In 1982 while Ronald Reagan was President of the United States a treaty was drafted under the auspices of the United Nations that would establish international control of the oceans and everything underneath them.
It is called the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and most nations have since signed on to it. However, President Reagan refused to sign it because he felt that it was not in the best interest of the United States to be a part of it. He feared a loss of U.S. sovereignty if we became a party to it.
Some superficial changes were made to the wording of the treaty and President Bill Clinton signed it on behalf of the United States. However, the U.S. Constitution requires that any treaty signed by the President must be ratified by a two thirds vote of the Senate in order to go into effect. Clinton was never able to muster the votes in the Senate to bring it up for ratification.
During his second term President George W. Bush tried to push the treaty through the Senate. He had almost unanimous support of the Democrats in the Senate, (which alone makes me suspicious of the treaty), but most Republican Senators stood their ground and opposed it so it never go the support of the required two thirds.
Now, we have a President who is pushing one socialist cause after another and is apparently intent on turning the United States into a nation that is subject to the jurisdiction of the United Nations. With the help of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry he is making a major effort to get this treaty ratified before the 2012 elections. This would appear to be another wasted effort, but something has changed. We are suddenly seeing a number of Republican Senators who have thus far refused to come out in opposition to the treaty.
I have read the treaty and agree with former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, and the scholars at the Heritage Foundation who have all expressed serious concerns about the provisions of the treaty. Among other things, the treaty establishes an enormous UN bureaucracy to administer its provisions. It will have very little accountability and the U.S. will be forced to comply with its mandates, even if they are contrary to our national interests.
This bureaucracy will be partially funded by an international tax on U.S. companies that are drilling or mining in the oceans. Some of the money taken from these companies and their shareholders will then be distributed to so called “emerging nations” that will be chosen by the UN. Some of these nations may be states that sponsor terrorism and are enemies of the United States. Under the provisions of our Constitution, only the Congress can impose taxes on American citizens and businesses, yet this treaty would violate the Constitution and give that authority to a foreign body.
There is also language in the treaty that can be interpreted to put the maneuvering of U.S. Navy warships subject to UN approval. In other words, we might not be able to take military action to protect our nation’s security without specific permission of the UN. Remember, the Obama appointed Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, has already told a Congressional Committee that he and the President do not believe that it is necessary for them to get approval of Congress to go to war, as required by the Constitution. Instead they believe that UN or NATO approval is sufficient.
In addition, there are the troublesome provisions in the treaty that give this UN bureaucracy the right to impose restrictions on U.S. land based industries in order to push the “climate change” agenda. This could potentially include
ordering the closing of utility plants that use coal or other energy sources that the UN feels could threaten the oceans. Forget, the fact that the whole climate change agenda is based on what has now been proven to be fraudulent scientific data, Obama and the UN bureaucrats like it and that is what is important to them.
In fact, that is probably the most troubling aspect of the treaty for me. If it is ratified by the U.S. Senate it will put immense power in the hands of the UN and that is exactly what our President wants. The loss of U.S. sovereignty to
an international body is a recognized goal of his. It is important to remember that once a treaty is signed and ratified it becomes the supreme law of our nation, and can’t be reversed or modified by a future President or Congress
except by a Constitutional amendment.
Senator Kerry is planning to try and bring the treaty to a vote in the next few weeks. Everyone reading this blog should immediately contact their Senators and demand that they vote against it. As of the latest count I have seen we need at least seven more Republican Senators to come out in opposition to it in order to ensure its defeat.
The Republican Senators that as of May 27thhave so far failed to do this are: Lamar Alexander (TN), Kelly Ayotte (NH), Scott Brown (MA), Thad Cochran (MS), Susan Collins (ME),Bob Corker (TN), Michael Enzi (WY), Lindsey Graham (SC), Chuck Grassley (IA), Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), Johnny Isakson (GA), Mike Johanns (NE), Mark Kirk (IL), Richard Lugar (IN),John McCain (AZ), Mitch McConnell (KY), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Rob Portman (OH), Olympia Snowe (ME), and Patrick Toomey, (PA). (Note, I have seen unconfirmed reports that Senators McConnell and Corker are very close to coming out in opposition.) They should be immediately contacted along with all the others on this list. In fact everyone should contact their Senators to find out where they stand.