Posted on 11/27/2010 12:56:43 PM PST by factmart
This thread is only for freepers who want Sarah Palin to be President in 2012. Please all (TROLLS)other stay out.
As I stated in my posts, UNCLOS is not administered by the UN, but as 'tarheelswamprat' pointed out, problems dealing with organizations like the WTO are well known and are certainly a major consideration in dealing with issues like this.
Even though deep-water drilling in the Arctic is probably 30 years away, Arctic nations with a stake in this are eager to draw lines right now on the Arctic floor to divvy up the resources under the treaty that are outside the standard 200-mile limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone. Arctic nations -- Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark -- are doing surveys to figure out what constitutes continental shelf demarcation lines and are submitting data to the UNCLOS committee that will referee this and parcel out the undersea lands.
The U.S. -- also an Arctic nation but the only one that has not ratified the treaty -- has submitted no data to the UNCLOS group studying this matter.
As Sarah Palin responded to a concerned Alaskan's question on this issue in a Fairbanks talk radio interview 2 months before she left office,
"...no, we don't want to continue to give more power to the U.N., certainly not, but we have got to be a player in this. Otherwise, we're going to be left out in the cold."She lives in the real world and I look forward to hearing more from her on this. It's crucial that she be a leader as this discussion on who owns the humongous undersea resources of the Arctic goes forward.
As some of those you just pinged to this thread already know, I have been a long-time staunch defender of Palin from unfair and dishonest attacks, and I will continue to do so. And, when I disagree with her, I have always done so respectfully.
For the issue at hand, you have done a good, even-handed job laying out what is more or less the current establishment pro-LOST case/storyline/sales pitch. From various entities across a broad spectrum there are some valid arguments made, some plausible objections are duly noted, and Reagan's conceptual legacy is acknowledged (selectively) and his "seabed concerns" addressed (ostensibly), with the claim that Reagan would now support it (his own diary notes state otherwise).
It all sounds so reasonable, the need is so great, and after all we simply must have a seat at that table...
However, there are other perspectives and alternatives that are just as much "real world" as the above scenario. Just a cursory search revealed a great deal of useful information, including the link above from the Heritage Foundation. Just for starters, here are a couple more from Heritage:
The Top Five Reasons Why Conservatives Should Oppose the U.N.Convention on the Law of the Sea
There are plenty of other resources on this subject - I urge everyone to do their own homework so they can effectively evaluate the players, factors and options which will be involved in this ongoing issue.
The real world encompasses more than just Alaska, vast as it is, and the ramifications of the LOST will affect more than just the exploitation of resources under the Arctic sea. As important as those are, there is a bigger picture at stake, and we face some hard choices which will determine whether or not we will continue to be a free and sovereign nation and people.
Not all the time!
Palin 2012!
Not all the time!
Palin 2012!
I never said you did, but others have and they will continue to do it because it's easy to use this issue to do exactly that. If you took offense, I apologize.
I was aware of Ronald Reagan's diary notes and I'm also aware that he was philosophically opposed to the treaty.
Speaking of implications, your assertion that I am claiming that Reagan would have supported the treaty with the seabed modifications is just plain false.
Please re-read paragraph three in my post. I complimented you on your exposition ("good, even-handed") of the pro-LOST arguments being made by its establishment advocates. I explicitly stated that you were describing the arguments of others ("From various entities across a broad spectrum"). I deliberately made the effort to distinguish your descriptive analysis from the general arguments/sales pitch for LOST, which do include the claims that Reagan would have supported the "fixed" treaty. And, I never claimed (nor believed) that was your personal opinion.
Your initial response to me was, let's just say, less discriminating. Forget it. I wasn't looking for an apology, not even a "if you took offense" non-apology apology. I'm not the fragile type... /g And, I'm not your enemy - I've read enough of your posts to know that we're on the same side.
The important thing is the issue, not personalities. LOST/UNCLOS is a trap and a poison pill threat to our sovereignty. The downside far outweighs the short-term benefits of getting that "seat at the table". It is, by design, intended as a mechanism to curtail American options and power in favor of the "international community". This game is rigged and we will never be allowed to win - that is its purpose
Unfortunately, we are probably too far gone to resist being suckered into it. There is a poker adage that says if you're sitting at the table and you can't tell right away who the mark is, it's you.
As we continue to observe the ongoing debates and the arguments and positions put forth by various players in this issue, however, I will insist on holding them to the standard of truth and honesty, and offer criticism where appropriate.
One critical question which they will have to answer will be: after we ratify LOST/UNCLOS, after we cede part of our sovereignty and submit to the jurisdiction of the International Seabed Authority which the treaty creates, after we take our seat at that table and dutifully submit our applications, and after we are repeatedly denied and screwed-over in favor of other, "more-deserving" applicants, as has occurred consistently and overwhelmingly in the WTO, after all that, what do we do then?*
*Hint: feel-good pablum and facile blandishments that "it will never happen" will not be an acceptable answer.
So what will be done about the Arctic? Probably nothing. Obama won't do anything to push the issue with all his other problems. He's not even concerned with the considerable resources within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. He's given it to the polar bears.
There's no leadership on the Arctic question unless it becomes part of Sarah Palin's comprehensive energy plan if she runs for president. Whether that involves pushing for LOST is the big question in my mind. I wouldn't be surprised if we see another approach from her if she runs. If she deals unilaterally with each of the Arctic parties the way she dealt with the oil companies in Alaska to get AGIA off the ground, something could get done.
You won't see any of the other serious potential candidates take a clear position on any of this unless they just parrot the Bush position on LOST. Just a guess on my part.
We'll see.
I was around for Reagan, she is Reagan IN High Heels! But better looking, Reagan was not in prime.
Also she Quicker in getting her words out, then any politician in the last 50 years, this is a sign she says what she believes!
Finally, someone who tells the Truth,
She a woman, some seems to think a women can’t run this country, that’s another reason why she needs to be the first women President!
She would do a lot to hurt men having sex with men lifestyle,
Normal would be back in again!
That’s probably the biggest reason that the anti Palin freepers keeping spurring out all the same negatives Reagan lived with, freepers like Pissant (One of our token liberal democrat Trolls and with a sick lifestyle)!
I don't have any respect for incompetent statist RINOs...or their emotionally-challenged apologists.
To all: If wishing you a very joyous, very Merry Christmas and Happy 2011 personally offends you, then I haven't wished that for you.
Sorry, still here, laughing at the keywords.
SARAH BTTT
“I remember every Presidential election night going back to President Kennedy.”
I was young, but I’ll never forget watching those election returns. When it was clear that JFK had won, my mother cried like a baby because she was so upset.
“I am troubled that she did not finish her full term as Governor.
“Troubled”? Oh, puh-leeeze. Alaska would’ve suffered greatly if she had finished the term. They didn’t need a lightning rod disrupting the day-to-day functioning of the government. She did what was best for her state.
“Is Sarah a blue-blood? No, I suppose not. But...”
It almost sounds like you think it’s a bad thing that she’s not a blue-blood (the “but” in the post). The last thing we need is another hoity-toity blue-blood being crowned. That snipe by Barbara Bush was disgusting, as is all the crap from Bush-sycophant Rove. This country needs someone who’s smart, down-to-earth, knows how much a gallon of milk costs (unlike Bush 41), and is not easily intimidated.
You know, if you're going to slam the snot out of a FReeper, you ought to ping them to the post. It's only right and is proper etiquette here AS YOU VERY WELL KNOW.
Merry Christmas, rabs.
(btw, you can tell that to all those folks you pinged to this sad ad hominem to once again to wage war against an imagined enemy).
Peace to all.
And may God BLESS my brother in Christ, George W. Bush over this blessed Christmas season, as well. He is still serving His Lord as he did during his presidency.
And may she also have a blessed Christmas with her precious family.
I am thankful that so many Christ-followers are feeling His call to become political leaders in this time of great need in America.
I cried too..........and IIRC, it was past my bedtime. :)
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.