In an address to the Center for a New American Security just before Thanksgiving, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta implied that the dozens of lawmakers who oppose the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea are out-of-touch ideologues, saying it was an “outrage” that the controversial treaty has not yet been ratified. The most recent effort to pass the Law of the Sea Treaty was declared dead on arrival back in July, when some 34 Senators, enough to bar passage, voiced their opposition to the measure. Critics say the treaty, first opposed by Ronald Reagan but since ratified by most developed countries, would infringe on U.S. sovereignty and force the U.S. to pay royalties on deep-ocean drilling that amounted to a global tax……. “The Obama administration has promoted the Law of the Sea treaty and seems to have bought into the false nobility of global governance,” Rumsfeld told attendees of the Washington Times Anniversary Gala in October. “…Why should the American people support leaders who put American interests on an equal footing with foreign interests? Aren’t they elected to represent ‘we the people’, not we are the world?” To Read More…..
My Take – I have followed this for so long that it just amazes me that it is still an issue…and an issue that is clearly not in the best interests of the American people, in spite of the “disgust” Panetta has for the “ideologues” that are standing against this. As you read this you should be paying attention to the verbiage used by Panetta. Perhaps it is this whole diatribe that is the real “outrage”. Let’s explore this a bit.
First, his prima facie argument is that ratification is needed to combat ‘global warming’. Since there is no global warming taking place now; and the global warming that was taking place was ‘all natural’; and mankind has absolutely no ability to alter the climate beyond the incredibly powerful natural forces that create our world’s weather; and since the warmists claim that climate change is being cause by excessive CO2 and not control of the world’s oceans; he presents a false premise for justification for ratification. Or perhaps I missed something. After all he didn’t explain how ratification of this was going to impact the world’s climate in any way.
Then he claims that those who stand against this are “ideologues”. Since we now know his views are based on something other than facts; does that perhaps make him the ideologue? And if that is so, is it possible that those opposing this are actually the idealists?
He says that ratification would give the U.S. “legitimacy on a world stage and enhance navigational security for the military”. Let’s explore this. The dictionary definition for the word legitimate means being lawful. If that is how he is using it then one has to ask; how is the U.S. being unlawful; and if there is unlawful actions being taken by the U.S. then why can’t they be resolved without this treaty? So then are we to assume that he is claiming that the U.S. is acting deliberately unlawful, and he and his un-ideological cohorts are aware of these unlawful actions and are doing nothing to resolve these actions? Does that seem irrational to anyone else except me? So that must not be how he is using the word…..Right?
If he is using the word in a political sense it means:
In political science, legitimacy is the popular acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a régime. Whereas “authority” denotes a specific position in an established government, the term “legitimacy” denotes a system of government — wherein “government” denotes “sphere of influence”
So when he uses the word ‘legitimacy’ he must mean that it gives the U.S. influence and authority. How much influence and authority and how will the U.S. exercise that authority since all the decision making will go to the International Sea Bed Authority under the auspices of the United Nations? Furthermore, under the 1995 treaty, they will have the authority to alter the treaty without permission from the signatories. So, defining the word in the political sense; how will this give the U.S. ‘legitimacy’?
As for enhancing navigational security for the military; that’s hogwash. If they are in international waters they are there ‘legitimately’ in every sense of any definition you wish to use. However, when you turn authority over international waters to the United Nations it is up to them to determine whether you are legal or not; the most incompetent and corrupt organization to ever exist; filled with international criminals, terrorists and terrorist supporters along with socialist demagogues and dictators who are clearly guilty of crimes against humanity.
Perhaps we should take some time and review all of this. Here are some of my “blasts from the past”. Please follow all the links. You will find that perhaps it is Mr. Panetta that is the ‘outrageous’ ‘ideologue’. The question that needs to be asked, and answered, is this. Why?
No comments:
Post a Comment