As predicted, the big guns of the liberal media are unloading on critics of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty. After ignoring the story of growing opposition to the pact from the American people, the New York Times and the Washington Post both have editorials in their Wednesday papers urging ratification.
Since their arguments are full of holes, both papers resort to name-calling, with the Times editorial labeling the critics as "cranky right-wingers" and the Post declaring that opponents of the accord have "irrational fears about one-worldism."
The liberal media establishment has spoken. Will the Senate listen to the liberal media or the people?
In the same way that the people let the media and the politicians know they did not want an illegal alien amnesty bill, members of the Senate and Republican presidential candidates are starting to get the message that this U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty must not be ratified. All of the Senate Republican leadership and all of the Republican presidential candidates have expressed opposition to the treaty, especially its provisions for new U.N. bureaucracies.
This "people power" is clearly one reason why Senator John McCain, who once supported the pact, now calls it a threat to U.S. sovereignty and says he would vote against it. An account of McCain's flip-flop on this matter appears in a Washington Times story by Stephen Dinan. McCain, a much-decorated Navy veteran, should have been a natural opponent of the pact from the start. He must know in his heart that the only way for the U.S. to remain a superpower on the high seas is to have the strongest Navy in the world. A piece of paper from the U.N. will not suffice. Yet our Navy is down to only 276 ships from 594 under President Reagan.
Whatever the reasons for McCain's conversion, the matter of keeping power with the American people is exactly what this battle is all about. It's good that he got the message. But it's mind-boggling that any member of the U.S. Senate would want to ratify this treaty. After all, it transfers decision-making authority away from our elected leaders to global authorities and U.N. bureaucracies largely populated by anti-American countries. Nevertheless, the Post editorial says this somehow serves "American interests." It must have an irrational fear of American sovereignty
While dismissing the critics as "right-wingers," the New York Times uses an argument meant to appeal to them. "The steady retreat of the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean
