I drove to Raleigh, North Carolina on October 3 to participate in a tribute to my dear friend, Tom Ellis, the architect of Ronald Reagan’s 1976 victory in North Carolina and the victories of Jesse Helms in 1972, 1978, and 1984.  He also was the principal strategist in the lone victory of former Senator Lauch Faircloth who was subsequently defeated by Jim Edwards.  More than 300 people we in attendance to hear remarks by Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn and Tom Farr who has recently been appointed to a District Court judgeship by President Bush. 

I had the pleasure of seeing and visiting with  many old friends, including Carter and Page Wrenn, U.S. District Court Judge and Mrs. Terrance Boyle, State Senator Robert Pittenger, former Raleigh Mayor Tom Fetzer, Jay and Delores Parker, Darin Waters, and literally dozens of others, including Mrs. Ellis and other Ellis family relatives.  Tom at age 87 is sharp as a tack and in superb physical condition.  Had I not known his age to be 87, I would have guessed him to be in his late 50s.

I was interviewed on October 17 by Michael Scherer of Salon, the internet news outlet, concerning likely action by so-called Values Voters should Rudy Giuliani become the Republican Presidential nominee.  I made the point that, for most Christian conservatives, the defense of innocent life is the Number One issue and failure to embrace a pro-life stance is a disqualifying consideration for leaders of most right of center organizations.

October 15 — I told David Lightman of the McClatchy newspapers that, while the defense of innocent life has to be the Number One issue, other issues are reasons for concern which lead Christians and conservatives away from blind partisan loyalty to the GOP.  I mentioned the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty (UNLOST), the massive expansion of foreign aid, historically high increases in Federal spending, and much more. 

Penna Dexter and Jerry Johnson interviewed me on their nationally broadcast radio program in which we discussed the Bush Administration’s decision to enforce a decision by the International Court of Justice challenging the convictions of Jose Ernesto Medellin and others who were Mexican born.  Medellin fourteen years ago was part of a gang which gang raped and strangled two teenage girls.  He was sentenced to death in October, 1994.  Bush is in alliance with the Mexican government in trying to defer enforcement of the murder verdict, partly because Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on death row are from a country which has no death penalty.  We also discussed Presidential candidates and I had some good things to say about Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.).

My recent meeting with Senator David Vitter (R-LA) in which I urged him to oppose the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty (UNLOST) may have had an impact.

At the time, Senator Vitter said he had not yet fully examined the treaty and had not decided what he would do. It now appears that he will be out front in trying to defeat UNLOST.

As reported by Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media (9/28/07), "The media have been pummeling conservative Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana for apologizing for sexual indiscretions. But America should be grateful he stayed in the Senate and did not resign in the wake of the media assault. The senator demonstrated on Thursday, during a hearing into the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty, that he is going to continue to do the job he was elected to do. Vitter’s performance was so effective that he left State and Defense Department officials either speechless or caught up in embarrassing contradictions about the impact of this international agreement on America’s security and sovereignty. It should now be perfectly obvious that Bush Administration officials, in collusion with liberal Senators, are trying to bamboozle the Senate into quickly ratifying a very dangerous pact. 

"One area of concern is how other nations and international lawyers could use the treaty against the U.S. in a back-door effort to implement the (unratified) global warming treaty, with the result being higher gas prices for the American people and perhaps even energy rationing. The Law of the Sea treaty creates a tribunal and various bodies, including dispute resolution or arbitral panels, to resolve conflicts which may arise. Major parts of the treaty mandate international regulation of U.S. economic and industrial activities on land. Greenhouse gases, for example, could be viewed under the terms of the treaty as contributing to pollution of the oceans.  

"Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told the Senate committee that the U.N. body established by the treaty has ‘no jurisdiction over marine pollution disputes involving land-based sources.’ He said, ‘that’s just not covered by the treaty.’ Negroponte’s sidekick, State Department Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III, said, ‘It clearly does not allow regulation over land-based pollution sources. That would stop at the water’s edge.’ But Vitter shot back, ‘…why is there a section entitled pollution from land-based sources?’ Not only is there a section by that name, Vitter pointed out, but there is a section on enforcement. The section is Article 207, ‘Pollution from land-based sources.’ Anybody can look it up. But apparently our top officials and lawyers have not. Either that or they are trying to mislead the people about the ramifications of this treaty. In either case, we are sunk if this treaty goes through.  

"It was absolutely clear to anyone paying attention that Negroponte and Bellinger either had no real understanding of what was in the treaty or didn’t want to tell the American people what was really in it. In the end, under withering fire from Vitter, Bellinger insisted that the controversy was too ‘technical’ to discuss at the hearing and that he would submit something in writing. Senator Jim Webb, chairing the hearing, suggested he do so, attempting to save Bellinger from further embarrassment. Our liberal media favoring this treaty will, of course, not bother to point out that one of the top brains in the State Department had been caught in the act of trying to mislead the U.S. Senate.  

        "This wasn’t the only exchange in which Vitter caught Bush Administration officials saying things that were untrue. He caught them in evasions and obfuscations over the claim that U.S. military and intelligence activities on the high seas cannot be restricted by the treaty. U.S. officials are making that claim in a declaration in the Senate resolution of ratification. It is one of 24 declarations or understandings being made by the U.S. for a treaty that administration witnesses repeatedly claimed would provide ‘legal certainty’ about what nations can and cannot do on the high seas.  

"If the treaty is so definitive and clear, then why is there a need for 24 declarations and understandings? To make matters worse, these declarations and understandings have no legal validity under the treaty.   

"Here’s some of the exchange on this point: 

"Vitter: ‘Who decides what is and what is not a military activity?’

"Negroponte: ‘We will decide that. We consider that within our sovereign prerogative.’

"Vitter: ‘Where does the treaty say that we decide that and an arbitral body does not decide that?’

"Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England: ‘My understanding―and I’ll ask my lawyer behind me―that that’s in the treaty that we make that determination and that’s not subject to review by anyone else.’

"Vitter: ‘It’s not in the treaty because I point to Article 298 1b where it simply says disputes concerning military activities are not subject to dispute resolution. But it doesn’t say who decides what is and what is not a military activity.’

"England: ‘You’re right.’ 

"Once again, an administration witness had been caught saying something that was not true.  

"When Vitter asked whether the U.S. considered intelligence activities to be military activities, England said he thought so but quickly motioned for his lawyer to come forward. But his lawyer didn’t seem to be in any rush to come to the microphone. Bellinger piped in that it would be ‘up to us.’ Vitter countered that other signatories to the treaty will disagree, leading to inevitable disputes about what the U.S. could do.   

"Exhibiting an arrogant streak, Bellinger told Senator Bob Corker that the U.S. had ‘effective lawyers’ and were likely to win most of the disputes. He said each side picked arbitrators in a dispute but neglected to mention that the U.N. Secretary-General can pick some, too. Most of the members of the U.N. Sea Treaty organization, like members of the U.N. itself, come from the anti-American bloc. Despite Bellinger’s confidence in the ability of the legal profession, it is political power and anti-Americanism that will decide these outcomes. That is why, except on the U.N. Security Council, where the U.S. has a veto, U.N. decisions almost always go against America and our economic and security interests.   

"Bellinger told the Senate that the U.S. has a seat on the Council of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) and has a ‘veto’ over its decisions. This is a body that collects taxes―dubbed ‘fees’ or ‘royalties’ by Bellinger and Negroponte―and then decides how to distribute them. Later, however, Bellinger conceded that the decisions of the Council will be made through ‘consensus,’ which makes our so-called vote subservient to the dictates of the rest of the members. Of course, a liberal U.S. President such as Hillary Clinton, whose executive branch will determine the American vote on the Council, would most likely go along with the "consensus" anyway. Once it gets its hands on profits from the exploitation of oil, gas and minerals, the ISA could give billions of dollars to the anti-American Third World. With this kind of money changing hands, it seems inevitable that another oil-for-food-type scandal could develop. There are no provisions in the treaty for monitoring the ethical behavior of Law of the Sea treaty bureaucrats and employees.    

"Administration officials falsely and repeatedly claimed that the international bodies set up by the treaty have no official involvement with the United Nations. In fact, the International Seabed Authority and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea have written and formalized agreements with the U.N. Their employees even belong to the U.N. pension fund. The treaty itself has numerous references to the authority of the U.N., emphasizing how the pact is to be implemented in accordance with the U.N. Charter. 

"Senator Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate committee and long-time advocate of the treaty, turned in an embarrassing performance as well. Lugar, who has accepted campaign contributions from the Citizens for Global Solutions, a pro-world government lobby, attacked critics of the pact as conspiracy theorists who were exaggerating the dangers of the pact. He attacked an ad that my group, America’s Survival, had put in the Washington Times on Wednesday, saying it was misleading. In fact, the claims were based on the text of the treaty and official U.N .documents. I have been denied the opportunity to testify to set the record straight, which is another indication that the treaty is being rushed through before the American people can understand its ominous implications.  

"Noting the outrage over the attempt to pass the Senate illegal alien amnesty bill, which also involved the issue of national sovereignty, Senator Jim DeMint said this was the wrong time to be trying to push the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty through. 

"DeMint asked some tough questions of administration witnesses, focusing on the fact that while the U.S. would follow the treaty if ratified, other nations would not. On the question of using the treaty to enforce international environmental accords, DeMint noted that Britain had been taken to court under the treaty for operating a nuclear plant on its own soil. The South Carolina senator also rebutted the claim, mentioned often at the hearing, that President Reagan had rejected the treaty only because of its seabed mining provisions. He read from the new book on Reagan’s diaries in which the former president says he would not have signed the treaty even without those provisions."  

One of the Left-wing vermin who have all too often inhabited Republican administrations has died.

William D. Rogers was a top adviser to Henry Kissinger at both the State Department and in later years as an international consultant.