moonbattery.gif


« UN's Greedy Chief Bureauweenie Calls USA a Deadbeat Donor | Main | Open Thread »


March 12, 2009

American Sovereignty May Be LOST

One of the long-term ramifications of putting people who don't like our country in charge of our government is the likely passage of the insane Law of the Sea Treaty , which would turn over an alarming degree of authority to the corrupt and relentlessly anti-American United Nations — including jurisdiction over our rivers.

LOST — the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, also called the Law of the Sea Treaty — regulates all things oceanic, from fishing rights, navigation lanes and environmental concerns to what lies beneath: the seabed's oil and mineral wealth that companies hope to explore and exploit in coming years.
But critics say the treaty, which declares the sea and its bounty the "universal heritage of mankind," would redistribute American profits and have a reach extending into rivers and streams all the way up the mighty Mississippi.

Only traitors and fools would support turning over our sovereignty to hostile foreigners, so LOST failed to make headway for years. But the traitors and fools are in the driver's seat now.

Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said during a January confirmation hearing that he intends to push for ratification. "We are now laying the groundwork for and expect to try to take up the Law of the Sea Treaty. So that will be one of the priorities of the committee, and the key here is just timing — how we proceed."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, saying the treaty is vital for American businesses and the Navy, told Kerry that his committee "will have a very receptive audience in our State Department and in our administration."

Non-moonbats are less receptive:

But critics say clauses built into the treaty could directly harm American interests. They say it could force the U.S. to comply with unspecified environmental codes, and that the treaty gives environmental activists the legal standing to sue over river pollution and shut down industry, simply because rivers feed into the sea.
The treaty allows environmental groups to bring lawsuits to the Law of the Sea Tribunal in Germany, a panel of 21 U.N. judges who would have say over pollution levels in American rivers. Their rulings would have the force law in the U.S., according to a reading in a 2008 Supreme Court decision by Justice John Paul Stevens.
"You've got an unaccountable tribunal that will surely be stacked with jurists hostile to our interests," said Chris Horner, author of "Red Hot Lies," a book critical of environmentalists. "This would never pass muster if the Senate held an open, public debate about this."

Unfortunately public debate is no longer how things are done in Washington— as we've seen with the gargantuan spending bills that have put the country on a course to bankruptcy.

Like most all initiatives favored by liberals, the idea is to grab not only power but money:

"You have to pay royalties on the value of anything you extract (from the deep seabed), those royalties to be distributed as the new bureaucracy sees fit, primarily to landlocked countries and underdeveloped countries," said Steven Groves, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. American money would also go to fund the International Seabed Authority, which Groves warned "would have the potential to become the most massive U.N. bureaucracy on the planet."
"The whole theory of the treaty is that the world's oceans and everything below them are the common heritage of mankind," said Groves. "Very socialist."

How else will this latest outrage screw us over? We'll have to wait and see.

Its complexity … still beguiles even experts, who say it is unlikely to be understood when brought to a vote in the Senate.
"The thing is about 150 pages long — meaning there are exactly zero people in the Senate who have read it," said Groves.

Congresscritters weren't given time to read Porkzilla before passing it, why should they bother to read this? The important thing is that it hurts America, so it will have full Democrat support.

un-flag.jpg
Soon to fly over the mighty Mississippi.

On a tip from Chad.

Posted by Van Helsing at March 12, 2009 10:03 AM

Comments

Time has come to get ourselves out of this whole rotten UN and completly remove the UN from american soil i mean lets evict these crinimals from our country and had the UN building demlolished and replaced with amusment park

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at March 12, 2009 11:18 AM

The UN building should be turned into a prison for the terrorists from Gitmo. That would be fantastic used of that eye sore.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 12, 2009 11:38 AM

We not only would have to pay for the UN authoritative bureaucracy and royalties on the estimated value of anything extracted from the seabeds, but we also would pay for the technical costs of distributing to other countries a physical share (TBD) of any mineral or oil reserves U.S. companies obtain. As I understand, this would probably extend into a further sharing of royalties made when such reserves are commercialized and sold.
This will cost billions in real and lost future revenues, all under the auspices of the Treaty.

I imagine no such harvest-revenue sharing will be considered when other countries make profits from sea resources.


Reagan killed this idiotic treaty with a lot of squealing at the time from liberals about the evils of western countries hogging all the ocean resources.
Liberals have kept a sympathetic eye on this treaty ever since. Now that they have a communist elected to Office, they will finally get their "share the wealth" dream come true.

Posted by: Fiberal at March 12, 2009 12:15 PM

Looks like a sure prescription for starting a world war to me.

Posted by: Kevin R at March 12, 2009 2:11 PM

"The thing is about 150 pages long — meaning there are exactly zero people in the Senate who have read it," said Groves.

What?!! you mean there are people in the Senate who can ACTUALLY read?

Posted by: Rick at March 12, 2009 2:43 PM

If it is left up to the UN, would we resume off-shore drilling? Would all the nuclear power plants in this country have to shut down (except Palo Verde) because they are on oceans, lakes and rivers? Would we have to open up our waterways to ships with zebra mussels in their bilges? What about fishing rights? Would an international body have to determine rockfish limits? Have to agree with Kevin R - this is a recipe for disaster.

Posted by: Nancy at March 12, 2009 3:26 PM

Get the US Out of the UN - NOW!
The UN is not our friend. Commentary and facts showing the evil truths of the UN.

Posted by: SK at March 12, 2009 6:13 PM

Kevin R, I agree.

It's time for all out war and for people to choose sides: evil (Socialism/Islam) or good (Liberty/Christianity).

And if you laugh consider this little tidbit from (one of your revered idols) Leon Trotsky: "you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."

Posted by: Anonymous at March 12, 2009 6:46 PM

IIRC, Montana has quite a few laws on the books regarding the UN. The UN Flag can never be flown there, UN troops are never allowed there, etc.

Posted by: bilderbooger at March 12, 2009 6:49 PM

Lets totaly evict the whole wretched UN from our nations soil we have for far too long allowed these crinimals to waltz around take over and dictate to us and srip on us its past time to boot out the UN and have that UN building bulldozed down

Posted by: Flu-Bird at March 12, 2009 11:28 PM

Have national lottery and the winners take turns smacking the thing with a wrecking ball until its a mangled mess of concrete and steel then leave it that way as a reminder how useless the UN is.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2009 5:14 AM

On the other hand, the clowns in the U.S. government will not be able to stop off-shore drilling.

Posted by: oldguy at March 13, 2009 8:09 AM