Posted on 11/27/2010 12:56:43 PM PST by factmart
The Reagan Administration's public position was that they opposed the "seabed mining" provisions of Part XI of the Treaty. The seabed mining provisions were amended to incorporate those objections and became a binding part of the Treaty when it went into effect in 1994.
I understand the incremental argument and agree with it. Sarah Palin understands it, Ronald Reagan understood it, John Bolton understands it, we all understand it. That doesn't solve the problem of how we protect 80+ billion barrels of oil and 1,500+ trillion cubic feet of natural gas from being frittered away by lunatic administrations like the Obama Administration.
Even though Reagan refused to seek ratification of UNCLOS, he directed that all portions of the treaty EXCEPT the seabed mining provisions would be adhered to as "customary practice" by the U.S. He also declared that a U.S. "Exclusive Economic Zone" in coastal waters consistent with UNCLOS would be in force.
President Reagan's 1983 Ocean Policy Statement
The problem with this position as I stated above is that -- without ratifying the treaty -- there is no assurance from administration to administration that oil & gas resources off Alaska would be protected for U.S. development until we got the insane enviromarxist influence out of our system and got serious about development.
This is the problem Governor Palin addressed in taking the position she did. There's enough oil & gas up there to guarantee our energy independence and she wants the problem resolved. Her position (as governor) was that ratifying the treaty would reserve those resources for Alaska and the U.S., a perfectly reasonable position to take as governor. If presidential candidate Palin has a better idea, I want to hear it if/when she becomes a candidate. We must ensure that those resources belong to us no matter how long it takes to develop them.
To blast her as some kind of RINO because she wanted this guarantee for the U.S. as governor is demagoguery of the worst order.
The GOP Won the women’s vote in the midterms for the first time ever because of Palin! We WON the Women’s Vote!
We WON the Women’s Vote!
We WON the Women’s Vote!
They said the GOP will never do that!
Same people says Palin can’t win General Election
Of course she can’t. What does that have to do with my post?
We also got 38% of the Hispanic vote, up from 29% just 2 years ago. More facts you won’t hear from the LSM.
I will dance in the street in front of of my house. Now, go check my #50 post that you responded to.
Maybe you tell me the same.
I will bow my head down and thank Almighty GOD, for once more blessing are undeserving country!
Then Get in my car and go honking for 15 minutes like a teenager! I will be 60 years old then!
So I post some of my thoughts in hopes to find out what others think
***Maybe you should read the title of the thread before engaging in trollish behavior. You say yourself that you’re relatively new to politics. Then it would become you to lurk before you leap.
I’m in it to win it.
Bump to watch.
McCain compares Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan
The Washington Post ^ | November 28, 2010 | Aaron Blake and Matt DeLong
Posted on Sun 28 Nov 2010 02:13:33 PM GMT+6 by 2ndDivisionVet
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said China is not doing its part to avert a conflict between North Korea and South Korea after the former launched an artillery attack on a border island that killed two marines and two civilians. China has called for emergency talks, but the United States and South Korea have been critical that it hasn’t done more to reign in its enigmatic ally, North Korea. “Unfortunately, China is not behaving as a responsible world power,” McCain said. “It cannot be in China’s long-term interest to see a renewed contest on the Korean peninsula.”
McCain compared his former running mate, Sarah Palin, to former President Ronald Reagan, noting that some viewed Reagan as divisive too. “I think that anybody who has the visibility that Sarah has is obviously going to have some divisiveness,” McCain said. “I remember that a guy named Ronald Reagan used to be viewed by some as divisive. ... I think she had a positive impact on the last election, and I’m proud of her.”
Outgoing Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said Congress is likely to pass a temporary extension of all of the Bush tax cuts, including on income above $250,000 for a family. “What’s likely to happen is there will be an extension of the tax cuts for everybody for a period of time,” Dorgan said. “I don’t know what that might be, but it’s the wrong remedy for the country.”(Continued) http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/11/mccain-compares-sarah-palin-to.html
To God’s ears!
“Nothing in this Order is intended to limit or otherwise modify any existing or future statutory or regulatory authority of any state agency”
I just finished reading the EO, and while it's lead-in "Background and Findings" paragraph was a bit barf inducing, it reads like a typical Staff generated paragraph that was based upon the (now discredited) Global Warming "experts" who were being constantly quoted and re-quoted by the Presstitutes.
Overall, the EO looks more like a product generated for the Governor's signature that could be expected based on the times, and on the fact that Alaska would be heavily impacted by the whole Global Warming/Cap and Trade frenzy.
Additionally, this paragraph would seem to be a significant driving force behind the EO:
[The Climate Change Sub-Cabinet shall serve as the executive branch contact to, and a resource for, the Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission established by Legislative Resolve 49 (2006).]
If I understand that paragraph correctly, the Legislative Branch was already moving on the issue, and the Governor decided to use this Panel as Her info gathering/policy creating/legislative liaison solution to Executive Branch participation and/or leadership on the issue.
Just completed the youtube snippet of O’Reily’s interview and I don’t know how clear she has to be but she is very adamant that she is against amnesty. Seems to discount your assertion. I’ll get to the rest later but I’ve seen enough to see that you, like many others, want to take things out of context. Nothing I’ve seen to this point proves anything and certainly doesn’t dissuade me.
I also watched the YouTube at the link, and basically came to the same conclusion as you did, i.e., it is not really definitive enough "evidence". I do hope Gov. Palin will "clarify" fully her position on Illegal Immigration in the coming days/months.
I am however, concerned about her position on the LOST treaty issue, and will be interested in seeing any additional information on that issue (perhaps she has seen the light on this issue now). Any treaty that gives power over the sea beds to the UN is not a good thing (giving any power to the UN, on any issue, is not a good thing).
Thanks for posting that background info on LOST.
Part of the problem here is that eastern Iowa has been infected with Illinois unionism and dimocraps. Then of course you have Iowa City and Des Moines who are of course infected with college liberalism or big city we want to be intellectual syndrome and thus you have the rest of the story. Conservatives are coming out of the woodwork and the tea party is getting stronger, so hopefully we can start turning this around. I saw small rays of hope when the Dim governor was defeated, but we have a lot of work ahead.
What are you talking about - I wasn’t being sarcastic. And, she saw 2 years of what?? Were you posting to the right poster? I’m confused.
So, this is a caucus thread then? I thought caucus threads were reserved for religious discussions.
Oops. Wait. Nevermind.
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.