 |
 Jim DeMint Ping! |
Want on or off this ping list? GET WITH THE PROGRAM! Just FReepmail me.
Follow Sen. DeMint on Twitter.
Posted on 07/16/2012 11:47:36 AM PDT by Hunton Peck
UPDATED 7/16/12: 4 additional senators have joined in opposition to LOST, including Mike Johanns (R-NE), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Rob Portman (R-OH) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA). With 34 senators against the misguided treaty, LOST will not be ratified by the Senate this year.
Strong opposition is rising in the U.S. Senate to the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) that would subjugate American sovereignty to the whims of an international tribunal. To date, 30 Republican senators have signed onto a letter opposing LOST. It takes 67 votes to approve treaties in the Senate, so only 34 votes are needed to ensure defeat of this misguided treaty.
Why is LOST so harmful?
It would act as a backdoor Kyoto Protocol, forcing us into cap and trade policies that would destroy jobs and harm our economy. It would cost the U.S. trillions of dollars in international royalties to nations including state sponsors of terror like Sudan and “undemocratic, despotic or brutal governments in Belarus, Burma, China or Zimbabwe.” Former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton warned it would embolden China, “constrain U.S. naval activities, and do nothing to resolve China's expansive maritime territorial claims.” Radical environmental groups have lined up in support of LOST. President Ronald Reagan strongly opposed the treaty as a threat to U.S. sovereignty.
Below is the text of the letter and the current list of senators who have joined in opposition. Senator DeMint is still working to collect more signatures.
The Honorable Harry Reid Majority Leader United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Leader,
We understand that Chairman Kerry has renewed his efforts to pursue Senate ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We are writing to let you know that we believe this Convention reflects political, economic, and ideological assumptions which are inconsistent with American values and sovereignty.
By its current terms, the Law of the Sea Convention encompasses economic and technology interests in the deep sea, redistribution of wealth from developed to undeveloped nations, freedom of navigation in the deep sea and exclusive economic zones which may impact maritime security, and environmental regulation over virtually all sources of pollution.
To effect the treaty’s broad regime of governance, we are particularly concerned that United States sovereignty could be subjugated in many areas to a supranational government that is chartered by the United Nations under the 1982 Convention. Further, we are troubled that compulsory dispute resolution could pertain to public and private activities including law enforcement, maritime security, business operations, and nonmilitary activities performed aboard military vessels.
If this treaty comes to the floor, we will oppose its ratification.
Sincerely yours,
Jon Kyl Jim Inhofe Roy Blunt Pat Roberts David Vitter Ron Johnson John Cornyn Jim DeMint Tom Coburn John Boozman Rand Paul Jim Risch Mike Lee Jeff Sessions Mike Crapo Orrin Hatch John Barrasso Richard Shelby John Thune Richard Burr Saxby Chambliss Dan Coats John Hoeven Roger Wicker Marco Rubio Jim Moran Dean Heller Pat Toomey Chuck Grassley Mitch McConnell
17th amendment kind of ended Sentors being close. I say, repeal the 17th and 16th too!
Lugar blew a 40 year career over support for crap like this.
Thankfully he did’t get to see this one passed before he retires to whatever state he calls home. (which hasn’t been Indiana since the 70’s)
When it’s completely defeated I’ll breathe a sigh of enormous relief. I first learned about this madness when GWB was president and have been terrified somehow it would squeak through. It’s a sell-out of our sovereignty of the highest order.
Lugar was one of the first to announce support years ago.
!!!! The next step is to push President Romney into revoking the treaty—which he can do unilaterally (the way W revoked the ICC signature on an unratified treaty).
LOST has been sitting around for 30 years for rats and folks like McCain and Lugar to find just one moment where they can get 66 votes in a lame-duck session. It’s time to put a stake in the heart of this monster. The only way to do that is the president “unsigning” the treaty.
Yes, remember how some sold out to obummercare? Olympia Snowe - good riddance.
I’m sure I don’t even need to look to see if our beloved republican senator from Alaska voted for this.
Wrote both my Senators in GA. Chambliss was already on board. I’m glad to see Isaakson finally commited.
Logic sez get more to oppose lest Kerry’s crowd pull some stunt during the lame duck.
I’m not the least bit interested in cooperating with the UN - except to help load up their crap and move them off our shores.
Now obummer suspending the constitution? That's entirely possible.
I thought Grassley was in favor of LOST.
Glad to see him in opposition...
The sad news is that it will come that close to passing.
Anyone who votes FOR this treaty is clearly guilty of violating their oath of office and should be charged with treason, given a fair trial, then hung on a gallows in front of the White House as a warning to other subversives.
May be an indication that Portman is the VP pick. I wrote Senator Sessions the other day and told him that if Portman voted to ratify the gun control treaty, he would sink Romney if he was on the ticket. I asked him to talk to some of his insane Republican colleagues who were considering voting for ratification to let them know how strong opinions were against it. That logic really probably applied to LOST as well. Maybe more calls and letters like mine made a difference.
Not sure why I follow with the 17th, why election of Senators by direct popular election is moving things away from the people’s choice compared to their being selected by the Individual States.
Seems the former is closer than the latter.
What am I missing?
I'll offer some comments...
Our States lose representation. Your representation isn't diminished in regards to the Federal Gov., but the individual States lose power to act of their own accord.
It goes to the base of Federalism and State's power to rein in federal power.
Remember the implementation of federal blood alcohol content legislation? The Feds blackmailed States into complying with a national standard or they would lose highway funding. If Senators were tightly controlled by State legislatures that BS would never have been pulled.
And as far as Senators being elected by the populace...how do you like your Senator being nothing more than a highly glorified Representative?
Doesn't the position rate a higher status than that? They're supposed to represent the States, not the individual Citizens. There is already representation for that on both the State and Federal level.
Just off the top o' me head.
Thanks philman-36.
States no longer have representation - there is no longer a layer of government to protect us from the Feds. It is that lack of protection [since the 17th] that I see as us people not having the representation we were meant to have.
Philman said it better -
|
Jim DeMint Ping! |
Follow Sen. DeMint on Twitter.
I wrote my 2 Senators, Bennet and Udall, not sure it will do much good. Got a form letter from Bennet and a much more personal note from Sen. Udall. He indicated that as of yesterday he had received over 10,000 pieces of mail (E and Snail) on LOST.
>> Only 34? WTF are the other 66 thinking?
They’re jackwagons.
If “present” is the quorum, then these 34 Men must occupy the Senate 24 hours/day.
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.