My question is, why aren’t all GOP Senators against this boondoggle? We know why Democrats love it: it puts quite a bit of American sovereignty in the hands of the United Nations as well as other issues
(Daily Caller) With 34 Republican senators now opposing a United Nations effort to regulate international waters, the Law of the Sea treaty effectively has no way forward in the U.S. Senate.
Republican Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Rob Portman of Ohio, Mike Johanns of Nebraska and Johnny Isakson of Georgia joined 30 other GOP members in agreeing to vote against the U.N. treaty.
South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint helped lead the conservative effort on Capitol Hill to rally senators against the treaty, which has been pushed by chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry and notably backed by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain.
67 votes are needed in order to pass treaties, the 2/3rds requirement. Jim DeMint provides a few reasons why this is bad legislation
- It would act as a backdoor Kyoto Protocol, forcing us into cap and trade policies that would destroy jobs and harm our economy.
- It would cost the U.S. trillions of dollars in international royalties to nations including state sponsors of terror like Sudan and “undemocratic, despotic or brutal governments in Belarus, Burma, China or Zimbabwe.”
- Former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton warned it would embolden China, “constrain U.S. naval activities, and do nothing to resolve China’s expansive maritime territorial claims.”
- Radical environmental groups have lined up in support of LOST.
- President Ronald Reagan strongly opposed the treaty as a threat to U.S. sovereignty.
Heritage offers much more on why this is a bad treaty. So bad that it has been languishing since it first appeared in 1982. Is anyone really surprised that the extreme far left, led by Obama and Harry Reid, want this treaty passed? Ronald Reagan was so against it that he canned the State Department employees who wrote it. And
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 — a form of global collectivism … that seeks ultimately the redistribution of the world’s wealth through a complex system of manipulative central economic planning and bureaucratic coercion.”
That’s what the Democrat Party wants: loss of American sovereignty. The US has nothing to gain and everything to lose.