Obama Tells West Point Cadets We Need to Role Model Climate Change Behavior



Obama mad

President Obama spoke to the West Point graduates on Wednesday. His speech was a philosophical rehashing of his tired and worn ideas. One of the agenda items was climate change.

He said this:

In the Asia Pacific, we’re supporting Southeast Asian nations as they negotiate a code of conduct with China on maritime disputes in the South China Sea, and we’re working to resolve these disputes through international law.

That spirit of cooperation needs to energize the global effort to combat climate change, a creeping national security crisis that will help shape your time in uniform, as we are called on to respond to refugee flows and natural disasters, and conflicts over water and food, which is why, next year, I intend to make sure America is out front in putting together a global framework to preserve our planet.

You see, American influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We cannot exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everyone else. We can’t call on others to make commitments to combat climate change if a whole lot of our political leaders deny that it is taking place. We can’t try to resolve problems in the South China Sea when we have refused to make sure that the Law of the Sea Convention is ratified by the United States Senate, despite the fact that our top military leaders say the treaty advances our national security. That’s not leadership. That’s retreat. That’s not strength; that’s weakness. It would be utterly foreign to leaders like Roosevelt and Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy.

Obama seems to think that if we sign the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and give up a “pinch of our sovereignty” as Samantha Power would say, China will want to follow our example and give up their coal plants.

If we lead by example, he thinks, the communists, socialists, and other dictators in the world will follow.

The Law of the Sea Treaty will require the U.S. and other signatories to follow the guidelines but the countries menacing the world, such as China, will not sign on.

There has always been an informal law of the sea which allows for the innocent passage of one nation’s ships through another nation’s territorial waters.

Lost, the Law of the Sea Treaty, formalizes the “right of innocent passage.” There are conditions, such as it cannot threaten the sovereignty and security of that nation, but there are serious and unnecessary limitations that would be placed on the wealthy nations, in other words, the United States.

LOST, formally known as the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS III, was adopted in 1982. It was negotiated as UNCLOS I and II in the ’60′s and 70′s. Reagan refused to sign UNCLOS III because he saw it as a threat to liberty.

In the ’90′s, Clinton signed a supplementary agreement on deep seabed mining which was more acceptable to the U.S. and which modified some of the more objectionable clauses in UNCLOS III. UNCLOS III, with a Bush approval, received Senate confirmation and was signed in 2004. It is now being renegotiated.

The treaty being negotiated is a threat to U.S. sovereignty and economic interests because it is based on a failed socialist model:

  • The treaty is reliant on the economic beliefs held by the U.N. The treaty seeks “fairer” terms of trade and development financing for the so-called under-developed and developing nations. In other words, it seeks redistribution.
  • The treaty requires parties to the treaty adopt regulations and laws to control pollution of the marine environment. These are the ideas that Ronald Reagan rejected as contrary to U.S. values of freedom.
  • The treaty also establishes specific jurisdictional limits on the ocean area that countries may claim, including a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone limit. The biggest problem is the clause that requires the U.S. to provide just compensation to the rest of the world. Remember, we are talking about socialists and redistribution here. The UNCLOS members could extend that distance to 350 miles if they so choose.
  • Critical nations to this treaty will not sign it. China, for one, has no intention of abiding by the treaty.
  • There are no provisions for intervention against ships that are operated by terrorists or carrying weapons of mass destruction.
  • It puts an international authority over the treaty implementation and over any disagreements. An international tribunal, ITCLOS, in Hamburg, Germany will make decisions about our rights, even our right to seize a vessel, including those carrying weapons of mass destruction. If we do not comply, we face criminal penalties. The U.S. along with other nations would be forced to document the seizure in detail, compromising sensitive military operations. The treaty asserts that resources are the common “heritage of mankind” and “all rights in resources are vested in mankind as a whole, on whose behalf the Authority [the tribunal] shall act.” They will regulate us into oblivion. Why would we subject ourselves to international law? It does not conform to our constitution.
  • Mining profits will be adjusted to manage competition to keep it from becoming too competitive, true to socialist values.
  • The U.S. does NOT have a veto power over the international tribunal.

Sen. Kerry, an avid supporter of LOST, believes that unwritten laws are not safe and a treaty is needed to protect us and release illegal restrictions on maritime issues. He quoted Gen. Dempsey as saying the treaty will give the U.S. legitimacy, credibility and an additional tool to navigate the seas. Dempsey believes it will show the world that the U.S. stands for the rule of law.

Mr. Obama is intent on controlling our use of energy to an extreme.

He will come out with his new rules on coal Monday. What we know for certain is that they will be too expensive and will cost jobs.

Climate is changing, it’s been changing since time immemorial. We don’t know to what degree man is affecting the climate and we don’t know if we can change it. Of course we should take care of our environment but to destroy our economy for a science based on projections and computer models, that has proven false in the past, seems like the same kind of debacle we experienced with Obamacare.

Mr. Obama is fighting a theoretical war on climate change but is completely oblivious to the very real dangers we face in the world. He does not seem to understand the nature of the enemies we are dealing with.

President Obama  received the icy reception at West Point that I would give him: