Posted on 01/19/2005 6:08:57 PM PST by w6ai5q37b
The Bush administration continues to support Senate ratification of the UN's Convention on the Law of the Sea, which would turn the oceans and their incomprehensible riches over to the world body.
During confirmation hearings before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State nominee Condoleezza Rice reaffirmed the Bush administrations plans to seek ratification of the UNs Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOST).
During an exchange with Rice, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), a noted Republican internationalist, quizzed the nominee about earlier statements she had made in support of ratifying LOST. "In your answers to questions for the record
I particularly appreciate your response on the Law of the Sea Convention," commented Lugar.
In her earlier remarks about the treaty, Rice declared: "Joining the convention will advance the interests of the United States military. The United States, as the country with the largest coastline and the largest exclusive economic zone, will gain economic and resource benefits from the convention. The convention will not inhibit the United States nor its partners from successfully pursuing the Proliferation Security Initiative. And the United Nations has no decision-making role under the convention in regulating uses of the oceans by any state party to the convention."
"Thats clearing up an issue sometimes raised by opponents of the convention," asserted Senator Lugar, referring to widespread criticism of the pact as an infringement on U.S. sovereignty. He also quoted Rice as saying that LOST "does not provide for or authorize taxation of individuals or corporations" and concluded: "I cannot think of a stronger administration statement in support of the Law of the Sea Convention."
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
Hydro Carbons won't work either. The coal resources in the US alone are estimated to be sufficient to last 1000 years at present rates of consumption.
You heard me right. 1000 years!
That RINO needs to be recalled - he's been esconced in his Senatorial throne for so long that he's no longer a Hoosier, but another fatcat Washington insider, and a thrice-damned internationalist (a nice word for "traitor" if you ask me) at that.
GET THE UN OUT OF THE US, AND GET THE US OUT OF THE UN!
NOW, MISTER!
Ms. Rice made a whole bunch of statements concerning LOST that no one can back up in the treaty.
Now I could be wrong. Maybe this UN treaty enshrines US sovereignty and sits the UN in the back of the bus. I'd be in favor of that.
If the statements of Ms. Rice are true I'm all for it. On the other hand, if she's blowing smoke in my face, I don't like it and will not stand for it.
The sea treaty seems to be a route toward UN self-suficiency. Therefor, I'm opposed to it.
In conclusion, let me say that Ms. Rice should be thrown in foxhole with communist bullets zinging over her head and praying that one of them doesn't blow her head or pretty make-up off.
I'm not trying to be cruel, but this female does not understand the utterly vicious philosophy of the UN and its hooray section that cheers the death of millions. Rwanda and Cambodia are two examples. I can name a dozen more.
The fact that she supports LOST indicates that Ms. Rice has a serious vacuum or lack of principles in her head.
I will add that the US began an extensive mapping of the shelf subsequent to '82.
Your summation is dead on target and exactly why this treaty needs to be brought before the senate, and VOTED DOWN by the critters. As long as no vote is held, this treaty will sit out there and wait for a midnight Christmas-Eve session for it to be passed my voice vote when there are 3 senators present.
Oceans and Law of the Sea Home Page
* FINAL ACT OF THE THIRD UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (1982) *later amendments and agreements not included
Please let us know what you discover and what its potential impact on American Sovereignty might be. I can't get through all of it, but the main part of the provisions start on page 19 of 35.
Hope you have better luck getting through it than I did.
The UN isn't going away anytime soon. There are too many dictators with designs on the US and the world to switch it off all at once. Perhaps the only way to keep the beast on a leash is to keep a seat at the table, until widespread liberty takes hold and generations of wise men and women arise who will see the UN for what it is and kill it. A generation hence at the earliest, and that's if everything goes well.
If it's something the UN wants, then you can just about count on two things: (1) it will enhance UN power and UN finances, and increase its appetite for meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations; and (2) it will erode U.S. sovereignty and place a claim on U.S. taxpayers.
I am opposed to the Law of the Sea Treaty and have so informed my Congressman and Senators.
It would please me greatly to see the UN kicked the hell out of the United States. They are a useless collection of third world thugs from fifth rate countries. Not only do we not need them, they are harmful to U.S. interests.
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.