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

Skip to comments.

President Bush's Toilet Bowl Treaty(LOST coming up for senate vote on Wednesday)
National Ledger ^ | October 29, 2007 | Cliff Kincaid

Posted on 10/29/2007 8:09:19 PM PDT by processing please hold

When State Department Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III gave a controversial June 6 speech on the subject of "The United States and International Law," he mentioned that the Bush Administration had "put forward a priority list of over 35 treaty packages that we have urged the Senate to approve soon, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea."

The latter is now up for Senate ratification, with a vote scheduled on Wednesday, and one of its many controversial provisions is the regulation of land-based sources of pollution. This treaty covers the water and the land. But now we have discovered that the Bush Administration has asked the Senate to ratify a treaty that defines one of those land-based sources of pollution as toilet flushing. No kidding.

It is amazing but true. The Bush Administration wants the Senate to ratify a treaty that will invite international inspections of what you flush down your toilet.

We are talking about Annex III of the “Protocol Concerning Pollution from Land-Based Sources and Activities to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region, with Annexes.” You can read it for yourself here.

Annex III is titled, “Domestic Wastewater,” which is defined as including “all discharges from households, commercial facilities, hotels, septage and any other entity…” These discharges are defined as encompassing (1) toilet flushing, (2) discharges from showers, wash basins, kitchens and laundries, or discharges from small industries, provided their composition and quantity are compatible with treatment in a domestic wastewater system.

Lawrence A. Kogan of the Institute for Trade, Standards, and Sustainable Development uncovered the dangerous details of this agreement and has termed it the “Toilet bowl treaty,” noting that it constitutes a sort of mini-Law of the Sea Treaty. The protocol, he says, is one of 11 “regional seas” agreements. It is on an October 1 State Department list of “Treaties Pending in the Senate.” (Not all of these treaties are currently being pushed by the Bush Administration).

Our major media were, as usual, asleep at the switch. It turns out that the White House issued a press release about submitting this treaty to the Senate for ratification. President Bush's statement was quite specific. He noted that “It is estimated that 70 to 90 percent of pollution entering the marine environment emanates from land-based sources and activities,” and that parties to the treaty “are required to ensure that domestic wastewater discharges meet specific effluent limitations, and to develop plans for the prevention and reduction of agricultural nonpoint source pollution.”

Bush claimed that “The United States would be able to implement its obligations under the Protocol under existing statutory and regulatory authority.” In other words, he thinks this is supposed to affect others, not us. But this may not be the way some activist judges and international lawyers see it.

Bush's admission that 70 to 90 percent of pollution entering the marine environment emanates from land-based sources and activities is directly relevant to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which has provisions relating to prohibiting pollution from such sources. That is why many observers have concluded that the Law of the Sea Treaty can serve as a back-door way to implement the (unratified) global warming treaty. Foreign judges and lawyers could easily interpret greenhouse gas emissions as contributing to pollution of the oceans. As a result, under UNCLOS they could order cuts in energy use.

Since the State Department submitted the protocol for ratification, along with the Law of the Sea Treaty, it's a certainty that Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III knew all about the potential for regulating land-based pollution sources and activities, including toilet bowls, when he testified before the Senate about UNCLOS on September 27. But not only did he deny that UNCLOS had any such potential, he said it had no such provisions. When pressed, he claimed the provisions were “hortatory” and had no practical legal impact. This is why Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch and I have asked for a formal review (PDF) of his testimony. He clearly misled the Senate.

But now we find out that it's worse than we thought. The State Department had previously submitted another treaty that specifically and explicitly defined a land-based source of pollution as being a toilet bowl. Ratification of this treaty, in conjunction with ratification of UNCLOS, would literally invite U.N. inspectors to review and manage discharge from your toilet bowl. Why didn't Bellinger tell the Senate about that during his UNCLOS testimony?

Bellinger seems to be far more open and honest with international audiences that he is trying to appease and impress. In his June 6 speech to a group at The Hague, for example, Bellinger boasted about using his own staff of 171 lawyers to “integrate” international law “into the decision-making process” of the U.S. Government. He defended the President's order to Texas to comply with a ruling by the U.N.'s International Court of Justice on giving convicted Mexican killers another hearing. Bellinger called this compliance with “an international obligation.”

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote on UNCLOS on Wednesday. UNCLOS is the first order of business and if it passes, as seems likely, Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid could call it up for a quick Senate floor vote.

Before the committee votes, it should recall Bellinger as a witness and determine why he has been less than open and honest about the “obligations” of the U.S. under UNCLOS. Then he should be asked to explain why we need a treaty targeting toilet bowls and showers. If he claims the need to adhere to “international obligations,” he should be laughed out of the hearing room, along with his treaties.


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: 110th; bigbrother; bushhasfailedus; lossof; lossofsovereignty; lost; nanystate; ohdear; ohno; uhoh; unclos; unitednations; worldisgonnaend
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201-205 next last
To: DoughtyOne

>Heaven help us if he signs away our sovereignty on this issue.<

Not a single one of the ‘free traders’ is concerned about our sovereignty. That war is lost.


101 posted on 10/30/2007 9:38:47 AM PDT by B4Ranch (( "Freedom is not free, but don't worry the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share." ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: processing please hold

Thank you for this post. I’ve forwarded to Women’s Rep Club to begin calling ASAP.


102 posted on 10/30/2007 9:43:57 AM PDT by 4integrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: processing please hold

bump for later


103 posted on 10/30/2007 10:02:35 AM PDT by roofgoat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch; All
Is it just me - or is it something new almost every day? I keep thinking it can't get any worse - then tomorrow comes.

The people still have a say. We MUST have our say. We demanded to be heard on issues like shamnesty and the Dream Act. Now, we will be heard on this 'Sell-Out-Of-America' Treaty.

State by State List of Senators with phone numbers

Please call your Senator's office, today!

104 posted on 10/30/2007 10:13:05 AM PDT by yorkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Isn’t that the truth.


105 posted on 10/30/2007 10:42:45 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (We yen to be numba one. We find Crintons to be vewy good people. Worth every penny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: getitright

The problem is the American people who support “democracy”. They think “democracy” is synonymous with HRC! I don’t think they can understand.


106 posted on 10/30/2007 11:06:27 AM PDT by Theodore R. ( Cowardice is still forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

How right you are, alas! The “D” and the “R” still equal “S” for “sellout”.


107 posted on 10/30/2007 11:07:27 AM PDT by Theodore R. ( Cowardice is still forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

I am so disgusted with him that I cannot look at his face and will never listen to anything he has to say. He is an embarrassment.


108 posted on 10/30/2007 11:08:37 AM PDT by Theodore R. ( Cowardice is still forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

I think the only hope is to elect someone like Ron Paul because he is the type who would get a group together to INFORM the taxpayers what is happening to America. There are a couple of things that I seriously don’t like about the man but he appears to be the only person running for office who understands what the Constitution and Declaration of Independence is all about. He is a runoff of the original founders, IMO.

He would probably get us out of every treaty that is disolving our sovereignty, something I believe needs to be done ASAP.

I wonder if the world power brokers would permit him to survive an election. He would put some serious crimps in their style. The next five years is going to be either very depressing or very exciting.


109 posted on 10/30/2007 12:01:04 PM PDT by B4Ranch (( "Freedom is not free, but don't worry the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share." ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: getitright

Plenty and then some.


110 posted on 10/30/2007 2:18:16 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: The Spirit Of Allegiance

If LOST wins, we’re LOST

CALL CALL CALL

Toll free (886) 220-0044 (888) 354-6226


111 posted on 10/30/2007 2:45:30 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

If LOST wins, we’re LOST

CALL CALL CALL

Toll free (886) 220-0044 (888) 354-6226


112 posted on 10/30/2007 2:47:41 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
...would Kerry have really been THAT bad?... You can't be serious. While there a issues that I disagree with the President on, I would still vote for him. I shudder to think what would have become of our country in the hands of John Kerry and the Democrats. A vote for the Dems is a vote for their entire Socialist, Leftist Party. Perhaps you have fallen into the current trend that doesn't look at the good that the President has achieved, no new attacks, lower taxes, two Conservative Supreme Court judges, etc. ...the Republican Congress would have likely remained in place Not necessarily so. If Kerry had prevailed the Dems would have been invigorated. I will never vote Democrat again! Not even if Zell Miller ran.
113 posted on 10/30/2007 2:49:36 PM PDT by oneamericanvoice (Support freedom! Support the troops! Surrender is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

bttt


114 posted on 10/30/2007 2:57:57 PM PDT by Guenevere (Duncan Hunter...President '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: processing please hold

I got the Bathroom Old Blues...


115 posted on 10/30/2007 3:00:42 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Repeal the Terrible Two - the 16th and 17th Amendments. Sink LOST! Stop SPP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oneamericanvoice

“A vote for the Dems is a vote for their entire Socialist, Leftist Party.”

I did not say that I would have vote for Kerry.


116 posted on 10/30/2007 3:02:52 PM PDT by Grunthor (Giuliani, whatever assurance he may give on specific pledges is pro-choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: processing please hold

Thanks for posting this. Just caught an interview on the drive home with the author on my local conservative talk radio, so I was ready to post this, too. :)


117 posted on 10/30/2007 4:00:20 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Even my puppy dog isn't fooled!

118 posted on 10/30/2007 4:09:06 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: The Spirit Of Allegiance

Thanks for the Ping! I don’t always acknowledge them, but they are appreciated! :)


119 posted on 10/30/2007 4:31:50 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

Didn’t think you would. Just making sure. :-)


120 posted on 10/30/2007 5:15:30 PM PDT by oneamericanvoice (Support freedom! Support the troops! Surrender is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201-205 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