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

Skip to comments.

Sink the Law of the Sea Again (UN Treaty being pushed by Obama)
The Moral Liberal ^ | Apr 27, 2012 | PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY

Posted on 05/07/2012 2:32:18 PM PDT by Red Steel

The United Nations treaty called Law of the Sea was negotiated by the State Department, and then presented to Ronald Reagan for signing as soon as he became President in 1981. Reagan immediately recognized it as a bad treaty that would restrict U.S. sovereignty and require us to pay an international body half of all our royalties from offshore drilling. UN bureaucrats would then distribute the money as they wanted, because the U.S. would have only one vote out of 160.

Reagan rejected the Law of the Sea Treaty, and we thought that took care of the problem. The American people and the U.S. Senate have refused to ratify it. But like a bad penny, this obnoxious UN treaty keeps coming back again and again. Now the Obama Administration is making its effort to get our Senate to ratify it.

Let me tell you a few of the really objectionable provisions of this UN Law of the Sea Treaty. It creates an International Seabed Authority and gives it unprecedented powers to regulate seven-tenths of the world’s surface; and the power to levy international taxes; and the power to impose production quotas on deep-sea mining and oil production; and the power to regulate ocean research and exploration; and the power to create a multinational court system to make judgments about who owns what, and enforce those judgments. And that’s not all. The Law of the Sea Treaty also imposes mandatory information-sharing so that our enemies will get all our confidential military information. And the Treaty requires obligatory technology transfers that would equip actual or potential enemies with sensitive information about all our submarine and anti-submarine technology.

Tell your U.S. Senators to vote No any time the Senate brings up the Law of the Sea Treaty.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: lawoftheseatreaty; lost; obama; un
Obama and Hillary are dusting off this old power grab.

According to Dick Morris, this UN treaty is a multi-headed hydra to include pollution control, UN gun control, International court jurisdiction over the United States, and the ability to stop the US to make war on belligerents. Morris says Hillary Clinton is now negotiating LOST with UN/International parties, and it will be presented in the US Senate this summer.

1 posted on 05/07/2012 2:32:31 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
I've heard this is on fast track. I am voting Lugar out tomorrow. Lugar is in favor of the treaty. Will this pass before I can make a difference by putting in Mourdock?
2 posted on 05/07/2012 2:44:48 PM PDT by Bronzy (No more RINO's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronzy

Globalist Dick Lugar no doubt dreamed about getting LOST as US law.


3 posted on 05/07/2012 2:50:15 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Sarah Palin supported LOST when she was Governor.
4 posted on 05/07/2012 2:54:06 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Lugar was one of LOST’s biggest proponents.

The good people of Indiana will take care of the Lugar problem tomorrow.


5 posted on 05/07/2012 2:56:58 PM PDT by RightWingConspirator (Obamanation--the most corrupt regime since Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

These things where we are on the verge of turning things over to the U.N. just keep coming back.Each time we have to fight hard to avoid them. What can be done to permanently stop any such treaties? There must be some “fix” because if they push and push and push, eventually they will get what they want. Maybe it is too late anyway.


6 posted on 05/07/2012 2:56:58 PM PDT by Anima Mundi (ENVY IS JUST PASSIVE, LAZY GREED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

What Alaska may have gained would have been completely negated by the rest of this bad UN treaty.


7 posted on 05/07/2012 2:58:18 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Anima Mundi
What can be done to permanently stop any such treaties?

Quit the UN. It's the only way.

8 posted on 05/07/2012 2:59:08 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

WTF? I thought Sarah had more sense than that. Someone should ask her if she still supports it.


9 posted on 05/07/2012 2:59:49 PM PDT by Hugin ("Most time a man'll tell you his bad intentions if you listen and let yourself hear"--Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

I agree.

Time was that I thought the folks who spoke of Admiralty law and gold fringe on the flag in court...were on the dark side of the moon. LOST is everything we think it is.

The Dems that were run as candidates in 2008 were the 1st 3 Leftists. 0bama, Biden, Clinton.

God bless all who are fighting against this treason.


10 posted on 05/07/2012 3:02:36 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
The seabed is only a portion of the treaty that includes all rivers that empty into the sea (pretty much all do), all fishing and other fun stuff. Tbe UN is trying to give "tribal land" back to native American Tribes and wants an income tax from all of us.
11 posted on 05/07/2012 3:06:30 PM PDT by Foolsgold (L I B Lacking in Brains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anima Mundi
"on the verge of turning things over to the UN"

A lot of people don't realize that LOST has been international law for quite a while, because the majority of nations ratified the treaty long ago, an only a few nations haven't ratified, and those are mostly landlocked nations.

Recently Inhofe changed his position and now supports LOST because of events in the South China Sea.

12 posted on 05/07/2012 3:20:48 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Well, watch the Indiana primary tomorrow for a Lugar loss. Unfortunately, I cannot vote for Newt. With that said, we need a National Primary Day and not an Iowa, NH, etc picking our candidates.


13 posted on 05/07/2012 3:21:05 PM PDT by Bronzy (No more RINO's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

“Sarah Palin supported LOST when she was Governor.”

At that time, Bush also supported LOST. Then the Wall Street Journal read parts of that treaty (it’s impossible to read the whole thing) and noticed a few things. Like submarines would be required to travel on the surface at all times, while flying their national flags.


14 posted on 05/07/2012 3:23:32 PM PDT by haroldeveryman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: haroldeveryman

I think Bush supported a few things that were not good for us....


15 posted on 05/07/2012 3:30:23 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

This is what happens when you elect a creep who thinks of himself a a “citizen of the world”.


16 posted on 05/07/2012 3:31:46 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Time for the South and others to rise up again.


17 posted on 05/07/2012 3:39:22 PM PDT by RC2 (Buy American and support the Wounded Warrior Project whenever possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

I suspect that these major international treaties are the size of Obamacare. No president can become aware of every piece of crap that some radical State Dept clerk sneaks into the text.


18 posted on 05/07/2012 3:49:05 PM PDT by haroldeveryman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
To: MegaSilver

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 Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:52:12 AM by Carry_Okie (Environmental deregulation is critical national defense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

19 posted on 05/07/2012 3:50:13 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There is no such thing as "renewable" energy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics remains in force.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Maybe this is the maritime version of Agenda 21.


20 posted on 05/07/2012 3:55:06 PM PDT by haroldeveryman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: haroldeveryman

I’m not cutting any politician any slack when they pass laws & treaties that are too big to read. “Too big to read? Reject it!” should be the SOP, not “Well, I’ll support it and hope for the best.”

Burying us under a snowdrift of paper is not acceptable, and word needs to get out.


21 posted on 05/07/2012 3:58:10 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin; All
A lot of people don't realize that LOST has been international law for quite a while, because the majority of nations ratified the treaty long ago, an only a few nations haven't ratified, and those are mostly landlocked nations.

I guess China wasn't one of them.

Recently Inhofe changed his position and now supports LOST because of events in the South China Sea.

We already have examples of how China intends to disregard this treaty.

This treaty is a direct threat to our national security because it will require US submarines to cruise on the surface in locations where it is very hazardous to do so, such as the Straits of Gibraltar, or Hormuz. LOST is also backdoor Global Warming regulation.

How does that help US national security oh you regulatory government lover you?

22 posted on 05/07/2012 4:07:25 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There is no such thing as "renewable" energy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics remains in force.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

And?

They have changed the original a gazillion times since then.

Please grow a brain

TT


23 posted on 05/07/2012 4:16:37 PM PDT by TexasTransplant (Radical islam is islam. Moderate islam is the Trojan Horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

This may be bigger than Obama Care ... it would be harder to undo.

TT


24 posted on 05/07/2012 4:18:18 PM PDT by TexasTransplant (Radical islam is islam. Moderate islam is the Trojan Horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

There are so many bad laws, that Legislators knew were bad and turned them down. What they then do is come back year after year , after year and reintroduce them until they finally do pass.


25 posted on 05/07/2012 4:21:31 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TexasTransplant
Please grow a brain

Kindly piss off. And I mean that sincerely.

26 posted on 05/07/2012 4:29:16 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

It’s true, they do. And the only way to stop it is to vote out the fools that consider it. But if you round up 100 people and ask them, maybe 5 will know what LOST is an acronym for. And three will think it’s a good idea if you ask them the “right” way.


27 posted on 05/07/2012 4:32:41 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

HUDDLE UP!

The Place for Conservatives
We have some elections to win!



28 posted on 05/07/2012 5:25:20 PM PDT by RedMDer (https://support.woundedwarriorproject.org/default.aspx?tsid=93)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RightWingConspirator
The good people of Indiana will take care of the Lugar problem tomorrow.

A wounded traitor is a dangerous traitor. Lame ducks are not dead ducks.

29 posted on 05/07/2012 9:07:49 PM PDT by itsahoot (I will not vote for Romney period. You can't trust the man with the big red (R))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Well the dems(Kerry,Reid, and Obama) said that they wouldn't bring LOST up unless the GOP would or could provide provide X numbers of votes on the floor.

They had the same agreement back in 2010 when the Senate ratified the START treaty

Meanwhile, the NeoCons are thinking that if they can get Lugar unelected, then Lugar's chairmanship on the Senate Foreign Relations committee is open and maybe they can get Rubio into that chair to block LOST.

30 posted on 05/07/2012 9:10:13 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
Well the dems(Kerry,Reid, and Obama) said that they wouldn't bring LOST up unless the GOP would or could provide provide X numbers of votes on the floor.

The Constitution says treaties are ratified "provided two thirds of Senators present concur." Hence, by the Constitution, LOST could in theory be ratified by three Senators. Treaties have been ratified with no record of a quorum on a voice vote.

They had the same agreement back in 2010 when the Senate ratified the START treaty

Lugar's parting will be ugly.

Meanwhile, the NeoCons are thinking that if they can get Lugar unelected, then Lugar's chairmanship on the Senate Foreign Relations committee is open and maybe they can get Rubio into that chair to block LOST.

Opposition to LOST is not simply from "NeoCons" and you know it.

31 posted on 05/07/2012 9:42:53 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Grovelnator Schwarzenkaiser: Fashionable fascism one charade at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Of course it has to be ratified but it has to get to the floor before it can be ratified.

Helms wouldn't let it out of committee. Lugar got it out of committee, but Bill Frist wouldn't let it onto the floor.

Biden and Reid are supporters but they didn't do anything in 2007 and 2008

Kerry and Reid are supporters but they haven't done anything in 2009 thru the present

There are probably enough votes in the Senate to ratify but it would pass very narrowly. The dems are not going to bring this up unless senate republican leadership guarantees that they have enough republican votes such that it would broadly pass with say 80 votes or 84 votes. The dems want it to pass on bi-partisan votes so the GOP can't club them

32 posted on 05/08/2012 12:24:00 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; Carry_Okie
According to Dick Morris, this UN treaty is a multi-headed hydra to include pollution control, UN gun control, International court jurisdiction over the United States, and the ability to stop the US to make war on belligerents. Morris says Hillary Clinton is now negotiating LOST with UN/International parties, and it will be presented in the US Senate this summer.

Red Steel --- Listen to video. It is unclear to me that all you mentioned is covered in LOST. I may be wrong, but below is partial transcript. I think he and Hannity were discussing several treaties. They both talk so fast and over one another, I can't be sure. What a pair! lol

Nevertheless, critical info to keep an eye on. They will try to pass these treaties in a similar manner as they did Obamacare (invisably, if possible, and by any deceptive means necessary).

Morris discusses here:

Dick Morris on FOX's Hannity on May 7, 2012 --- video: 6 minutes

Believes "Obama is going to sign a series of treaties (and get them passed by a lame-duck session) which would bind US hand and foot for decades."

"...US is obliged to share half of its royalies from oil and mineral drilling out to 200 miles with a newly created UN-based "Sea Bed Authority, " which will distribute the money as it wishes (US would have 1 vote out of 160) to 160 nations."

"The same Sea Bed Authority may take action to prevent pollution of the ocean (including THERMAL pollution). This authority could ban carbon emissions in the US so we don't heat up ocean."

Is to be ratified in June because Lugar, a chief proponent, wanted to get through his primary before he had to defend LOST.

Hannity & Morris continue to discuss several other nightmare treaties (all discussed in Morris' book below). I imagine Morris is going to make a book promo interview tour. If you see any other interviews by him, please ping me (I will do likewise.).

Screwed!: How Foreign Countries Are Ripping America Off and Plundering Our Economy-and How Our Leaders Help Them Do It


33 posted on 05/08/2012 9:27:38 PM PDT by thouworm (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thouworm
Morris' understanding is not at all understated. However, the gun control aspect is part of the Small Arms Treaty, not the LOST.

As to this...

Believes "Obama is going to sign a series of treaties (and get them passed by a lame-duck session) which would bind US hand and foot for decades."

Abiding by a treaty pursuant to signature is illegal, but it is what the DOS has us doing as a matter of "customary international law." The ratification process however, is a serious threat, and not at all the "two thirds of the Senate" threshold commonly believed. For background on these distinctions, see this article.

34 posted on 05/08/2012 9:58:26 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | 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