Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

A proposed Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which is supported by President Obama but has not yet been ratified by Congress, will subordinate U.S. naval and drilling operations beyond 200 miles of our coast to a newly established U.N. bureaucracy. If approved, it will grant a Kingston, Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority (ISA) the power to regulate deep-sea oil exploration, seabed mining, and fishing rights.

As part of the deal, as much as 7% of U.S. government revenue that is collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast will be forked over to ISA for redistribution to poorer, landlocked countries. This apparently is in penance for America’s audacity in perpetuating prosperity yielded by our Industrial Revolution.


Lets hope and pray Congress shuts down Obamalammadingdong on this!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... -revenues/

You can't really blame Obama for this one. Well, I guess you can blame Obama for everything, right? I'll bet he is the reason my scrambled eggs were overcooked this morning....

http://www.jag.navy.mil/organization/co ... he_sea.htm

Every president since Reagan has endorsed most or all of the UNCLOS treaty. Our U.S. Navy is strongly supportive, for freedom of the seas. The State Dept is strongly supportive, arguing that we stand to lose the Arctic and much of our own natural resources if we don't sign.

Go find something else to prattle about.

tursiops wrote: Every president since Reagan has endorsed most or all of the UNCLOS treaty.

That's not reassuring, considering every president since Reagan has sucked.

TheGodfather wrote:That's not reassuring, considering every president since Reagan has sucked.

I always get a chuckle whenever someone says that since A LOT of people think that if Reagan ran today he probably wouldn't even win the GOP nomination. How can everyone put him on a pedestal while ignoring the things he did while in office that would draw the ire of the Republican party if done today?

TheGodfather wrote:

tursiops wrote: Every president since Reagan has endorsed most or all of the UNCLOS treaty.

That's not reassuring, considering every president since Reagan has sucked.

Reagan is one of those who liked all of the treaty except one part, which since has been changed.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

tursiops wrote:

TheGodfather wrote:

tursiops wrote: Every president since Reagan has endorsed most or all of the UNCLOS treaty.

That's not reassuring, considering every president since Reagan has sucked.

Reagan is one of those who liked all of the treaty except one part, which since has been changed.

I'm not discussing the treaty. I'm simply pointing out that every president since Reagan has sucked - which makes their endorsements worth squat.

So do they like the part giving royalties to underdeveloped countries for our past plundering of resources, or the part where the UN then gains authority to do ANYTHING it deems necissary to "protect the oceans" including draconian measures against "man made global warming" for industries in the CONUS?

For another view.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... s-freedoms

Just another step toward Obama/Soros "one world governance"...

"Like the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol debacle that preceded it, this most recent LOST cause embodies the progressive ideal of subordinating the sovereignty of nation states to authoritarian dictates of a world body. The U.S. would have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money would go, and be obligated to hand over offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it… for free.

And who are those lucky international recipients? They will most likely include such undemocratic, despotic and brutal governments as Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe…all current voting members of LOST."

Why don't you quote from the Treaty instead of letting someone else do your thinking for you?

This is just one more reason to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. Let them move to Afghanistan; Obama will shortly have "won" that war and withdrawn, no doubt making it a model location for a budding new world government.

Funny how you swallow the government line when it suits your purposes turniptop.

Did you add the part about Reagan firing the State Department person that negotiated the treaty? No?

Funny too how you fire the personal attack rather than stating elements of the treaty to disprove the issues...

ratherfish wrote:Funny too how you fire the personal attack rather than stating elements of the treaty to disprove the issues...

Oh, I see, I have to quote from the treaty and you don't? Hey, you are the one trying to make a case.

I'm going back to ignoring you.

Looking realllllllly HARD for that "TREATY QUOTE".

Looking...

Looking...

Guess what YOU didn't quote the treaty!!!


You LINKED to a government webpage ABOUT the treaty!


ignorant.....lol, I mean "ignore" away turnip. SSDD

Look, you want to be for the Soros/Obama agenda of one world governance go right ahead.

Just don't claim to be quoting things you're not. And when you give out the personal insults..expect them back.