Skip to comments.LOST: U.S. senators' spines
Posted on 10/14/2007 1:35:07 PM PDT by AuntB
This Convention on the Law of the Sea has been kicking around since Ronald Reagan kicked it out of his administration. ....Clinton had the treaty reworked, and asked the Senate to ratify it. The Republican Senate refused. George Bush asked the Senate to ratify it during his first term; the Senate refused. Now, the administration is again pushing for ratification....
.....requires that the U.S. subject its sovereignty over its territorial seas to the treaty. Article 2(3) says:
"... sovereignty over the territorial sea is exercised subject to this Convention and to other rules of international law."
.... "dispute resolution" panels .....this means the U.S. would be bound by decisions made by a panel appointed by our opponents, or by the U.N........the same dispute resolution mechanism that is forcing the U.S. to allow Mexican trucks access to American highways.
The treaty creates an International Seabed Authority, which has the power to tax private enterprise in the form of application fees and royalties. And it has the authority to mine the seabed in competition with free enterprise, with subsidies from the member nations....... also has the power to regulate and enforce land-based pollution, and has already filed a claim against Great Britain. It has the power to regulate and enforce inland estuaries where wildlife that may migrate to the ocean originates.
Why in the world would any U.S. senator in his right mind vote to ratify this onerous treaty? The treaty provides no benefits at all to the United States; it simply sucks the nation deeper into the morass of international corruption ....
Only a massive outpouring of voter rage will get the attention of senators smitten with spinal-vacuous disorder.
.....The treaty could come to a vote any day. Once ratified, there will be no turning back.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
"Why in the world would any U.S. senator in his right mind vote to ratify this onerous treaty? The treaty provides no benefits at all to the United States; it simply sucks the nation deeper into the morass of international corruption sponsored by the United Nations."
Good Article that explains this mess. Please read it all since I've hacked it up for the 300 word excerpt limit.
...... also has the power to regulate and enforce land-based pollution, and has already filed a claim against Great Britain. It has the power to regulate and enforce inland estuaries where wildlife that may migrate to the ocean originates.....
One step closer to the “new world order”...
Perhaps a better question would be, Why in the world would an American President in his right mind advocate this onerous treaty?
Globalism on parade!
Are most of them a bunch of globalists?
If Duncan Hunter doesn’t become our president, it could be the end of our country as we know it.
So that globalists will keep loaning us money so that we can tax ourselves paying interest on the debt incurred defending them.
#13. Do you support the Law of the Sea Treaty? If not, will you revoke it if it passes before you take office?
Duncan Hunter: No, in the past I have opposed the Law of the Sea Treaty. I expect that to continue. There are serious issues of sovereignty involved, and as in the past, I have no intention of letting US sovereignty be eroded.
Aug. 13, 2007
The big issue with LOST isn’t about the ocean; it’s about land use control.
This global bureaucracy will justify control of land use to “protect” the marine environment. It isn’t hard to see. Many oceanic species breed in estuaries within the United States. Estuarine health isn’t doing very well for a number of reasons (many of which politicized science will conveniently miss). The estuaries are fed by rivers. The rivers are lined with cities.
Marine sanctuaries and global biospheres are model for what is planned for LOST. If all we accomplish is to alter the treaty to gain protection for our military, we will have missed the point.
LOST is a straitjacket fully capable of crippling this nation (which certainly affects its ability to defend itself). That the White House says it knows nothing about it belies the fact that, according to the email I get from ALRA, the White House and Chuck Hagel are the instigators in pushing this treaty through in the dark of night after the Reagan Administration had rejected it out of hand.
10 posted on 03/27/2004 8:52:12 AM PST by Carry_Okie
Turn the rascals out!
If this is true, buy an expensive video recorder and take lot's of notes and cherish the memories.
Maybe this issue will start getting some traction.
Thank you, foxfield.
We need to be especially watchful on this turkey- normal treaties require 2/3 vote of the US Senate, however Slick Willie found a way around that with NAFTA- It’s called a Congressional-Executive Agreement, and it made it thru the senate with a vote of 61 instead of 2/3. That’s right, BOHICA. By the way, ran across this on wikipedia: “(In an interview with Larry King on October 8, 2007, former Mexican president Vincente Fox acknowledged the plan for a North American single currency, referring to his and President Bush’s support for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) as a “first step” toward “a new vision” for the Americas, “like we are trying to do with NAFTA.”)” So Jorge ain’t gonna be happy until our dollars are all traded in for PESOS. Sleep well.
I don’t know about their spines, but their brains have been missing for some time.
67 votes needed. My guess LOST stays dead.
Exactly !...Thank you...was thinking the same thing...
It is right up the NWO’s alley...
just what we DON’T need
Much easier for them to bash some US Senators than it is to call out the President on LOST.
There's more than one way to skin a cat. See post 18. It can be done as NAFTA was.
NO THEY DON'T. Treaty ratification requires 2/3 of Senators PRESENT, not 2/3 of the full Senate.
False. It can be done legally with as few as 34, and has been done illegally with a lot fewer than that.
Yeah, I’d expect Reid to try pulling off an underhanded vote if presented the opportunity.
OK, that’s scary. I was just trying to tell Red Steel not to be comfortable with the 2/3 Senate requirement. NAFTA was a congressional majority.
Because the scum are either on the take or they are true believers, or both.
"Lugar either did not read Article 2(3), or he is deliberately trying to deceive the people. The treaty language is clear and unmistakable."
He's read it all right. This particularly despicable senile POS is both a true believer only too willing to sell us out, but also somebody with his hand out waiting for his payoff, if he hasn't gotten at least part of it from in front. He's been working on delivering our sovereignty to the UN since Reagan tossed this abominable piece of crap attempting to pass for a "treaty."
Democrat controlled Senates have a very bad habit of passing by voice vote (by all 5 or less remaining members) rotten UN treaties that would not pass at any other time the last hour before Thanksgiving or Christmas recess.
Don't forget, Jorge is one of the ones pushing this POS treaty.
Their spines aren’t LOST, they’ve been paid for and are in use by the internationalists.
If international money was kept out of the clutches of our greediest political sellouts, we might have a chance to keep our sovereignty.