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

Skip to comments.

Law of the Sea Treaty Doesn't Hold Water(Phyllis Schlafly)
worldnetdaily.com ^ | September 21, 2007 | Phyllis Schlafly

Posted on 09/22/2007 5:48:04 AM PDT by kellynla

With all the critical problems facing America today, it's hard to see why President Bush is wasting whatever is left of his political capital to partner with Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., to try to get the Senate to ratify the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty.

As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden is scheduled to hold a hearing loaded with pro-treaty witnesses and then try to sneak through ratification while the public is focused on other globalism and giveaway mischief.

The Law of the Sea Treaty is the globalists' dream bill. It would put the United States in a de facto world government that rules all the world's oceans under the pretense that they belong to "the common heritage of mankind." That's global-speak for allowing the United Nations and its affiliated organizations to carry out a massive, unprecedented redistribution of wealth from the United States to other countries.

The treaty has already been ratified by 155 countries. Most of them no doubt expect corrupt U.N. bureaucrats to divvy up the riches at the bottom of the sea, which will be brought to the surface by U.S. investment and technology, and parcel them out to Third World dictators to support themselves in the lavish style to which they would like to become accustomed.

(Column continues below)

Why must those who believe in American sovereignty have to keep fighting the same battles over and over again? President Ronald Reagan rejected the Law of the Sea Treaty in 1982, not because of picky details in the text, but because the treaty would put the United States in the clutches of a supranational ruling clique.

(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: globalism; globalist; lost; schlafly; seatreaty
"The best protection for U.S. interests in the world's oceans is the U.S. Navy, which should not and must not be subject to orders or regulations made by paper pushers in the International Seabed Authority or rulings of the International Court of Justice. U.S. access to the high seas, as well as freedom of the seas for all countries, is best protected by a great U.S. Navy, not a U.N. bureaucracy financed by a global tax."


1 posted on 09/22/2007 5:48:06 AM PDT by kellynla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kellynla; Politicalmom

BTTT


2 posted on 09/22/2007 5:52:51 AM PDT by EdReform (The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed *NRA*JPFO*SAF*GOA*SAS*RWVA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Thanks for posting this.

Wake up everyone! We need to put a stop to this & give Bush hell!


3 posted on 09/22/2007 5:55:50 AM PDT by right wing (The Drive-By Media Are Terrorists Too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

GWBs anti-Americanism continues to rear its ugly head.

He isnt committed to America, and wonder if he is still committed to the WOT. Such anti-Americanism leads me to think not

This is a totally nutty treaty.


4 posted on 09/22/2007 5:56:16 AM PDT by UCFRoadWarrior (FantasyCollegeBlitz.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
The treaty has already created the International Seabed Authority and given it total jurisdiction over all the oceans and everything in them, including "solid, liquid or gaseous mineral resources." The treaty even gives the Authority something U.N. bureaucrats have lusted after for years: the authority to impose international taxes (disguised by euphemisms such as fees and royalties).

So do governments pay theses taxes or do individual companies? Either way is absolutely unacceptable. 'Royalties'...unbelievable.

5 posted on 09/22/2007 5:57:02 AM PDT by Swordfished
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Why can’t Biden go for a ride with Ted Kennedy!


6 posted on 09/22/2007 5:59:23 AM PDT by jrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Good line


7 posted on 09/22/2007 6:01:55 AM PDT by wastedyears (George Orwell was a clairvoyant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jrd

I’m not surprised. GWB is an internationalist, in the end.


8 posted on 09/22/2007 6:02:21 AM PDT by Comparative Advantage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Does the Law of the Sea Treaty Hold Water?

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

No! The Law of the Sea Treaty is wrong!

9 posted on 09/22/2007 6:02:38 AM PDT by RoadKingSE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Haven’t read the treaty, but I’d guess it would allow the UN and every third world dictator to claim riches (gold coin, logs, ingots, art objects) found by salvagers on the sea bottom.


10 posted on 09/22/2007 6:02:44 AM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Bush is an idiot. A year ago I would have said the he was walking a very fine line between globalism and outright anti-Americanism; however, I believe that he has crossed that line.

As an aside, is anyone else concerned about the size/strength/rapid growth/government ties with The Blackwater Group? They are a professional organization that has done great work, to be sure, but with our current crop of politicians (especially Bush) I see them as a potential way around posse comitatus. After all, we’ve thrown amnesty out, but public sentiment doesn’t seem to matter one damn bit to the government... ditto TTC, LOST, etc. Should Bush or anyone else see fit to actually implement plans for the NAU, Blackwater would be a clean way to subdue any adversaries.


11 posted on 09/22/2007 6:29:26 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? YOU ARE A SOCIALIST WITH NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

What have they done with my President bush?
Who is this evil clone they have put in his place?


12 posted on 09/22/2007 6:54:16 AM PDT by Flintlock (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla; Abram; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; Allerious; Allosaurs_r_us; ...
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
13 posted on 09/22/2007 7:09:52 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

President Bush still seems to be reliably pro-life, and although he managed the War on Terror rather badly after the Iraq invasion, as if fearful of following through on what needed to be done, at least he has stubbornly refused to withdraw.

But he seems to have caved in everywhere else. He has actually ratcheted up spending and welfare gravy more than clinton. His best pals are Kennedy, Biden, McCain, and a host of other losers, and they return these friendly gestures every time by taking the gravy and then stabbing him in the back.

If he passes LOST, it will be almost as bad as illegal amnesty.

He still has more than a year in the presidency. I don’t expect anything good to happen in that time, but I just hope we can resist total surrender.


14 posted on 09/22/2007 8:11:46 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Thanks for posting this reminder. This is not new.....it came up a few years ago and....iirc.....Sen. Lugar supported this ridiculous movement. It truly boggles my mind that any American would want to give the U.N. control over anything that affects America. I haven’t heard Pres. Bush’s reasoning for supporting this but, as much as I support the President and, imho, he loves America, I disagree with him on L.O.S.T. (appropriate name) as well as on proposed immigration laws.

When Americans call the WH or their Senators re the war or immigration, we should also say we are opposed to giving the U.N. more power over the U.S.


15 posted on 09/22/2007 8:13:58 AM PDT by 4integrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

The Navy is headed for 180 ships already. That trend will not be reversed. It’s time to either adopt or forget this Convention. There is nothing out there worth mining anyway. The USA cannot dominate the high seas anymore and won’t try. We have $20 trillion of debt or $50 trillion depending how you count obligations and can’t afford much more of this foolishness. The Bubble is not just real estate or Dot.coms or tulip bulbs or the Missisippi. Get real.


16 posted on 09/22/2007 8:18:30 AM PDT by RightWhale (25 degrees today. Phase state change accomnpished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
I never thought I'd say this, but I'm beginning to agree with my Leftist friends and family that it'll be a good day for America when the Bush Presidency finally comes to an end--

--and this from a man who a few years ago was comparing Bush to Reagan, Truman, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Washington, Jefferson, and Winston Churchill.

Does crow taste any better with ketchup or barbeque sauce?

And note tagline. Clio's rolling on the floor with laughter and pointing her finger right at me.

17 posted on 09/22/2007 9:29:10 AM PDT by Savage Beast ("History is not just cruel. It is witty." ~Charles Krauthammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

>>>it’s hard to see why President Bush is wasting whatever is left of his political capital to partner with Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., to try to get the Senate to ratify the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty.

Yes, it is hard to see because it was ratified under Clinton with a footnote to NOT go into affect until 2001.

Bush did put LOST in dispute for revisions.

UN ratification documents. LOST ratified, August 1996

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/status2007.pdf

The ratification has a footnote that stated not to be enacted until December 2001. See it at that PDF file.

The Bush Administration has a dispute or recapitulate opened about the LOST Treaty.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/settlement_of_disputes/choice_procedure.htm

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Declaration:

“In accordance with article 30 (4) of the Agreement, the Government of the United States of America declares that it chooses a special arbitral tribunal to be constituted in accordance with Annex VIII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 for the settlement of disputes pursuant to Part VIII of the Agreement.”


18 posted on 09/22/2007 9:34:30 AM PDT by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

It would put restrictions on where our Navy could be deployed. (by the UN)


19 posted on 09/22/2007 9:38:34 AM PDT by wolfcreek (The Status Quo Sucks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

bttt your post....


20 posted on 09/22/2007 9:42:19 AM PDT by Guenevere (Duncan Hunter...President '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

Yep, good ol’ Jorge isn’t happy with stabbing his political allies in the back, he just keeps on kicking them while they’re down. This guy is beginning to make Bill Clinton look like a class act.


21 posted on 09/22/2007 10:53:26 AM PDT by NCSteve (I am not arguing with you - I am telling you. -- James Whistler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
That trend will not be reversed. It’s time to either adopt or forget this Convention. There is nothing out there worth mining anyway. The USA cannot dominate the high seas anymore and won’t try.

So we should stop trying, in your opinion. Beautiful.
22 posted on 09/22/2007 3:31:44 PM PDT by arderkrag (Libertarian Nutcase (Political Compass Coordinates: 9.00, -2.62 - www.politicalcompass.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: arderkrag

23 posted on 09/22/2007 4:08:30 PM PDT by RightWhale (25 degrees today. Phase state change accomnpished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Ahem...your post read:

The USA cannot dominate the high seas anymore and won’t try.

The gist of your post was, simply, that we can't resist this resolution and shouldn't bother trying to resist it. I think that's an asinine opinion, personally. Of course we should resist, even if nothing comes of our resistance. I'd rather resist and have stood up for what's right than lay down because the odds are overwhelming.
24 posted on 09/22/2007 4:35:57 PM PDT by arderkrag (Libertarian Nutcase (Political Compass Coordinates: 9.00, -2.62 - www.politicalcompass.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: arderkrag

25 posted on 09/22/2007 4:42:14 PM PDT by RightWhale (25 degrees today. Phase state change accomplished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
The phrase

It’s time to either adopt or forget this Convention. There is nothing out there worth mining anyway.

is equivalent to saying we shouldn't try.
26 posted on 09/22/2007 4:48:32 PM PDT by arderkrag (Libertarian Nutcase (Political Compass Coordinates: 9.00, -2.62 - www.politicalcompass.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

This treaty will essentially make the UN sovereign over 2/3 of the earth’s surface at a time when the fecklessness and corruption of the organization is so obvious that only a fool or a Democrat see it otherwise.


27 posted on 09/22/2007 9:12:44 PM PDT by attiladhun2 (Islam is a despotism so vile that it would warm the heart of Orwell's Big Brother)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Has there even been even an attempt to explain, clearly, to the American people, what this treaty accomplishes that is "necessary" to their welfare, comfort and safety?

I don't buy the notion that the people don't "need to know", that our elected representatives will read, learn and decide what is best "for the people who elected them".

As we have seen with "comprehensive" immigration reform, that is not only false, but a profound contradiction. For whatever reason, our elected representatives think us all too dumb to understand, and they can't be bothered to find a way to explain things clearly.

Clearly, we need to elect representatives who can do better.

28 posted on 09/23/2007 7:41:35 PM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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