A GOOD QUESTION

I challenge you to identify the context for which this statement/question is:

“I suggest that the task force recommend our model to the United Nations rather than us adopting the United Nations model,” he says in a phone interview. “The American model is the best in the world, so our question is: Why seek the lowest common denominator?”

These days the first thing that comes to mind is health care, but there are other fronts, too, in which the Obama Administration seems to advocate and embrace the policies and methods of the United Nations or European models.

The above quote pertains to an article from the Christian Science Monitor on Fishing Rights.

Following is the quote that immediately preceded the above reference one.

Marine spatial planning (MSP), according to the United Nations, is “a public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that usually have been specified through a political process." That kind of government-speak scares Phil Morlock, director of environmental affairs at the reel-and-rod maker Shimano. Mr. Morlock points to references by the ocean task force to “one global sea” as evidence that what’s really being proposed are broad changes to America's user-funded conservation strategy, potentially affecting even inland waters.

What part of American civilization are they not going to try and control?

On the topic of fish and environmentalists, one issue that troubles me greatly is the policy in California to divert the farm waters, not from pollution or something that would hurt the crops, but rather to a little fish' water supply that is becoming an endangered species. Using the water to nourish the crops in the fertile Central Valley may cause the extinction of a little fish. Their solution? Let the crops die. What a waste. Those crops feed the nation and the world. Not only are the crops destroyed, but the farmers' and their workers' livelihood as well. And, that is not to mention the increased cost of produce across the nation as we have to rely even more on South America and other fertile lands to provide our fruits and vegetables. Have we not learned that relying on other countries for our essential needs makes us vulnerable to those countries' whims. I'm thinking of oil. America is abundantly blessed with natural resources. We should be able to use them. Use them wisely, but use them. God created them for our use. Everything on this earth is made for the sustainment of the whole. The earth evolves as necessary, adapting to the changes in its character, due to disasters, changing climate, and so forth. We don't need to be intentionally intervening in the earth's natural process of adaptation to circumstances. (I think there is an analogy here for our financial crisis, but I digress).

In Genesis 1:28-30,

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all creatures that move on the ground - everything that has life in it - I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

He did not say, "I give the government the job of ruling over the fish of the sea..... everything that has life in it." The world's leaders are taking this view, however. I think that despite any of their best intentions, it's dangerous and destructive to give a piece of humanity this type of control, when God, Himself, gave it to all sons of Adam and daughters of Eve.

The earth and civilization has endured for millennia without our intentional intervention (vs. responsible use) of its natural resources. The natural resources of this earth are a blessing from God. Why is it that as a civilization we find it beneficial to sacrifice human life for the greater good when we will not sacrifice a little fish for the greater good of the millions of people who rely on the crops that come from the blessing of the very fertile land in the Central Valley? Species have come and gone for all of time. If one day, the earth is destroyed, it will be upon God's return. We are promised that it will one day.
Revelation 21:1 says,

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea."

I am NOT advocating poor stewardship and waste of these blessings, but I am advocating the allowance for their free use. Commerce and charity can help to distribute them, but the control is not with "the few."

As I searched the internet for a reference to the California fish protection policy, I found one with the headline, Tiny fish threatens to turn California’s Central Valley into Dust Bowl
To date, the Obama administration has shown little interest in reversing a policy that favors fish over farmers.