by Michael Connelly
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 27th
have 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), Murkowski, Lisa, (AK), Portman, Rob (OH), Snowe,
Olympia (ME), and Toomey, Patrick (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.
Michael
Connelly
