A Bad Idea Resurfaces
John A. Quayle
blueoval57 at VERIZON.NET
Tue May 29 17:04:20 MDT 2007
>Free Congress Foundation Commentary
>UNCLOS or LOST A Bad Idea Resurfaces
>By Paul M. Weyrich
>May 29, 2007
>No bad idea is ever completely defeated in this
>country, perhaps in other nations as well. I
>have seen bad ideas surface again and again in
>this country. When the right is defeated the
>right tends to stay defeated. I recall
>advocating a national right-to-work law when I
>worked in the Senate in the late 1970s. The
>member of the leadership to whom I pitched the
>idea exclaimed, Oh, no. We cant do that. It
>was defeated in 1958. I merely was suggesting
>that we try to get a vote on the issue. I knew
>we couldnt win at that time. I went on and said
>So? There is hardly anyone here who was in the
>Senate then. I didnt work for this Senator so
>I felt that I could not go further but the point
>remains valid. No doubt if I tried to push the
>idea among conservatives in the Senate to this
>day someone would object because his father told
>him that the idea had been defeated in 1958 and therefore it could not be done.
>Not so with the liberals. My first encounter
>with the demand for gun control came in 1968. It
>was shortly after Senator Robert F. (Bobby)
>Kennedy was assassinated. It seemed that every
>man and his brother was demanding gun control.
>Senator Gordon L. Allott, for whom I worked,
>told me Just wait around. A few months from now
>almost no one will be talking about gun control.
>Ive seen it all before [when President John F.
>Kennedy was assassinated]. This idea comes up
>here again and again although if you would ask
>the average man on the street, he almost would
>never demand gun control. The good Senator was
>correct. He has been gone for more than 25
>years, yet the issue has surfaced again and
>again. Most recently it has occurred following
>the tragic killings at the Virginia
>Polytechnical Institute and State University,
>known as Virginia Tech. With conservatives
>when an idea is defeated it by and large remains
>defeated. Does any current Senator push the Bricker Amendment?
>On the other hand liberals have no hesitancy in
>repeatedly pushing a bad idea after it has been
>defeated. We have a perfect illustration of this
>in the current Senate. When Ronald W. Reagan
>took office as President, more than 25 years
>ago, an issue surfaced known as the Law of the
>Sea Treaty. I had never heard of it and must
>admit when it was first mentioned I didnt pay
>much attention. But thanks to Howard Phillips,
>Phyllis Schlafly and others I began to realize
>that this Treaty, sometimes disparagingly called
>LOST, approvingly called UNCLOS, would give
>our sovereignty away. That alarmed me.
>Through our Coalitions efforts we began to fight
>this Treaty. The battle seemed helpless until
>some of us discussed the matter with Edwin (Ed)
>Meese, III, then a key member of President
>Reagans White House Staff. Meese agreed that
>the Treaty was fatally flawed and invited the
>Presidents attention to it. President Reagan
>opposed it. Yet, would you believe that we still
>had to carry on the fight against the Treaty
>beyond his coming out against it. The Navy, it
>seems, despite Reagans opposition, still
>carried on until ordered to stop. Why, you ask,
>would the Navy be in favor of a treaty which
>would have given away our sovereignty? The
>reason, we were told, was that the Navy believed
>the Treaty if ratified would make it safer for
>our ships to operate. Who knows, but that was
>the argument advanced at the time.
>Once the Law of the Sea Treaty was put on ice by
>Reagan in the second year of his eight years in
>the Presidency it did not surface again. Nor did
>it surface during the Administration of
>President George H. W. Bush. After William J.
>(Bill) Clinton was in office for two years and
>faced a Republican Senate he never pushed the Treaty at all.
>Then came the Administration of President George
>W. Bush. During his first term the Treaty never
>was pushed. We assumed that it was dead. But
>during the first Congress of his second term it
>surfaced again. In fact, Chairman Richard G.
>Lugar (R-IN) of the Senate Foreign Relations
>Committee was so determined to push this Treaty
>that he permitted no opposition during the
>hearings. It was voted out unanimously.
>Thanks to extraordinary work by Senator James R.
>(Jim) Inhofe (R-OK), and then a commitment made
>by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) at
>our Coalitions lunch, the Law of the Sea Treaty
>again was put on ice. While supposedly Vice
>President Richard B. (Dick) Cheney was for the
>Treaty, President Bush never supported it.
>Now that Bush is a lameduck President and at the
>lowest polling rating of his Presidency (28%
>favorably), Bush at last has come out in favor
>of the Treaty. We have an uphill fight to defeat
>the Treaty. The Democrats are in control of the
>Senate and almost all of them favor the Treaty.
>Many of the six GOP Senators who were defeated
>in 2006 were opponents of the Treaty. So if
>Senator Inhofe is to drum up opposition he would
>need 35 Senators. That would be next to
>impossible. Whereas Majority Leader Frist kept
>his commitment to be against the Treaty, his
>successor, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has
>not yet taken a position of which we are aware.
>Again, when conservatives are defeated they
>regard their defeat as final. When liberals are
>defeated they wait around until the next
>opportunity presents itself. Meanwhile,
>the extraordinary researcher Cliff Kincaid has
>produced a monograph linking global warming with
>the Treaty and demonstrates that if the Treaty
>were ratified it would be far easier to bring
>cases against the United States. In another
>paper, The Secret Agenda behind the Law of the
>Sea Treaty, he says the Treaty is so extreme
>that former UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick
>stated that it was viewed as the cornerstone of
>Marxist-oriented New International Economic
>Order. According to Kincaid, This was
>conceived as a scheme to transfer money and
>technology from the United States and other
>developed countries to the Third World. He
>points out that Kirkpatrick strongly opposed the Law of the Sea Treaty.
>According to Kincaid, the Treaty would open the
>U.S. up to international lawsuits and
>climate-change legislation, providing a back
>door for implementation of the ungratified and
>costly global warming treaty. This is because
>the Treaty would establish a new international
>legal regime, including a new international
>court, to govern activities on, over and under
>the oceans, seven-tenths of the worlds surface.
>The provisions of the Treaty would also permit
>international rules and regulations governing
>economic and industrial activity on the
>remaining land area of the world in order to
>combat global warming and other perceived pollution dangers.
>There you have it. Another bad idea, long
>defeated, about to be ratified unless there is a real revolt against it.
>Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk