By now, most of my readers have no doubt come to some conclusions on what this blog stands for, in the form of two very important recurrent themes. Individual freedom and national sovereignty are those two. And right now, there is one piece of legislation currently in the Senate, which will curtail much of our sovereignty.
We can complain about tax hikes all day long and much of it is certainly justifiable. Just the mere mention of them will raise the ire of the vast majority of people that pay them. In fact, in some instances, you can really get a huge backlash in the polls if the hikes are large enough.
But when you consider that the average American has not even heard of the Law Of The Sea Treaty (LOST) - much less taken a position pro or con on it - it certainly makes one wonder how people process information in this day and age.
Here, we have an elected body of officials that (for the most part) had no part in the meat grinder, known as WWII. They cannot tap that as an experience that forms the foundation of the judgments they make. Thye simply do not remember, because they were either too young or not alive yet.
We have people that have turned a blind eye to the storm that is currently rising in the Middle East, about to throw away our national freedoms on the high seas, and submit our forces that travel on or over it to the UN. Which does nothing for the countries that seek their own rights to self-determination, but rather strengthens those that seek to curtail individual liberties.
I am not alone in my assessment of this bogus piece of work. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) thinks it's a bad idea and explains why, here in this op-ed piece. I highly suggest that if you have not given this issue much thought, you start researching the pros and cons objectively. And this piece, by Inhofe, is a good place to start.
3 comments:
When Senator Inhofe suggests that “our enemy” is waiting in the wings for the United States Senate to ratify this treaty, he isn’t kidding. Says Inhofe, “No matter how right we may be in our conduct on the high seas, this treaty will give our enemies the opportunity to stand in front of the United Nations and criticize the United States for its unwillingness to fulfill its treaty obligations. We do not need a treaty that puts our standing in the world in this predicament. Our enemies are waiting for this opportunity.”
What he appears to be confused about (but not after he reads these comments) is that the United Nations IS our enemy. In the words of John Bolton, former Ambassador to the United Nations, “. . . for the United States today and for the foreseeable future — in the areas of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction — we have to be greatly concerned about. But if you look at the U.N.'s record on terrorism and on proliferation, this is another sad story of ineffectiveness. And it goes to the point that the U.N. is never going to be any better than its membership . . .”
If nations act in their own perceived best interests, and I think this is true, under what circumstances should the United States EVER allow an international body to decide issues that are clearly matters of its own sovereignty? The answer should be patently simple: none. Mr. Bolton believes that the UN is out of control, not to be trusted, and a waste of money. I agree. There is nothing accomplished in the UN that cannot also be addressed, more effectively, through the exchange of Ambassadors. At best, the UN is a duplicitous and wasteful organization.
As usual, you’ve done good work here, LA.
Mustang,
First of all--thanks for your vote of confidence.
//There is nothing accomplished in the UN that cannot also be addressed, more effectively, through the exchange of Ambassadors. At best, the UN is a duplicitous and wasteful organization.//
As was the case with the League of Nations, this international body is headed for quite a disastrous fall, someday real soon. Nations send their ambassadors here to participate in meetings, parties, and other useless wastes of time. They run up parking fines, their offspring (and other family members) commit horrible crimes in which they cannot be prosecuted for, and for what? So a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats can live the high life in a chic metropolitan area, doing whatever they damn well please.
I say we kick the UN out of NYC and allow them to move to Europe and allow these bozos to stink up their milieu.
Never heard of this treaty. We already have a law of the sea, established through the 1958 Geneva Conventions and the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. They've worked just fine. What's this all about? Sure smells fishy, pardon the pun.
Post a Comment