[PAULYPOKER]

The U.S. will lose its sovereignty to a New York 'dictators club' unless the Sea Treaty for ocean mining is defeated

the Wall Street Journal published an editorial by the five living Republican former Secretaries of State endorsing ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty by the US Senate (Dean Acheson could not be reached for comment).
Yet regardless of the blandishments by such grandees of the Republican foreign policy establishment, the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) remains a bad deal for America.The distinguished heavyweights—from Henry Kissinger to Condoleeza Rice—argue that most of the objections that led President Reagan to reject the treaty have now been solved.





Endorsement: Former secretaries of state including Condoleeza Rice and Henry Kissinger want the US Senate to ratify the international law of the sea treaty


They suggest that the United States has far more to gain from joining the treaty than from staying outside of it.
Yet the Treaty remains objectionable for three main reasons: it compromises US sovereignty, it gives undue power to the United Nations, and it will deter much needed investment in offshore resources.All of these appear to be the intention of the Treaty’s authors. To the transnational progressive movement, these are features rather than bugs—which makes the Republican luminaries’ endorsement of LOST especially disappointing. Indeed, the Soviet Union was a supporter of LOST.The Treaty endangers American sovereignty by placing US naval decision-making under the supervision of an international body.
No longer would America be able to make its own decisions to act on the high seas to protect its interests in accordance with customary international law.

Imbalance: The law of the sea treaty would give undue power to the United Nations

As noted constitutional scholar Professor Jeremy Rabkin noted in a 2006 paper for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), ratification would seem to endorse the notion that American rights can only be secured by appealing to new international institutions.
From there it is only a small step to the claim that further progress on other international matters requires submission to new and more far-reaching international controls, developed and implemented by new supranational organs.
'Ratifying the treaty, a disastrous throwback to the era when socialism was seen as the wave of the future, would be especially foolish today'
The error of conceding sovereignty would be compounded by whom it would be conceded to—the United Nations. The UN claims that the Treaty seeks to guard the 'common heritage of mankind,' but the fact is that the United Nations is little more than the Dictators’ Club of New York—the UN’s World Tourism Organization recently honoured Zimbabwean tyrant Robert Mugabe as a 'world leader for tourism.'The Treaty empowers a transnational bureaucracy of the UN, like the World Tourism Organization, to regulate deep sea mining of mineral resources. It does so in a bizarre fashion, by creating, as it were, an 'internationalized industry,' which would mine the deep sea bed with the coerced assistance of Western mining companies.In essence, the Treaty retains a fragment of the Soviet Union’s plans for the world’s seas—again, despite assurances that this problem was fixed with a set of revisions made in 1994.Finally, by creating this entity, the Treaty impedes commercial development of these resources, discouraging not just mining entrepreneurship, but also technological development in related fields. As Cato Institute scholar Doug Bandow noted in 2007 in another paper for CEI: 'Ratifying the treaty, a disastrous throwback to the era when socialism was seen as the wave of the future, would be especially foolish today, in a world of exploding economic opportunities and technological possibilities.'
Dictators' club: The UN recently honoured Robert Mugabe as a 'world leader for tourism'

A LOST-like regime also would discourage exploration of other, currently unowned resources, most notably space.The foreign policy establishment glosses over these objections—when it acknowledges them at all.
Yet they remain valid reasons for the US to reject the Treaty. It is conceivable, that the Senate may choose to ratify the Treaty during its lame duck session after the November election as a retirement gift to Senator Richard Lugar (R.-Indiana), who was unceremoniously dumped by his own voters for going native in Washington.Thankfully, it only takes 34 Senators to kill ratification of a Treaty. You can write to your own expressing your disquiet by visiting LetsLoseLOST.com. The Law of the Sea Treaty deserves to be lost in the mists.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...#ixzz1zmJ3k8Pt

[PAULYPOKER]

The American Sovereignty Campaign is a Front for Environmentalists

A stealth effort is underway to convince conservatives the United Nations Law of the Sea treaty is needed to protect the very thing the Reagan Administration believed it wouldn’t—American sovereignty.

Members of the misnamed American Sovereignty Campaign(TASC) are working to achieve radical environmental goals that would cripple America's energy economy under a guise of patriotic values. As Senator DeMint details in an op-ed in The Hill today, LOST would compel the U.S. to follow United Nations standards on air pollution, including carbon emissions, and allow other nations to sue the U.S. if it does not adhere to those guidelines.


TASC touts numerous environmental groups in support of LOST, but omits the fact they support the treaty because it forces the U.S. to abide by international climate guidelines. It’s clear that after failing to pass cap and trade laws, or ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, LOST has become the liberals’ last hope of regulating U.S. energy.


Groups championing LOST under the umbrella of TASC include:·

Pew Charitable Trusts, a champion of cap and trade laws that cites environmental concerns as a chief reason to support LOST.·

A Better World Campaign founded by CNN’s Ted Turner to support United Nations-related causes and the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group that helped write the Democrats’ failed cap and trade bill.·

TASC plugs the Council on Foreign Relations, which published a 2009 report on LOST that argued the treaty should be ratified in order to stop the rise of greenhouse gases from energy use. The CFR report,posted on the TASC site, states that “Oceans are among the first casualties of increased greenhouse-gas emissions,” that “with rising levels of atmospheric CO2, the seas are being asked to absorb more carbon than ever before,” and concludes that LOST creates “a framework for further developing measures to prevent, reduce, and control pollution globally, regionally, and nationally.”

· The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, a TASC member group committed to cap and trade policies, whose leadership now includes liberal John Podesta and was once led by Leon Panetta, who is now Secretary of Defense. In his capacity as JOCI co-chairman, Panetta penned an op-ed for the Washington Post promoting the treaty for environmental reasons. “The United States is one of the few nations that has failed to accede to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, essentially a global-scale version of our various regional alliances,” he wrote. “Joining the convention would ensure that the United States has a stake in decisions that affect the health of our oceans.”

· The World Wildlife Fund, has told their environmental activists that LOST “serves as a dynamic, living constitution for the world's oceans.” WWF further states that the “combined stresses of overfishing, wildlife trade, pollution, and climate change have put the world’s oceans and the plant and animal species they sustain in peril.” WWF calls for ratification of LOST because the “treaty sets standards and calls for establishing global and regional rules to help govern the conservation, protection and management of marine species.”

· The Center for International Environmental Law says: “Land-based pollution, entering the oceans through rivers and deposition of air pollution, is currently the major source of marine pollution, accounting for over 80 percent of the total load of contaminants and pollutants entering the ocean. Several international instruments address water pollution issues, such as … the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)… UNCLOS stipulates that measures shall prevent, reduce and control pollution from land-based sources, seabed activities subject to national jurisdiction, activities in the high sea area, dumping, vessels, and the atmosphere.”

· Defenders of Wildlife says: “The eight-year failure of this administration to work with the rest of the world to seriously address emissions of greenhouse gas pollution will make solving the problem of global warming, and saving wildlife and habitat from its impacts, even more difficult. Similarly, the failure of the outgoing administration to secure Senate ratification of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Biological Diversity, two global agreements that are critically important to protecting wildlife and its habitat…

”If LOST should be passed for environmental reasons, supporters should make that case. But, it raises suspicion when that case is not consistently made and so drastically altered for different audiences.

27 Republican senators have pledged to oppose LOST ratification in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Their concerns echo the same arguments President Reagan made in explaining his reasons for rejecting LOST.

Ed Meese, former Attorney General under Reagan, pointed out that Reagan long opposed LOST because of its threat to U.S. sovereignty, stating in a 1978 radio address that "no nat[ional] interest of ours could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth's surface over to the Third World."

Just as it was in 1978, it is today.

LOST means losing sovereignty. No liberal environmental groups, even one that hides behind the alias American Sovereignty Campaign, can distort the text of the treaty to mean otherwise.

[Darkside Magick]

Admiralty law.....love it... Usa been under it since 1933

[nate turner]

the u.s. Will lose its sovereignty to a new york 'dictators club' unless the sea treaty for ocean mining is defeated

the wall street journal published an editorial by the five living republican former secretaries of state endorsing ratification of the law of the sea treaty by the us senate (dean acheson could not be reached for comment).
yet regardless of the blandishments by such grandees of the republican foreign policy establishment, the law of the sea treaty (lost) remains a bad deal for america.the distinguished heavyweights—from henry kissinger to condoleeza rice—argue that most of the objections that led president reagan to reject the treaty have now been solved.





endorsement: Former secretaries of state including condoleeza rice and henry kissinger want the us senate to ratify the international law of the sea treaty


they suggest that the united states has far more to gain from joining the treaty than from staying outside of it.
yet the treaty remains objectionable for three main reasons: It compromises us sovereignty, it gives undue power to the united nations, and it will deter much needed investment in offshore resources.all of these appear to be the intention of the treaty’s authors. To the transnational progressive movement, these are features rather than bugs—which makes the republican luminaries’ endorsement of lost especially disappointing. Indeed, the soviet union was a supporter of lost.the treaty endangers american sovereignty by placing us naval decision-making under the supervision of an international body.
no longer would america be able to make its own decisions to act on the high seas to protect its interests in accordance with customary international law.

imbalance: The law of the sea treaty would give undue power to the united nations

as noted constitutional scholar professor jeremy rabkin noted in a 2006 paper for the competitive enterprise institute (cei), ratification would seem to endorse the notion that american rights can only be secured by appealing to new international institutions.
from there it is only a small step to the claim that further progress on other international matters requires submission to new and more far-reaching international controls, developed and implemented by new supranational organs.
'ratifying the treaty, a disastrous throwback to the era when socialism was seen as the wave of the future, would be especially foolish today'
the error of conceding sovereignty would be compounded by whom it would be conceded to—the united nations. The un claims that the treaty seeks to guard the 'common heritage of mankind,' but the fact is that the united nations is little more than the dictators’ club of new york—the un’s world tourism organization recently honoured zimbabwean tyrant robert mugabe as a 'world leader for tourism.'the treaty empowers a transnational bureaucracy of the un, like the world tourism organization, to regulate deep sea mining of mineral resources. It does so in a bizarre fashion, by creating, as it were, an 'internationalized industry,' which would mine the deep sea bed with the coerced assistance of western mining companies.in essence, the treaty retains a fragment of the soviet union’s plans for the world’s seas—again, despite assurances that this problem was fixed with a set of revisions made in 1994.finally, by creating this entity, the treaty impedes commercial development of these resources, discouraging not just mining entrepreneurship, but also technological development in related fields. As cato institute scholar doug bandow noted in 2007 in another paper for cei: 'ratifying the treaty, a disastrous throwback to the era when socialism was seen as the wave of the future, would be especially foolish today, in a world of exploding economic opportunities and technological possibilities.'
dictators' club: The un recently honoured robert mugabe as a 'world leader for tourism'

a lost-like regime also would discourage exploration of other, currently unowned resources, most notably space.the foreign policy establishment glosses over these objections—when it acknowledges them at all.
yet they remain valid reasons for the us to reject the treaty. It is conceivable, that the senate may choose to ratify the treaty during its lame duck session after the november election as a retirement gift to senator richard lugar (r.-indiana), who was unceremoniously dumped by his own voters for going native in washington.thankfully, it only takes 34 senators to kill ratification of a treaty. You can write to your own expressing your disquiet by visiting letsloselost.com. The law of the sea treaty deserves to be lost in the mists.

read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...#ixzz1zmj3k8pt

love mugabe one of the few africans in this world with a backbone.

He is no different than.............. Dictator mike bloom (goon)berg.bloomberg gave his friend and friend friends land and other nyc resources.i expect a thread on goon berg...............no then again goon-berg is a ashkenazi,he is harmless. Right?