Posted on 05/20/2012 10:18:50 AM PDT by Innovative
A proposed Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which has been signed by President Obama but not yet ratified by Congress, will subordinate U.S. naval and drilling operations beyond 200 miles of our coast to a newly established U.N. bureaucracy. If approved, it will grant a Kingston, Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority (ISA) the power to regulate deep-sea oil exploration, seabed mining, and fishing rights.
As part of the deal, as much as 7% of U.S. government revenue that is collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast will be forked over to ISA for redistribution to poorer, landlocked countries. This apparently is in penance for America's audacity in perpetuating prosperity yielded by our Industrial Revolution.
Like the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol debacle that preceded it, this most recent LOST cause embodies the progressive ideal of subordinating the sovereignty of nation states to authoritarian dictates of a world body. The U.S. would have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money would go, and be obligated to hand over offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it... for free.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
“This is what you get with Obama — can we afford four more years?!
Obama is actively working for the destruction of the US and our sovereignty. “
RINOmney would probably sign it and the Senate would feel obligated to back him up ...
“He can sign all the treaties he wants, still needs 67 Senate votes”
I need to expand an earlier post. Obama has already bypassed the senate on a treaty they refused to ratify with an executive order and the senate, without enough testosterone to raise a slight woodie, did nothing to stop it. On the LOST treaty he will simply issue another EO and the Senate will cut our throats doing nothing to stop him.
Bull crap! All 0 has to do is tell the neutered repubs in congress that its part of homeland security and they will grab it hook, line and sinker!
see post 122
Yes, but this doctor basically lost his Massachusetts medical license. He’s gonna have to perform really good medicine to get my vote.
When your house is burning down, are you going to stop the firefighters from saving it, because you have a personal dislike of the particular firefighter who is trying to save your house?
Wait, he’s not actually a firefighter and he has a garden hose with a bunch of holes in it.
I’m not even sure there is any water coming out of it?
It probably won’t put the fire out but go ahead and wave your hose around Willard.
We can always rebuild the house after it burns down.
Innovative: “When your house is burning down, are you going to stop the firefighters from saving it, because you have a personal dislike of the particular firefighter who is trying to save your house?”
Leap: “We can always rebuild the house after it burns down.”
Yes, what an intelligent approach — instead of trying to save it, just stand by and let it burn to the ground, with all the valuables in it.
Please see my response to another poster in my post 110. Your comment is of similar value.
Hey Laz hurry up and take a picture of your back and post it so I can watch your back for you.
Romney is a rich ultra-liberal who may well have bought his way into the White House.
66% of the voters wanted someone else.
Not counting the folks who just didn’t vote.
As you may recall there were low turn outs.
Anyhow, Romney is not a flawed but heroic fire fighter.
Like I said, he likely not a fire fighter at all.
Most are hoping he can fight his way out of a wet paper bag.
Which most Rinos can not.
He’s not a Humphrey Bogart or Clint Eastwood character in the movies.
You know the flawed bad guy who has a code of ethics.
He’s closer to a peter lourre character.
A greasy guy who is mostly in it for himself.
Your view is skewed by your sampling error: That half looks impressive if one’s view is confined to the local confines here, but on a national scale it is asymptotically approaching irrelevance.
Yes, what an intelligent approach — instead of trying to save it, just stand by and let it burn to the ground, with all the valuables in it.
BTW I was just using your analogy. I think what I said is closer to reality than yours.
As for burning down the house. If willard’s hose doesn’t have enough pressure the house is burning down anyhow.
So, if romney has a a holey garden hose he might is well try to put the fire out. although unlikely.
Obama in your analogy would be an arson. Noone is certain what romney is but he says he is a severe fire fighter?
Regardless of other comments, that's the best analogy I'VE seen. It'll help me when I have to go out and do something revolting in Nov. Thanks.
I’m perplexed buy the statement in the article that the U.S Navy actually supports this. I would
D be be moving away from ANY U.N. treaty- they are anti-U..S. and their time is done. Love to hear from John Bolton on this one...
See my post 50 — reposting content here:
I think I found the answer - Obama appointed the Sec of Navy, so he naturally supports him.
Obama Taps Mabus for Navy Secretary
“Mabus, 60, is a Democrat who served as governor from 1988 to 1992 and was President Bill Clinton’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia. A Democrat, Mabus endorsed Obama before the 2008 primary season and campaigned extensively on his behalf. “
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/27/obama_taps_mabus_for_navy_secr.html
Thanks for that, makes perfect sense. I have to remind myself that the Navy has had a few bad apples ..( ala Joe Sestak)
Not true. First, the Constitution specifies "two thirds of Senators PRESENT." Treaties of enormous scope have been ratified on voice vote with no record of a quorum. Second, pursuant to a treaty we never ratified but have respected for nearly forty years as a matter of "customary international law," a treaty is in force upon signature.
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.