The vote on LOST: American sovereignty on the line; Vote–17-4, LOST moves to the Senate floor
Update 11:44am Eastern. The vote: 17-4. LOST moves to the Senate floor. Stay tuned.
And dial your Senators: 202-224-3121.
Update 11:25am Eastern. Joe Biden rejects Sen. David Vitter’s request for an additional hearing on LOST. Biden attacks Frank Gaffney and Fred Smith for their opposition to the treaty. Biden moves to hold a vote on Vitter’s motion; interrupted by a few objections. Sens. Coleman and Isakson object to Vitter’s motion despite their questions about LOST. Vitter withdraws his motion. Sen. Murkowski speaks up to support LOST.
Sen. Coleman voices concern about LOST on security grounds. “Are we in a war today? Is it a war on terror? Does that have implication here? Dispute settlement mechanisms would allow international agencies to take action against US Navy…cites Jeremy Rabkin’s analysis. Coleman opposes moving LOST to the Senate floor.
Biden is waiting for Sen. Cardin. Remainder of agenda voted on, passes. Calls roll for LOST vote…
Update 11:07am Eastern. No quorum yet. Joe Biden makes an opening statement about LOST.
***
Over the past several weeks, I’ve blogged about the Law of the Sea Treaty. The vote on this sovereignty-undermining deal takes place at 11:00am today in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Blogger Rob Bluey writes: “Keep an eye on Senators John Sununu (N.H.), George Voinovich (Ohio), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Johnny Isakson (Ga.).” He’s put together a YouTube playlist of LOST commentary. Heritage Foundation resources here.
National Review lambastes the Bush administration for supporting the push America to submit to supra-national agencies under U.N. control. It’s part of an alarming pattern:
Why do this?
Well, it seems to be part of a pattern. That pattern includes also the astonishing decision of the Bush White House to seek the overriding of Texas law on the death penalty in deference to the World Court. What we are seeing is an outbreak of Tranzi-ism in the administration. Cowed by accusations of earlier “unilateralism,” the administration now bends over backwards to placate the “international community.” The permanent bureaucracy at the U.S. State Department has long been in the grip of this tendency. Since the departure of John Bolton, our diplomatic officialdom seems to have kept a pliant administration, including both president and secretary of state, under its sway. As a result we may soon be relying on a U.N. bureaucracy to maintain the freedom of the seas essential to our trade, commerce, and military alliances.
No doubt this policy is cheaper than a larger Navy — but it is no substitute for one.
WND adds:
The U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote today on the ratification of the United Nations’ Law of the Sea Treaty, a wide-ranging measure critics say will grant the U.N. control of the 70 percent of the planet under its oceans.
With Democrats in nearly unanimous agreement with the treaty and the Bush administration behind it, it will be up to a handful of determined Republican senators to derail it.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated he will oppose the plan, and other senators have indicated they have heard from constituents who are afraid of the proposal.
“In the same way that the people prevailed in the Senate in the matter of defeating the illegal alien amnesty bill, it is entirely possible that the U.N. power grab known officially as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) could be rejected,” one commentator noted.
“If you want a U.N. on steroids, you want the Law of the Sea Treaty,” Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., has said.
A two-thirds vote is required for approval, meaning only 34 “no” votes can kill it.
Stand by for the vote…
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Riehl World View
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » ALERT:American sovereignty on the line; LOST MOVES TO SENATE FOR A VOTE
- Bluey Blog | Robert B. Bluey » Four Republicans Reject Law of the Sea Treaty
- Political Napalm » Blog Archive » LOST & S-CHIP: 2 Acronyms You’ll Live to Regret
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: United Nations
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
Stop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristLegal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?JustOneMinute
» Getting Ready For The TurkeyRiehl World View
» Uncle Jimbo Re-deploys In War With AllahSister Toldjah
» WaPo and NYT to Obama: We love ya, you stylish deep thinkerPundit & Pundette
» Hiding the decline: Deniers made them do itWeekly Standard
» GOP Opens up 7-Point Lead on Congressional Ballot, Obama Numbers Dive on Health Care, Gitmo, and KSM
Perhaps our friends in the Senate need to look over a very old document written by a bunch of “Dead white guys.”
Excerpt:
They have looked that very old document over and they’ve found that it’s alive and has given them the power to do whatever they want.
What in the hell has happened to the President I voted for.
I’m all for this as soon as the U.N. can call the war on terror anything other than a “situation.”
Not likely to happen and neither is my support of turning over our waters to the U.N.
“No national interest of the United States can justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth’s surface over to the Third World.” Ronald Reagan
——–
You know something is in the “water” when a conservative can agree with Ron Paul on something!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul170.html
Your opposition to the Law of the Sea treaty reminds me of a bachelor party. You’re lamenting a loss of freedom. But treaties, like marriages, are agreements in which you give up some freedoms in return for some commitments.
Foreign policy experts, both liberal and conservative (save the radical right that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing), support this treaty. It is good for America.
One of the points in having a strong Navy is that you can deploy anywhere in the world, and that ship or squadron IS the United States. Generally, we have always respected the territorial limit of 3 and/or 12 miles, and stayed outside those limits.
That is what this is all about – not so much the Sovreignty of the Seas, but forcing us to remain outside the often claimed 200-mile territorial limit. Stopping us from taking the might of the United States to wherever it’s needed most at the most. It’s another surrender tactic.
For ACHefty’s benefit, I spent a lot of time on a Gator Freighter, and this so-called treaty would keep us from putting you guys ashore whenever and wherever needed – but you already know that.
I guess the real question here is how many ways can we wave the white flag? All this leftist propaganda reminds me of an old joke: “Q: What’s the first thing they teach in (insert name of country here)’s OCS? A: how to surrender (pause for effect) in 47 languages!”
We need to be reminded of John Paul Jones: “I have not yet begun to fight!”
Never surrender. Freedom comes with a terrible cost – it is bought with blood, and my freedom is not yours to give away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beb1YPSUX-c
How have we come to this? After they hand over control of our nation to the UN and destroy the USA, we have the polar ice caps left to “migrate” to and form another country. We can take the original Constitution with us since the USA is not interested in what it really stands for. We could even form a government by the people – for the people. What a concept.
Well said, cpodug!!
There you have it. LGM says it is good for America. Now we have confirmation it is a disaster.
I wonder if you feel this way about wiretapping? hmmmmmm
Soap the liberal zoo feeding time isnt for another 30 minutes.
What do we get in return lgm?
AJ,
Sorry but he is confirmation. I love this:
America + UN = marriage
HACK
LGM, out patrolling the blogosphere.
Funny how liberals can keep their BDS under control for policies which “you give up some freedoms in return for some commitments.” Either you have BDS or you don’t. You can’t be a little pregnant… Consistency folks.
So, Buck I, still a Biden fan now that he is pushing this LOST hard?
Any way the Dems and Rinos like. The Constitution, to them, is a quaint historic document to be ignored or misinterpreted as needed in dealing the complicated issues we face today, by which only their wisdom can truly free us.
There already is a “Law of the Sea”. It’s called the United States Navy. I trust a Carrier Battle Group commander a hell of a lot more than an “International Seabed Authority” run by Chavez, Castro, and Ahminthemoodforjihad. What would this “authority” do about North Korea shipping nuclear materials and skilled personnel to Syria? Nothing. That’s what.
Just wait until our offshore energy companies and fishing interests get sued by the world. It will never end. Global Carbon Tax. Fishing rights. Commercial shipping lanes. We are handling this well by ourselves. Screw the U.N.!
Eric_CharlotteNC (#13) asks:
– mining (among other things).
30 pcs of silver (#15) asks:
An interesting retort! Maybe wiretapping, like treaties and marriages, should be voluntary (except with a warrant): “This call may be recorded. If you do not wish it to be recorded, you may hang up and never straighten out your credit card bill.”
It’s obivious lgm is still ignorant of the way wiretapping works. There I go feeding the liberal zoo 25 minutes early. shame on me.
Legacy Building Time. Always dangerous for America.
#19 – lgm
We do not get mining, among other things. We get the privilege of having our mining companies taxed and told where they can and cannot mine. Same for fishing, same for the right of innocent passage of our warships.
As someone who spent over half of his life “keeping the sea lanes of democracy open”, I can’t see how this treaty will do anything but subject us to the whims of a bunch of dirt poor, third world, landlocked wannabees who can’t produce anything for themselves but have to take from the successful entrepeneurs of the world.
Wait are you saying that Isakson is waffling or may even be in favor of this bill? I am at the wrong pooter/work place right now to contact him, I think we are getting to be old friends after the Shamesty debacle, safely that is.
Well I will try to figure out a way. I didn’t know he was waffling. Damn, you can never take your eyes off of these guys can you?
Please tell me what would be the point of the wiretapping if the person(s) who is (are) being wiretapped know about it? It would defeat the purpose, would it not?
I’ll sum up with:
Managed to email Isakson, FWIW.
30 pcs – forgot to add the corollary to that: “If you aren’t willing to pay the price, you don’t deserve it.”
The conservatives have twisted, wobbled, and still continue signing onto things that will surely get their constituents in a knot. The libs have played it beautifully and I’m predicting a landslide Nov.’08 for the Dems. I’ve not ever witnessed so many upset/disgusted conservatives – and fail to see the magic in any candidate worth my vote. Bush has been taken over by Kucinich’s aliens.
I bet all 17 for had (D) next to their name.
Can we get a link to the vote?
lgm, typically talks in platitudes and now engages us with his witty analogies to further his rehetoric.
OK then, the US is our good friend the bridegroom. What most of the people here agree on is that they wish to stop this marriage as the bride-to-be is an evil siren, who is going to lead him into danger.
There, I even threw in the nautical lore to match the theme. Now please go away.
I’m still in agreement. CPODUG.
#20 – ajmontana
Haven’t seen your buddy toolshed around lately. Did he go away mad, or just go away?
(In Arabic) “This call for fatwah may be recorded. If you do not wish to have infidels know of your plan to kill thousands of innocents, please hang up, or to hear this warning in English, please press 1.”
I heard him and snausage are dating JS.
This isthe President you voted for. He is part of the Globalist Cabal that controls the White House.
Phase One: Bush I
Phase Two: Bill Clinton (terms 1 and 2)
Phase Three: Bush II (terms 1 and 2)
Phase Four: Queen Hillary (Terms 1 and 2)
Essential to the Globalist agenda is to fully discredit the US military, as though it needs to be under the control of the UN (a gang of Arabist dupes).
It wont pass despite the Globalist power in the equation to take this country down.
No other thesis explains the assault on the US.
What would John Bolton do?
Here’s what I think is going on:
Total war is about to erupt in the Caspian region of the Asian subcontinent.
Prize: a 4 trillion dollar oil payday.
UN is afraid the US will pull out of the Circus Tent and toss the Circus Tent out of New York. Why? Because most of those mudhens are in cahoots with each other and we will be pounding their nexus down to their collective solar plexus. And they know it. It is time to get out of Dodge and have offshore security.
So it comes up with an unconscionable proposal it knows won’t pass, but Dhimmicrats and Bush put up like they like it to make nicey nice.
Then the Treaty gets tanked (it only takes 34 Repubs to sink this? lol cool- tank this puppy.)and the real whoring begins.
The US pays bribes to the entire Security Council in form of foreign aid so these pigs can feed and fuel their own countries.
It’s a shakedown scam. And it is an old way of doing business by Department of State and the Clintonista Pentagon.
Bush isn’t going to put a stop to it because he still thinks the same way- even though he has turned Iraq into al-Qaeda’s Vietnam. But he is so hypersensitive to Left criticism about not “working with our allies” (French idiom for selling our country out to the UN “security” council).
The treaty wont pass (and we should ensure it doesn’t) but be on the look out for large payouts to these scum bags under the “foreign aid” ledger.
PS: These scum bags need the money now because war in the Middle East is about to escalate 10 fold. Say goodbye to Sadr City and half of Tehran. So they want some cash up front because they are going to need it.
I read an article years ago that both Bushes were in some secret society at YALE that promotes a one world government.
They are very select in the members…..many in high powered positions over the years have joined.
They cannot discuss anything about this secret group.
It is in NO WAY productive in promoting conservative values.
Do some research and you’ll find out for yourselves.
Igm, this is mainly aimed at you, you seem from my readings here that you are a teacher. So you posses knowledge, but that’s not the same as Wisdom. You say we would get mining rights and such in return? What good are they with no force to secure them?
If you backlash with “Well there won’t be other Navy’s on the globe” then let me point out it doesn’t take much to make a bomb, RPG, or Machinegun and mount them on a speed boat. OR In the case of 1936 Germany a nation can build up a navy in secret and take those resources when others have no means to stop them. Afterall China has built two new SSBNs (one a new class) right under the USN’s nose, in the modern High Tech age!
Our Great fleets will be limited to coastal deployment, and in the false hope of Peace, the fleet will grow small to the point that its reach would be easy to overcome and destroy. Currently we have no enemy capable of such, but remember the British were once our mortal enemies. I have no desire to end up with my head on a chopping block waiting for an axe to come down on it. Personally I love military power and advantage. May sound arcane, but remember if we do this it will hold true. Why buy what you can take? Human Nature is capable of anything. I leave you all to your thoughts this with a quote,
From Time immemorial, the purpose of a navy has been to influence and sometimes decide, issues on land. This was so with the Greeks of antiquity; the Romans, who created a navy to defeat Carthage; the Spanish, whose Armada tried and failed to conquer England; and, most eminently, in the Atlantic and Pacific during two world wars. The sea has always given men inexpensive transport and ease of communication over long distances. It has also provided concealment, because being over the horizon meant being out of sight and effectively beyond reach. The Sea has supplied mobility, capability, and support throughout Western history, and those failing in the Sea-power test – notably Alexander, Napoleon and Hitler also failed the longevity one.
Edward L. Beach.
Thursday, 1 Nov. 2007.
So, what happened on this?