President Reagan so strongly opposed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that he didn’t just not sign the treaty. He very publicly refused to sign it. He also dismissed the State Department<\/a> staff that helped negotiate it. And in case anyone didn’t get the message, he sent special envoy Donald Rumsfeld on a globe-trotting mission to explain his opposition and urge other nations to follow suit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I don\u2019t recall this, but I\u2019m not surprised by it. The State Department has long had a tradition of protecting everyone\u2019s interests BUT the United States and Americans in general. Meese continues:<\/p>\n But with the treaty again under consideration by the Senate, it’s important to note that Reagan’s objections to it were anything but trivial. In his view, articulated long before he entered the Oval Office, its fatal flaw was as great as it was simple: LOST posed a direct threat to American sovereignty.<\/p>\n In a 1978 radio address titled “Ocean Mining,” he asserted that “no nat[ional] interest of ours could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth’s surface over to the Third World.” He added: “No one has ruled out the idea of a [Law of the Sea] treaty \u2014 one which makes sense \u2014 but after long years of fruitless negotiating, it became apparent that the underdeveloped nations who now control the General Assembly were looking for a free ride at our expense, again.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Gee whiz, the UN trying to form a one world government at the expense of the United States? Who would have believed it? Well, except for the majority of Americans of course.<\/p>\n What had begun as an effort to codify certain navigational rights had, during the course of extended negotiations, morphed into a “constitution for the oceans” that would push nations further along the road to a world government. Of particular concern was Part XI of the treaty, which created supra-national executive, legislative and judicial mechanisms to regulate the mineral resources of the world’s oceans.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now I am looking at the section Mr. Meese is speaking about and it is rather frightening. Here are a few bits for you to look at. I do apologize that it\u2019s in bureaucratic gobbledygook, but you know what bureaucrats are like when given writing implements.<\/p>\n SECTION 2. PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE AREA<\/p>\n Article136<\/p>\n Common heritage of mankind<\/p>\n The Area and its resources are the common heritage of mankind.<\/p>\n In other words, all your resources, America, belong to the ruling elite<\/em><\/span> people of the world. It gets better.<\/p>\n Article138<\/p>\n General conduct of States in relation to the Area<\/p>\n The general conduct of States in relation to the Area shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Part, the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations and other rules of international law in the interests of maintaining peace and security and promoting international cooperation and mutual understanding.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now if I understand this, it says that \u201cWhat you want America, means nothing. You will do our bidding since we are smarter than you ignorant Americans.\u201d Yeah I can see why Reagan wasn\u2019t happy with the treaty. But Wait! It gets better!<\/p>\n Article139<\/p>\n Responsibility to ensure compliance and liability for damage<\/p>\n Now if I understand this, it means that our legal system will be supplanted by UN Diktats. I\u2019ll be honest and say I\u2019m not sure about this section. However I have no doubt about the next one!<\/p>\n Article140<\/p>\n Benefit of mankind<\/p>\n And there you have it. We would lose all our sovereignty over our own minerals and other resources. This, as other have said, is the wet dream of collectivists everywhere. Considering that the USSR was still in existence, this disaster of a treaty and who it is aimed it doesn\u2019t surprise me. And if you think we will be able to use our navy to defend ourselves? Think again.<\/p>\n Article141<\/p>\n Use of the Area exclusively for peaceful purposes<\/p>\n The Area shall be open to use exclusively for peaceful purposes by all States, whether coastal or land-locked, without discrimination and without prejudice to the other provisions of this Part.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n You dirty evil Americans can just park your carriers and forget about blowing your enemies into small pieces.<\/p>\n If you are a true masochist, you can read the entire treaty in it\u2019s current version here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Mr. Meese continues:<\/p>\n One of these institutions \u2014 the International Seabed Authority \u2014 is assigned the power to regulate deep seabed mining and development on the extended continental shelf. In return for “assuring” those rights, the ISA would receive royalties from gas and oil exploration. Those revenues would then be redistributed to poorer countries.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In other words, the royalties don\u2019t go to the sovereign nation, but to a pack of corrupt UN bureaucrats. This was to be a nice revenue stream to keep the kleptocracy in champagne and caviar. This was one of the things that bothered President Reagan but not the only thing. From Mr. Meese:<\/p>\n Those who claim that the U.S. is out of step with LOST need to know that in 1983, after rejecting the treaty, Reagan issued an “ocean policy statement” affirming the U.S. intent to abide by most of the pact’s provisions, such as navigational rights. After all, most of them merely recapitulate rights established by customary international law. Reagan’s statement also proclaimed that the U.S. had a 200-nautical-mile “exclusive economic zone” in conformity with the treaty. No foreign nation has challenged the existence or breadth of that U.S. zone.<\/p>\n The statement specifically took exception to the treaty’s deep seabed mining provisions. Some have claimed those provisions were the only ones that troubled Reagan. But his diary entry of June 29, 1982, makes it clear that the problems went far beyond that: “Decided in [National Security Council] meeting \u2014 will not sign ‘Law of the Sea’ treaty even without seabed mining provisions.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Reagan tried for months to renegotiate the treaty, but to no avail.<\/p>\n The man who tried to renegotiate the treaty was Ambassador James Malone. In 1984, he explained why Reagan considered LOST to be unacceptable: “The treaty’s provisions were intentionally designed to promote a new world order \u2014 a form of global collectivism \u2026 that seeks ultimately the redistribution of the world’s wealth through a complex system of manipulative central economic planning and bureaucratic coercion.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In the 90\u2019s, that paragon of virtue, Bill Clinton had his people negotiate a few \u201cfixes.\u201d Mr. Malone had something to say about that:<\/p>\n Eleven years later, Malone declared: “This remains the case today.” Despite the claims that the 1994 agreement “fixed” the offending deep seabed provisions, the “new and improved” pact remained fundamentally objectionable.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Over the years, Democrats have pushed to ratify the treaty, and a few Republicans have been more then happy to assist them. The Republicans who were pushing this treaty all had one thing in common. They were\/are big government RINO\u2019s who have more in common with the Democrats then with most of the people they purport to represent. One of the loudest mouths on the Republican side is soon to be former Senator Richard Lugar ((Lugar: We Need Law of the Sea)). Lugar, once he became a member of the Senate, drank deeply from the Kool-Aid tub. There were many reasons his constituents told him to take a hike. I can\u2019t say this was one of them, but if they knew and understood what this treaty would do, they wold have booted that moron out a long time ago.<\/p>\n Recently, Our Fearless Golfer, SCoaMF Supreme, Der Fubar himself, started trying to ram this through the senate. Now in order to pass a treaty, it needs to be voted for by a two thirds majority. This would be 67 members of the Senate would be required to approve.<\/p>\n Today, Senator James DeMint announced that he had 34 votes to oppose this treaty, killing it. Here\u2019s the story from the Washington Times<\/a>:<\/p>\n Critics of the treaty argue that it would subject U.S. sovereignty to an international body, require American businesses to pay royalties for resource exploitation and subject the U.S. to unwieldy environmental regulations as defined.<\/p>\n The list of treaty opponents has been growing, and on Monday, Sen. Jim DeMint<\/a>, South Carolina Republican and a leader of efforts to block it, announced that four more Republicans have said that they would vote against ratification: Sens. Mike Johanns<\/a> of Nebraska, Kelly Ayotte<\/a> of New Hampshire, Rob Portman<\/a> of Ohio and Johnny Isakson<\/a> of Georgia. \u201cWith 34 senators against the misguided treaty, LOST will not be ratified by the Senate<\/a> this year,\u201d Mr. DeMint<\/a> said in a statement on his website.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That ANY Republicans would support this treaty tells me that they do not have the interests of the United States first and foremost in their minds. They need to explain to their constituents why they are supporting this thing. I suspect most would try and duck the issue.<\/p>\n As for the Democrats? I expect no less from them. The destruction of the United States and the subjugation of Americans to the UN Bluehats has been their goal for decades. Why Bill Clinton is angling for the General Secretary\u2019s ((UN – Secretary-General Clinton?)) job when the current drone\u2019s ((Ban Ki-moon<\/a>)) term is up. He can\u2019t go any higher in the United States so obviously, he wants to start raping teen girls and pillaging UN bank accounts<\/em><\/span> help the world become a better place. Being able to control the world\u2019s resources would give him huge power to reward the \u201cFriends of Bill & Hillary.\u201d It wouldn\u2019t do much for the United States.<\/p>\n Thankfully for Senator DeMint and the others, this treaty will remain dead. However, there is still a risk from the RINO\u2019s in the Senate. John Kerry is doing his best to ram this POS through.<\/p>\n But Mr. Kerry<\/a>\u2019s office dismissed Mr. DeMint<\/a>\u2019s tally, saying that vote counts taken months before a proposed vote are \u201cjust a snapshot of where our politics are in this instant.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNo letter or whip count changes the fact that rock-ribbed Republican businesses and the military and every living Republican secretary of state say that this needs to happen, and that\u2019s why it\u2019s a matter of \u2018when\u2019 not \u2018if\u2019 for the Law of the Sea,\u201d Kerry<\/a> spokeswoman Jodi Seth<\/a> said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n John Kerry is a traitor. He was treating with the enemy when he came back from Vietnam. He has never released his discharge papers and the rumor is they would show he was to get a dishonorable discharge or less than honorable discharge, but thanks to Jimmy Carter\u2019s amnesty, that DD was upgraded to a general discharge.<\/p>\n Elections mean things. If your representative doesn\u2019t support the sovereignty, get rid of them and vote for someone who will. I would also ask Mittens how he stands on this. I don\u2019t think he\u2019s taken a position yet. (Big surprise there)<\/p>\n Remember in November!<\/p>\n Thatisall<\/p>\n ~The Angry Webmaster~<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Good day all, I have a rather tough one here. It\u2019s the Law of The Sea Treaty, or LOST as it has come to be known. This treaty was purported to establish establishes a system for resolving disputes in international waters and recognizes sovereign rights over a country’s continental shelf out to 200 nautical miles and beyond if the country can provide evidence to substantiate its claims. The United States has abided by the rules of the treaty since President Ronald Reagan’s administration. Continue reading \n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/07\/UN-Bluehat.jpg?resize=117%2C117\" "\\"UN")
<\/a>You need to find out how your senator plans to vote on this and hold their feet to the fire. If you are a stockholder in a company that supports this, you need to question the management. If this things manages to pass, the United States may end up with UN Bluehats stopping our fishing boats and arresting the crew. Think it can\u2019t happen? Think again.<\/p>\n![\"1](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/plugins\/wp-postratings\/images\/stars_crystal\/rating_on.gif?w=640&ssl=1\" "\\"1")
![\"2](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/plugins\/wp-postratings\/images\/stars_crystal\/rating_off.gif?w=640&ssl=1\" "\\"2")
(1<\/strong> votes, average: 1.00<\/strong> out of 5)
<\/span><\/span>![](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/plugins\/wp-postratings\/images\/loading.gif?resize=16%2C16&ssl=1\")
Loading...<\/span>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"