We’re not L.O.S.T.

U.S. Navy CarrierBy L.O.S.T., I mean the Law of the Sea Treaty.  It’s a treaty that has been in the works for decades. Everytime it’s come forth, it has failed to be ratified.  Until Obama, I don’t believe any President has actually been stupid enough to sign it. Obama says he will. why am I not surprised?

Even with Obama’s signature, the treaty will still require a 2/3’s (67 votes) approval in the Senate. Senator Jim DeMint says he now has 34 votes of those who will not vote for the Treaty.  It should be 40 votes…if it weren’t for the RINOs.

DeMint: Law of the Sea Treaty now dead

The United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty now has 34 senators opposed to it and thus lacks the Senate votes needed for U.S. ratification, a key opponent of the treaty announced Monday.

But the treaty’s main Senate proponent denies the treaty is sunk, saying plenty of time still exists to win support before a planned late-year vote.

The Law of the Sea Treaty, which entered into force in 1994 and has been signed and ratified by 162 countries, establishes international laws governing the maritime rights of countries. The treaty has been signed but not ratified by the U.S., which would require two-thirds approval of the Senate.

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.

The list of treaty opponents has been growing, and on Monday, Sen. Jim DeMint, 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 of Nebraka, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Rob Portman of Ohio and Johnny Isakson of Georgia.

There is great wailing and gnashing of teeth from the liberal side. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) says passage is, “a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’ for the Law of the Sea.”

Proponents of ratification argue that member nations are establishing rules of the sea that the U.S. would have to adhere to without a vote. They also argue that by ratifying the treaty, the U.S. would protect its claims and rights to mine America’s continental sea shelves and offshore waters for natural resources without interference from other countries or other entities.

Without ratification, U.S. energy companies won’t have the security they need to invest in exploring those areas for resources, supporters say. — Washington Times.

It is difficult for me to understand how giving up our sovereignty of our own coastal shelf is beneficial. Why should we pay a UN tax to drill on our own continental shelf?  The protection of our shores is a primary reason why we have a Navy — to secure our shores from foreign encroachment.

Advocates point to the Bush (43) administration’s support for the treaty.  Let’s get real here. As much as I like George Bush, he wasn’t much of a conservative.  This is more like a child explaining why he jumped off the bridge into the creek because, “Johnny and Paul did it!” (Real life experience there.)  There is too much “Me too-ism” in Washington as it is. So much of the activity of our government, the senseless proposals that appear because some other country has done it, is just plain stupid, a whim of someone with little thought or care of the consequences.