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

Skip to comments.

Obama Seeks Sovereignty Surrender Via LOST Treaty
IBD Editorials ^ | May 8, 2012

Posted on 05/09/2012 2:38:14 PM PDT by raptor22

Sovereignty: Even if he's not re-elected, the president hopes to leave behind a treaty giving a U.N. body veto power over the use of our territorial waters and to which we'd be required to give half of our offshore oil revenue.

The Law Of The Sea Treaty (LOST) has been lurking in the shadows for decades. Like the Kyoto Protocol that pretended to be an effort to save the earth from the poisoned fruit of the Industrial Revolution, LOST pretends to be an effort to protect the world's oceans from environmental damage and remove it as a cause of potential conflicts between nations.

Like its Kyoto cousin, LOST is an attempt at the global redistribution of power and wealth, the embodiment of the progressive dream of the end of the nation state as we know it and the end of political freedom by giving veto over all of mankind's activities to a global body — in this case something called the International Seabed Authority, located in Kingston, Jamaica.

The ISA would have the power to regulate 70% of the earth's surface, placing seabed mining, fishing rights, deep-sea oil exploration and even the activities of the U.S. Navy under control of a global bureaucracy. It even provides for a global tax that would be paid directly to the ISA by companies seeking to develop the resources in and under the world's oceans.

As Heritage Foundation senior fellow Peter Brookes notes, the U.S. government now can collect royalty revenues from oil and gas companies that wish to drill on our extended continental shelf — the undersea areas beyond 200 miles of our coast. But if we ratify LOST, we'd have to fork over as much as 7% of that revenue to the ISA for redistribution to poorer, landlocked countries.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: 2012; backoffbarry; bhofascism; bhotreason; corruption; democrats; elections; fraud; globalredistribution; ibd; lawofthesea; lawofthesealost; lawoftheseatreaty; liberalfascism; lost; nobama2012; nodemocrats2012; obama; obamatruthfile; redistribution; remembernovember; socialistdemocrats; sovereignty; surrender; treason; treaty; tyranny; un; unitednations

1 posted on 05/09/2012 2:38:18 PM PDT by raptor22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: raptor22

Finally, an acronym for a treaty that makes sense! I guess ‘SCREWED’ just wasn’t workable.


2 posted on 05/09/2012 2:46:42 PM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

Good post.

This is just another scheme/vehicle to accomplish the globalist agenda at the expense of the United States.


3 posted on 05/09/2012 2:54:25 PM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

my dictionary defines:

treason: betrayal of one’s country

And what do would get in return for agreeing this treaty?

Let me guess: a treasury that is more bankrupt than it already is and a citizenry that is enslaved to the world.

It is time to defend our Constitution and country from ALL our enemies, especially those DOMESTIC


4 posted on 05/09/2012 3:00:01 PM PDT by RatRipper (I'll ride a turtle to work every day before I buy anything from Government Motors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

This, along with a number of other international agreements & treaties, is something we’ll have to keep a very keen eye on. I don’t think they’d dare try to do anything with this and other sovereignty surrendering actions prior to the November election. But in the lame duck session (and there will be a good number of angry lame duck Senators such as Lugar this November & December) all bets will be off. We’ll have to be prepared to support the mobilization of opposition to the ratification of such onerous treaties. And I’m sure a defeated Obama and his minions will do as much as they can to unilaterally weaken America.

Richard Lugar and Lamar Alexander supported the ratification of the Start treaty in the 2010 lame duck session. We’ve gotten rid of Lugar in this year’s election. Lamar’s turn is coming.


5 posted on 05/09/2012 3:10:12 PM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum; markomalley; Clairity; Carlucci; grey_whiskers; meyer; WL-law; Para-Ord.45; ...

Sovereignty surrender


6 posted on 05/09/2012 3:14:23 PM PDT by raptor22 (Join me on Twitter @gerfingerpoken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

I don’t understand. I really, REALLY don’t get this.

I know the US Navy is not the one I served in nor the one my dad served in, but how, HOW could they support this? I have heard that the higher levels of the navy support this, and I am baffled.

It would be easy to say they are all political toeing some line, but I cannot imagine the Navy would support this.

If anyone has any explanation, I would like to hear it. This treaty sounds like something we should fight with all the energy we have.


7 posted on 05/09/2012 3:17:21 PM PDT by rlmorel ("The safest road to Hell is the gradual one." Screwtape (C.S. Lewis))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

IMPEACH THIS BASTARD NOW!!!!

I don’t want to hear another speech from ANY politician that doesn’t include their intent to immediately impeach this worthless bastard.


8 posted on 05/09/2012 3:33:07 PM PDT by Gator113 (***YOU GAVE it to Obama. I would have voted for NEWT.~Just livin' life, my way~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
Let them sign it.

President Romney can simply renounce it and leave per:

From Wikipedia:

Article 42 of The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that "termination of a treaty, its denunciation or the withdrawal of a party, may take place only as a result of the application of the provisions of the treaty or of the present Convention"[2]. Article 56 states that if a treaty does not provide for denunciation, withdrawal, or termination, it is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless:

it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty.

Any withdrawal under Article 56 requires 12 months' notice.

The Vienna Convention does not apply to all nations; the United States, for instance, is not a Party[3]. This makes it unclear exactly how much notice the U.S. must give when withdrawing from treaties lacking a termination clause. For example, on March 7, 2005, the U.S. announced that it was withdrawing from the Consular Convention’s Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, a treaty that lacks a termination clause.

9 posted on 05/09/2012 4:08:04 PM PDT by Ouderkirk (Democrats...the party of Slavery, Segregation, Sodomy, and Sedition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

This is the taxation effort on behalf of the UN and their treasonous allies in national gub’mints. Securing a taste of global energy dollars will assure the UN a secure income for eternity and the ability to function with or without American underwriting of their global agenda.


10 posted on 05/09/2012 4:10:30 PM PDT by WorkingClassFilth (I'm for Churchill in 1940!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk

Thank you soooo much! You answered my question before I typed it!


11 posted on 05/09/2012 4:13:32 PM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

Is giving up any part of sovereignty by the POTUS not a form of treason that should be cause for impeachment by Congress?

I forgot, this Congress has no b*lls.


12 posted on 05/09/2012 4:21:30 PM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

You know, this story focuses on Obama, but buried near the fold is the real story. Obama can’t sign the treaty, even if he wanted to, until it is ratified by Congress. A Congress that has one house nearly deadlocked, and the other controlled by Republicans.

If this passes, it will be one more thing we can thank the socialist wing of the GOP for.


13 posted on 05/09/2012 4:44:53 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Actually it’s only the Senate that ratifies treaties. Fortunately it needs 67 votes to ratify a treaty. I love the wisdom of our founders!


14 posted on 05/09/2012 4:53:06 PM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: raptor22
The LOST treaty is another gift from Dick Lugar. Glad to see he won't be reelected. RINO.
15 posted on 05/09/2012 5:16:29 PM PDT by Aglooka ("I was out numbered 5-to-1, I got 4.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22
Sovereignty: Even if he's not re-elected, the president hopes to leave behind a treaty giving a U.N. body veto power over the use of our territorial waters and to which we'd be required to give half of our offshore oil revenue.

Oh it's a lot worse than that. LOST will regulate anything that AFFECTS the ocean. Many ocean species breed in estuaries. Estuaries are fed by watersheds. The "green" NGOs will sue to "protect" anything they can twist into pretending a risk of harm to said watersheds.

The is a LAND use treaty disguised as regulating oceans.

16 posted on 05/09/2012 5:17:54 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
Fortunately it needs 67 votes to ratify a treaty. I love the wisdom of our founders!

No offense, but I get really tired of this false assertion. A treaty can be legally ratified with as few as 34 Senators because the Constitution specifies "two thirds of Senators present," not two thirds of the full Senate.

I suggest you educate yourself on this.

17 posted on 05/09/2012 5:21:02 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Obama can’t sign the treaty, even if he wanted to, until it is ratified by Congress.

He sure as hell can sign it and it is NOT without consequence. If he or even his designated representative does sign it, the Department of State holds it as binding as a matter of "customary international law." This is why Bush rescinded the signature on the International Criminal Court Treaty Clinton signed.

Learn more about that here.

18 posted on 05/09/2012 5:25:01 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

“No offense, but I get really tired of this false assertion. A treaty can be legally ratified with as few as 34 Senators because the Constitution specifies “two thirds of Senators present,” not two thirds of the full Senate.”
**************************************************************
Yes, quite true technically. And if Pigs had wings, hollow bones and carried minimal weight, they just might be able to fly.

However, the odds of only 52 Senators being present to vote on something of the importance of the LOST treaty are EXTREMELY and VANISHINGLY remote. And, to be honest with you, I don’t have a lot of interest in dealing with quibblers. So you have a good night and I hope you recover soon from the tiredness you’re suffering from dealing with false assertions.


19 posted on 05/09/2012 7:13:33 PM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
However, the odds of only 52 Senators being present to vote on something of the importance of the LOST treaty are EXTREMELY and VANISHINGLY remote.

The historical record proves this absolutely false. The Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western Hemisphere committed the entire American economy and all its land to the preservation of EVERY species. It was ratified in 1941 by voice vote without record of a quorum and no committee debate.

20 posted on 05/09/2012 7:19:37 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

Lugar is not gone yet. Won’t be gone until January.


21 posted on 05/09/2012 7:31:48 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I know and that worries me. I suspect he’s not going to be a patriot during his lame duck status and he’s going to go full-bore internationalist. A truly despicable creature judging by his concession speech.


22 posted on 05/09/2012 7:55:18 PM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: raptor22
Assuming we could ever elect a geniune, conservative, patriotic, pro-American president (definitely not 0dumb0shit or Romney for that matter), than this would be the easiest decision to make........ SCREW YOU LOST TREATY & the UN! We gotta have a president with balls who will tell these globalists to f__k off and if they persist in trying to enter our territorial waters or interfere with fishing fleets, just use our navy to blow these globalist bastards to smithereens.

"But its' a treaty with the UN signed by 0dumb0shit (or GW Bush)"

Good, even more reason to blow these globalist UN bastards to smithereens!

23 posted on 05/09/2012 8:26:21 PM PDT by rcrngroup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

Treaties are said to be inviolable. This is incorrect. Treaties cannot change the fundamental structure of the Constitution. Constitutional rights, such as (but not limited to) the Bill of Rights, cannot be changed by treaty. Because if that were possible, then the entire Constitutional process for amending the Constitution, as well as the fundamental philosophical structure of the Constitution, would be vulnerable to sabotage outside of Constitutional process - supposedly BY a Constitutional provision. But legally, you cannot have conflicting Constitutional laws, nor redundancies. So treaty powers have to be interpreted as secondary to established Constitutional provisions, and subject to pre-existing Constitutional oversight. Otherwise the entire Constitution ends with the phrase “or you can just toss it all out if you feel like it.”

No.


24 posted on 05/09/2012 11:31:31 PM PDT by Talisker (He who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

“I know the US Navy is not the one I served in nor the one my dad served in, but how, HOW could they support this?”

Clinton turned the military into a career in which one has to play ball with the libtards to be promoted.

Do you remember the incident in which a group of around a dozen Marine generals left in protest, and were told by the Clinton administration that if they spoke out their retirement benefits would be taken away?

To correct the situation we would have to get rid of pretty much all the perfumed princes. We would be promoting people from 0-4 to 0-10 until things settled out and got back on an even keel.


25 posted on 05/10/2012 5:11:09 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk

“a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty.”

How about a right of denunciation implied by the size of our military?


26 posted on 05/10/2012 5:16:16 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dsc

I shudder to think of the USN getting into a shooting war, if that is the case.

I saw that “Carrier” thing on PBS a few years ago, and it was appalling. Simply appalling. It wasn’t all roses when I was in, and there was a lot of things I disliked, but watching THAT made me shudder.


27 posted on 05/10/2012 6:14:10 PM PDT by rlmorel ("The safest road to Hell is the gradual one." Screwtape (C.S. Lewis))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dsc

And I do remember that incident. May he and his ilk rot in hell.


28 posted on 05/10/2012 6:15:01 PM PDT by rlmorel ("The safest road to Hell is the gradual one." Screwtape (C.S. Lewis))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Well, I know it has to be ratified, but that it is even being considered is extremely disturbing to me, that we have people running our government who would GIVE away our sovereignty.


29 posted on 05/10/2012 6:16:53 PM PDT by rlmorel ("The safest road to Hell is the gradual one." Screwtape (C.S. Lewis))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Anyone who doubts the mischief that can be done by the Senate ratifying treaties should Google “desertification treaty” and see how the late Wyoming Senator Craig Thomas was supposedly “tricked” in allowing this harmful treaty to become US law in a late night session.

See www.wnd.com/2000/12/5447/


30 posted on 05/10/2012 8:05:15 PM PDT by StopGlobalWhining (Buy a US Govt Railpass to visit Obamavilles in all 57 states on the Intercontinental Railroad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: StopGlobalWhining; House Atreides
Anyone who doubts the mischief that can be done by the Senate ratifying treaties should Google “desertification treaty” and see how the late Wyoming Senator Craig Thomas was supposedly “tricked” in allowing this harmful treaty to become US law in a late night session.

Know it well. Please tell that to House Atreides.

31 posted on 05/10/2012 8:22:50 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | 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