President Obama recently created the Atlantic Oceans first Marine Monument.

 

Missed the announcement? Entirely understandable. It came while most American eyes were turned to the latest terrorist bombings on U.S. soil, in New York and New Jersey.

 

But it’s important to circle back and take a deeper look at this declaration, coming as it did by way of Obama’s favorite way of executing his agenda – via pen and phone, absent congressional OK – and coming as it does so clearly in line with what the United Nations envisions for America and for the world.

 

First, the declaration of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument: “If we’re going to leave our children with oceans like the ones that were left to us, then we’re going to have to act. We’re going to have to act boldly,” Obama said, while announcing the monument, and while reflecting fondly on his Hawaiian childhood years, frolicking in the ocean surf and so forth, as CNN painted it.

 

Second, Obama’s declared reasons for the declaration, which spans 4,913 square miles just southeast of Cape Cod: “Dangerous changes in our climate caused mainly by human activity; dead zones in our ocean caused mainly by pollution that we create here on land; unsustainable fishing practices; unprotected marine areas in which rare species and entire ecosystems are at risk – all those things are happening now,” he said, while justifying his executive order, the New York Times reported.

 

Now third: Why the average American should care.

 

It may seem, given Obama’s remarks, that climate change and the need to protect oceanic resources were his main concerns in declaring this monument. And environmentalists, like those with the Natural Resources Defense Council, did in fact cheer, painting the preservation move as well past due. But look deeper. The area’s been used by the commercial fishing and trapping industry for 40 years. It’s only logical that those whose livelihoods depend on the ocean are not only aware of the pitfalls of unsustainable practices – they’re much more apt than any government bureaucracy to take the necessary steps to preserve and conserve. Why would they destroy the very means that feeds their families?

 

Prohibiting commercial fishing as a protectionary measure doesn’t make sense. There’s something else going on.

 

The real agenda with Obama’s newest monument declaration – which immediately bans all oil and gas drilling activities, and sets a 60-day time frame for commercial fishing ventures to exit the area – is much more globalist in scope.

 

In June, Obama delivered the commencement address to the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado. During, he spoke of America’s need to cooperate, not simply dictate, on the world stage – as with treaties.

 

And then he said: “[Treaties] are not a threat to our sovereignty. I think we can all agree on that. … So if we’re truly concerned about China’s actions in the South China Sea, for example, the Senate should help strengthen our case by approving the Law of the Sea Convention … [I]t’s time for the Senate to do its job.”

 

This was not a random, tongue-in-cheek reference. Obama’s been trying to pressure the Senate to ratify the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty for years – the same LOST deal that Ronald Reagan outright refused, out of concerns about the fate of America’s sovereignty.

 

What’s LOST? Critics say the treaty, created in the 1970s, drastically limits fishing and trapping activities, puts seabed mining and exploration under the control of the U.N.-overseen International Seabed Authority, transfers wealth to the poorest nations – not all of which are friendly to America – and exposes participating nations to costly environmental lawsuits. The treaty, which was amended through the years and finally signed by former president Bill Clinton, but never ratified by the Senate, also opens the door to additional regulation of U.S. properties and airspace. After all, if the Law of the Sea Treaty is aimed at preserving marine properties for generations to come, and in a way that fosters cooperative use by participating nations, wouldn’t that mean the air above and the lands adjacent the ocean would have to be monitored for environmental degradations that could impact the waters?

 

Interestingly, the treaty’s regulatory controls are similar to those that come from a national monument declaration.

 

And this is the uncomfortable tie.

 

Obama’s pressed the Senate for years to ratify LOST, to no avail. He just mentioned in June the need to ratify LOST, in a somewhat random remark during a commencement ceremony. He’s a leader with a globalist world view that regards America as equal in standing and stature to all other nations. He’s an American president who brags loudly about his ability to bypass Congress, and ramrod personal agendas absent due legislative process. And he’s someone who just created by declaration the Marine Monument, setting sections of the ocean off-limits to human use and development – same as LOST would do if ratified.

 

No, this is not a simple Marine Monument, aimed at protecting an at-risk ocean property from unsustainable uses. This is a backdoor piecemeal push for the United Nations’ LOST, and Americans ought to beware the next steps – the expansion of this monument, and its eventual connection with others, to the point where Senate ratification becomes a moot matter.

 

First posted at Lifezette, http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/obama-finds-backdoor-to-impose-u-n-s-will-on-u-s-waterways/