Posted on 07/13/2012 2:29:25 PM PDT by finnsheep
July 13, 2012 Dear Ms. ****,
Thank you for contacting me about Senate ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). I appreciate hearing from you.
As you may know, UNCLOS is the international agreement that resulted from the third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea (1973-1982). The treaty would establish territorial sea limits, navigational rights, rules to govern commercial and military use of the sea, and a system for settling disputes between nations. It would also include environmental provisions.
I share your concerns about the possible impact of this proposed treaty and oppose its ratification by the Senate. The treaty would compromise the United States' sovereignty by subjecting American navigational rights to an international body that is indifferent, and sometimes opposed, to American interests. Furthermore, the treaty would compel the U.S. to transfer billions of dollars in royalties from oil and gas development on our Outer Continental Shelf to the International Seabed Authority, an unaccountable, multinational organization which would disburse these funds to foreign entities including many that are openly hostile to the United States.
That being said, please be assured that I value your input and will keep our shared concerns in mind should the Senate undertake the ratification process for UNCLOS.
Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Pat Toomey U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania
Sorry, he does not say he will vote against LOST. He says he will keep your concerns in mind. He needs to make a stronger statement on how he will vote. Otherwise, he cannot be trusted.
Toomey: “and [I] oppose its ratification by the Senate”
LOST is as bad as it was 30 years ago. These equivocating senators are as bad as LOST.
That’s good.
“......he cannot be trusted.”
******************************************
Sorry Jim, Senator Toomey most definitely CAN be trusted.
We need one more NO vote, correct?
Ayotte in NH is still waffling.
Hmmm.....sounds somewhat vague. He says he opposes it’s ratification but never commits to a “NO” vote.
This from the RINO who voiced support for Sotomayor & the repeal of DADT.
Yeah, I’d say he can’t be trusted.
How can any Senator vote for LOST and think the ChiComs will abide by it? Look what those bass-turds are trying to do in the South China sea.
China will not abide by LOST because they aren’t already. They are currently conducting an intimidation campaign against Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, and Indonesia on territorial rights of the South China Sea. All countries involved are signatures of LOST.
A PIECE OF PAPER WILL NOT HALT CHINESE AGGRESSION!!!
Secondly, in North America, Canada and Russia are in a tit-for-tat conflict over oil territories in the Arctic zone. Russia has used a mini sub to plant a Russian flag on the North Pole sea bed to claim the area for gas/oil extraction.
In LOST, we will relinquish resource rights (oil/gas/fish/minerals) in OUR territorial waters and will have to apply for a permit from the UN. If granted, there will be royalties that will have to be paid to the UN which will be redistributed third party countries.....say, N.Korea, Iran, Venezuelia, China and so forth (even to land-lock countries!).
It’s basically a global engery tax and wealth redistribution.
Also, all oil/gas tech must be shared with other signature countries.
LOST is also a treasure trove of “environmental Trojan Horses” ready to be sprung on the US.
We already have treaties with our neighbors over off-shore drilling rights (Russia, Canada, Mexico and Cuba). There is no need for LOST. If need be, we can negotiate with LOST countries for future territory boundaries.
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.