Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Urges Senate to Act on Law of Sea Treaty
CQ ^ | May 16, 2007 | William Scally

Posted on 05/16/2007 8:04:07 AM PDT by 3AngelaD

President Bush urged the Senate Tuesday to act on the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea Convention during this session of Congress and won swift backing from two influential Republican senators.

Republican Sens. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Ted Stevens of Alaska echoed Bush’s call for ratification of the accord (Treaty Doc 103-39), which the Foreign Relations Committee approved unanimously in February 2004, under Lugar’s chairmanship.

The Bush administration supported the treaty, but the accord never reached the Senate floor due to opposition from conservatives concerned it would surrender U.S. sovereignty. Current Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware said last week that the only way action would occur on the treaty this Congress would be if the administration pressed for it.

The international pact, which took effect in 1994 after ratification by 60 countries, set up a legal system to govern all uses of the oceans, including navigation, research, pollution and seabed mining...

Bush said in his statement that participation in the treaty would secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including valuable natural resources...

In an “essay,” Lugar said the United States had been “a free rider” on the treaty for too long, and by embracing it could “help counter the prejudices that America is an unreliable partner or a threat to world order.”...

(Excerpt) Read more at public.cq.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: economy; globalism; lawoftheseatreaty; lost; thirdworld; trade
Lugar is an old fool and Stevens isn't much better. Reagan opposed this the first time around for good reason. The Law of the Sea represents a threat to our national security and our sovereignty. It also requires that Americans be taxed in order for American companies to economicaly exploit the world’s seabeds (such as drill for oil), the proceeds going to Third World dictators by way of the U.N. It establishes an international organization with the authority to levy international taxes.
1 posted on 05/16/2007 8:04:08 AM PDT by 3AngelaD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD
Bush Urges Senate to Act on Law of Sea Treaty

I just can't figure out why this man is so desperate to sell out his country before his term is up.

Simply mind boggling.

2 posted on 05/16/2007 8:06:37 AM PDT by CrawDaddyCA (My goodness, is everyone around here smoking crack?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD

Law of the Sea Treaty is horrible. Hopefully, the prez aides will see this and advise him accordingly.


3 posted on 05/16/2007 8:08:03 AM PDT by lilylangtree (Veni, Vidi, Vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CrawDaddyCA

Watch out. You’ll get the world-government conspiracy theory followers to come out in droves.


4 posted on 05/16/2007 8:08:34 AM PDT by 3AngelaD (They've screwed up their own countries so bad they had to leave, now they're here screwing up ours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree

They advised him to URGE THE SENATE TO PASS IT. And he took their advise.


5 posted on 05/16/2007 8:09:40 AM PDT by 3AngelaD (They've screwed up their own countries so bad they had to leave, now they're here screwing up ours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD

WTF!!!- Why don’t we all just pick up and move out so other people can enjoy the country we buit.

I for one am looking forward to serving our new alien masters.


6 posted on 05/16/2007 8:10:08 AM PDT by Waverunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD

Give up your sovereignty and people will like you.


7 posted on 05/16/2007 8:10:09 AM PDT by JZelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD
President Bush, you silly man...

The Senate is too busy trying to surrender to Islam to worry about treaties. We "lost", remember?

Oh, you say we didn't? Then how come the GOP and the RNC are on vacation these days?

8 posted on 05/16/2007 8:10:49 AM PDT by kromike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD

Bush said in his statement that participation in the treaty would secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including valuable natural resources..
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

Shut up, Bush, and BUILD THAT WALL if you’re so interested in our sovereignty! And knock off all your NAU projects that Iraq distracts attention from....


9 posted on 05/16/2007 8:11:10 AM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD
Lugar said the United States had been “a free rider” on the treaty for too long

The rest of the world and the treaty has been a 'free rider' on the USA for that long.

10 posted on 05/16/2007 8:12:17 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CrawDaddyCA

The Dims really want this BUT President Bush wants it too, therefore, it will never leave the House.


11 posted on 05/16/2007 8:19:16 AM PDT by WorkerbeeCitizen (Anti Islam and a Global Warming denier - piss on Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD

If the President is truly interested in protecting our sovereignty, he’d best start with our non-existent border security, as opposed to promoting yet another phony UN Globalist money-grabbing scheme - especially one that Ronald Reagan saw through years ago. Will the last sane person in Washington please turn out the lights?


12 posted on 05/16/2007 8:19:36 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD
The Bush administration supported the treaty, but the accord never reached the Senate floor due to opposition from conservatives concerned it would surrender U.S. sovereignty.

But now, Bush has a Congress he can work with, so he is again pushing to surrender U.S. sovereignty.

[And we though Clinton was a bad president.]
13 posted on 05/16/2007 8:21:53 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WorkerbeeCitizen

you say...

“The Dims really want this BUT President Bush wants it too, therefore, it will never leave the House.”

Bad news: it’s a treaty. It can be implemented by consent of 50% +1 in the Senate. The House has no say.


14 posted on 05/16/2007 8:38:44 AM PDT by John Semmens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD

Our governement, Bush and Congress, are bound and determined to commit national suicide.


15 posted on 05/16/2007 8:42:08 AM PDT by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD

It looks like Bush is aiming for a twofer. Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and Immigration Reform.

He is going to go down in history as one of the worst presidents in American history if these bills go through.

It’s very sad. He has good basic instincts, but it seems as if someone has bought and paid for all this NWO stuff.

Maybe he can give San Francisco to China as a free port for their goods under full Chinese control. That would make it a threefer.


16 posted on 05/16/2007 8:52:41 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Semmens

Rats


17 posted on 05/16/2007 8:56:09 AM PDT by WorkerbeeCitizen (Anti Islam and a Global Warming denier - piss on Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CrawDaddyCA

>I just can’t figure out why this man is so desperate to sell out his country before his term is up.<

Maybe he wants to outshine Benedict Arnold in the history books to come in The New World Order.


18 posted on 05/16/2007 8:56:13 AM PDT by Paperdoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

Prelude: George H W Bush loses the 1992 election and is a lame-duck for 2 1/2 months
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

snip:
President Bush signed the NAFTA agreement on December 17, 1992 at a meeting of the Organization of American States. The accord was signed prior to the expiration of the President’s negotiating authority, forcing Congress to either change its procedures or to consider NAFTA under fast track rules—which limits the amount of debate and requires lawmakers to vote up-or-down on the measure without amendments.

103rd Congress: President Clinton reiterated his desire to negotiate side agreements on NAFTA in the areas of safeguards, labor and environmental issues in January. Negotiations with Mexico and Canada began in the spring.

Anti-NAFTA forces—led by organized labor, some environmental activists, former presidential hopeful H. Ross Perot and consumer groups led by Ralph Nader—launched verbal attacks against the trade pact on Capitol Hill early and often in 1993, despite President Clinton’s efforts to allay their concerns. In related action, several House members with close ties to organized labor announced the formation of an “Anti-NAFTA Caucus” early in 1993. In July, more than 100 House and 7 Senate Democrats joined House Majority Leader David Bonior (D-MI-10) in urging President Clinton to postpone action on NAFTA until after Congress had completed work on health-care reform—a strategy that most NAFTA supporters believed would kill the trade pact. The White House responded that both NAFTA and health-care reform would be on the agenda in the fall.

Trade officials from the three NAFTA nations announced August 13 they had reached a deal on side agreements. Lawmakers returning home to their districts in August were barraged by anti-NAFTA sentiment. Many supporters of NAFTA returned to Washington publicly undecided on the pact. Convinced that NAFTA’s passage was contingent upon a strong push by the White House, dozens of House Republicans—led by Minority Leader Newt Gingrich (R-GA-6)—said they would withhold their support until the President demonstrated his commitment to the issue.

That commitment came September 14, 1993, when President Clinton—accompanied by former Presidents Ford, Carter and Bush—issued a strong statement of support for NAFTA.
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/doc1.asp?CID=201740&DID=223558

88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

Like father like son....(with the help of other lefties) our sovereignty is a goner!


19 posted on 05/16/2007 8:59:36 AM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD
It establishes an international organization with the authority to levy international taxes.

LOST certainly does do this.

The authority that taxes is the authority that governs.

20 posted on 05/16/2007 9:02:39 AM PDT by TigersEye (Holding on to hope inextricably binds you to worldly concerns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paperdoll

“Maybe he wants to outshine Benedict Arnold in the history books to come in The New World Order.”

Do you recall the smirk on his daddys face when Gulf War I ended and his speech about it included “This is the New World Order”?


21 posted on 05/16/2007 9:05:47 AM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CrawDaddyCA

“I just can’t figure out why this man is so desperate to sell out his country before his term is up. Simply mind boggling.”

No, it is not mind-boggling if you see him for what he has been and is. He is the Republicans’ Jimmy Carter.

Back in December 2005, this moronic traitor was quoted as saying that the Constitution was just “a goddamned piece of paper.”

What is mind-boggling to me is that he is considered some kind of sacred god by the bushbots.


22 posted on 05/16/2007 9:18:40 AM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68

>Do you recall the smirk on his daddy’s face when Gult War I ended and his speech about it included “This is the New World Order”?<

I do, and immediately went into full time work on Pat Buchanan’s campaign.


23 posted on 05/16/2007 9:23:14 AM PDT by Paperdoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD; Paul Ross; Carry_Okie; Issaquahking; Jeff Head; All

LOST ping!


24 posted on 05/16/2007 10:19:15 AM PDT by AuntB (" It takes more than walking across the border to be an American." Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Semmens; WorkerbeeCitizen

My copy of the US Constitution says that it takes two-thirds of the US Senate to ratify a Treaty submitted by the President.

Just to be sure, what does your copy say?

dvwjr


25 posted on 05/16/2007 10:23:08 AM PDT by dvwjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD

I rec’d YESTERDAY! a plea from the GOP for money. They were kind enough to pay return postage. This issue is one of top items to be my letter back, along with a “zero peso” bit of non-currency.


26 posted on 05/16/2007 10:26:26 AM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg (Test ALL things, hold to that which is True.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CrawDaddyCA
I just can't figure out why this man is so desperate to sell out his country before his term is up.

He doesn't work for us, and would never have become President if he did. No one else will, either - ever again - the Powers That Be will never allow another Reagan anywhere near the White House.

Bush hasn't done too badly by the average American, considering who he is obligated to answer to.

27 posted on 05/16/2007 10:33:36 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ("Wise men don't need to debate; men who need to debate are not wise." -- Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dvwjr
My copy of the US Constitution says that it takes two-thirds of the US Senate to ratify a Treaty submitted by the President.

Then you haven't read it. It says two thirds of Senators present, not two thirds of the Senate.

This article has a discussion of Alexander Hamilton's defense of the Constitution's poison pill.

28 posted on 05/16/2007 11:05:05 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dvwjr

My copy of the Constitution is the modern abridged version.

You are right, the original Constitution requires two-thirds of those present in the senate to concur. This might be as small a number as 34 yes votes to ratify.


29 posted on 05/16/2007 12:42:40 PM PDT by John Semmens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)

The quote about the Constitution (”goddamned piece of paper”) is shocking. Can you cite us a source on that so we can look it up?

I can believe (just barely) that Bush said this, but it would be good to actually know.


30 posted on 05/16/2007 1:00:49 PM PDT by California Patriot ("That's not Charley the Tuna out there. It's Jaws." -- Richard Nixon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: John Semmens
This might be as small a number as 34 yes votes to ratify.

It's been done with any record of a quorum. See the article referenced in the post above.

31 posted on 05/16/2007 1:07:02 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD
The Bush administration supported the treaty.

Bush is a traitor. He should be tried and sentenced accordingly!

This legislation is a danger to our sovereignty, and to Americans in general. We will be subjects to the UN! Since the UN is made up of many Muslim countries, we will be giving them control over us! Of course, Bush is a Muslim @ss kisser, so he thinks that's just fine!!! It's time for him to go!!

32 posted on 05/16/2007 1:18:50 PM PDT by NRA2BFree ("The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
It looks like Bush is aiming for a twofer. Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and Immigration Reform. He is going to go down in history as one of the worst presidents in American history if these bills go through.

I have to agree with that.

33 posted on 05/16/2007 1:22:01 PM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD

I’ve said it before....it’s time for a RINO hunt. Cull the herd, people.


34 posted on 05/16/2007 1:22:37 PM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot

The Rant

Bush on the Constitution: “Just a goddamned piece of paper”

By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 06:39

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve heard from two White House sources who claim they heard from others present in the meeting that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

The record shows the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “goddamned piece of paper” used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democratic, Republican or Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine - in the end - if something is legal or right.

Every federal official - including the President - who takes an oath of office swears to “uphold and defend” the Constitution of the United States.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a “living document.”

“”Oh, how I hate the phrase we have-a ‘living document,’” Scalia says. “We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete’s sake.”

As a judge, Scalia says, “I don’t have to prove that it’s perfect; I just have to prove that it’s better than anything else.”

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years - a record for any modern President, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a “union between a man and woman.” Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.

“We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,” Scalia warns. “Don’t think that it’s a one-way street.”

And don’t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just “a goddamned piece of paper.”

(Updated September 3, 2006)

© Copyright 2006 by Capitol Hill Blue


35 posted on 05/16/2007 1:43:46 PM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)

I don’t trust any source who uses the word “shit” in this way, or who refers to the administration as “power-mad despots.” The alleged quotes sound highly exaggerated, or just made-up. I believe Capitol Hill Blue is a liberal publication.


36 posted on 05/16/2007 2:03:21 PM PDT by California Patriot ("That's not Charley the Tuna out there. It's Jaws." -- Richard Nixon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot; Mr. Jeeves

California Patriot

My post #35 to you should be e-mailed far and wide. And pay careful attention to what Mr. Jeeves wrote in post #27. You have no idea the truth he said in those 3 sentences. This is more than just serious.

Mr. Jeeves wrote:

“He doesn’t work for us, and would never have become President if he did. No one else will, either - ever again - the Powers That Be will never allow another Reagan anywhere near the White House.

“Bush hasn’t done too badly by the average American, considering who he is obligated to answer to.”

Any American who didn’t figure this out a long time ago, is dead.


37 posted on 05/16/2007 2:16:32 PM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

Maybe so, elPresidente Booosh, but there are ways to remedy that and judging from public outrage, I'm sure some patriots will come up with creative ways to do that too. After all, WE ARE AMERICANS!! You shouldn't have underestimated the will of the American people!

38 posted on 05/16/2007 2:28:50 PM PDT by NRA2BFree ("The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot

To believe it or not to believe is your choice.

I distinctly remember what a potty mouth Bush had when he was running for president. Therefore, I do believe he continues to use such words but not for the general public to hear.

But that is getting into a different subject. He is subjugating our constitution every chance he gets. Hence, for him the Constitution is just “a goddamned piece of paper.”


39 posted on 05/16/2007 2:31:25 PM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)

I don’t believe he’s subjugating the Constitution at all. He’s made some huge mistakes, but the Patriot Act isn’t one of them. You’re right, though, that Bush has a snarky side, a punk side. Probably one reason why he’s so careful to say not much in public. It’s been speculated that this is related to the fact that he’s a former alcoholic, or at least a former problem drinker. Such people supposedly have to bite their tongues more than most of us.


40 posted on 05/16/2007 2:35:20 PM PDT by California Patriot ("That's not Charley the Tuna out there. It's Jaws." -- Richard Nixon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot

The point for me is not the Patriot Act. The fact is his ego and he is not too bright. This makes him dangerous.

And to go along with this, you touched on the following: “It’s been speculated that this is related to the fact that he’s a former alcoholic.” This is very scary, but interesting. For the sake of argument, Joe Blow becomes an alcoholic at the age of 20 or much earlier. He stops drinking at the age 40 (like Bush). When he stops drinking, he doesn’t resume his life at that chronicle age of 40. He starts at whatever age before he became an alcoholic. Therefore, not knowing at what age Bush became an alcoholic, he is still not a full adult.

So, if Joe Blow was an alcoholic for twenty years and stops drinking at 40, he goes back to age 20 and starts from there. He blew off 20 years of his development.


41 posted on 05/16/2007 3:03:06 PM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD
Reagan opposed this the first time around for good reason.

Indeed he did. And Jeane Kirkpatrick testified in '04 that LOST threatened America's sovereignty not only on the high seas but in the air and outer space as well. She also testified that Reagan's rejection of LOST was based in part on its potential to encourage the proliferation of OPEC. .....which partly explains Saudi ass-kissers Bush/Cheney's support for it. The transnationalists currently infesting the WH see an opportunity to get this through now that the Dems control congress. ......just as they now see an opportunity to get an amnesty bill passed.

An often overlooked problem with the appropriately named LOST Treaty is that it would prohibit us from interdicting/boarding ocean vessels suspected carrying WMDs. .....which is of course why our enemies (read: China) are enthusiastically trying to get us on board.

42 posted on 05/16/2007 3:36:08 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot

Also, again, as Freeper Mr. Jeeves wrote:

“He doesn’t work for us, and would never have become President if he did. No one else will, either - ever again - the Powers That Be will never allow another Reagan anywhere near the White House.

“Bush hasn’t done too badly by the average American, considering who he is obligated to answer to.”

This is of greatest/gravest concern. The only one who worked for us was our President Reagan as Mr. Jeeves wrote. This can’t be said loudly enough.

This is why the king-makers are pushing Rudi and trying to make us think this leftist idiot is number one. He has been chosen to continue destroying our country for the king-makers’ pockets. He is not popular. Rudi and Rupert Murdock of Fox News are best of friends and Murdock will do anything to make it appear that Rudi is winning the popularity contest hoping the uneducated will believe it.


43 posted on 05/16/2007 3:40:23 PM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CrawDaddyCA; 3AngelaD
I don't understand why Bush would push this treaty, knowing it prevents the U.S. from searching vessels for WMD's in open waters? It shoots down our most effective defense in the WOT.

Makes about as much sense as keeping the borders open for visiting terrorists after declaring a world-wide war against terror.

44 posted on 05/19/2007 5:00:41 AM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68; All

“Do you recall the smirk on his daddys face when Gulf War I ended and his speech about it included “This is the New World Order”?”

Thanks....for those who haven’t seen it...here is Clinton and GHWB’s speeches which include supporting the globalists agenda for New World Order.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvEqg_UlGaA


45 posted on 05/19/2007 5:05:50 AM PDT by Kimberly GG (DUNCAN HUNTER '08.....lframerica.com.....MARCH TO TAKE BACK AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CrawDaddyCA
I just can't figure out why this man is so desperate to sell out his country before his term is up.

Add it all up. Immigration reform bill...law of the seas treaty...war czar...the man is in full blown legacy mode and want's to be remembered for something other than the war in Iraq.

46 posted on 05/19/2007 5:10:27 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”


I’ve heard from two White House sources who claim they heard from others present in the meeting that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

So this is hearsay two times over: I heard it from people who say they heard it from people present.

These are juicy "quotes," but I don't think they are valid.

47 posted on 05/19/2007 5:58:13 AM PDT by ChessExpert (Mohamed was not a moderate Muslim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert; Kimberly GG

” These are juicy “quotes,” but I don’t think they are valid.”

OK. so you don’t think they’re valid - I think it is hereditary.....jorge jr can’t do anything much in his own right, so to please daddy he continues with Iraq and the NWO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo&mode=related&search=


48 posted on 05/19/2007 6:19:35 AM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson