UN Wants to Revile American Nationalism---Wants to Control the SEAS and Wants OurMoney

Do we really want to hand more money over to the UN -- Senate should reject Law of the Sea

This week, Massachusetts Democrat Sen. John Kerry and his liberal allies will square off against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Kerry is trying to fulfill the Washington Establishment's decades-old dream of handing the UN more power and US taxpayer money--before the Senate likely becomes less liberal after the November elections.

Foxnews    At issue is the Law of the Sea Treaty, which has been around since the 1970s.
The treaty would give the UN its first capacity to levy taxes directly on Americans, and shift money from the US Treasury to an unaccountable UN bureaucracy in Jamaica.
President Reagan first rejected it in 1982 because it is pointless in many respects and dangerous in others. More recent attempts to get the treaty through the Senate have failed. But Kerry has revived it again--and this time with plenty of Republican help.

The treaty is supposed to be a mechanism to resolve commercial and political disputes beyond countries’ shores. It defines “territorial waters,” “exclusive economic zones” and the like. That is reasonable enough, but no UN action would be complete without aggrandizing more power and funding to the UN. On this, the treaty does not disappoint.
The US currently enjoys sovereignty over its entire continental shelf. This allows Americans to utilize the zone economically, including oil and gas production. Royalties of 12.5% to 18.75% on what some believe to be worth billions or trillions currently accrue to the Treasury.

But article 82 of the treaty alters this. It would divert royalties to a UN body in Kingston, Jamaica. The explicitly stated purpose: redistribution of wealth “on the basis of equitable sharing criteria, taking into account the interests and needs of developing States, particularly the least developed.”

The treaty also theoretically substitutes the UN for the traditional guarantor of freedom of navigation throughout the world: the US Navy.

The UN dispute-resolution tribunal to which the United States would be bound would inevitably become a venue for frivolous actions against Washington.

Poor island nations could blame the US for climate change and sue before an
anti-American jury. No appeal to tribunal decisions is permitted.

Does it make sense to give more money and power the UN? This is, after all, the organization that oversaw the largest instance of corruption in human history in the Iraq-focused "Oil-for-Food" program. It is the primary tool our adversaries turn to first to stymie the USA and our allies.
It not only failed to prevent but in fact oversaw genocide in places like Bosnia and Rwanda. This season, it is seemingly unable to help anyone in Syria except the nation’s cruel tyrant.

But shouldn't serious maritime disputes around the world impel us to join the treaty?
 Isn’t China threatening all of its maritime neighbors, including most of our Pacific allies?
 What about Russia in the Arctic?
Read More