Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    Law of the Sea Treaty ‘inimical to our sovereignty’

    Law of the Sea Treaty ‘inimical to our sovereignty’




    By: Hope Hodge
    6/11/2012 06:11 AM

    Just as the Law of the Sea Treaty became a hot topic of policy debate this spring, a new entity emerged to throw its weight behind the treaty. The American Sovereignty Campaign, a coalition launched May 9 at a forum hosted by the Pew Charitable Trust and the Atlantic Council, took out web and print ads in publications across the political spectrum and went to work publishing opinion editorials in newspapers from Sarasota to Toledo.

    The campaign’s message was clear: ratify the treaty now. The rationale for assuming a name that had long been appropriated by advocates on the other side of the issue was less so.

    Frank Gaffney, director of the Center for Security Policy, is fuming.

    Since 2007, Gaffney has been the head of the Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty, a group founded to help defeat passage of the treaty. Now, the group calls itself the True Sovereignty Coalition, and its message remains the same: don’t cede American authority over to an international bureaucracy; leave the treaty unsigned.

    “What you have is a transparent, Orwellian appropriation of a term that has a common meaning, in the interest of obscuring the fact that this treaty is antithetical to that meaning,” Gaffney said.

    “I think (proponents) recognize that the treaty is clearly inimical to our sovereignty, that it has in a number of different respects a really diametrically opposite impact than promoting sovereignty. And that’s the kiss of death for this treaty. They have to obscure that.”

    Steven Groves, an international law expert at the Heritage Foundation who has also opposed the treaty, used the same word—Orwellian—without prompting.

    “It’s the same group that has been in favor of the treaty for a couple of decades now,” Groves said. “In what can only be described as an Orwellian twist, they’ve co-opted that term and trying to brand themselves as champions of American sovereignty.”

    Groves said the treaty would encroach on American sovereignty by collecting royalties from production taking place on our continental shelf and redistributing them to member countries through the International Seabed Authority. Language within the treaty, he said, may also expose the U.S. to international lawsuits and litigation.

    If nothing else, the tactic is an effective means of confusion. I observed a reporter pick up materials distributed by TASC at a Senate committee hearing on Law of the Sea and leaf through them, expecting a “counterpoint” to the treaty argument.

    But a recent member of The American Sovereignty Campaign said the name signifies a different interpretation of the treaty itself.

    At the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the latest organization to join the campaign, Executive Vice President for Government Affairs Bruce Josten said the treaty promotes sovereign rights for the U.S. by establishing an international legal framework with agreement on how countries can claim surrounding seabeds and the continental shelf for proprietary use.

    “It secures sovereign rights for the United States and states that have coastal areas,” Josten said. “It provides certainty and stability, both of which are crucial for countries to make investments. We believe failure to move forward and approve the Law of the Sea convention will place not only U.S. government but also U.S. industry at a disadvantage.”

    Josten made clear he could not speak for the campaign, but said the name was not an attempt at Orwellian obfuscation.

    “The Pew was the outfit that came up with the name and the purpose was deliberate,” he said. “We believe this treaty was to protect U.S. sovereign rights, but not weaken sovereignty rights.”

    Repeated calls to Frances Cox, press contact for The American Sovereignty Campaign, were not returned.

    Proposed middle ground on LOST -- Paul Wolfowitz "still thinking."

    Law of the Sea Treaty becomes war of the words

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    The Globalists sold you out a long time ago for power and a few beads, Trinkets and Wompum

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Democrats’ plan for a ‘backdoor’ Kyoto Protocol

    By Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)
    06/12/12 07:14 PM ET

    More than three years into the Obama administration, Democrats haven’t been able to pass a cap-and-trade law but are poised to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) — an international agreement certain to cripple America’s energy economy.

    LOST was rejected by the Reagan administration 30 years ago and never received enough Senate support under former Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush to be ratified, but the internationalists in the Obama administration finally see the opportunity to muster enough votes for LOST during the lame-duck session after the November elections — the same way they rammed through the New START nuclear arms treaty following their disastrous 2010 elections.

    Ratifying LOST not only means losing national sovereignty, it means losing jobs. If the United States enters this agreement, it would mean giving up billions in oil-and-gas royalties to be redistributed among developing and landlocked nations — some of whom are state sponsors of terror — and subjecting the United States to international climate change lawsuits.

    Because treaties require 67 votes for ratification, it would require only 34 Republican senators to vote against it. As of this writing, 27 Republican senators have pledged to oppose LOST. More Republicans should take a stand now to deter the Democrats from pursuing it further.

    Supporters of the treaty say it’s needed to strengthen America’s hand when it comes to military and diplomatic matters. Nonsense. The United States is the most powerful country in the history of the world. America doesn’t need a piece of paper to make other countries respect its positions.

    A strong Navy is the best vehicle to protect navigational rights, not a flimsy treaty riddled with legal complexities. The United States should not sacrifice its sovereignty to yet another international organization to gain something we already have.

    Moreover, other countries, such as China, routinely flout the rules in the treaty. China’s claims on waters in the West Philippine Sea exceed what’s allowed by LOST, but what have the other 161 LOST countries done about it? Nothing.

    There is no reason why the United States should enter a legal framework that other participants don’t abide by. When the United States plays by the rules that other countries ignore, the United States is at a clear disadvantage.


    Although the treaty is meant to establish a set of rules regarding the oceans, only a few pages of it deal with purely navigational concerns. The bulk of the 288-page treaty does things like establish a new international bureaucracy in Jamaica to collect and redistribute royalties on offshore oil drilling and force the United States into international arbitration for environmental disputes.

    During a recent Senate hearing, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked how LOST would regulate American carbon emissions. Clinton claimed it wouldn’t, but she didn’t appear to consider several portions of the treaty that condemn and place sanctions on pollution — even those coming from land-based sources.

    LOST compels states to “adopt laws and regulations” to “implement applicable international rules and standards established through competent international organizations or diplomatic conference to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources.” In short, this means if an international body established any guidelines regarding energy emissions or climate change, the United States could be sued for failing to abide by it.

    International organizations such as the United Nations already treat carbon as a pollutant. Because of this, LOST acts as a “backdoor” Kyoto Protocol.
    LOST dictates that disputes, environmental or otherwise, be settled by a five-member arbitration panel. That panel would be made up of two representatives each from the parties involved in the dispute and one deciding vote. If the two parties cannot agree on the critical fifth arbiter, the deciding vote would be appointed by the U.N. secretary-general.

    Imagine if the United States got into a dispute with France or Cuba. We should not trust a U.N.-appointed judge to be an intermediary between the United States and other nations.

    LOST is just the latest part of the White House’s relentless push to regulate America’s energy emissions. In a 2009 speech at the U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen, President Obama said there needed to be a “mechanism” to “review whether we are keeping our commitments” and “living up to our obligations” in regards to international climate change agreements.

    “For without such accountability,” he said, “any agreement would be empty words on a page.”

    LOST would be that mechanism.

    The Senate has already provided its consent to the Obama administration for one misguided treaty with New START last year. Republicans must not let that mistake be repeated again in the upcoming lame duck.

    DeMint is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

    Democrats

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #4
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    SEN. DEMINT WARNS OF HIDDEN THREAT TO AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY...Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST),

    Posted by Michael CHILDS, Admin II on June 13, 2012 at 7:44pm in Patriot Action Alerts

    The Blaze reported, that Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) warned on Tuesday that the Obama administration is secretly working with the United Nations to implement the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), an international agreement that would force the United States to abide by foreign climate regulations.

    Not familiar with the Law of the Sea? Here’s a brief refresher:
    LOST is like a lot of leftist initiatives in that it’s been decades in the making and that it uses “environmentalism” as a means of achieving its goals.
    “Although the treaty is meant to establish a set of rules regarding the oceans, only a few pages of it deal with purely navigational concerns,” longtime LOST opponent Sen. DeMint notes.
    “The bulk of the 288-page treaty does things like establish a new international bureaucracy in Jamaica to collect and redistribute royalties on offshore oil drilling and force the United States into international arbitration for environmental disputes,” he adds.
    If ratified, LOST would compel states to “adopt laws and regulations” to “implement applicable international rules and standards established through competent international organizations or diplomatic conference to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources.” Translation: The U.S. would be forced to obey U.N. standards on air pollution and carbon emissions. In fact, the treaty even allows foreign nations to sue the U.S. if it doesn’t adhere to LOST guidelines.
    “LOST is just the latest part of the White House’s relentless push to regulate America’s energy emissions,” the senator writes.

    I am convinced that the most effective way we can avoid bad outcomes from government is for every citizen to understand the likely unintended consequences on their lives. State-by-state, profession-by-profession, trade-by-trade impacts need to be identified and ranked so voters can understand what the law does to their family. We need to have concentrated attention on states where a Senator supports or may be persuaded to support this unwise act and conduct rational investigations to create factual reports so we have unassailable arguments that connect with people. The attacks on the mission and existence of the UN can wait. Concentrate on the task at hand. Field the better arguments. Be so clear that even the most liberal, progressive can see that their chair is between the rails and the train is coming.

    Mike Brownfield of The Heritage Foundation, wrote a short history of LOST the day before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
    Back in 1982, President Ronald Reagan decided not to sign a treaty known as “Law of the Sea” (LOST), a United Nations convention that would raid America’s treasury for billions of dollars, then redistribute that wealth to the rest of the world by an international bureaucracy headquartered in Kingston, Jamaica. But today, the Obama Administration has revived that treaty, and tomorrow Senator John Kerry (D-MA) will hold hearings designed to illustrate its supposed benefits and generate support for its ratification. Without a doubt, Reagan’s decision should stand, and LOST should remain relegated to the trash bin of history.
    Once again proof that we need to abandon ship on the UN. The UN is a Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Fascist organization that we shoul dhve never beena part of let alone continue to support.
    As an American, I object to any treaty which impacts the sovereignty of this country or its ability to defend itself. I also object to this country financing any organization which has proven itself corrupt, incompetent, and provides a political venue for tyrants, dictators, and murderers. I believe that our Constitution, if followed, and faith in our creator provides all we need to succeed in a troubled world. We do not need idiots telling us what to do. I was not pleased with the proposed Russian Treaty. Neither party understood what it covered. Generally, I would never ratify any treaty negotiated by this inept Administration.
    United Nation’s sanctioned bodies have a long record of atrocious judgement in general and anti-Americanism in particular. How can anyone expect the international bodies created under LOST to do any better?

    http://resistance.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A5813243&xgs=1&xg_source= msg_share_topic

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •