What *actually* may concern me about tonight’s New Hampshire results.
You should keep an eye out on the turnout in New Hampshire.Read More »
From the diaries by Neil
One of the problems we find in politics these days is the rash of bills with rather Orwellian titles. The best example in recent years is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (you know, Obamacare). But fortunately, some things have titles that are all too appropriate. The Law of the Sea Treaty is one of them, which is rather fittingly known as LOST. Michelle Malkin, writing for the National Review, describes just what it is:
The persistent transnationalists who drafted LOST favor creation of a massive United Nations bureaucracy that would draw ocean boundaries, impose environmental regulations, and restrict business on the high seas. They’ve tinkered with the document obsessively since the late Sixties, enlisted Presidents Clinton and Bush, and recruited soon-to-depart GOP Sen. Dick Lugar to their crusade. Ignore the mushy save-the-planet rhetoric. Here’s the bottom line: Crucial national-security decisions about our naval and drilling operations would be subject to the vote of 162 other signatories, including Cuba, China, and Russia.
The current treaty at issue has been in existence since 1982, and as she notes, President Reagan, in another display of his wisdom, rejected it. However, that hasn’t stopped it from periodically rising from the dead over the years.
Now, it seems to be back again. It’s bad enough that Obama wants to redistribute our wealth. Now, he wants to redistribute our sovereignty. Though the Wall Street Journal reports it apparently won’t be subjected to a vote in the Senate until after the election (you can’t do anything controversial in an election year, after all), that won’t stop the Democrats from trying to line up support for it.
Luckily, we’ve got allies in the Senate. Orrin Hatch and John Cornyn second Mrs. Malkin’s economic concerns. Meanwhile, Senators Inhofe, Sessions, and Wicker explain the national security implications of the treaty, chief of which is the fact that it impedes our Navy from doing essentially the same thing the treaty proposes–protecting the high seas and international shipping lanes.For an in depth breakdown of the treaty, The National Center for Public Policy Research’s David Ridenour has posted one here. You can read the treaty for yourself here.
We’ve got to stop this. Economically, we can’t afford it, and our national security can’t bear it. Get in touch with your Senators and tell them not to support this treaty. We need just one third of the Senate plus one to defeat it. We can do this, especially if we take back the Senate this November.