are we LOST or just blind, deaf & stupid?

can someone please explain to me why the united states of america is even considering ratification of the "law of the sea treaty" (lost)?  this just makes no sense to me.  none.

gabrielle reilly does a great job of presenting both sides of the article and it's a great place to start.  but there is (as always) so much more to know. 

in his 2004 state of the union address president bush said "america will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."  but that is precisely the position the united states will be in if we ratify lost.

i honestly wonder if the president, or any proponent of the treaty in congress, has even read all 202 pages of this thing.  my guess is not - if they had, surely they would no longer be a "for" this thing.

currently, the dems are in nearly unanimous agreement with the president that they should vote in favor of ratification.  in fact, there are only a handful of republicans opposing it.  we need to make certain that they stand determinedly against this or it will get the 2/3 vote it needs in the upper house to pass.  and based on the behavior of some senators this just isn't a priority for them.

according to cliff kincaid in an article for the national ledger there were two republicans, john sununu (r-n.h.) and norm coleman (r-mn) who were just too busy to attend the senate foreign relations meeting on this treaty.  however, both of them did find time to attend a photo op with bono (of u2 fame) the next day.  now how's that for priorities?!?

in speaking of richard lugar (rino-in) - who managed to make the photo op and both meetings of the committee, mr. kincaid had this to say: "Lugar is a globalist who has been pushing UNCLOS [lost] for many years. He not only believes in more foreign aid; he favors getting the U.S. entangled in more international treaties."

back in 2004 the senate, led by senate foreign relations chairman richard lugar, attempted to ram the treaty approval through before opposition could be garnered against it.  however, americans rose up in protest against this treaty and (much like with the  illegal alien amnesty) its proponents in the senate were shocked.

once again, this is happening.  the president is pushing for acceptance within the next three weeks.  the hope is that it will be a done deal before anyone (read "the american public") knows that something is going down.  we simply must stop it.  check out this post from libertypost.org  there's a ton of information on this and we need to get everyone educated.

writing for the patriot post in last week's digest edition, oliver north says " before casting a vote to ratify lost, all 100 senators should read article 314 of this onerous treaty and article ii, section 2 of the u.s. constitution.  the un-crafted document specifies that amendments to the treaty can be adopted - and therefore enforced - without the consent of any signatory.  yet our constitution requires that two-thirds of our senate concur in any treaty.  do 67 members of this senate now want to surrender that authority?"

don from over at american power suggests that we all take a look at this article from the wall street journal.  it ties in quite nicely to this post and i encourage all of you to read it as well.

to go along with this lost debacle, dems in the house seem to be working hard to make the american apparatus targeting terrorism both deaf and blind.  this is according to  senator kit bond (r-mo) in an interview with bill kessler of newsmax.  and he's not the only one saying this.

in opposition to the "restore act" (responsible electronic surveillance that is overseen, reviewed and respected) deputy whip eric cantor (r-va) stated on his website that he planned on introducing an amendment to the bill "to clarify that nothing in the bill shall be construed to prohibit the intelligence community from conducting surveillance needed to prevent Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or any other foreign terrorist organization…from attacking the United States or any United States person.”  i believe it was an attempt to force the dems into casting a vote for or against the defense of america and americans.

thankfully, for the time being at least, this bastardization of fisa has been pulled.  are they that opposed to our intelligence agencies being able to fight the terrorists that they decided to pull the plug on the vote?

i posited over at right truth earlier this week that "the entire dnc is in cahoots with al qaeda to hinder the intelligence gathering" effort.  and, although some think that this is all hyperbole, i stand by my statement.

in 1776 samuel adams said "it does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."  these are sage words and the converse is also true.  enemies of freedom can also prevail by setting brushfires of fear, or political correctness or dhimmitude, or what have in the minds of the masses.

at least that's my way of thinking - what do you think?

Comments

[Goat]

Great post Heidi, I just don't understand how an American pol could support this loss of soveriegnity, its a travesty and probably unconstitutional.

[heidianne jackson]

thanks, goat!

i would have to agree that it's unconstitutional - as i recall from my history classes, in order to change any of the provisions set forth in the constitution an amendment would be required. not that our congress adheres to any of THOSE rules!!!

[In_spired]

Heidi,

I will be back later to read your post. I just wanted to say thanks for visiting my blog..."Love for Home". Yesterday was the first time I had heard Kenny Chesney's song "Don't Blink". I fell in love with it. And, I'm at the age now where I don't dare blink...time is passing faster than ever.

Come back to visit me sometime. It's a pretty laid back place at my blogging home. I try to stay away from a lot that is stressful. But there is a link to Burning Zeal where I have a blogging partner, crabby...that's where you'll find all the whining, complaining, and political stuff.

[heidianne jackson]

thanks for visiting - i added you to my favorites and will visit as often as time permits. i'm probably more into the stress stuff than i should be, but i just can't help myself...

[Americaneocon]

A Law of the Sea Treaty would be a disaster. There was a great article on this last week in the WSJ:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010705

[heidianne jackson]

thanks for the link don! this is a great article and ties nicely in. i'm going to paste the link in the body to make certain everyone sees it.

[the tapper]

:Excellent read. I venture to say most of our elected officials are not looking out for the best interest of the United States. Look at their approval ratings that proves something. They cannot be trusted with the business of runniing this country. They are looking toward a North American Union. That is the big plan. If that doesn't push us into a more international law arena, I don't know what it is. That naturally include Maritime law, does it not......Nough said. stay well....

[Angel]

hiya Heidi!...this is pathetic..you are spot on!
"america will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." ..have we no right to defend our very nation!
p.s. added ya to my blogroll..email anytime!:)

[heidianne jackson]

excellent points, tapper and thanks for stopping by. i can't believe we are working so hard to give up our sovereignty. we need to kick the whole lot of them out with very few exceptions.

[heidianne jackson]

we don't if the dems and the world body get their way...

thanks for the honor of adding me to your blogroll!!

[Debbie]

Don't you love Ollie North. He is so quiet, thoughtful, strong, and when he writes or says something, I always try to listen. He's logical.

This LOST is the craziest thing I've heard of and why anyone would be for it is beyond me.

I think you are right about the driving force in and behind the DNC. Their actions make them appear anti-American. What other explanation is there?

[heidianne jackson]

thanks for the visit, deb. i do love ollie, he's all of those things you've described and more!

we all need to call our senators and make it known that we do NOT support this abdication of our sovereignty!

[OMMAG]

It's good policy to be very careful in the area of international agreements.

No nation should ever submit to having their own territories put under the control of other states.
If the LOST agreements are so flawed it makes me wonder whether they are good for any nation. Perhaps too much muddying of the waters .... but is that not how the UN likes to do things!

That being said .... the US does have a responsibility to undertake mutually defensible treaties and agreements with other nations .... and to stick to them.
Let's get the stinking socialists at the UN out of the picture and get back to having responsible nations setting the agenda...

[heidianne jackson]

so true, patrick. but first we have to have responsible people in leadership positions who are responsible and not willing (or in a hurry) to give up our country to everyone else in the world...

[Sandy]

Heidi, you asked if we are just blind, deaf & stupid.

Sadly, the answer may be yes for a large portion of our House and Senate.

President Bush is beginning to worry me with some of his decisions lately. I did not like the way he backed the amnesty bill and don't like his seeming to support of this treaty.

[heidianne jackson]

thanks for visiting and posting, sandy.

i am worried about bush. he throws to the democrat side way to often for my tastes. i'm thankful he vetoed the schip expansion, but he is fully opposed to closing the borders and fully in support of lost. not good at all.

[Paul Champagne]

Does the the term soveriegn seas mean something different now than it did when I was in school. There are already International Maritime laws that we have signed onto and enforce. This treaty should just get L.O.S.T.

[heidianne jackson]

ah, yes, paul - valid point. but this isn't about enforcing what's there, it's about the global world order. it's about taking america down a peg or two and making us have only one vote against the many who are against us.

[Jaigeaffecy]

Executive ability is deciding quickly and getting somebody else to do
the work.
-- John G. Pollard

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://jaynesweeneyoe.easyjournal.com