Skip to comments.Palin Damned by LOST Letter? [Vanity]
Posted on 03/21/2011 7:30:57 AM PDT by backwoods-engineer
Palin supporters on FR been getting hit by anti-Palin FReepers (including EternalVigilance and the late-zotted pissant) over a letter Palin wrote to AK's Senators supporting the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), specifically adjudication over mineral rights. The PDSer's claim this letter is irrefutable proof that Palin wants to destroy US sovereignty.
It looks to me like Palin, as usual for that period, was more interested in mineral rights and what was good for Alaska than subverting US sovereignty, as the PDSer's claim. Here is an analysis of the letter that seems to support what I'm thinking: http://opiniojuris.org/2008/10/09/sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-letter-in-support-of-the-law-of-the-sea-convention/
Palin wrote in the letter: "...as you know, ratification has been thwarted by a small group of senators concerned about the perceived loss of U.S. sovereignty. I believe quite the contrary is the case. If the U.S. does not ratify the convention, we will be denied access to the forum established by the international community to adjudicate claims to submerged lands in the Arctic."
(Excerpt) Read more at globalsolutions.org ...
1) What does this letter mean?
2) Is support for LOST all or nothing? Was there room for Congress to take out the sovereignty-threatening parts, and keep the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf?
3) Is this just a PDS'er red herring, or is this really something we should take up with Gov Palin?
If you read it, she was simply looking to protect her State. While on the national level, there are a lot of issues with LOST, there also is a risk specifically for Alaska in going the other way, Russia could move into parts of the US and drill for oil or claim other mineral rights because it is just ice cover versus land. It is a little more complicated than a lot of people like to make out.
As a governor of her State, Palin is unable to negotiate that treaty herself so she has to simply deal with the proposition in front of her and what is better for her specific State.
So, would you agree that her letter can't be extrapolated to mean she supports the subversion of US sovereignty to the UN?
She was governor of AK, yes, but still a US citizen. Our PDSer friends would scream, "if she becomes President, she will sell us out to the UN!" How do you respond to that?
..I guess I should add, with all that said, I don’t support LOST nor completely agree with Palin on this, but one has to acknowledge Alaska’s position in the matter and the risk to the State going against it. It is pretty obvious from her argument she was not in favor of giving up sovereignty, just the opposite. The PMSers like to stretch this out to an irrational conclusion that Palin wanted to give up sovereignty.
More damning than sitting in Rev Right’s church for 20 yrs? more damning than having associations with known homegrown 60’s/70’s radicals who’s acts included murder? more damning than honoring Louis Farrakhan, as Farrakhan honors Libyan criminal Moammar Gadhafi? More damning than shutting down US gulf oil drilling while promoting Brazilian oil drilling with US dollars in the same region? Need I say more?
I'm not trying to talk about him behind his back. Just wanted to get that out there.
Of course, great points. But you know the PDSer crowd. Strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.
I just want to put this one to rest, permanently.
Good Lord, how many of you (backwoods-engineer) pathetic arseholes are out there?!?
Why don't you just go on over and blog with the Huff-Puff or DUmmies losers and save the FR bandwidth.
No, that is the irrational conclusion that I mentioned in the other post. One can read into LOST both support and opposition could result in subverting US sovereignty. Not ratifying it could result in land we claim being subverted by Russians who claim it due to ice cover lines versus continental shelf lines. When you get down to it, the argument in Palin's letter's specific case wasn't about subverting sovereignty but simply protecting Alaska. Like I said, this is way more complicated than some like to make it to be.
Wait, pissant is gone?
That said, I respect Sarah's position on this, and must say that is a very well worded letter.
Those who bash Palin's mind are the ignorant ones.
IIRC, her letter of support included some caveats regarding amending the treaty to address some of the soverignty concerns.
Bottom line is that the United States is the chief enforcer of United Nations resolutions anyway. The UN has no military or economic means to enforce treaties. Any attempted infringement on US soverignty would be met with severe repercussions economic and potentially military.
And while folks are worried about this letter, the Chinese are drilling the hell out of the gulf off of Cuba and “drinking our milkshake”
We have the power in this world, we have a president who wants to abidicate it. I think it’s safe to say the Sarah Palin believes in projecting our power, not apologizing for having it.
Waaaaaaait a minute. Now that you mention it. You never see Sarah Palin and George Soros at the same place at the same time do you? Hmmmmmm.....
Oh yea, I saw that. Not sure what all he posted that finally pushed it over the top but I hear it was some nasty sexual remarks about Palin.
You do know that EV is head of a competing political party?
As such his interest will always be to put his candidate ahead of Palin, either by promoting his candidate, or by dimishing Palin.
Stop the personal attacks, jerk. I am trying to battle the PDSers here, and try to learn from FReepers who know more about treaties and international law than me. Apparently, you think you have nothing more to learn.
If you spent 1 minute looking at my previous posts, you would know I have no place whatsoever at HP or DU. Joke's on you, pal.
So was Pissant. The so called ‘falcon’ party he tried to start (ie, a blog). LOL.
Just saw the last post. Yes it was a bit much.
See my #19.
If that is what is left to view, it makes you wonder how bad the pulled ones were?
That is the usual form of a jotted poster.
He's BACK ...???
No, I did not know that. To save me from searching the archives, and to help others: what party? And who does he support for President?
I don’t know, but FRPDSer’s like pissant have not been nice people, as a whole.
Find just a handful of things that are "wrong" about a public person who is in every meaningful way a strong conservative, and point to them while screaming "RINO" at maximum volume.
Then wait for the circular firing squad to do its job---
EV is the head of the American Independent Party and was/is(?) Alan Keyes campaign manager. He is a decent fella, even if his party affiliation sometimes get in the way. He is no pissant, that’s for sure.
Thanks for the well-thought-out comments. I agree.
You would be correct.
It's interesting that Obama, with a huge majority in the Senate the last two years and with a significant group of Republicans supporting ratification of the treaty, did not push for ratification. Why? Simple. He doesn't want America to have a rightful claim to 25% of the undeveloped oil & gas reserves on the planet.
This is an issue that conservatives refuse to discuss when opposing the treaty. What's the alternative that guarantees our rights to the resources? They offer none.
Some links for anyone interested:
If Palin gets in the race, she may offer an alternative that protects our rights in the Arctic without ratifying the treaty. We'll see. We must assert our rights to the resources that will transcend the political whims of whomever is president. That's the issue.
I would say rather that he let himself get too emotionally attached to a candidate, projecting his own image of "perfection" on them and lashing out at all others for their lack of such "perfection".
DeMint's hedging regarding RomneyCare may have been the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of his grip on controlling the true nastiness.
Great point. But this "Palin LOST letter" keeps coming up on FR and I want to put a stake in its heart permanently.
Yeah, basically how he was with Hunter last round. The man could say nothing wrong even when the rest of us were scratching our heads at what Duncan has said or done.
EV is embarassed about his position, and will never talk about it out here where everyone is having discussions.
He keeps the information hidden on his home page, and even then never admits that unless confronted.
See his home page.
THAT explains nearly everything about his postings.
I agree that Palin could bring a more energy-centric discussion to this, as she does almost everything else.
Yeah, I saw it. “Nice...” in a condencedning sort of tone is what I was thinking to say...
WELL WORTH THE READ. Includes quotes from John Bolton on the subject, and links to Reagan's policies (yes LOST goes back that far).
I'm now convinced more than ever that Palin was looking out for US interests, not selling us down the river like EternalVigilance (aka Tom Hoefling, Chairman, America's Party/America's Independent Party) said.
Your Precious? THe one with Tammy Bruce still on her breath?
pissant has been banned. Consider #52 as his FR legacy.
I won't shed a tear for him.
You're right-- it sure does explain a lot about EV. Alan Keyes was a loser of a candidate.
Governor Palin must really scare them. They must really believe she will be the 45th President of the United States.
What if we drilled here and didn’t sign on; Could others have the rights to our resources?
Or due to not signing on, we forfeit the private sector re: obtaining other resources around the world?
I’m clueless, honest questions.
As Sarah Palin responded to a concerned Alaskan's question on this issue in a Fairbanks talk radio interview 2 months before she left office,
"...no, we don't want to continue to give more power to the U.N., certainly not, but we have got to be a player in this. Otherwise, we're going to be left out in the cold."
She lives in the real world and I look forward to hearing more from her on this. It's crucial that she be a leader as this discussion on who owns the humongous undersea resources of the Arctic goes forward.
I used to post a warning about EV on Palin threads, in big letters. Just a warning, no attacks, nothing accusitory or anything like that, simply a warning that he wasn’t what he appeared to be, and a link to his home page.
Really enraged him, and finally after about 6 or 9 months he got a mod to delete my warning.
Go look at his posting history, he’s got a pretty short fuse about his position.
First, I have no FRIENDS that that suffer from "Palin Derangement Syndrome".
If someone does suffer from PDS, there is no point in responding, because logic won't work.
I used to respond to urine-aunt just to argue, never to win, because I knew that it couldn't be done.
Is EV a libertarian or what?
I always found him more irritating than pissant, but perhaps that’s just nostalgia.
Wow! Thanx for posting that. Disgusting. It’s like he was begging to be banned.
Love your remark. I'm with you 100%. Palin for President.
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.