treaties, as well as traditional international maritime law.”  Few countries deny passage to the U.S., given its naval superiority. Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, “intelligence and submarine maneuvers in territorial waters would be restricted and regulated.” It is thus not in the national security interest of the United States to ratify this treaty.

The treaty requires policies that regulate deep-sea mining: it requires rules and regulations to control and prevent marine pollution: and requires the control of corporations who cannot bring lawsuits independently. They must depend on the country of origin to plead their case in front of the United Nations’ agency.

“Some proponents of the treaty believe that it will establish a system of property rights for mineral extraction in deep seabed, making the investment in such ventures more attractive.”

President Reagan objected to the principle of the “Common Heritage of Mankind,” which dictates that marine resources belong to all humanity and cannot be exploited by one nation.

To redistribute the wealth, the UN “Authority” must regulate and exploit mineral resources by asking companies to pay an application fee and to reserve an extra site for the Authority to “utilize its own mining efforts.”

A corporation must also pay an annual fee 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)

“Article 82 of the Convention: “Payments and contributions with respect to the exploitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.” If the U.S. accedes to UNCLOS, it will be required pursuant to Article 82 to transfer royalties generated on the U.S. continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (nm)—an area known as the “extended continental shelf” (ECS)—to the International Seabed Authority. These royalties will likely total tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars over time. Instead of benefiting the American people, the royalties will be distributed by the Authority to developing and landlocked nations, including some that are corrupt, undemocratic, or even state sponsors of terrorism such as Cuba and Sudan.” https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Groves%20prepared%20testimony%20for%20UNCLOS%20hearing%20(final).pdf

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 GOP has passed a resolution on January 14, 2012, exposing United Nations Agenda 21 as “a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED).” 

“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 wealth redistribution from developed nations to third world countries.

The United States’ provisional participation in LOST expired in 1998. Would the ratification of another treaty that has the potential to further chip away at our national sovereignty be a clever idea?

 

USMCA Sneaking the Law of the Sea Treaty through the Back Door?

Photo credit: Canada Free Press.com

The legal dictionary defines sovereignty as “the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.”

It is thus quite surprising that the new USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada) trade agreement which is to replace NAFTA contains a new chapter (24) on Environment which was not in the NAFTA agreement. The three Parties recognize Sustainable Development (SD), the lynchpin of Agenda 21 now morphed into Agenda 2030, as an essential ingredient without which trade cannot exist. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/agreements/FTA/USMCA/24%20Environment.pdf

Since USMCA dictates that trade cannot exist without sustainable development and a healthy environment with strict guidelines, USMCA then must logically follow the 17 U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which are promoted by U.N. and all its affiliated agencies as follows:

1.      No poverty

2.      Zero hunger

3.      Good health

4.      Quality education

5.      Gender equality

6.      Clean water and sanitation

7.      Affordable and clean energy

8.      Decent work and economic growth

9.      Industry, innovation, and infrastructure

10.  Reduced inequalities

11.  Sustainable cities and communities

12.  Responsible production and consumption

13.  Climate action

14.  Life below water

15.  Life on land

16.  Peace, justice, and strong institutions

17.  Partnerships for sustainable development goals (SDGs).

Sustainable Development and biodiversity are found in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), an agreement which President Trump has denounced. Article 24.15 of USMCA clearly states that “The Parties recognize the importance of conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, as well as the ecosystem services it provides, and their key role in achieving sustainable development.”

In article 24.18, Sustainable Fisheries Management, regulating “marine wild capture fishing,” USMCA agreement subordinates the United States to U.N.’s international authority and its many organizations.

“Each Party shall base its fisheries management system on the best scientific evidence and on internationally recognized best practices for fisheries management and conservation as reflected in the relevant provisions of international instruments aimed at ensuring the sustainable use and conservation of marine species.” (USMCA, art. 24.18, p. 1)

Sustainable fisheries must abide by the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and many others. (USMCA, art. 24.18)

A.J. Cameron stated that the “same people in the Obama Administration who crafted the TPP also crafted USMCA. USMCA back-doors many of the tenets of the reprehensible trade agreements to which we were told by politicians that we would not become a member.”

The Brexit vote was based on issues such as the fishing restrictions placed upon Britain by the European Union. Not only did they destroy the British fishing industry but also any other industry dependent on it. The British fishing industry was forced to cede to the fishing industry of other countries that could not compete with the U.K.

The European Union and 162 countries have joined the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) which was adopted in 1982 and now called simply The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). There were two earlier versions of U.N. treaties with rules that seek to control the oceans: UNCLOS I in 1958 and UNCLOS II in 1960.

President Reagan rejected the treaty in 1982 because it demanded technology and wealth transfer from developed countries to developing nations as well as adopting regulations and laws to control oceanic pollution. Jurisdictional limits on oceans included a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone limit. The treaty aimed to “regulate economic activity on, over, and beneath the ocean’s surface.”

“Negotiated in the 1970s, the Law of the Sea Treaty was heavily influenced by the New International Economic Order, a set of economic principles first formally advanced by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in the 1970s and 1980s,” calling for redistribution of wealth to the benefit of third world countries.

Treaties must represent U.S. economic and security interests. According to Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), our economic and navigation rights are not going to be affected by the fact that the U.S. Senate has not ratified LOST. He found the loss of national sovereignty and mandatory dispute resolution included in the treaty quite troubling.

The International Seabed Authority (“the Authority”) has the power to distribute “international royalties” to developing and landlocked nations. “So hypothetically, a U.S. company that has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in developing clean and safe deep-sea mining machinery would be forced to give a portion of its profits to countries such as Somalia, Sudan, and Cuba – all considered to be developing nations by ‘the Authority.’”(Sen. Mike Lee in the American Legion Magazine)

The former Democrat Senator and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, Mark Begich, supported the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). He believed that it provided rules to handle future underwater minerals, gas, and oil exploration and shipping on new water routes opened by receding Arctic icepack, all under the United Nations aegis. The global warming theorists believed that the icepack melt would be a constant in the future.

According to the Heritage Foundation, innocent passage through an area is already protected under “multiple independent treaties, as well as traditional international maritime law.” Few countries deny passage to the U.S., given its naval superiority.

Under LOST, “intelligence and submarine maneuvers in territorial waters would be restricted and regulated.” It is thus not in the national security interest of the United States to ever ratify this treaty.

LOST requires policies that regulate deep-sea mining, rules and regulations to control and prevent marine pollution, and control of corporations who cannot bring lawsuits independently. They must depend on the country of origin to plead their case in front of the United Nations agency.

President Reagan objected to the Principle of the “Common Heritage of Mankind,” which instructed that marine resources belong to all mankind and cannot be exploited by one nation. https://www.heritage.org/commentary/the-law-the-sea

According to Heritage Foundation, the UN “Authority” must regulate mineral resources by asking companies to pay an application fee and to reserve an extra site for the “Authority” to “utilize its own mining efforts.” https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/un-sea-treaty-still-bad-deal-us

A corporation must also pay an annual fee, up to 7 percent 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.

Under LOST, any kind of maritime dispute, fisheries, environmental protection, navigation, and research must be resolved under this treaty through mandatory dispute resolution by the U.N. court or tribunal which limits autonomy. But disputes should be resolved by U.S. courts.

When Congress approves the USMCA agreement, the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) will also be ratified through the back-door, by including it in the USMCA.  Which senator is going the read this massive bill?

“After less than two years of negotiations, the USMCA was released early on October 1, 2018 on the USTR website for the public to read. It runs for 1,809 pages — 1,572 pages for the treaty chapters, 214 pages for additional annexes, and 23 pages of side letters.” https://www.thenewamerican.com/print-magazine/item/30541-what-s-wrong-with-the-usmca?vsmaid=1929&vcid=11070

Senators like Orrin Hatch (R-UT) are eager to pass USMCA trade agreement. But we must inform our senators that any future “free trade” agreements must be discussed transparently. Those running for office should be forced to go on record whether they will support USMCA or oppose it. We must not pass this massive USMCA trade agreement in order to find out what’s in it as Nancy Pelosi famously said about the not so Affordable Care Act. There is more than just “free trade” in this huge USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada) document.

Epilogue to My New Book, U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy

When President Obama says, “We don’t need more roads in the suburbs,” he is pushing and forcing us into the United Nations Agenda 21. On my recent trip to Europe, I experienced the many effects of Agenda 21 compliance.

A windmill was slowly turning next to a gas station in a field in Romania. Nearby was a small well, pumping crude oil.

Lighting was so poor everywhere, I could hardly see to put make-up on in the morning. Anemic, low wattage CFL bulbs cast a dim glow that made me feel sick.

Smart meters had turned off the AC in the lobby of the four star hotel where I stayed. The wide-open doors did not help reduce the stifling hot atmosphere. Rooms were allowed AC with the door key. Fancy bathroom mirrors in the lobby had tiny television sets imbedded in the middle. I would have preferred air conditioning.
 
Decrepit multi-storied apartments had banks of brand new and shiny smart meters in the lobby. Cell phone towers were placed on rooftops of high-rise tenements approved by regional authorities.
 
Electricity use was drastically cut. The high price per kilowatt hour discouraged the use of appliances that we take for granted, placing them out of the reach of many consumers who lived on fixed incomes.
 
Crops were scarce because many fertile fields were used for hundreds of windmills instead of producing grains and food.

Diesel was $10 a gallon and a new breed of bio fuel Diesel was almost $11 a gallon. This new Diesel Maxx contained a mixture of rapeseed oil, a vegetable plant that makes thick oil we used for cooking during the communist regime when foodstuff was in short supply.
 
Nobody was running air conditioners even though it was 92 degrees Fahrenheit and very humid for early October. Europeans have been falsely conditioned by doctors and environmentalists that it is bad for one’s health to use air conditioning and to drink anything chilled or with ice. Asking for ice cubes in Europe is perceived as nothing short of madness. European waiters roll their eyes and return with two ice cubes floating in a large glass of lukewarm beverage.
 
The airliner I chose to travel to Europe was KLM. Ever so environmentally conscious, KLM asked passengers to defray their carbon foot print of the flight by donating money to an environmental cause pushing Agenda 21 goals.
 
In order to change my ticket for another day, which normally would cost $150 in the United States, KLM charged me $674, the cost of almost another ticket. Most of the quoted price consisted of global and environmental taxes, including the transatlantic air tax which so far American airliners have refused to pay.

Wherever I went, lights were so dim that everything looked dingy and depressing. If you did not stumble in the dark stores and restaurants, you most certainly succumbed to cigarette smoke inhalation.
 
President Obama is going to make good on his promise to spread the wealth around through his global tax plan, the UN global governance, a plan to steal from the United States and distribute our wealth to third world nations that are really the backbone and the reason for the United Nation’s existence. United Nations is no longer the peacekeeper it was intended to be and it does not represent the interests of the United States.
 
If Obama is re-elected, his second term will be dedicated to the focused de-development of the United States with the help of United Nations via global taxes and governance:

-         Billionaires Taxes (there are currently 1,600 billionaires across the globe, 400 in the U.S. alone)

How far of a stretch would it be to tax millionaires and then ordinary citizens when the revenue collected from billionaires is not enough?

-         The Robin Hood Tax (the financial transactions tax involving every purchase of currency, stocks, bonds, real estate, or any transaction involving purchase of assets)

-         Global cigarette tax

-         Transatlantic air tax, a tax meant to offset the carbon emissions of airplanes flying to and from  Europe (this is the very expensive tax I paid to fly with KLM, a Dutch carrier)

This tax is required by the European Union and is in excess of airport fees and taxes.

-         The Law of the Sea Treaty gives the United Nations the right to tax nations for the right to explore for minerals and oil on the sea bed, fish, and move in global waters. The taxes charged will be paid to the “Authority” which in turn will distribute the proceeds to the United Nations. After paying itself the lion’s share, UN will distribute the rest to third world nations, particularly land-locked countries. A percentage of royalties from underwater oil wells will also be distributed to third world nations. An additional tax associated with LOST is the carbon tax levied because of the marine thermal pollution presumably caused by the United States.

All these taxes are part of the master plan for global redistribution of wealth from the United States to the third world via the stewardship of the United Nations under the umbrella of global governance. The global transfer of taxes is not going to help poor people in third world nations. The money will go to the corrupt dictators who run these nations and dominate the discussion and policy at the United Nations.

All the foreign aid that we give third world nations is never used for good – it buys weapons to further the wars between factions in third world nations that are fighting for control and dominance. Those in power take the foreign aid that becomes the means to succeed in their plans to control the population and keep it poor, undermining free enterprise and economic freedom.

According to Dick Morris, President Obama plans to sign various treaties in the lame duck session of Congress that would obligate the United States “in perpetuity” to fund dictatorships and causes that are contrary to American values until “the Senate rejects it or the new President renounces it.” Under the Vienna Convention, the President’s signature suffices and ratification by Congress is not necessary. (Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert, October 8, 2012)

A treaty to regulate the Internet will be signed in December 2012 in Dubai. Although the proceedings are held in secret, we do know that the United Nations will control and Internet, assigning IP addresses to people, requiring them to notify the host country of their IP addresses. United Nations will censor who uses Internet and will charge excessive fees to those individuals accessing websites outside of their countries, a form of taxation. We invented the Internet. Must we now relinquish it to the power and control of the United Nations?

Hillary Clinton is going to sign a global code of conduct which will put United States in the position of being unable to defend itself or start a war without the approval of the Security Council, more specifically, Russia and China.

Although defeated in July 2012, the Small Arms Treaty might still be signed during the lame duck session of Congress, putting Americans in the position of having to give up their hunting and self-defense weapons. (Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, Here Come the Black Helicopters!)

Is this the kind of country we want to live in? Do we want to give up our wealth, weapons, the ability to defend ourselves, our economic freedom, our property, our country, our way of life, and sovereignty to the United Nations, run by tin pot third world dictators, in the name of “social justice” dictated by Agenda 21?

 

 

 

Planting the UN Flag on the Earth's Oceans

The World Oceans Summit in Singapore is the latest platform for United Nations World Bank to announce its latest assault on sovereign economic decisions and freedom. The oceans are suddenly very sick and “we need coordinated global action to restore our oceans to health,” says World Bank president Robert Zoellick.

UN has decided that we  need a new partnership to “confront the problems of over-fishing, marine degradation, and loss of habitat.”  To achieve this goal, Zoellick proposes $300 million in “catalytic finance” from a coalition of countries, scientific centers, NGOs, international organizations, foundations, and the private sector.

Knowledge, experience, expertise, and investment will be gathered around a set of agreed upon goals. His next sentence, reveals the creator of this new scheme, the United Nations with its Agenda 21.  Another $1.2 billion must be raised, he said, “to support healthy and sustainable oceans.” A “sustainable” anything is the buzzword for Agenda 21. The final total would be $1.5 billion in new commitments over five years. The group will reconvene in April 2012 in Washington, D.C. for further lobbying of U.S. funds.

Zoellick suggests that marine protected areas should be 5 percent not just 2 percent. After all, 12 percent of land is protected. The earth’s water mass is so much larger, they must control more.“The world’s oceans are in danger, “send out the S-O-S, we need to save our seas.”

One billion people in developing countries depend on fish and seafood for their primary source of protein and half a billion depend on fishing for their livelihood. Fishing represents 80 percent of export for Pacific Island states and coastal nations. It is abundantly clear that this new platform is another UN Agenda 21 initiative to spread the wealth from developed countries to developing nations.

If we consider the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) which aims to control mineral and oil exploration in oceans, and oceanic passage under the United Nations control with its “Agency,” the Biosphere land preserves and corridors, population density controls, rezoning of living areas, restricted mobility through decreased usage of fossil fuels as a means of locomotion, and now control of fishing on the oceans, it is evident that United Nations wants to control every aspect of our lives.

All across the U.S. efforts are underway to pass Regional plans that erase boundaries between cities, counties, and states. “We are losing our ability to influence our government policies at the same time that we are being solicited for our opinion.” This is the Delphi method of manipulating and controlling groups that may protest. (Rosa Koire)

HB 430 will expand the "Regional Cooperation Incentive Fund" and allow the fund to offer an increased amount of government grant money to planning commissions that "consolidate or coordinate" with other local planners, thus regionalize.

Regionalization is a step towards globalization because it is an unelected, unaccountable layer of government in which municipalities become borderless groups. The unelected individuals will develop comprehensive plans of land use that supersede local laws and often disregard private property rights. This parasitic layer of government will then require the local community to bring their laws and zoning in line with their dictates.

There will be 11 Mega-Regions in the United States by 2050, including parts of Canada and Mexico. (www.America2050.org)  This planning is taking place to sign up and ensnare cities. (www.iclei.org) United Nations site is very explicit about it as well. (www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/  The adoption date of these Regional plans is middle of 2013 all over the United States.

The Regional plans are implemented in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, expanding public transportation, and funding low-income housing, with slight variations, depending on the area. High-density areas, restrictions on building because of urban sprawl, Smart Growth, reduced car usage, bike paths are some of the issues presented. The keystone of Mega-Regions plans are high speed trains.

According to the Post Sustainability Institute and its Executive Director, Rosa Koire, all Mega-Region “Plans give power to regional transportation and planning boards (MPOs and COGs) through federal and state fund disbursement. In all plans, housing and transportation are linked. In all plans, population projections are hugely inflated. All plans will go forward as planned. This is a planning revolution.”

Examples of plans around the country that include the word “vision,” a buzzword of UN Agenda 21, are:

-          One Valley One Vision (Santa Clarita Valley, Ca; Montana; Las Cruces, New Mexico)

      -          Nine Counties One Vision (Tennessee)
      -          One Region One Vision (New York, Indiana)
      -          Our Florida Our Vision
      -          One Bay Area (9 counties and San Francisco Bay area)
      -          Six Towns One Vision (Lycoming County)
      -          Five Counties One Vision (Minnesota)
      -          Four States One Vision (Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas)

Rosa Koire urges citizens to refuse to accept these plans, as they are not the citizens’ plans; they are destroying the government and installing an unelected regime of the UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development/ICLEI (International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives).

Environmentalists are still pushing the global warming agenda although it has been revealed as inaccurate. Thirty thousand temperature readings all over the world have actually revealed a global cooling since 1997. There is just too much money to be made from cap and trade and carbon taxes charged to hapless citizens all over the world. 

The climate scientist Richard Lindzen of MIT declared that global warming is not backed by “settled science.” “Claims that the earth has been warming, that there is a Greenhouse Effect, and that man’s activity have contributed to warming are trivially true but essentially meaningless.”

The CO2 doubling in the last 150 years represents a change in temperature rise of seven or eight tenths of one degree Celsius. Our natural body temperature varies by eight tenths of one degree Celsius.

Richard Lindzen continued that the CO2 represented a two percent change in radiation. When the sun was 20-30 percent cooler, about two billion years ago, the planet’s temperature was the same.

Dr. Lindzen continued that the slide Al Gore presented, showing melting ice caps, disappearing icebergs, receding glaciers, and rising sea levels was published by the U.S. Weather Bureau in 1922.

According to Rodney Atkinson, if Lindzen is right, we will never be able to calculate the trillions that have been spent on the advice of ‘scientists in the service of politics.’”

Americans are either overwhelmed or blissfully unaware of the UN Agenda 21 highly successful attacks from all directions. The question remains, are we going to be effective in fighting back the Green Monster, this multi-faceted assault on our freedom and our way of life? Are we going to roll back and wait to be completely taken over?