Posted on 08/10/2010 5:29:17 PM PDT by pissant
For those who don't know, the Law of the Sea Treaty was rejected by Ronald Reagan, but revived by GW Bush. It constitutes a HUGE grant of power over most of the earth's surface to the United Nations. It also creates the first global taxing authority, with power vested in an unelected bunch of international bureaucrats.
(Excerpt) Read more at aipnews.com ...
LOST is a deal killer for me. But I want to see the proof first.
Rule 1: Never fool with an Alaskan fisher babe when it comes to regulating the sea. She will have you for lunch!
ok, it sounds like from what i read of her letter, is that she was, at the time as governor, looking to make sure alaska didnt get screwed....
ping
Had nothing to do with being VP
LOL!
Man you do not care for her one bit.
LOL
I'm sorry to see that.
I wonder if that is still her position.
Good Lord...
For these bobbles, you should sell out our sovereign right to circumnavigate the high seas without permission.
Sarah, sorry, I’m going to have to disagree on this one.
Do you seriously want to give the U.N. an income stream, taxation on all trade conducted across the oceans?
We shouldn’t sign on to more of this nonsense. We should extricate ourselves from what we have already been entangled with. And we should have done it decades ago.
Former President Reagan's first objection to the Treaty was the Principle of the "Common Heritage of Mankind," which dictates that oceanic resources should be shared among all mankind and cannot be claimed by any one nation or people. In order to achieve this goal, the Treaty creates the International Seabed Authority ("Authority") to regulate and exploit mineral resources. It requires a company to submit an application fee of $500,000 (now $250,000), as well as a bonus site for the Authority to utilize for its own mining efforts. Additionally, the corporation must pay an annual fee of $1 million, as well as a percentage of its profits (increasing annually up to 7%), and must agree to share mining and navigational technology--thereby ensuring that opportunities aren't restricted to more technologically advanced countries. The decision to grant or to withhold mining permits is decided by the Authority, which consists disproportionately of underdeveloped countries. Technology-sharing is no longer mandatory, however, there are remaining "principles" to guide its use and distribution. Additionally, the Council has been restructured so that the United States has a permanent seat, and developed countries can create a blocking vote.
Secondly, former President Reagan believed that the Treaty would restrict the world's supply of minerals. The Treaty was originally designed to limit the exploitation of heavy minerals in order to protect the mineral sales of land-locked, developing nations. This is no longer a severe limitation, because production limits to preserve land-based mining have been removed.
The third--and still valid--objection is that mandatory dispute resolution restricts autonomy. Either a U.N. court or tribunal must mandate maritime Issues involving fisheries, marine environmental protection, and preservation, research, and navigation. A country may opt out if the dispute involves maritime boundaries, military, or limited law enforcement activities. Submitting to external jurisdiction creates an uncomfortable precedent. Furthermore, it weakens the U.S. argument of autonomy when it refuses to submit to the International Criminal Court. Additionally, a country must petition to be excluded from mandatory jurisdiction requirements.
Here’s her letter to Ted and Lisa:
http://globalsolutions.org/files/general/Palin_LOS_Letter.pdf
It’s at the OPs link.
I take it that Palin is concerned over the impact on AKs rights to the states natural resources of not being included in the international negotiations.
Personally, I would just tell anyone making claims to our soveriegn territory to take a hike.
This really isn’t a game changer at all. She was doing what Governors do. Looking out for her states best interests.
It’s not her I don’t care for. She’s lovely. It’s the notion that she’s the best we can do in 2012.
A psychologist/handwriting expert could have a good time with her signature. One thing is for certain - her signature shows no lack of self confidence or assertiveness - Sarah Palin is who I am and if you want to make something of it trek across 1000 miles of tundra with the biggest gun you can find and we can discuss your pathetic view of life.
OH NO SHE DIDN’T!
As I understand it, she also agrees with us signing on to the International Criminal Court. I’m not sure how much McCain played into this, but I do think he did.
These are his positions. I think he’s nuts for supporting it.
Her letter urging support of LOST was in 2007 and addressed to the now deceased Sen.Stevens. She had no idea that McCain would be running in 2008 or that she would be a VP candidate.
Is this the best they can do?????
any word on Obambi’s position or will this be a one way street? Nahhh, I know that answer.
I’m sure it won’t be if she decides to run.
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.