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

Skip to comments.

Will U.S. Sovereignty Be LOST At Sea? Obama Signs U.N. Treaty That Redistributes Drilling Revenues
Forbes ^ | may 20, 2012 | Forbes OpEd

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012; anwr; bhofascism; congress; corruption; democrats; elections; energy; keystonexl; kyoto; lawofseatreaty; lawoftheseatreaty; lost; marxism; newworldorder; obama; obamalegacy; obamatruthfile; obamunism; oil; opec; redistribution; sovereignty; unconstitutional; unitednations
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-208 next last
To: marsh2

“This President is not playing by the Constitutional playbook. He has rendered Congress irrelevant. “

Thanks for all the informative links you posted, supporting your statement above.

Many are still so naive that they refuse to see that Obama is a “clear and present danger” to the very existence of the US.


61 posted on 05/20/2012 11:41:29 AM PDT by Innovative (None are so blind that will not see.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Unless the GOP convention can come up with a better candidate, I’m going to the polls holding my nose(again) and pulling the lever for Romney...


62 posted on 05/20/2012 11:41:41 AM PDT by RedMonqey (Men who will not suffer to self govern, will suffer under the governance of lesser men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Chgogal
The top officers and civvies don't become top officers or civs before they have demonstrated affinity with the regime.

After muzzie Major Nidal Hassan blew away dozens of American soldiers at Ft Hood, I remember the Army Chief of Staff saying that he would not allow the “incident” to impact the Army's diversity goals. Huh? He should have been fired.

63 posted on 05/20/2012 11:42:07 AM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RedMonqey

“Unless the GOP convention can come up with a better candidate, I’m going to the polls holding my nose(again) and pulling the lever for Romney...”

The first part is totally unlikely, and the second option is the only viable course of action, to stop Obama.

People need to face reality, this is not a game — literally the fate of the US as we know it, is at stake.


64 posted on 05/20/2012 11:45:00 AM PDT by Innovative (None are so blind that will not see.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
Thank you.

November is getting farther and farther away.

65 posted on 05/20/2012 11:45:56 AM PDT by Chgogal (WSJ, Coulter, Kristol, Krauthammer, Rove et al., STFU. Thank you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Like Kyoto, the President’s signature means nothing without approval by the legislature.


66 posted on 05/20/2012 11:48:47 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
The first part is totally unlikely, and the second option is the only viable course of action, to stop Obama.

I just wish we had a candidate with a reliable conservative record...
67 posted on 05/20/2012 11:50:48 AM PDT by RedMonqey (Men who will not suffer to self govern, will suffer under the governance of lesser men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Bush was also an advocate of LOST. His state dept was very busy negotiating it, on these very terms.


68 posted on 05/20/2012 11:56:26 AM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Keep FR Running
Let's get to Yellow!

69 posted on 05/20/2012 11:58:31 AM PDT by RedMDer (https://support.woundedwarriorproject.org/default.aspx?tsid=93)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Innovative

I recommend that we give away HIS shit, as he’s so fond of giving away ours.

Give away his house.

Give away his clothes.

Give away his possessions.

Give away his money.

Let him live in a f*cking dumpster.

/rant


70 posted on 05/20/2012 12:00:25 PM PDT by FrogMom (There is no such thing as an honest democrat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

exactly. ABO!!!!


71 posted on 05/20/2012 12:04:49 PM PDT by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

“There is a certain binding legality on a signed treaty regardless of its ratification, that constrains the actions of the signing executive authority — and future congressional legislation. “

Incorrect,,, that is indeed the international legalistic viewpoint. But the constitution is still technically in force. There is absolutely NOTHING in the constitution that gives a treaty force of law without ratification. It clearly says that treaties must be ratified by 2/3 vote of the senate. There is NO provision that it’s still law anyway, and that future legislation must conform to it.

Nice try. Point us to the case that a presidents signature on a treaty creates law despite the senate’s opposition.


72 posted on 05/20/2012 12:05:33 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

“People need to face reality, this is not a game — literally the fate of the US as we know it, is at stake.”

YES! I’ve been telling my friends, “If the Pubbies run Howdy Doody against BO, I’m voting for the puppet!”


73 posted on 05/20/2012 12:10:13 PM PDT by FrogMom (There is no such thing as an honest democrat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Chgogal

“The U.S. Navy maintains that we need LOST to guarantee free transit in dangerous waters”

Battleships used to give us that right. But our admirals today are pussies,, and their biggest worry is legalizing gay marriage, and being involved in the procurement of worthless littoral “combat” vessels.


74 posted on 05/20/2012 12:13:02 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Chgogal

“The U.S. Navy maintains that we need LOST to guarantee free transit in dangerous waters”

Battleships used to give us that right. But our admirals today are pussies,, and their biggest worry is legalizing gay marriage, and being involved in the procurement of worthless littoral “combat” vessels.


75 posted on 05/20/2012 12:13:31 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

Soclemomg == and we pay higher and higher gas prices.


76 posted on 05/20/2012 12:19:39 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

I see the purpose of this thread as little more than another way to convince conservatives to vote for RINO Romney. I hate Obama’s guts, but I can’t vote for Romney. Romney has about 5 months to convince me to the contrary, but I don’t see him doing it.

We are all on an old ship at sea. She may be old, but her ribs are strong and she has been made to survive rough seas.

Three years of a great storm has taken it’s toll. We have lost her rudder, her sails... her hull is breached and she is taking on water. Several mighty ships have come close and offered safe passage to shore, but the ships were not to the liking of many onboard, so we watched as they sailed into the horizon.

Another storm is approaching. As we bail water from our decks, we find that our lifeboats are weakened from dry-rot.

We have but two choices. We can bail water together and pray that we can survive the coming storm and that the seas will carry us to calm waters and a quiet beach.... or we can abandon the ship, choosing to separately drift the seas in rotted lifeboats.

I do not like either choice, but I choose to stay with the ship and bail water.

We may all go down, regardless of what choice we make.


77 posted on 05/20/2012 12:25:02 PM PDT by Gator113 (***YOU GAVE it to Obama. I would have voted for NEWT.~Just livin' life, my way~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

A good assumption would be that Obama has the whole 53 Demcrat senate caucus to vote to ratify LOST, and who would be the 14 Republicans that will vote to ratify?

Hmmmm lets see I’ll start ... Globalist Lugar would be one.

Now that leaves 13 Rs that would have to go along. Who would be the others?


78 posted on 05/20/2012 12:25:37 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chgogal
Can some Navy person explain why the U.S. Navy supports this BS. Why the hell does the US Navy want some foreign body determining where we can and cannot sail?

The Secretary of Navy as an appointed OBot who has no compunction jawing pap.

79 posted on 05/20/2012 12:32:50 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: FrogMom

I wholeheartedly second your rant. I’m so sick of the poseur in chief from his slut mama to who knows who his daddy is? How did this country come to this place?


80 posted on 05/20/2012 12:35:33 PM PDT by mplsconservative (Impeach Obama Now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-208 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