Senator Vitter, Please call him with praise!

Right now, only two men are standing between us and the UNCLOS. Senator Vitter, LA. should be up for a citizens heroism award, if there is such a thing.  Where is the news media hiding?

 Liberal Senate Democrats and the U.S. State Department are desperate to get the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty ratified. But Senator David Vitter, a conservative Republican, keeps getting in the way. Through skillful questioning during Thursday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, the Louisiana Republican got a leading treaty supporter to acknowledge that America’s enemies can manipulate the process of mandatory dispute settlement under the treaty so that the United Nations Secretary-General plays the key role in the outcome. Vitter called this a “recipe for disaster” for America and urged more hearings into the treaty’s flaws.

Ratification wasn’t supposed to be this difficult. Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee were supposed to go meekly along with a treaty that enjoys the backing of the Bush Administration. But Senators Vitter and Jim DeMint of South Carolina have decided they should do their duty and read and analyze the pact. What they have found is frightening. Vitter, in another display of skillful questioning, was able to demonstrate on Thursday that the Secretary-General of the United Nations plays a critical role under the treaty in resolving disputes among nations.

The fingerprints of the U.N. are all over this treaty. That is why it’s officially called the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. But because the U.N. has such a bad reputation, supporters of the treaty have been trying to obscure the U.N.’s role.

For example, State Department Legal Adviser John Bellinger III has been claiming that it’s a “myth” to suggest that the treaty sets up any U.N. institutions or is part of the global U.N. bureaucracy. But this is the same John Bellinger who told the Senate Committee on September 27 that the treaty has nothing to do with regulating pollution from land-based sources. Vitter exploded that lie by citing actual provisions from the treaty authorizing regulation of land-based sources of pollution in accordance with international agreements. These give international lawyers an opportunity to sue the U.S. and implement the unratified global warming treaty.

Vitter’s target of opportunity at Thursday’s hearing was Professor Bernard H. Oxman, a proponent of the treaty. The senator zeroed in on how disputes under the treaty are resolved. The treaty permits the two sides to a dispute to pick arbitrators. Here’s how the exchange proceeded:

Vitter: “As I read it, they try to choose the arbitrators and if they can’t, somebody else¯the King of the Law of the Sea Land, chooses three of the five arbitrators. Isn’t that the case?”

Oxman: “Absolutely Senator…we would opt for arbitration under Annex VIII with respect to the subjects covered there. And there the appointing authority, if agreement couldn’t be reached, would be the Secretary-General of the United Nations, currently from South Korea.”

Vitter: “The bottom line is, if the opposing party to us in a dispute wants to make it so, they can ensure that a majority of arbitrators is chosen by either the head of the U.N. or the Law of the Sea entity. Correct?”

Oxman: “If agreement cannot be reached that’s right. But they’re running a risk.”

Vitter: “I think that is a recipe for disaster for us.”

This exchange was fascinating for another reason. One week previously, at the first hearing on the treaty, Senator Bob Corker had specifically asked about the mandatory arbitration process and State Department Legal Adviser Bellinger had made no mention of the role of the U.N. Secretary-General. In fact, he suggested that because America’s lawyers are so smart, we would win most of these disputes. Bellinger did say that if an arbitral panel makes a decision “that would be final and that would be exactly the way we would want it.”

Now we find out from a treaty supporter, in response to Vitter’s questions, that our enemies can drag out the process and get the U.N. Secretary-General to appoint the majority of arbitrators. Do we want the boss of the U.N. deciding how to define and protect American interests on the high seas? Why did Bellinger conceal that information from the committee?

Considering the facts of the case, Bellinger’s statement that we want these decisions to be “final” is frightening. Whose side is the State Department on anyway?

This dangerous treaty is on the fast-track to Senate ratification. But our major media are not covering these hearings and we are running out of time to provide the American people with the facts. We need talk radio and the new media to fill the void¯and quickly. Otherwise, get ready to pay homage to the King of the Law of the Sea Land, up there at U.N. headquarters.

Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

There was a letter that I posted a few days ago on another thread that can go to your senators.  I belive it was provided by RightMarch.com.  Here it is again.   You can email it or fax it.  Please use it.  I have sent it out several times:

We REALLY need GrassFire to take this one up.  Is that possible?  In spite of all, we are on the verge of losing this because very few people have heard about it.  New article below:

The World Dictatorship Treaty: Does that get your attention? Many senators in the dark

Wes Vernon

Wes Vernon
October 8, 2007


Only three Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee knew what the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is, according to a recent survey. Only 3 out of the 12 GOP committee members. There was no known survey of Democrat members.

That reinforces this column's point last week ("What's the rush?" — Oct. 1, 2007) that there are 10 other Senate committees besides Foreign Relations (dominated by the bipartisan internationalist Biden-Lugar cabal) that need to hold open and (hopefully) well-publicized hearings of LOST to inform senators.

LOST has very serious military, security, indeed survival consequences for every man, woman, and child in America. And if so few on a key military-oriented Senate committee understand this threat to America, you can bet that an even smaller percentage of the public at large is aware of it.

In the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Biden-Lugar axis has no problem with it. In a previous Congress, Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) tried to railroad the treaty through in the dark of night. In this Congress, Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.) is doing likewise.

The Bush administration and the Clinton administration before it have strongly supported LOST. The leading force behind the LOST campaign in the current administration is Vice President Cheney. Fortified with this gigantic high-powered metaphoric mowing machine, the idea is to make it a done deal (the administration hopes by the end of this month) before the grassroots folks know what's going on.

The scars

This is the classic people vs. the establishment divide. Biden and Lugar know this. Earlier this year, they got a taste of what happens when the sleeping grassroots giant fights back. Millions of Americans rebelled and successfully demanded the defeat of another "fast track" proposal. Once the lawmakers got a dose of the people's temper, the immigration bill (dubbed by critics as amnesty) went down in flames. Former supporters in the Senate deserted in droves from that tar baby.

The Bidens and Lugars of the world still bear the scars from that fiasco, and they're not about to let it happen again. So they want to rush this LOST through before you know about it.

Just 33 plus 1

Any treaty ratification requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Thus, in the 100-member "greatest deliberative body," all that is required is for 34 senators to vote no. But as of this writing, there are fewer solid votes for rejection. That is why your senators need to hear from you.

Conservative base swings into action

A letter — over the signatures of 28 (at last count) conservative leaders is (or soon will be) going out to Chairman Biden protesting that the committee gave short shrift to witnesses opposed to LOST.

The history of that process is in itself a scandal. After Lugar's rush job, the conservative base then coalesced, brought pressure to bear, and it was stopped. Normal process requires that when one Congress expires, any pending legislative or ratification business that failed to pass must start from scratch and go through the entire Congressional meat-grinder all over again in any succeeding Congress. The conservative letter to Biden urged that he do just that — take a new vote on the treaty in committee (especially given that the panel has two new members (David Vitter, R-La., and Jim DeMint, R-S.C. — both of whom not incidentally are very skeptical of LOST).

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has not done that, though it has held quickie hearings with a lopsided pro-LOST witness list. The protest letter was signed by a who's who of the conservative movement — led by David Keene, American Conservative Union; Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum; Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation; Fred Smith, Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI); and Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy (CSP).

Token Opposition

Against a long list of pro-LOST witnesses at the September 17 and October 4 hearings, the committee allowed a grand total of two treaty opponents to testify at the tail end of the October session. Gaffney and Smith presented very thoughtful and thoroughly documented written statements, but were tightly restricted time-wise.

An obviously outraged Gaffney told the senators that it is "appalling to me that the present approach to Senate consideration of this accord amounts to little more than a rubber stamp."

While expressing delight at being accorded some time to express his group's views, Gaffney cited the Senate leadership's "seeming intention... to restrict such criticism to two experts, each of whom is given five minutes publicly to" speak to concerns about "one of the most far-reaching international agreements in history."

Gaffney — an alumnus of the Reagan Pentagon — charged that the committee's process amounts to "a determined effort to keep the American people in the dark about what is going to happen to their rights, their constitutional representative form of government, and our national interest until after LOST is ratified and [it] is too late to do anything about it."

Again what's the rush?

The CSP president said he had written letters to 8 other Senate committees urging that they too thoroughly examine the treaty's ramifications,. "It would be incomprehensible and irresponsible were each of these 8 panels to fail to conduct their own hearings." (This column suggested 10 Senate committees. 8 would be okay as a compromise.)

Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), an alumnus of New Jersey's notorious Hudson County machine, chaired the hearing in Biden's absence. He responded to Gaffney with a disingenuous air worthy of one who was exposed by New Jersey media for "questionable real estate deals, backroom brokering and political friendships with disreputable individuals (Bergen Record)."

The New Jersey lawmaker said it wasn't true that the committee was railroading LOST through in the fashion of Hudson County machine icon Frank "I am the Law" Hague (I added that last part, but you get the idea). Why, didn't Gaffney know the treaty had been pending in the Senate for 13 years and had been the subject of four hearings?

Not mentioned was that in at least 10 of the 13 years, the measure was considered all but dead, as everyone knew the Republicans in the late nineties and very early 21st Century wouldn't let it see the light of day. Moreover, those "four hearings" included aborted attempts to ram it through in the dead of night.

Where are the chairman and the "rock star"?

Noting that two committee members — Chairman Biden (D-Del.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) — were too busy campaigning for president to show up for the October 4 hearing, Gaffney added, "If I were running for president, I would want to know if I'm doing damage to the country."

At the end of the proceedings, Senator Vitter urged that the panel hold another hearing to hear more opponents of LOST.

The Louisianan called LOST a "disaster" for America, noting it would enable America's enemies to maneuver the mandatory dispute settlement provisions so as to make the UN Secretary-General the key decision-maker. In fact, the senator's tough questioning resulted in a treaty supporter admitting as much.

That vulnerability in and of itself could affect America's ability to free itself from dependence on terrorist states for oil and stop us from defending ourselves from terrorists who want to kill us. It could force us to implement policies forcing millions of Americans out of work.

What must be done

Only on rare occasions does the grassroots rise up and put the establishment in its place. One was the immigration fight this year to which we have alluded. The people won that battle (for now). Another such occasion was the Panama Canal giveaway of the late seventies. The people lost that one, and several politicians paid with their political careers justifiably in a shambles.

What those two issues had in common was that the public had a clear understanding of them. The name "Law of the Sea Treaty" by contrast sounds academic — not "sexy" enough for newspapers, TV anchors, or (sorry to say) even some conservative talkshow hosts. Which is why conservatives might consider referring to it as the "World Dictatorship Treaty." That may sound sharp, but it is meant as an accurate designation that everyone will understand.

For example: LOST empowers the UN (with a history of corruption and hostility to America and our allies) to override many decisions of our own U.S. elected and appointed leaders; includes an International Seabed Authority (ISA) to levy global taxes (the dream of one-worlders) and authorizes a global tax court to settle disputes under the treaty; lets any "environmental" extremist go to federal court and force an anti-American ruling of the LOST tribunal, perhaps putting many of our people on unemployment; could hamstring our military and intelligence activities at the cost of our security, endangering American lives; could enhance a legal culture of "international law" (as opposed to American law); is a treaty that has been "pending" for years because Ronald Reagan rejected it.

Bottom line: You need to contact your senators now. Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121.

Wes Vernon is a Washington-based writer and veteran broadcast journalist.

Friends:

LOST is far worse than the open border bill.  It's a huge taxing scheme for the UN, an oil cartel for the elites and corporatists, and LOST puts 70% of the earth's surface under UN control.  Please bombard Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader with faxes, calls and e-mails.  Also, have everyone you know call McConnell as well as their own Senators.

We need 34 votes to stop ratification of LOST and this is going to be very difficult.  Few in the Senate oppose LOST and thus far, only Vitter, DeMint and Inhofe are on record for opposing this abomination.  In Texas, someone I know wrote Kay Bailey Hutchison who actually wrote back saying that she supported LOST because its good for the environment.  A conservative friend bumped into Sen. Cornyn at a GOP event and Cornyn denied even knowing about LOST.  He's a liar.   

Defeating LOST should be the most important thing on every activists agenda.