By a vote of 17-4 today, a Senate Panel approved to move forward to bring this to the full Senate. The Law of the Sea Treaty is a dangerous grab at American sovereignty and its U.S. ratification needs to be stopped.

This was first proposed during the Reagan Administration and he objected to it for three very good reasons:

• Former President Reagan’s first objection to the Treaty was the Principle of the “Common Heritage of Mankind,” which dictates that oceanic resources should be shared among all mankind and cannot be claimed by any one nation or people. In order to achieve this goal, the Treaty creates the International Seabed Authority (”Authority”) to regulate and exploit mineral resources. It requires a company to submit an application fee of $500,000 (now $250,000), as well as a bonus site for the Authority to utilize for its own mining efforts. Additionally, the corporation must pay an annual fee of $1 million, as well as a percentage of its profits (increasing annually up to 7%), and must agree to share mining and navigational technology–thereby ensuring that opportunities aren’t restricted to more technologically advanced countries. The decision to grant or to withhold mining permits is decided by the Authority, which consists disproportionately of underdeveloped countries. Technology-sharing is no longer mandatory, however, there are remaining “principles” to guide its use and distribution. Additionally, the Council has been restructured so that the United States has a permanent seat, and developed countries can create a blocking vote.
• Secondly, former President Reagan believed that the Treaty would restrict the world’s supply of minerals. The Treaty was originally designed to limit the exploitation of heavy minerals in order to protect the mineral sales of land-locked, developing nations. This is no longer a severe limitation, because production limits to preserve land-based mining have been removed.
• The third–and still valid–objection is that mandatory dispute resolution restricts autonomy. Either a U.N. court or tribunal must mandate maritime issues involving fisheries, marine environmental protection, and preservation, research, and navigation. A country may opt out if the dispute involves maritime boundaries, military, or limited law enforcement activities. Submitting to external jurisdiction creates an uncomfortable precedent. Furthermore, it weakens the U.S. argument of autonomy when it refuses to submit to the International Criminal Court. Additionally, a country must petition to be excluded from mandatory jurisdiction requirements.
• The Heritage Foundation
  

The Democrats (as well as idiots like Dick Lugar) are behind this, of course, because they’ll get behind anything that weakens America’s standing in the world.  Trent Lott and John Kyl seems fairly certain that there won’t be enough affirmative votes in the Senate to ratify it.  For a treaty, two-thirds is required. Bush is also pushing this to be signed. As usual, he doesn’t pass up a chance to sell out our sovereignty.

Regardless of the fate of his 2008 long-shot White House bid, Representative Tom Tancredo said Monday that he would not seek another term in Congress. The five-term Colorado congressman’s retirement from Congress marks the latest addition to a long list of GOP retirements announced so far for 2008. Tancredo, 61, for whom fighting illegal immigration has become his signature issue, said the issue has come to the fore and no longer needs to be promoted as he has done.

RTT News

I am really going to miss having Tancredo in the House.  He has been one of the staunchest conservative voices in the Republican Party since the day he took office and his retirement, while good for him, is our loss in Washington.

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is under fire from Jewish groups after a speech he gave at a pro-life event the weekend before last. In the address to the Family Research Council, the former Arkansas governor referred to the deaths of 45-50 million unborn children from abortion as a holocaust.

In the speech, he linked the issues of abortion and illegal immigration — saying the destruction of tens of millions of unborn children has left the U.S. with a worker shortage.

“Sometimes we talk about why we’re importing so many people in our work force,” Huckabee said in the speech.

“It might be for the last 35 years, we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our work force had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973,” he explained.

Life News

I don’t see the problem here.  Is what he said not true?  While the exact number will never be known, roughly 11 million people were killed during the Holocaust.  Since 1973, when the Supreme Court wrongly decided Roe ( to which Darth Vader Ginsburg herself has admitted is bad law) over 46 million lives have been snuffed out and slaughtered.  Many had sharp objects stabbed through their heads and their bodies dismembered and sucked out of a womb with a vacuum cleaner, thrown into a pan, and dumped into an incinerator.  That sounds a lot like a Holocaust type tragedy to me.

Mitt Romney’s campaign tells The Brody File that Bill Wichterman, who used to do conservative and religious outreach for Fred Thompson’s campaign, has joined Team Romney. This is a nice “get.” He’ll be a part of the Faith and Values steering committee.

Bill Wichterman left the Thompson campaign because Thompson DOES NOT support the federal marriage amendment. At least the version that is on the table now. Mitt Romney does support it. Wichterman liked that fit. Who can blame him?

CBN News

If it’s true that Thompson does not support the Federal Marriage Amendment then I say good for him.  I don’t support it either.  If I had my way, the Federal government would have absolutely no involvement in marriage.  It’s a state’s issue and let the state’s decide it.  If Massachusetts wants to let gays marry fine.  If South Carolina doesn’t, that’s fine too.  Just as long as a state that doesn’t legalize gay marriage isn’t forced to recognize one done in another state, I have no problem with it.

In an effort to achieve Republican unity, top Illinois GOP leaders Tuesday endorsed the candidacy of political newcomer Steve Sauerberg as the party’s nominee to challenge incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin next year.

Sauerberg, a family physician from Western Springs, was backed by Illinois GOP Chairman Andy McKenna and Randy Pollard, who heads the Illinois Republican County Chairmen’s Association.

“A unified Republican Party can and will help to return Illinois values to Washington,” Sauerberg said in a statement that also labeled Durbin as an “ultra liberal.”

Chicago Tribune

There is no denying that.  The only people that Dick Durbin represents are the Socialist elite in Chicago.  As for the rest of the state, he is way out of touch.  Sauerberg is pretty good on the issues.  He doesn’t appear to be the usual RINO that I would normally expect from the dysfunctional Illinois GOP.  I would like to hear a little more detail regarding his quote on Social Security, however.

I  hope that he can give Durbin a good fight.  There really is no reason for that man to keep holding on to that seat.  The Chicago electorate alone is not enough to put him over.  Although, this is the same state that just reelected Rod Blagojevich, an absolute failure of a governor, probably worse than Jennifer Granholm, to another four year term of which the people are now in shock and awe at even how worse he has become.  They are so shocked that a State Senator, a fellow Democrat no less, is working on a Constitutional Amendment that would allow the citizenry to recall him.  Yes, it seems that Illinois has caught a bit of the Michigan syndrome.  It must be something in the water of the lake they share.

College students across the country have been strapping empty holsters around their waists this week to protest laws that prohibit concealed weapons on campus, citing concerns over campus shootings.”People who would otherwise be able to defend themselves are left defenseless when on campus,” said Ethan Bratt, a graduate student wearing an empty holster this week on the campus of Seattle Pacific University.

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, a group of college students, parents and citizens who organized after the deadly shootings at Virginia Tech University in April, launched the protest.

Fox News

I have been hearing this debated more and more lately and it’s becoming a contentious issue. Some argue that if college students are able to carry that campuses will turn into a bonanza. This claim is of course without any merit because the State of Utah has allowed concealed carry on campuses for years and they have not had a single incident. Then you have people like Tracy Schario from GW:

“We do not allow weapons on campus for the safety and security of our student body and faculty,”

Her position, while well intentioned, is simply illogical. Virginia Tech had the same policy as did all the other schools that have had incidents of shootings. It’s the same ridiculous argument that gun grabbing advocates make in terms of making the entire population gun free and “more safe.” The bad guys don’t follow the rules and the victims are left defenseless. A year or two ago there was a series of muggings on the University of Pittsburgh campus, one in which a student was beaten pretty badly. Would that have still happened if the would be attackers knew that conceal carry was permitted on the Pitt campus?

The Second Amendment rights of college students all across the country have been violated for a long time and it’s become rather clear in recent years that they are sitting ducks when they are at school. If students at Virginia Tech had been able to carry a gun 32 more of them might still be alive.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows former Mayor Rudy Giuliani leading Senator Clinton 46% to 44% in an early look at a general election match-up. Clinton has a 47% to 45% edge on another Republican hopeful, Fred Thompson.

These numbers reflect a significant turnaround from recent polls.

Clinton and Giuliani have been in a very competitive match-up for most of the year, but Clinton had gained ground in three bi-weekly consecutive polls. By October 9, the Democratic frontrunner was leading the former mayor by seven percentage points. But, the current results suggest a return to the longer trend-line established for this race.

Rasmussen

One of the biggest talking points the Giuliani camp likes to tout is how poll after poll shows he is the only one who can take on Hillary Clinton and win.  This would seem to say otherwise.

So I was doing a little Googling tonight and came across some interesting historical facts about the Fifth Congressional District here in South Carolina where I live. This seat is one of the few left in the south that has not been held by a Republican since Reconstruction. The Democrats have held the seat since 1883, but the district is changing as it went for George W Bush in both 2000 and 2004.

The one Republican to have ever held the seat was none other than Robert Smalls, a well known historical Civil War figure and the first black man to ever command a United States ship.

So, how do you like them apples?

Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, took in $159,650 from South Carolina between July 1 and Sept. 30, bringing his state total to $402,510, eclipsing McCain’s $359,917. The Arizona senator reported raising $66,277.B.J. Boling, McCain’s in-state spokesman, said, “Considering the media wrote off our campaign in July, we are thrilled to have outraised Gov. Romney, who’s dumped millions of dollars in South Carolina, and Fred Thompson.”Giuliani’s surge came against a backdrop of polling turmoil in which he and Thompson seesawed for the lead while McCain moved up and Romney’s strength increased, good enough to take the lead in South Carolina in American Research Group’s September poll.The Greenville News

Giuliani’s continued lead is defying the conventional wisdom of what will win over Republicans. Langley has touched on this a little bit and I agree with him when he says that the current administration’s constant catering to the social conservative wing of the party while ignoring the concerns of the fiscal wing is what is driving Giuliani’s candidacy. I think this is demonstrated even more when you look at the slate of candidates running. The true social conservatives in the race are being left behind while the more moderate ones are out in front.

This article below from the Charleston Post & Courier this morning struck me also:

They talk about football over their fries, chew over local issues with a helping of barbecue, sip sweet tea as they pass around an unflattering picture of Hillary Clinton.

For 127 consecutive Wednesdays, this “Lunch Bunch” has met at the Beacon Drive-In, a landmark diner — and a must-stop for politicians since the days when Strom Thurmond actually had to campaign.

In this most conservative area of a conservative state they are, of course, all Republicans. And although they talk about the presidential candidates a good bit, don’t ask them to pick one.

Spartanburg is probably the most conservative part of the state and even these guys don’t know who they are backing. This isn’t a traditional Republican race by any means. Rudy is clearly continuing to win over social conservatives despite his poor record on those issues. Romney is still managing to fool people into thinking he is a conservative and Fred Thompson, undeniably the most conservative of the three, still has his work cut out for him.

In the end I think Thompson wins the state’s primary, but by a very small margin with Giuliani right behind.

During Huckabee’s tenure as governor, the average Arkansan’s tax burden increased 47 percent, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. A dyed-in-blue tax hiker, Huckabee supported raising sales taxes, gas taxes, grocery taxes, even nursing home bed taxes. He virulently opposed a congressional moratorium on taxing Internet access, and sat on the sidelines while his Democratic legislature pushed the largest tax hike in Arkansas history into law. What’s more, on his watch, and frequently at his behest, state spending increased by 50 percent, more than double the rate of inflation, and the number of state government workers rose by 20 percent. Yes, as a presidential candidate, Huckabee has signed on as a supporter of the Fair Tax and pledged against raising taxes, but when a candidate’s long and clear record flies in the face of his election-year symbolism, you can chalk it up to politics every time.

National Review

This is why I like Pat. Huckabee would be worse than Bush with his “compassionate conservatism.” No thanks.

President Bush waited until he had vetoed a relatively inexpensive children’s health insurance bill before asking for tens of billions of dollars more for his misadventure in Iraq. The cynicism of that maneuver is only slightly less shameful than the president’s distorted priorities. Despite a pretense of fiscal prudence, Mr. Bush keeps throwing money at his war, regardless of the cost in blood, treasure or children’s health care.Mr. Bush is threatening to veto most of the 12 domestic spending bills now before Congress because Democrats want to provide $22 billion more than the $933 billion he has requested. His argument? Something about the president’s responsibility to rein in lawmakers’ “temptation to overspend.”

The New York Times

What’s another $200 billion? After all, the National Debt is only approaching $9 trillion. That’s just a drop in the bucket.

I think the Times makes a point that will resonate with a lot of people. Bush is vetoing all of this domestic spending while asking for tenfold in Iraq. While I am very much against SCHIP, if the government is hell bent on flushing $200 million dollars down the crapper on foreign nation building, I’d rather see that money spent on our own people rather than those half a globe away.

From The Corner at National Review Online:

On the one hand, the results look encouraging for Giuliani – 64 percent said his views on abortion and gay rights would either make them more likely to vote for him or make no difference. But that 21 percent for whom it would make them more likely to vote against him is a pretty big number. And in perhaps the most important finding in the poll, Gallup also asked Republicans and Republican leaners whether Giuliani is “generally pro-life or pro-choice, or are you unsure?” Eight percent said Giuliani is pro-life, 37 percent said pro-choice, and 55 percent said unsure. Those numbers are a change from January, when 16 percent said Giuliani was pro-life, 20 percent said he was pro-choice, and 64 percent weren’t sure. It could be that the voters for whom that matters greatly already know Giuliani’s position, or it could be that that 55 percent includes voters who will turn against him once they learn more about him.

If more than half of Republicans surveyed “don’t know” Mayor Giuliani’s position on life, but will certainly learn as primaries come nearer and nearer, this might explain his commanding lead that is confusing to some, and how easily it can (and will, in my opinion) slip away.

This is the kind of news you wouldn’t want to wake up to if you were on the Thompson campaign. Fred got his nose tweaked by Romney.

WASHINGTON - The Senate rejected Wednesday an attempt to move ahead with a bill to allow illegal immigrants under age 30 to remain in the United States and gain legal status if they attend college or join the military.The vote to move ahead on the Dream Act (the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act), got 52 votes, eight short of the 60 needed.Among those voting against moving ahead with the bill were eight Democrats, even though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appealed to his majority to back him.

MSNBC

Amnesty in disguise fails yet again. This just reiterates what a powerful issue this is to Americans. Ogonowski gained significant ground on this issue in the People Republic of Taxachusetts. If Republicans hit this issue hard next year we could have a great chance of taking back some swing districts we lost in rural America. Also, though it is three years away, a strong Republican challenger to Harry Reid in 2010 could nail him on this.

And, as we enter the final push before primary votes are cast, Romney has accomplished a remarkable objective: He has gone from being a little-known governor of a liberal-leaning Democratic state to the leading Republican candidate in public opinion polls in both critical early-primary states, New Hampshire and Iowa.

In other words, by historic measures, Romney is better-positioned to win the nomination than former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani or Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson — both of whom are trouncing him in national surveys.

Politico

Oh God, say it isn’t so.  If the Ken doll gets the nomination we’re doomed in ‘08.

Nobody will argue that Republicans are all of a sudden favorites to take back the Senate, but recent developments suggest that things are looking up.  In Nebraska, first former Gov. Mike Johanns entered the race.  Then former Sen. Bob Kerrey decided against a bid, all but sealing the deal for Johanns (or Bruning, should he pull off a stunning upset in the primary).  In Texas, Mikal Watts, who was planning to self-finance his campaign, just shut down his exploratory committee.  In Louisiana, Rep. Bobby Jindal just got elected Governor, further shifting the balance of power within the state, while Republican Senate nominee-to-be John Kennedy was reelected Treasurer without opposition.  In North Carolina, Democrat state Rep. Grier Martin decided against a challenge to Sen. Elizabeth Dole.  Earlier this week, Kos released a poll showing Sen. Collins (not my favorite Republican, but a Republican without significant primary opposition) thrashing Democrat Rep. Tom Allen 56-33.

Does this mean that we have a realistic chance of taking back the Senate next year?  No, but it does suggest that the potential Democrat tsunami that has gotten been discussed lately probably won’t happen.  The long and short of it is that we’re going to lose seats, but the potential for a super-Majority that had gotten some chatter recently is now once again looking like a pipe-dream.  This isn’t exactly reason for celebration, but it’s certainly a relief that we’ll now have to work to hold 45-47 seats rather than having to put in the same effort to hold 41.

Highlighting what he believes are key vulnerabilities for his main rivals, Thompson called for stripping federal funds from cities and states that do not report illegal immigrants and criticized Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney for allowing so-called sanctuary cities in New York and Massachusetts.

Boston Globe

What he suggests should have been done years ago.  It’s nice to see someone finally come out and say they will do this.  Thompson is one of the few candidates I think would seriously address our border issue.

From this article and many others:

Last week in New Hampshire, McCain hit Mitt Romney on the question of who was a more reliable conservative. Today, he moved the debate to a question of experience, and he put his national security credentials up against the executive backgrounds his main rivals.

“I think it’s great to have been mayor of a big city. I think it’s great to have been governor of a state,” McCain said. “I think it’s important that I’ve been part of every national security issue since. … My qualifications I think make me far more qualified. I’m not saying anyone’s disqualified, I’m saying I’m more qualified.”

Also back in New Hampshire after a hiatus was the “Straight Talk Express.” On board, McCain expanded on his critique of Romney from Sunday night’s debate, in which he said the former governor was trying to fool voters. “He spent about a year fooling people about his record, I’m not gonna let him fool people about my record,” McCain explained. “That was a strong statement because a big part of my legitimacy is my consistent, conservative, reliable record. … He has changed his positions on virtually every issue.”

Is it just me, or does everyone else notice that Sen. Thompson is the only one in the top tier that Sen. McCain isn’t going after with a fervor? Is he going after those whom he sees as the true dangers to the GOP primary field, Mayor Giuliani and Governor Romney (with a personal emphasis on Romney), all the while keeping an eye on endorsing Fred Thompson should he (McCain) drop out of the race?

I know this isn’t that much of an eye-opener, since Thompson backed McCain in the 2000 primaries and the two Senators served together in the Senate. But it is pretty darn glaring at this point that McCain unloads on Giuliani and Romney and says not a peep about Thompson.

And yes, I know, later in the article just linked is also the story of Fred losing a New Hampshire operative to Mr. McCain - my thought on that is that the Thompson campaign is not looking to compete in NH, at least not by the lack of action we’ve seen there. His focus seems to be on Iowa, Florida, South Carolina (of course) and Georgia and the rest of the South. I’m not sure that’s such a great idea, to intentionally forego states, but President Bush won the nomination just fine in 2000 after losing New Hampshire so it’s obviously not a deal-breaker to miss out on that contest.

Ramesh Ponnuru sums up Mike Huckabee:

Huckabee [Ramesh Ponnuru]

He seems to combine some of Pat Buchanan’s bad ideas with some of George W. Bush’s. He’s the protectionist compassionate conservative. No thanks.

Right on. No further explanation needed.

No silly squabbles over the line item veto this time, which is good. Fred looked a a lot better in this debate. Still as Bryon York says, this is a wide open race. Time is running out for conservatives to coalesce behind a candidate to stop Rudy. If we split four ways, he’ll be the nominee, and we will have no one to blame but ourselves. I prefer Rudy to Hillary, and won’t be voting for a third party candidate. But we ought to demand a conservative candidate now, while we have time. I’m going with Thompson myself. I like his stand on federalism, I like his common sense conservative positions across the board, and I am hopeful that he will be able to shake off the rust and run a the vigorous campaign he has to run. I think he’s getting better as he goes. What does everybody else think? Where do you all stand on candidates? Too early to tell? Love for Ron Paul? Mittheads?