L.O.S.T.

[Pell Mell]

The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) has been signed, and the Obama administration — with the aid of RINO Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.) — will push for its ratification as soon as Lugar’s primary in Indiana is over this year. LOST requires that the United States pay an international body half of its royalties from offshore drilling. The body would then distribute the funds as it sees fit to whichever nations it chooses. The United States would only have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money goes. LOST will also oblige us to hand over our offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it … for free.

Do you think this will be ratified? Bad news if it does...

[Greyfox]

Must be part of Obama's plan for wealth redistribution to poorer nations.
That shouldn't surprise anyone.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Must be part of Obama's plan for wealth redistribution to poorer nations.
That shouldn't surprise anyone.

Obama is a part of America-is-what-wrong-with-the-World group. Therefore, he's out to punish this country for all its sins against humanity everywhere. I'm serious when I say this.

Boxcar

[Tom]

How can our technology be handed over when it is owned by the oil companies?

Not that I think Obama would have no problem doing a chicken-shit thing like that.

All the more reason to vote for an American this November.
Preferably some white guy, since that is the new standard according to SLJ and accepted by some here.

[riskman]

This Treaty in various versions has been kicking around at least since the 80's. Reagan wanted nothing to do with it. I think Clinton signed a revised version of this disaster but the Senate refused to ratify the agreement. Not sure it went before GWB, but here we go again.
Let us hope that the Senate does the sensible thing and rejects LOST and any further UN encroachments on our sovereignty.

[Greyfox]

Can anyone see a pattern here?

Breaking News:

Obama proposes $800 million in aid for "Arab Spring"

In his annual budget message to Congress, President Barack Obama asked that military aid to Egypt be kept at the level of recent years -- $1.3 billion -- despite a crisis triggered by an Egyptian probe targeting American democracy activists.

The proposals are part of Obama's budget request for fiscal year 2013, which begins October 1. His requests need the approval of Congress, where some lawmakers want to cut overseas spending to address U.S. budget shortfalls and are particularly angry at Egypt.



More at link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...81C1C920120213

[Tom]

Can anyone see a pattern here?

Rise of a mad socialist dictator?

[Robert Goren]

This oil company technology stuff is crazy. Any country that has off shore oil already has access to it from the companies drill off their shores. More crazy right ramblings from people who haven't a clue and the Obama haters eat it right up like it was prime rib. You can disagree with Obama about lot of things, but you look really dumb when you go after things like this. Even our Military says this a good deal. If this best you can come up with, get ready for another 4 years because anybody with half a brain isn't buying this crap.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

If this best you can come up with, get ready for another 4 years because anybody with half a brain isn't buying this crap.

Anybody with half a brain isn't buying this next budget either:

Obama budget: National debt will be $1 trillion higher in a decade than forecast

President Obama on Monday unveiled a $3.8 trillion spending plan that seeks to pump billions of dollars into the economy while raising taxes on the rich to tame a soaring national debt now projected to grow significantly faster than previously forecast.

The president’s outlook for debt reduction has deteriorated markedly since September, when Obama told Congress that his proposals would hold annual deficits well under $600 billion after next year and permit the debt held by outside investors to rise to $17.7 trillion by 2021, or 73 percent of the overall economy.





http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...ory.html?wprss=

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Anybody with half a brain isn't buying this next budget either:

Obama budget: National debt will be $1 trillion higher in a decade than forecast

President Obama on Monday unveiled a $3.8 trillion spending plan that seeks to pump billions of dollars into the economy while raising taxes on the rich to tame a soaring national debt now projected to grow significantly faster than previously forecast.

The president’s outlook for debt reduction has deteriorated markedly since September, when Obama told Congress that his proposals would hold annual deficits well under $600 billion after next year and permit the debt held by outside investors to rise to $17.7 trillion by 2021, or 73 percent of the overall economy.





http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...ory.html?wprss=

speaking of budgets I was reminded today that Obama's first budget in 2009 was titled "A New Era of Responsibility".

thats almost as bad as the "affordable" health care act of 2010, which it turns out is completely unaffordable.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by riskman

This Treaty in various versions has been kicking around at least since the 80's. Reagan wanted nothing to do with it. I think Clinton signed a revised version of this disaster but the Senate refused to ratify the agreement. Not sure it went before GWB, but here we go again.
Let us hope that the Senate does the sensible thing and rejects LOST and any further UN encroachments on our sovereignty.

This is an excellent example of what I was telling Johnhannibalsmith in another thread. The Left is like a vicious attack dog that never lets an issue go until the dog has had its way with it. In other words, the issue dies because the objective was achieved. The Left is diabolically relentless in pursuing its agenda.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

speaking of budgets I was reminded today that Obama's first budget in 2009 was titled "A New Era of Responsibility".

thats almost as bad as the "affordable" health care act of 2010, which it turns out is completely unaffordable.

You can always tell what any given leftist bill is about by its name. All one has to do is go the opposite way of the name and you will know what the bill is intended to do to America.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

We start this thread with an unsourced claim that the UN is trying to take control of the high seas. It is stated that the United States would have to hand over its proprietary drilling technology free of charge. The treaty says no such thing. It encourages signees to share technology relevant to environmental issues, but does not mandate such. In fact, Part XI added in the eighties specifically says that is not mandated.

Then the claim is made that the United States will be forced to turn over half its Royalties from off shore drilling to a mysterious international body. Maybe one of you can point out where this is in the actual treaty, because I could find nothing to confirm that in the text of the treaty. You know the text of something-what is actually written there.

There is some language about paying for the operations of the commission, but it does not involve one half of our royalties and the money goes specifically to the UN commission charged with enforcing the treaty and not to any individual nations.

Then someone comes along with some common sense post about how ridiculous the entire idea is and the response is to start talking about the National debt. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you want to discuss the national debt, start your own darn thread.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by mostpost

There is some language about paying for the operations of the commission, but it does not involve one half of our royalties and the money goes specifically to the UN commission charged with enforcing the treaty and not to any individual nations.

.

Giving a nickel to the United Nations for any reason is a waste of money.
That organization has become a very useless agency.
Secondly, as you know so much about LOST, tell us how signing this agreement strengthens America's standing in the world.
In fact, tell us anything that Obama has done that strengthens America in any way vis-a-vis to the rest of the world.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Giving a nickel to the United Nations for any reason is a waste of money.
That organization has become a very useless agency.
Secondly, as you know so much about LOST, tell us how signing this agreement strengthens America's standing in the world.
In fact, tell us anything that Obama has done that strengthens America in any way vis-a-vis to the rest of the world.

In fact, why do we need L.O.S.T.? This nation is already there.

But seriously, here is a link to a lengthy read. It appears that the Dictator-in-Chief, by EO, bypassed Congress again (where treaty ratifications are mandated) to give away a piece of our sovereignty. Just another small step toward that "new world order".

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=31564

Boxcar