Posted on 05/13/2007 5:15:39 AM PDT by driftdiver
But...but...he doesn’t like abortion, so it all evens out...
This is not a slam against pro-lifers, just those people who make it their single issue.
President George Bush’s ‘compassionate conservatism’ is mindless liberalism.
from:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/
President Bush tells base to “get LOST”
CSP Decision Brief | May 10, 2007
The Law of the Sea Treaty will impede the U.S.’s ability to defend its interests in time of war.
President Bush is expected shortly to announce his determination to secure the early ratification of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). This treaty, which was rejected by President Ronald Reagan and bottled up by the Republican Senate in the last Congress, promises further to weaken the President’s already plummeting support among his political base, on and off of Capitol Hill.
LOST has long been the crown-jewel of a community known as the transnational progressives (”transies”) found in various quarters of this and foreign governments, international bureaucrats and non-governmental organizations. The transies seek to have supranational institutions govern world affairs, circumscribing the freedom of action and undermining the sovereignty of the American people and those of other freedom-loving nations. [snip]
“Well, we always have the Great Lakes to utilize our submarines to thwart any attempted attacks from Canada...”
If what I’ve read is correct the UN would also have authority over the Great Lakes. They don’t fall under the 200 mile limit but there is enough commerce there that the UN wants to get its hands on.
Reagan fired the State Dept weenies who invented this thing. That should be enough of a clue right there how bad it is.
This treaty is far more about land use control than it is about the oceans.
What would surprise me if this happened is, would enough people have the guts to send those bastards over at the U.N. packing?
I'm afraid our country is too feminized to even raise a fist.
From a second source then....
Weird. Completely pushing Hillary’s agenda - more effectively, actually, than she can.
If you have a moment, could you take a look at this thread and comment?
Unbelievable.
It's nothing but the cash flow and redistribution isn't it.
Always has been and always will be.
P.T. Barnum would love the mindset that the U.N. totes.
"If you got it, we want it".
They do have to reconsider their title.
United Nations?
How about United Banks(UB).
Then why is it still a thorn in the side of sovereignty?
Good Lord when it comes to defending and protecting our sovereignty overseas before it hits us stateside "again" liberals call it wrong and try to stifle it.
I does appear that there are those in government who are focused on our downfall and not our survival as a free nation. When the opportunity arises to bring our efforts to prevent another calamity home they are all over it by trying to toss foreign defense of our sovereignty to the dogs.
Now, giving credence to the idea of giving control of our commerce and defense over to many who are focused on our demise isn't just dumb thinking. It can't be just that.
I[t] does appear...
Just a reminder of what Mr. Gore thinks of this.
UN treaties are effective means for US to help Third World
Gore said that agencies of the United Nations “offer the US an effective means of doing our fair share to alleviate suffering in some of the most miserable corners of the globe.” On treaties not signed by the United States, Mr. Gore gave unequivocal support to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Law of the Sea Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Source: Barbara Crossette, NY Times Aug 20, 2000
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Al_Gore_Foreign_Policy.htm
Our mere existence as a superpower and a sovereign country with a Constitution based upon personal freedom has done more for all of humanity just by our existence than any amount of monetary transferring that ALGORE could even contemplate in his petty mind.
Why is that so hard for some to see?
We are a good thing for humanity and to tote a mindset of change from that shows a sincere lack of understanding reality IMO.
Money doesn't guarantee freedom and happiness without conviction.
I do not believe a word from this article.
Why?
We sign on to this and we then lose control over and any legitimate claim to the sea; we sign on to Kyoto and the IPCC report and we lose control over and any legitimate claim to our atmosphere; we sign on to a mass amnesty for illegal immigrants and we lose control over and any legitimate claim to our share of the terra firma; where then, can any lines be drawn to define us as a nation?
What use would we have for presidents and the like as they would be but low-level diplomats?
Because WND have lied so many times before regarding all these issues about Bush “selling” the US to the UN or Mexico.
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.