Brainy Republicans Support U.N. Sea Treaty
By Cliff Kincaid (10/05/07)
"If Democrats had any brains, they'd be Republicans." This is the new partisan blast from Ann Coulter. One major problem with her thesis is that her book is being released at a time when members of the Bush Administration are currently joining with liberal Senate Democrats in trying to rush through the dangerous U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty. It is the same correlation of forces we saw trying to ram the illegal alien amnesty bill through the Senate. So being brainless is not a partisan issue. In the case of the U.N. treaty, opposition should be a no-brainer.
The release of Coulter's book has served to distract attention from the fact that powerful members of both political parties are currently collaborating in a campaign to subvert U.S. sovereignty. This should be getting loads of attention but it is not. It's apparently easier and more fun to cover Democrats and Republicans throwing mud at each other than it is to cover substantive legislative matters that affect our sovereignty.
Brain-Dead at State
The treaty issue has taken on more importance in view of the fact that one of the biggest brains in the U.S. State Department, Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III, has been caught lying about the treaty before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His lies were uttered during a September 27 hearing in response to questions from Senator David Vitter, a member of the committee. Here's some of the exchange:
Senator David Vitter: "Another concern is regulation of domestic activity. It seems to me the [Law of the Sea] treaty clearly states jurisdiction over land-based pollution sources. Why do we want to open that Pandora's box?"
Bellinger: "Senator, I think it clearly does not allow regulation over land-based pollution sources. That would stop at the water's edge…"
Vitter: "Article 213 says states shall enforce their laws and shall-mandatory-adopt laws and regulations and take other measure to implement applicable international rules and standards established through competent international organizations or diplomatic conference to prevent, reduce and control pollution. Sounds to me like the Kyoto Protocol is an international standard and we shall pass laws to enforce that…"
Later, Senator Vitter made the observation in the form of a question: "If it is completely not covered by the treaty, why is there a section entitled 'Pollution from land-based sources?'"
It was apparent to any objective observer that Bellinger had lied. That is, Vitter had caught him saying things about the treaty that were demonstrably and clearly not true.
The Legal Threat
Bellinger also claimed that there was "no way" anybody could take the U.S. to any enforcement body under the terms of the treaty. As Vitter demonstrated, that was a lie as well. In fact, radical activists have already announced that they will sue the U.S. under the Law of the Sea Treaty for emitting too many greenhouse gases and contributing to global warming and pollution of the oceans. One such activist, Dr. William C.G. Burns, who has written a paper on suing the U.S. under the treaty, told me that he has informed the Bush Justice Department about this legal threat and they have simply brushed it off.
One could try to claim that Bellinger was just ignorant about the treaty. But this doesn't hold water because Bellinger is a Harvard Law School graduate and member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He claimed extensive knowledge of the pact and was providing back-up for Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, the main State Department witness. (The hearing featured four witnesses, including Bellinger, in favor of the treaty, and none opposed).
After several of his falsehoods had been exposed, Bellinger resorted to the arrogant ploy of telling the Senate that the matter of treaty provisions on land-based pollution was too "technical" for them to understand and that he would submit an answer in writing.
Amazingly, Senators were permitted only five to seven minutes of questioning about the pact, which is the most comprehensive treaty ever negotiated in history. The Senate can, should and must do better than that.
Unfortunately, Negroponte also got caught uttering a falsehood, telling Vitter that "…when you talk about land-based pollution, our view is that that's just not covered by the treaty, Senator. That's the point. We believe there is no jurisdiction over marine pollution disputes involving land-based sources." It is obvious that he had been told this by Bellinger and others at State. He should be livid that he was misled.
This is when Vitter replied, "If it is completely not covered by the treaty, why is there a section entitled 'Pollution from land-based sources?'" It was at this point that Bellinger tried to bail out Negroponte, only to dig a deeper hole for himself.
Back-Door Global Warming Treaty
The controversy over land-based sources of pollution is critical because the plain language of the treaty mandates international regulation of the U.S. economy in order to enforce various global treaties, including the unratified Kyoto Protocol, or global warming treaty. Bellinger denied that, but that is clearly the case, and Vitter had proved it with his brilliant questioning and mastery of the treaty text.
All of this, of course, raises another question. If Attorney General Alberto Gonzales can be forced to resign for making questionable statements about personnel matters, what should happen to Bellinger for lying about the impact of a treaty?
The difference, of course, is that Gonzales was a target of the Democrats, and Bellinger is doing the Democrats' dirty work before the Senate. This is a treaty pushed in the past by Democratic Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and rejected by conservative Republican President Ronald Reagan. So Democrats will try their best to protect Bellinger.
That is why Republican Senators have to step forward, in the face of intense pressure from the Bush Administration, and insist on complete honesty and integrity from the State Department. The outcome-and it will take 34 votes to block ratification-will determine whether the Republican Party is any different than the Democratic Party on the issue of protecting U.S. sovereignty.
The liberal media, of course, have shown no interest in exposing the unholy alliance of Bush Administration officials and liberal Democrats pushing this treaty, even when the U.S. Senate is lied to about what is in the treaty document. So much for our so-called "adversary press."
The Public Speaks
Fortunately, we are starting to see some stirrings in the grass roots. It is looking like the same kind of fervor we saw in the illegal immigration debate, ultimately forcing the Senate to abandon amnesty for illegals. This may force the major media to cover the controversy. And it may force many Senate Republicans to come to their senses and put the interests of their nation above the interests of the White House.
Another Senate hearing on the treaty is scheduled for October 4, Thursday, and the list of seven witnesses will include two opponents of the treaty-Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy and Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. But this will mean that, of the 11 total witnesses, the number will be 9-2 in favor of the treaty.
The stacking of these hearings is an outrage but it is another symptom of the bipartisan problem that infects our political system. Both the chairman of the committee, Senator Joseph Biden, and the ranking Republican, Richard Lugar of Indiana, favor the pact, although Biden was off campaigning when the first hearing was held. He is not scheduled to be present for the October 4 hearing. Lugar took the opportunity at the September 27 hearing to attack an advertisement that my group America's Survival had taken out in the Washington Times exposing the myriad U.N. connections of the treaty apparatus. But he will not let me offer any rebuttal or response to the committee. Through their silence about this controversy, our media are excusing an obvious abuse of Senatorial power.
No, Miss Coulter, the problem in this town is not the Democrats. The problem is a lapdog media that allows Democrats and Republicans to conspire to damage the sovereignty of the United States.
Cliff Kincaid
http://www.aim.org/aim_column/5791_0_3_0_C/
(Printer friendly version) Email: Cliff Kincaid
