Law of the Sea Treaty Doesn't Hold Water(Phyllis Schlafly)

worldnetdaily.com ^ | September 21, 2007 | Phyllis Schlafly

[kellynla]

With all the critical problems facing America today, it's hard to see why President Bush is wasting whatever is left of his political capital to partner with Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., to try to get the Senate to ratify the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty.

As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden is scheduled to hold a hearing loaded with pro-treaty witnesses and then try to sneak through ratification while the public is focused on other globalism and giveaway mischief.

The Law of the Sea Treaty is the globalists' dream bill. It would put the United States in a de facto world government that rules all the world's oceans under the pretense that they belong to "the common heritage of mankind." That's global-speak for allowing the United Nations and its affiliated organizations to carry out a massive, unprecedented redistribution of wealth from the United States to other countries.

The treaty has already been ratified by 155 countries. Most of them no doubt expect corrupt U.N. bureaucrats to divvy up the riches at the bottom of the sea, which will be brought to the surface by U.S. investment and technology, and parcel them out to Third World dictators to support themselves in the lavish style to which they would like to become accustomed.

(Column continues below)

Why must those who believe in American sovereignty have to keep fighting the same battles over and over again? President Ronald Reagan rejected the Law of the Sea Treaty in 1982, not because of picky details in the text, but because the treaty would put the United States in the clutches of a supranational ruling clique.

[NCSteve]

Yep, good ol’ Jorge isn’t happy with stabbing his political allies in the back, he just keeps on kicking them while they’re down. This guy is beginning to make Bill Clinton look like a class act.

[arderkrag]

That trend will not be reversed. It’s time to either adopt or forget this Convention. There is nothing out there worth mining anyway. The USA cannot dominate the high seas anymore and won’t try.

So we should stop trying, in your opinion. Beautiful.

[RightWhale]

• we should stop trying

  Trying what? Bashing Bush?

[arderkrag]

Ahem...your post read:

The USA cannot dominate the high seas anymore and won’t try.

The gist of your post was, simply, that we can't resist this resolution and shouldn't bother trying to resist it. I think that's an asinine opinion, personally. Of course we should resist, even if nothing comes of our resistance. I'd rather resist and have stood up for what's right than lay down because the odds are overwhelming.

[RightWhale]

• shouldn't

  Could as well have said won't or aren't. But to abuse the language by saying this is equivalent to saying shouldn't earns an F in reading comprehension. Asinine is an inappropriate term for this BBS.

[arderkrag]

The phrase

It’s time to either adopt or forget this Convention. There is nothing out there worth mining anyway.

is equivalent to saying we shouldn't try.

[attiladhun2]

This treaty will essentially make the UN sovereign over 2/3 of the earth’s surface at a time when the fecklessness and corruption of the organization is so obvious that only a fool or a Democrat see it otherwise.

[Publius6961]

Has there even been even an attempt to explain, clearly, to the American people, what this treaty accomplishes that is "necessary" to their welfare, comfort and safety?

I don't buy the notion that the people don't "need to know", that our elected representatives will read, learn and decide what is best "for the people who elected them".

As we have seen with "comprehensive" immigration reform, that is not only false, but a profound contradiction. For whatever reason, our elected representatives think us all too dumb to understand, and they can't be bothered to find a way to explain things clearly.

Clearly, we need to elect representatives who can do better.