Posted on 05/16/2012 6:28:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
She has been making sense and driving liberals crazy for more than six decades.
Sometimes I wonder if she is really a mortal or a guardian angel sent to help protect us.
LOST. A more fitting acronym there has never been.
Apparently they have forgotten what weapons are for.
Cecil Rhodes, for whom the scholarship is named, was a white supremacist globalist. He lauded the British Empire at its height and felt that the African nationals were destined to be ruled by the whites.
translation: Lugar and the RINOS are almost sure to try and rem it thru a lame duck session out of sheer spite.
Wasn't Rhodesia named after him?
B-U-M-P!
This bit, on the face of it, is absolutely corrupt and dangerous
With 322 articles and annexes UNCLOS provides singularly disturbing points on military as well as economic fronts. The Chief of Naval Operations should address the military issues before claiming any future effective role for the Navy. The U.S. has signed and not ratified this treaty, but insists on abiding by it. Here are two worrisome points involving freedom of the seas.
Treaties provide illusions of protection from unreasonable maritime challenges; illusions quickly dispelled by lack of forthright action. Concerning the showdown between U.S. (UNCLOS signed) and China (UNCLOS ratified) over the Navy EP-3E, the latter saw no problem in provoking the incident, notwithstanding UNCLOS and prior treaties defining freedom of the seas. Further antidotal evidence emerges from taking of British (UNCLOS ratified) board and search personnel as hostages by Iran (UNCLOS signed). In this day of instantaneous communication, the fact the British captain did not fight his command means senior commanders and politicians, including some masquerading in military uniforms, failed miserably when exerting the authority they had confiscated from on scene commanders.
Secondly, the world-changing tragedies of September 2001 make imperative that this treaty be re-evaluated. Among the many opportunities for interpretation against us are Articles 19 and 20 defining innocent passage, while within territorial seas. Acts prejudicial to peace of a coastal state include launching and landing aircraft, and using undersea craft for mine detection. Also a self-interested reading of the articles by hostile or feral states, says using any electronic device other than navigational radar would be considered an act of propaganda or an act aimed at collecting information. The State Department may assure friendly government relations (remember the U.S.S. Cole), but how many nations can and/or would provide practical sea, air and undersea supremacy guarantees. Can our warships truly forgo defensive measures provided by aircraft, boats, sonar, and tactical radars and communication nets?
Supposedly, the “military activities exemption” would allow us to maintain adequate defenses in territorial waters. However, I do not see the “military activities exemption” as one of the articles. A hostile Council should have no problem defining this term to place our ships at risk of terrorism. For every Great Britain and Poland, which might hold one of 36 Council seats, I can name a Mozambique, Syria, Iran or Burma struggling through a new Dark Age where we are described as an economic predator and/or regime threat. In reading this treaty, I believe you will find latitude in article language allowing a hostile U.N. Council to write an enormous body of implementing regulations directed against our ships and planes.
We should not look to friends either when Donald Rumsfeld, Tommy Franks, and George Tenet are considered war criminals in Germany, Canada, and Belgium. The Security Council is cut out of the loop, so the veto we needed during the Cold War is not available for issues found within the treaty.
The present provisions codify flaccid senior military/political crisis response by allowing shelter within sternly worded filings demanding prospective rulings from an international tribunal. These leaders can avoid authorizing immediate, direct action to confront challenges, when such actions have always been condition precedent for maintaining freedom of the seas. These articles and regulations will bind our Sailors as they go into a “harm’s way” largely undefined in this era of violent peace. When something goes wrong, operators on 285 commissioned ships will pay the ultimate price, while 290 plus flag officers, plus Pentagon lawyers, and politicians in Washington D.C. express profound sorrow and outrage, all the while bullet-proofing their resumes.
I seem to remember Palin supporting this, proabbly thinking it would help Alaska. Has she backed off?
I have no idea, either way
BTTT!
No, this is a case of the admirals telling the Senate what Bozo tells them to say. Clinton did the same thing.
Dick Nixon did that, and Congressman F. Eddie Hebert of Louisiana, chairman of House Armed Services, called Admiral Zumwalt back and told him to get along with 30,000 fewer staff officers. That's what happened when Nixon messed with House Democrats in 1972.
(Not that LBJ hadn't done the same thing -- but Lynt'n meant well -- <snort!!>)
She’s pretty incredible. I saw her speak at Agnes Scott College about 10 years ago, and it was quite interesting. I learned a lot about the early conservative movement. I also learned that she’s not the least bit afraid of taking on Lefty college girls in Q&A.
Wow! Thanks for sharing. I saw her back in the 1970’s and the nearest I can describe her at that time was Margaret Thatcher on steroids.
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.