Finally, an acronym for a treaty that makes sense! I guess ‘SCREWED’ just wasn’t workable.
Good post.
This is just another scheme/vehicle to accomplish the globalist agenda at the expense of the United States.
my dictionary defines:
treason: betrayal of one’s country
And what do would get in return for agreeing this treaty?
Let me guess: a treasury that is more bankrupt than it already is and a citizenry that is enslaved to the world.
It is time to defend our Constitution and country from ALL our enemies, especially those DOMESTIC
This, along with a number of other international agreements & treaties, is something we’ll have to keep a very keen eye on. I don’t think they’d dare try to do anything with this and other sovereignty surrendering actions prior to the November election. But in the lame duck session (and there will be a good number of angry lame duck Senators such as Lugar this November & December) all bets will be off. We’ll have to be prepared to support the mobilization of opposition to the ratification of such onerous treaties. And I’m sure a defeated Obama and his minions will do as much as they can to unilaterally weaken America.
Richard Lugar and Lamar Alexander supported the ratification of the Start treaty in the 2010 lame duck session. We’ve gotten rid of Lugar in this year’s election. Lamar’s turn is coming.
Sovereignty surrender
I don’t understand. I really, REALLY don’t get this.
I know the US Navy is not the one I served in nor the one my dad served in, but how, HOW could they support this? I have heard that the higher levels of the navy support this, and I am baffled.
It would be easy to say they are all political toeing some line, but I cannot imagine the Navy would support this.
If anyone has any explanation, I would like to hear it. This treaty sounds like something we should fight with all the energy we have.
IMPEACH THIS BASTARD NOW!!!!
I don’t want to hear another speech from ANY politician that doesn’t include their intent to immediately impeach this worthless bastard.
This is the taxation effort on behalf of the UN and their treasonous allies in national gub’mints. Securing a taste of global energy dollars will assure the UN a secure income for eternity and the ability to function with or without American underwriting of their global agenda.
Is giving up any part of sovereignty by the POTUS not a form of treason that should be cause for impeachment by Congress?
I forgot, this Congress has no b*lls.
Oh it's a lot worse than that. LOST will regulate anything that AFFECTS the ocean. Many ocean species breed in estuaries. Estuaries are fed by watersheds. The "green" NGOs will sue to "protect" anything they can twist into pretending a risk of harm to said watersheds.
The is a LAND use treaty disguised as regulating oceans.
"But its' a treaty with the UN signed by 0dumb0shit (or GW Bush)"
Good, even more reason to blow these globalist UN bastards to smithereens!
Treaties are said to be inviolable. This is incorrect. Treaties cannot change the fundamental structure of the Constitution. Constitutional rights, such as (but not limited to) the Bill of Rights, cannot be changed by treaty. Because if that were possible, then the entire Constitutional process for amending the Constitution, as well as the fundamental philosophical structure of the Constitution, would be vulnerable to sabotage outside of Constitutional process - supposedly BY a Constitutional provision. But legally, you cannot have conflicting Constitutional laws, nor redundancies. So treaty powers have to be interpreted as secondary to established Constitutional provisions, and subject to pre-existing Constitutional oversight. Otherwise the entire Constitution ends with the phrase “or you can just toss it all out if you feel like it.”
No.