Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

President Bush tells base to "get LOST"
Center for Security Policy ^ | May 10, 2007 | CSP Decision Brief

Posted on 05/13/2007 9:59:47 AM PDT by upchuck

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.  

The Bush Administration's strong enthusiasm for subjecting this country to such an accord compounds concerns about its penchant for other Transie initiatives, including the North American Union/Security and Prosperity Partnership (NAU/SPP) now being stealthily negotiated between U.S., Canadian and Mexican officials and interest groups.

A Bill of Particulars

Among the problems inherent with the Law of the Sea Treaty are the following:

The Bottom Line

One would think that the last thing President Bush needs at the moment is to alienate those who have stood beside him – through thick and thin – as he has striven to do the hard things needed to protect the security and (to a lesser extent) the sovereignty of the United States.  He is unlikely to get much credit from the transnational progressives, who detest him, for this concession to their agenda.  His embrace of that agenda, however, puts at grave risk the support the Administration could otherwise expect, and will certainly need, from those who have admired him and oppose what the transies have in mind for America.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: lost
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-126 next last
To: EternalVigilance

Thanks. I missed that.


61 posted on 05/13/2007 11:00:30 AM PDT by upchuck (Who will support Fred Thompson? Anyone who enjoys a dose of common sense not wrapped in doublespeak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark; n-tres-ted
This stuff has been posted for years, it’s never happened and never will. It’s ignorant ranting at best.

Then the Secretary of State is a liar.

CONDI IS LOST AT SEA http://www.conservativeusa.org/bushwatch.htm “During her confirmation hearings, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked a question that got lost in the Barbara Boxer brouhaha: Did the administration favor the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST? “Rice said the administration ‘would certainly like to see it pass as soon as possible.’ Assuming she was authorized to say that by President Bush … the question is why?”

REAGAN SAID NO TO UNLOST, BUT GWB IS PUSHING IT

“LOST was a bad idea when President Reagan refused to sign it in 1982 and actually fired the State Department staff members who helped negotiate it. It was drafted at the behest of Soviet bloc and Third World dictators interested in a scheme to weaken U.S. power while transferring wealth to the developing world.”[snip]

62 posted on 05/13/2007 11:01:20 AM PDT by AuntB (" It takes more than walking across the border to be an American." Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
I finished briefly reviewing Kirkpatrick's remarks.

"The Reagan Administration also saw serious constitutional questions."

How about that.

63 posted on 05/13/2007 11:02:44 AM PDT by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

The ONLY president to win a ruling against abortion. The ONLY president to break 12000 and now 13000 on the Dow. Unemployment low, taxes low, your ungrateful ass has not been blown up here at home and the only POTUS to go on the offense against terrorism. GW gave us Roberts and ALito on the supremem court. Who did the great Reagan (which I liked) give us, O’Connor that voted with the rats half the time. Oh, how we take our ball and go home complainers forget. Freepers like you are ungrateful and will never be happy. Pathetic.


64 posted on 05/13/2007 11:03:18 AM PDT by jrooney (The democrats are the friend of our enemy and the enemy of our friends. Attack them, not GW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Bush on the Constitution: "Just a goddamned piece of paper"
65 posted on 05/13/2007 11:03:59 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("Romney seems to be Giuliani-lite, only slicker. No thanks." - Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
WHY THE U.S. SHOULD BAIL OUT OF THE U.N.
Let It Sink
by Charles Krauthammer

66 posted on 05/13/2007 11:07:49 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("Romney seems to be Giuliani-lite, only slicker. No thanks." - Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

“The ISA courts would have even wider jurisdiction than the International Criminal Court (to which, fortunately, we do not belong)”

Yet.


67 posted on 05/13/2007 11:08:12 AM PDT by Kimberly GG (DUNCAN HUNTER '08.....lframerica.com.....MARCH TO TAKE BACK AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mdefranc

I guess blood is thicker, since you asked...how would you
know if he did or not? MSP would not cover his remarks,
is called the “Clinton doctrine.”...no upset the Dems. jj


68 posted on 05/13/2007 11:08:56 AM PDT by sanjacjake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
George and George.... George gave us Bubba and now GEORGE is going to give us Hillary. I'm so TIRED of the GEORGES. This current George wouldn't fight for social security reform..gave up on an education bill and sided with "the swimmer" on that one...and REFUSES to secure our southern border.

I'M SO SICK OF THE BUSHES!!!

69 posted on 05/13/2007 11:12:06 AM PDT by Bob Eimiller (appeasement "it's the idea that if you feed the alligator he will eat you last." Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
What else is new? We still have wide open borders. He has done NOTHING about social insecurity over the past 7 years. He has grown non-defense spending over 10% a year, and he was PROUD to sign Ted Kennedy's co-sponsored education bill (No Child Left Behind)...as well as the medicare drug entitlement, which was the largest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ's "Great Society".

But hey...he's all for war in Iraq, so that makes him a great conservative.

70 posted on 05/13/2007 11:14:13 AM PDT by Capitalism2003 (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kimberly GG

U.S. Should Scrap Law of the Sea Treaty

Schlafly, Phyllis

The people who want to dissolve or diminish U.S. sovereignty and replace it with global governance never give up. Their modus operandi is to work toward their one-world goal incrementally through United Nations treaties.

America elected President George W. Bush to stand tall for the United States, and he did exactly that when he saved the country from two treaties that would have driven gaping holes in U.S. sovereignty. He withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty-signed by former President Richard Nixon, a Republican-that prevented the United States from defending its cities against incoming nuclear missiles.

Then he “unsigned” the International Criminal Court Treaty-signed by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat-that would have subjected U.S. troops to political prosecution in a foreign court. Now Americans need Bush to “unsign” another dangerous UN treaty that would massively compromise U.S. sovereignty: the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty.

We thought we were rid of Clinton, thanks to the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but his love affair with UN treaties and global integration has come back to haunt us. Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R.-Ind.) is trying to get the Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty signed by Clinton in 1994.

Lugar knows that such a giant giveaway of U.S. power can’t be publicly defended. So he held a quiet hearing at which only treaty proponents were permitted to testify. What’s more, he is refusing to allow other relevant Senate committees to hold hearings.

Recently, Lugar managed to get the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to vote out the Law of the Sea Treat unanimously. It’s hard to see how the other Republicans could have voted for the treaty unless they were told that the president wants it.

But others who spoke to the president the same week say that he is opposed to the treaty. We eagerly await White House clarification. Some speculate that Republican pressure is coming from Vice President Dick Cheney.

Lugar and Clinton-both Rhodes Scholars ever eager to toady to internationalist goals-know perfectly well that the Law of the Sea Treaty was examined and emphatically rejected by then-President Ronald Reagan in 1981. When Reagan discovered it was due for signing right after his inauguration, he not only repudiated it but fired the U.S. State Department staff that had negotiated it.

Agitation for the Law of the Sea Treaty during former President Jimmy Carter’s Administration caused alert Republicans to specifically condemn it in the 1980 Republican Party Platform and promise that “a Republican administration will conduct multilateral negotiations in a manner that reflects America’s abilities and long-term interest in access to raw material and energy resources.”

The Law of the Sea Treaty can’t meet that test because it cedes sovereign control over practically all the riches at the bottom of the world’s oceans to an International Seabed Authority. Its one nation, one vote governing setup assures control by Third World countries, while Uncle Sam is expected to pay all the technology and investment costs to bring the sea’s minerals to the surface.

The treaty gives the International Seabed Authority the power to set production controls for ocean mining on more than three-fourths of the earth’s surface, to control ocean exploration through permits and regulations and to adjudicate disputes. Even worse, the authority claims direct global taxing power and is touted as a model for other resource-related treaties that aspire to enjoy the power to levy taxes.

The treaty is a trap that would compel the United States to pay billions of private-enterprise dollars to an international authority while socialist, anti-American nations harvest the profit. Its international control and regulations would deny U.S. companies access to strategic ocean minerals that are essential to U.S. industries and defense.

The treaty would be a sellout of U.S. interests far greater than even Carter’s giveaway of the Panama Canal. It would be a surrender to the world government advocates whose goal is global socialist governance in order to integrate U.S. prosperity with Third World poverty until they are leveled.

The Law of the Sea Treaty would be a giant giveaway of wealth, sovereignty, resources needed to maintain our economy, capacity to defend ourselves, and even the U.S. Navy’s ability to gather intelligence necessary to national defense. Tell your U.S. senators to vote no on the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Mrs. Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of Feminist Fantasies.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200403/ai_n9383289


71 posted on 05/13/2007 11:14:45 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("Romney seems to be Giuliani-lite, only slicker. No thanks." - Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: niki

bookmark


72 posted on 05/13/2007 11:15:37 AM PDT by niki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

just a placemarker...


73 posted on 05/13/2007 11:15:53 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

New world elitist order ping


74 posted on 05/13/2007 11:16:22 AM PDT by 383rr (Those who choose security over liberty deserve neither- GUN CONTOL=SLAVERY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I agree, this is just about the LAST STRAW with this idiot

"Just about"?

When is enough enough for y'all?

This maroon has been wagging his finger at "the base" for the last 7 years. And they meekly roll over and say, "gimme another, Georgie".

Must be the Stockholm Syndrome.

75 posted on 05/13/2007 11:21:06 AM PDT by Regulator (Oh, But He's St. George, so no criticism is allowed. Just get in line and shut up, peons...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: jrooney

Nice rant. Thanks for adding to the discussion. That’s what this place is all about.


76 posted on 05/13/2007 11:25:56 AM PDT by upchuck (Who will support Fred Thompson? Anyone who enjoys a dose of common sense not wrapped in doublespeak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
Um, sounds hauntingly like "I come to bury Caeser not to praise him". "Surely Brutus was an honorable man ..."

The border security issue is Bush's single greatest failure to conservatives. Rather than throw him under the bus and hand our government to the demcorats completely, why not praise and promote those like Hunter (who is still in the legislature) who have a sound alternative to the president's policy ... why tear down the president to promote our agenda?

77 posted on 05/13/2007 11:27:51 AM PDT by MHGinTN (You've had life support. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roccus
The ruling class in this country, with the assistance both political parties, is bound and determined to steer us to a one world government. The only differences are the ‘how’ and the ‘when’.

After boiling it all down, this is whats left.

78 posted on 05/13/2007 11:29:57 AM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

bttt


79 posted on 05/13/2007 11:30:51 AM PDT by Guenevere (Duncan Hunter for President, 2008!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The notion that the oceans or space are the “common heritage of mankind” was—and is—a dramatic departure from traditional Western conceptions of private property. ....

It is a little too late for earth and its seas, but outer space is going to sit forever undeveloped all the way to the Hubble limit if the UN Outer Space Treaty remains.

80 posted on 05/13/2007 11:33:29 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-126 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson