Skip to comments.Obama Seeks Sovereignty Surrender Via LOST Treaty
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 ...
Finally, an acronym for a treaty that makes sense! I guess ‘SCREWED’ just wasn’t workable.
This is just another scheme/vehicle to accomplish the globalist agenda at the expense of the United States.
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
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.
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.
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.
President Romney can simply renounce it and leave per:
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". 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. 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 Conventions Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, a treaty that lacks a termination clause.
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.
Thank you soooo much! You answered my question before I typed it!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.