Posted on 12/02/2007 11:48:24 AM PST by truthfinder9
Thirty-four Senate Republicans is all that is keeping the United Nation’s “Law of the Sea Treaty” from being ratified and delivering a potential death blow to our nation’s sovereignty, security and prosperity!
Rejected by Ronald Reagan nearly 25 year ago, the treaty remains an albatross that is now only a breath away from an unnecessary law that would place the U.S. under the governing authority to an unaccountable international body—the UN!
After receiving great pressure from the White House the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the treaty by a margin of (17-4) on October 31, leading to speculation that a final ratification vote will take place very soon.
Grassfire.org Alliance has launched a nationwide petition strongly opposing the Law of the Sea Treaty, and has plans to deliver 100,000 citizen petitions to the Senate prior to the ratification vote. The petition states that the Law of the Sea Treaty is a dangerous threat to our nation’s sovereignty, places the U.S. under an international authority, subjects our nation to direct taxation by the United Nations, and may hamper our military.
Step #1 -- Sign the Petition:
The Petition States:
As an American citizen, I am signing this petition opposing Senate ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS or “Law of the Sea Treaty”). The Law of the Sea Treaty is a dangerous threat to our nation’s sovereignty. It places the United States under an international authority, subjects our nation to direct taxation by the United Nations and could hamper our military. The Law of the Sea Treaty is a bad idea that was rejected by Ronald Reagan and should be rejected by the U.S. Senate now. I urge you to vote against ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
LOST PING
Back to the phones and faxes too!
Why you simpleton! You're too stupid to understand the intricacies of international relations and the subtle nuances that entails! /sarc
You need to take that question up with Bush. He is one of the few who knows the true answer.
Voinovich of Ohio supports LOST. Call him.
I think I already know the answer.....
Warns against the party system.
“It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....
agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....
against another....
it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...
thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”
Stresses the importance of religion and morality.
“Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths,
which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?”
On stable public credit.
“...cherish public credit.
One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible...
avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt....
it is essential that you...bear in mind, that towards the payments of debts there must be Revenue,
that to have Revenue there must be taxes;
that no taxes can be devised, which are not...inconvenient and unpleasant...”
Warns against permanent foreign alliances.
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world...”
****
Of course our civil “MASTERS” have such high morals and are so much smarter then the Father of our Country. /S
Does the President have veto power over a treaty?
Bush has been enthusiastically supporting its passage, so the chance of him breaking out the veto pen if it reaches his desk is zero. Like amnesty for illegals, Bush has been pushing for LOST like a bulldog. ...transnationalist that he is.
President Bush will not veto it as he is pushing for this
Loss of Sovereignty Treaty.
Yeah I keep hearing that; yet Bush is the one disputing the Treaty.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/settlement_of_disputes/choice_procedure.htm
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Declaration:
“In accordance with article 30 (4) of the Agreement, the Government of the United States of America declares that it chooses a special arbitral tribunal to be constituted in accordance with Annex VIII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 for the settlement of disputes pursuant to Part VIII of the Agreement.”
I’d never thought I’d say this but this man is just as much a criminal as the Clintoons and Kennedy’s.
Yep. He seems to be really enthusiastic about pissing away our sovereignty.
I have already signed this petition. I hope others will also. Thanks for posting it.
Thanks & the whole family signed it. ~Pandy~
This is a treaty which has already been approved by the President, so the Senate is the last line of defense.
So far I haven't heard any solid explanations for approving this that state clearly "The country will be better with this treaty because...". Most proponents' arguments are essentially "Everyone else is signing it so we have to too."
If this goes through and Bush doesn’t veto it will prove that there is indeed a secret world government.
For those of you who fail to recognize that Bush is a traitor to conservativism and to the country, ask yourself this: Would you remain as sanguine if it were Hillary Clinton pushing for treaty ratification?
Carter already signed it. In theory, Bush has "unsigned" the ICC treaty, so I guess there's precedent for thus removing it from consideration. However, if he doesn't do that NOW, once it's ratified, that's it.
The problem with that "theory" is that as far as I know, Bush supports this treaty, stealth globalist that he is. Thompson supporters take note.
Bush didn’t unsign it. Clinton did. It was ratified under Clinton with a footnote to NOT go into affect until 2001.
UN ratification documents. LOST ratified, August 1996.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/status2007.pdf
Bush did put LOST Treaty under dispute though:
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/settlement_of_disputes/choice_procedure.htm
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Declaration:
“In accordance with article 30 (4) of the Agreement, the Government of the United States of America declares that it chooses a special arbitral tribunal to be constituted in accordance with Annex VIII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 for the settlement of disputes pursuant to Part VIII of the Agreement.”
My understanding is, Clinton signed it in 1994, but the mid-term elections that year killed any chance for ratification. That signature “expired” sometime around 1998 (not sure of the exact legal terminology), but then in 2004 Bush re-signed it and has been pushing for ratification.
What I don’t know, but would love an answer on, is what happens if the Senate says no? Is that the end of it, or can the next President sign again and ask for another shot at ratification?
That is not what the UN site says.
I’m a little confused. What are you saying the UN says? Your links don’t even show us as signatories. I thought we had signed but not ratified. According to your first link, all we’ve done is sign and ratify the “Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the Convention relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks (in force as from 11 December 2001).”
From your second link, quoted in post 24, Annex VIII refers to dispute settlement, but Part VIII only refers to the legal definition of islands. I don’t understand what asking for a special tribunal to define islands does for us.
I think we’d be better off telling the UN to stick it, but then they don’t ask my opinion on this type of subject.
The one thing that is certain is that ratification is not complete.
Nice, thank you. I missed the little pen under the agreement on Part XI. Still, I think the date listed is only when The Agreement went into force, not when we signed. I stand by my earlier explanation, although I don’t have any links to back it up right now.
What’s your opinion on this whole thing? Should we sign/ratify/go along with the rest of the world? Or be happy with what we have right now?
I think that is what the Senate vote is for, to complete it. But the states have been able to impose portions of it since the signature.
Since we are not the only ones that have filed disputes, I don’t think the rest of the world went along with it.
bump
President Reagan implemented parts of it back when it first came out. He issued an executive order in early ‘83 that said we would comply with the territorial/EEZ/navigation/straits transits portions of the treaty, and directed the Navy and other agencies to act in accordance with it. But he also said we’d never agree to the seabed mining program as it stood then. That’s how things stood till ‘94. It’s only recently that we’ve had a willing executive AND a willing Senate.
Sorry, that post was too good to leave in a link over there. I’m reposting it and bumping it.
Copy:
The big issue with LOST isn’t about the ocean; it’s about land use control.
This global bureaucracy will justify control of land use to “protect” the marine environment. It isn’t hard to see. Many oceanic species breed in estuaries within the United States. Estuarine health isn’t doing very well for a number of reasons (many of which politicized science will conveniently miss). The estuaries are fed by rivers. The rivers are lined with cities.
Marine sanctuaries and global biospheres are model for what is planned for LOST. If all we accomplish is to alter the treaty to gain protection for our military, we will have missed the point.
LOST is a straitjacket fully capable of crippling this nation (which certainly affects its ability to defend itself). That the White House says it knows nothing about it belies the fact that, according to the email I get from ALRA, the White House and Chuck Hagel are the instigators in pushing this treaty through in the dark of night after the Reagan Administration had rejected it out of hand.
/copy
BUMP
BUMP
They can make a law, but it’ll be fun to see them endorse it.
Seabed mining is the least of my concerns about LOST. There are much bigger fish at stake. Besides my concern about using it as an excuse for land use control, consider food and biodiesel production using oceanic algae farms. LOST is a very big deal.
That Bush supports this monster only concerns me more.
bump
It’s not “them” enforcing it, it’s “us” voluntarily subjecting ourselves to it. We play by whatever rules we sign up to, which is why we end up paying something like a quarter of the entire UN budget.
Two big things this treaty will impact:
1) Our Navy. Since it’s under the command of the guy pushing for ratification, we’ll do what we’re told.
2) Exploration/exploitation of offshore resources (deep sea mining/drilling). We haven’t had a company express the least bit of interest in pursuing this technology since as soon as we ratify, the UN gets to control every aspect of whatever they come up with.
Both of those, are either run by the government or strongly influenced by it. Enforcement is guaranteed.
Ditto. It's rather scary as a matter of fact. Bush seems more eager to destroy US sovereignty than previous Democrats.
No, selective enforcement is what is guaranteed. There's a reason virtually every hard rock mine in the Western US is foreign owned. You clearly don't know how regulatory government really works.
It’s definitely a back door to Kyoto enforcement. Any type of pollution anywhere could be said to affect the oceans. Not good.
And the whole ‘common heritage of mankind’ BS is just way too communistic for my tastes. This whole thing sucks.
???
>>>It’s definitely a back door to Kyoto enforcement. Any type of pollution anywhere could be said to affect the oceans. Not good.
I think this is relevant:
Posts start here, First is definitions of terms:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1767314/posts?page=3#3
Thru:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1767314/posts?page=12#12
So, the “UN Convention on the laws of the sea” was not signed, but the other two parts were signed. It’d help to know more about what the three parts were about, but offhand...and historically...speaking, UN treaties are not in our interests.
Short version is, complete convention came out in 1982. Lots of countries, particularly the US, had issues with the ISA and the mining provisions. In the early '90s, the UN came out with the "new and improved" Agreement, the second column in Calpernia's chart. This removed a lot of the more disagreeable parts of the mining sections. I really don't know a lot about the fishing deal, so I'm going to skip that.
But you are right, anything the UN is for has to be bad for US.
We don’t know that. There was additional documents to the signature that are not posted on the UN site. We would have to see the documents that are in the signature.
See arrows on my graph pointing to ‘Documents with Signature’.
>>>I really don’t know a lot about the fishing deal
The deal is big; I’ve not read the whole thing. But, in short, it prohibits sport fishing. Commercial fishing has to have some license through the UN.
That doesn’t surprise me. But how can they square that with LoST? According to that one, countries have exclusive control out to 200 miles from the coast. I don’t know of a lot of sport-fishing boats that can make it that far. Still, don’t take that as me defending the UN. This whole thing stinks, and I wish we could get rid of it once and for all.
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.