Law of the Sea Treaty

[guntherg16]

http://www.capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=9848421

Click the link above to learn more about the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and to take action on it.

Fill out the form to email your Senators to let them know you are against this treaty. Then, pass it on to everyone you know.

[lucius]

Thank you!

[Givemelibertyor.....]

Email sent.

[guntherg16]

Thank you!

I thank you for taking action.

[guntherg16]

Email sent.

Thanks.

[RP4ME]

What are these idiots thinking?????Whats in it for teh US - nothing nothing so why is stuff liek thsi even on teh table! ARggggh

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What are these idiots thinking?????Whats in it for teh US - nothing nothing so why is stuff liek thsi even on teh table! ARggggh

That's what happens when people continue to elect the worst people in the world to represent US

[eleganz]

What the hell? So does this mean, we would technically have to get permits to travel the UN waters? silly bush... :rolleyes:

[guntherg16]

I agree, this treaty makes absolutely no sense from an American perspective. There is nothing for the United States to gain. I hope everyone takes a minute to fire off the email to your Senators that the link in the original post leads to.

Thanks.

[guntherg16]

bump

[reaver]

Link is no longer active.

[RickSp]

Remind me - why are the Burchies so bent out of shape about the treaty?

[reaver]

As far as I understand it-correct me if i'm wrong- it would have coastal states paying a tax to an international agency like the UN.

[mordechai]

Reaver's right.

The real question to me is how to enforce it? Because, well, even when Paul's President, we'll still have a Navy, and I'd like to see the U.N. try to impose a tax at some port. Can you spell Tomahawk missile?

[RickSp]

As far as I understand it-correct me if i'm wrong- it would have coastal states paying a tax to an international agency like the UN.

Do you have any reference for that claim? I don't think it exists in the treaty. In fact the treaty establishes for the first time as a basis of international agreement a 200 mile exclusive economic zone to prevent just that sort of thing. There are provisions for taxes levied on deep sea mining but these have been modified significantly since Reagan first objected to the treaty in 1982.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea)

[reaver]

Do you have any reference for that claim? I don't think it exists in the treaty. In fact the treaty establishes for the first time as a basis of international agreement a 200 mile exclusive economic zone to prevent just that sort of thing. There are provisions for taxes levied on deep sea mining but these have been modified significantly since Reagan first objected to the treaty in 1982.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea)

One controversial and extremely vague UNCLOS provision, Article 82, is titled, “Payments and contributions with respect to the exploitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.” It declares that a coastal state, such as the U.S., shall make “payments or contributions” through the ISA, “which shall distribute them to States Parties to this Convention, on the basis of equitable sharing criteria, taking into account the interests and needs of developing States, particularly the least developed and the land-locked among them.”

No one seems to know how much this will cost the U.S.

http://www.cptexas.org/ck10.18.07.shtml
Like I said I'm not 100% sure if its a tax or just 'contributions' or whatnot.

[RickSp]

One controversial and extremely vague UNCLOS provision, Article 82, is titled, “Payments and contributions with respect to the exploitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.” It declares that a coastal state, such as the U.S., shall make “payments or contributions” through the ISA, “which shall distribute them to States Parties to this Convention, on the basis of equitable sharing criteria, taking into account the interests and needs of developing States, particularly the least developed and the land-locked among them.”

No one seems to know how much this will cost the U.S.

http://www.cptexas.org/ck10.18.07.shtml
Like I said I'm not 100% sure if its a tax or just 'contributions' or whatnot.

That is only related to deep-sea mining which is not the perceived issue that it was back in 82. Unless the US engages in deep sea mining off our continental shelf it will cost exactly nothing.

Your link is unintentionally funny. The heading "Senator Vitter Nails Oxman" made me laugh. Vitter nails another one.

[reaver]

That is only related to deep-sea mining which is not the perceived issue that it was back in 82. Unless the US engages in deep sea mining off our continental shelf it will cost exactly nothing.

Your link is unintentionally funny. The heading "Senator Vitter Nails Oxman" made me laugh. Vitter nails another one.

Yeah I knew the link would be of no use when I scrolled up to the top. I've made half-hearted attempts to understand this treaty... but I just don't understand international law.

Under this type of treaty an area like the north pole/(or for that matter 200 miles off the shelf) would be up for grabs right? Then the party that is mining it pays the contribution/tax to go to developing nations right?

[RobertJ]

"International Seabed Authority" i just love saying that silly name "International Seabed Authority"......hahaha

[RP4ME]

Reaver's right.

The real question to me is how to enforce it? Because, well, even when Paul's President, we'll still have a Navy, and I'd like to see the U.N. try to impose a tax at some port. Can you spell Tomahawk missile?

That was the Old US we live in a new strange beast now hoping to find our way back!

[RickSp]

Yeah I knew the link would be of no use when I scrolled up to the top. I've made half-hearted attempts to understand this treaty... but I just don't understand international law.

Under this type of treaty an area like the north pole/(or for that matter 200 miles off the shelf) would be up for grabs right? Then the party that is mining it pays the contribution/tax to go to developing nations right?

No treaty is perfect and this one sure as hell isn't but it might provide a useful framework for future negotiations. The mining provisions have been moderated significantly since the 1982 draft. The Law of the Sea Convention is currently being used by the US Navy in cracking down on piracy on the West coast of Africa I still fail to see why the Birchies are so upset about it.

[sharedvoice]

This treaty undermines our national sovereignty and must be repealed!

Interesting when you GOOGLE "land of the sea treaty" you get the Heritage Foundation website... This should be of no surprise since they are part of NWO, WTO, NAFA, CFR, AIPEC, etc.

[RickSp]

This treaty undermines our national sovereignty and must be repealed!

Interesting when you GOOGLE "land of the sea treaty" you get the Heritage Foundation website... This should be of no surprise since they are part of NWO, WTO, NAFA, CFR, AIPEC, etc.

OK, so it is the old Burchie never negotiate with furriners line. Any international agreement is bad. Gotcha.

[Stacey S]

You can also go to the John Birch Society page and get the information to CALL your Senators.

I left a message for Lautenberg, and he shoots me a thank you email for my concern about the Patriot Act. What an ass.

I'm calling again tomorrow.

[bbachtung]

No treaty is perfect and this one sure as hell isn't but it might provide a useful framework for future negotiations. The mining provisions have been moderated significantly since the 1982 draft. The Law of the Sea Convention is currently being used by the US Navy in cracking down on piracy on the West coast of Africa I still fail to see why the Birchies are so upset about it.

America doesn't need international permission to defend ships bearing the American flag in international waters.

[sharedvoice]

You can also go to the John Birch Society page and get the information to CALL your Senators.

I left a message for Lautenberg, and he shoots me a thank you email for my concern about the Patriot Act. What an ass.

I'm calling again tomorrow.

Reading comprehension and listening skills must not be a requirement any longer for the Senate. ask him if he was a product of today's public education system. lol

[RickSp]

America doesn't need international permission to defend ships bearing the American flag in international waters.

LOL. The whole point is not to have defend ships in international waters by agreeing on simple rules with other countries in advance. It is what has been done for centuries and is exactly as is provided for in Article VI of the Constitution.

[pcosmar]

LOL. The whole point is not to have defend ships in international waters by agreeing on simple rules with other countries in advance. It is what has been done for centuries and is exactly as is provided for in Article VI of the Constitution.

Wrong, the whole point is giving up National Sovereignty to the Globalists.
That way a foreign entity can drill for Oil of our coastline with UN approval.

[RickSp]

Wrong, the whole point is giving up National Sovereignty to the Globalists.
That way a foreign entity can drill for Oil of our coastline with UN approval.

Oh Jaysus. So you are suggesting that our sovererignty extends beyond 200 miles off our coast? Because that is specifically what the treaty protects. Everything on the continetal shelf is part of the US Exclusive economic zones (EEZ) and within the EEZ, the US has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources.

So unless you claim sovereighty to the entire Atlantic Ocean your assertion that a "foreign entity can drill for Oil of our coastline with UN approval" is utter nonsense.

[pcosmar]

The UN has NO business in this.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=639

Perhaps it’s time to stop trying to manipulate the UN, and start asserting our national sovereignty.

If we do not, rest assured that the UN will continue to interfere not only in our nation’s foreign policy matters, but in our domestic policies as well. UN globalists are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes. They increasingly want to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. UN global planners fully intend to expand the organization into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and possibly a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these goals are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are openly opposed to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.

The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted or even influenced by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.

Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported “authority.” Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution. As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not.

[pcosmar]

A good article from the CATO Institute.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2567

Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty

by Doug Bandow

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he served as a deputy representative to the third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea.

President Bush has demonstrated his willingness to stand alone internationally. Yet for little better reason than go-along, get-along multilateralism, the administration is now pushing the Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty, which was just unanimously voted out of Richard Lugar's Senate Foreign Relations Committee. At a committee meeting in February, Lugar noted a wide range of support from American interests "for U.S. accession to be completed swiftly." However, the treaty is a flawed document, and there would be serious costs from accepting it.

The Law of the Sea Treaty originated in the 1970s as part of the United Nations' redistributionist agenda known as the "New International Economic Order." The convention covers such issues as fishing and navigation, but the controversy arose mainly over seabed mining. In essence, the Law of the Sea Treaty was designed to transfer wealth and technology from the industrialized states to the Third World.

Two decades ago, President Ronald Reagan ignored criticism of American unilateralism and refused to sign the treaty. U.S. leadership caused the Europeans and even the Soviet Union to stay out. Many Third World states eventually acknowledged the treaty's many flaws.

But treaties attract diplomats as lights attract moths. The first Bush and Clinton administrations worked to "fix" the treaty, leading to a revised agreement in 1994. Washington signed, leading to a cascade of ratifications from other countries. GOP gains in Congress, however, dissuaded the Clinton administration from pushing for ratification. Now George W. Bush has stepped in where Bill Clinton feared to tread.

Unfortunately, the revised treaty retains many of its original flaws. There is still a complicated multinational bureaucracy that sounds like an excerpt from George Orwell's "1984": At its center is the International Seabed Authority. The Authority (as it calls itself) supervises a mining subsidiary called the Enterprise, ruled by an Assembly, Council, and various commissions and committees. Mining approval would be highly politicized and could discriminate against American operators. Companies that are allowed to mine would owe substantial fees to the Authority and be required to do surveys for the Enterprise, their government-subsidized competitor.

A mandatory transfer of mining technologies to Third World companies has been watered down. However, "sponsoring states" -- that is, governments of nations where mining companies are located-would have to facilitate such transfers if the Enterprise and Third World competitors are "unable to obtain" necessary equipment commercially. Depending on the whims of the Authority, ensuring the "cooperation" of private miners could look very much like mandatory transfers.

The Authority, though so far of modest size, would suffer from the same perverse incentives that afflict the U.N., since the United States would be responsible for 25 percent of the budget but easily outmaneuvered. Proposals by industrialized signatories to limit their contributions have so far received an unfriendly reception. Still, when it signed the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Clinton administration said there was no reason to worry, because the treaty proclaims that "all organs and subsidiary bodies to be established under the Convention and this Agreement shall be cost-effective." Right. Presumably just as cost-effective as the U.N.

The treaty's mining scheme is flawed in its very conception. Although many people once thought untold wealth would leap from the seabed, land-based sources have remained cheaper than expected, and scooping up manganese nodules and other resources from the ocean floor is logistically daunting. There is no guarantee that seabed mining will ever be commercially viable.

Yet this has not dimmed the enthusiasm of the Authority. Like the U.N., it generates lots of reports and paper and obsesses over trivia. Protecting "the emblem, the official seal and the name" of the International Seabed Authority has been a matter of some concern. Among the crises the Authority has confronted: In April 2002 the Jamaican government turned off its air conditioning, necessitating "urgent consultations with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade." A year later Jamaica used the same tactic in an ongoing battle over Authority payments for its facility. Oh yes, half of the Authority members are behind on their dues.

Were seabed mining ever to thrive, a transparent system for recognizing mine sites and resolving disputes would be helpful. But the Authority's purpose isn't to be helpful. It is to redistribute resources to irresponsible Third World governments with a sorry history of squandering abundant foreign aid.

This redistributionist bent is reflected in the treaty's call for financial transfers to developing states and even "peoples who have not attained full independence or other self-governing status"-code for groups such as the PLO. Whatever changes the treaty has undergone, a constant has been Third World pressure for financial transfers. Three voluntary trust funds were established to aid developing countries. Alas, few donors have come forward to subsidize the participation of, say, sub-Saharan African states in the development of ocean mining. Thus, the Authority has had to dip into its own budget to pay into the funds.

Why, given all this, was the Senate Foreign Relations Committee eager to sign on? The treaty is not without benefits. Provisions regarding the environment, resource management, and rights of transit generally are positive, though many reflect what is now customary international law, even in the absence of U.S. ratification. Lugar notes that "law and practice with respect to regulation of activities off our shores is already generally compatible with the Convention." This would seem to be an equally strong argument for not ratifying the treaty.

Most influential, though, may be support from the U.S. Navy, which is enamored of the treaty's guarantee of navigational freedom. Not that such freedom is threatened now: The Russian navy is rusting in port, China has yet to develop a blue water capability, and no country is impeding U.S. transit, commercial or military.

At the same time, some ambiguous provisions may impinge on freedoms U.S. shipping now enjoys. In Senate testimony last fall, State Department legal adviser William H. Taft IV noted the importance of conditioning acceptance "upon the understanding that each Party has the exclusive right to determine which of its activities are 'military activities' and that such determination is not subject to review." Whether other members will respect that claim is not at all certain. Admiral Michael G. Mullen, the vice chief of naval operations, acknowledges the possibility that a Law of the Sea tribunal could rule adversely and harm U.S. "operational planning and activities, and our security."

Moreover, at a time when Washington is combating lawless terrorism, it should be evident that the only sure guarantee of free passage on the seas is the power of the U.S. Navy, combined with friendly relations with the states, few in number, that sit astride important sea lanes. Coastal nations make policy based on perceived national interest, not abstract legal norms. Remember the luckless USS Pueblo in 1968? International law did not prevent North Korea from seizing the intelligence ship; approval of the Law of the Sea Treaty would have offered the Pueblo no additional protection. America was similarly unaided by international law in its 2001 confrontation with China over our downed EP-3 surveillance plane.

Nor has signing the Law of the Sea Treaty prevented Brazil, China, India, Malaysia, North Korea, Pakistan, and others from making ocean claims deemed excessive by others. Indeed, last October Adm. Mullen warned that the benefits he believed to derive from treaty ratification did not "suggest that countries' attempts to restrict navigation will cease once the United States becomes a party to the Law of the Sea Convention."

Critics of the U.S. refusal to sign in 1982 predicted ocean chaos, but not once has an American ship been denied passage. No country has had either the incentive or the ability to interfere with U.S. shipping. And if they had, the treaty would have been of little help. In 1998 Law of the Sea Treaty supporters agitated for immediate ratification because several special exemptions for the United States were set to expire; Washington did not ratify, and no one seems to have noticed. Now Lugar worries that Washington could "forfeit our seat at the table of institutions that will make decisions about the use of the oceans." Yet last October Assistant Secretary of State John F. Turner told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that America has "had considerable success" in asserting "its oceans interests as a nonparty to the Convention."

Law of the Sea Treaty proponents talk grandly of the need to "restore U.S. leadership," but real leadership can mean saying no as well as yes. Ronald Reagan was right to torpedo the Law of the Sea Treaty two decades ago. Creating a new oceans bureaucracy is no more attractive today.

[Tberrie]

No treaty is perfect and this one sure as hell isn't but it might provide a useful framework for future negotiations. The mining provisions have been moderated significantly since the 1982 draft. The Law of the Sea Convention is currently being used by the US Navy in cracking down on piracy on the West coast of Africa I still fail to see why the Birchies are so upset about it.

Do I really hear someone that's not responding with a resounding "no" to this treaty? We are a sovereign nation, right?

Sovereign \Sov"er*eign\
1. Supreme or highest in power; superior to all others; chief; as, our sovereign prince.

2. Independent of, and unlimited by, any other; possessing, or entitled to, original authority or jurisdiction; as, a sovereign state; a sovereign discretion.

This treaty limits the US and hands power over to another entity. I do believe that is the antithesis of sovereignty. Hence, bad treaty.

[RickSp]

Do I really hear someone that's not responding with a resounding "no" to this treaty? We are a sovereign nation, right?


Are you now claiming sovereignty over the entire deep sea? That extends our borders across the entire globe. So far all I have heard here is bullshit and false information. I am not very impressed.

Even Doug Bandow, who I often respect (when he isn't pocketing money from lobbyists) doesn't make much of a case. Cutting through the rhetoric his only real complaints are about UN bureaucracy and certain provisions related to deep sea mining. The first is valid and the second is largely hypothetical as for all intents and proposes there is no significant deep sea mining.

[jmdrake]

Are you now claiming sovereignty over the entire deep sea? That extends our borders across the entire globe. So far all I have heard here is bullshit and false information. I am not very impressed.

Even Doug Bandow, who I often respect (when he isn't pocketing money from lobbyists) doesn't make much of a case. Cutting through the rhetoric his only real complaints are about UN bureaucracy and certain provisions related to deep sea mining. The first is valid and the second is largely hypothetical as for all intents and proposes there is no significant deep sea mining.

Ron Paul believes the L.O.S.T. is an affront to U.S. sovereignty. Do you think he's BS'ing too? Please read.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul170.html

Back in the 1970s the United Nations launched its plan for a global program of taxation without representation, called the “New International Economic Order.” The goal of this new economic order was not so new at all, however. It sought the involuntary transfer of wealth and technology from the developed world to the third world under the direction of the United Nations. A cornerstone of this dangerous attempt to loot the prosperous nations was the “Law of the Sea Treaty” (LOST).

Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, an “International Seabed Authority” would control the minerals and other resources of the oceans’ seabed. After taking its own cut, this UN body would transfer whatever is left to select third-world governments and non-governmental organizations.

The Law of the Sea Treaty also would give the UN power to tax American citizens and businesses, which has been a long-time dream of the anti-sovereignty globalists. LOST also would establish an international court system to enforce its provisions and rulings. Imagine not being able to do business internationally without the approval of the United Nations!

It all sounds like something out of a science-fiction novel, but it is real.

Fortunately, when the treaty came before President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, he ignored those warning of impending international chaos and refused to sign the treaty. It was the right thing to do. It appeared that the push toward global governance was – at least temporarily – halted.

But that was not the end of LOST. Determined proponents of the treaty worked to “fix” its most objectionable parts in hopes the United States would become a party. The UN and its supporters know that without the participation of the United States, their schemes are doomed to failure.

Satisfied with their efforts to alter the treaty in the 1990s, LOST supporters sent it to President Bill Clinton, who wasted no time signing the treaty and sending it to the Senate for ratification. Fortunately the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then headed by Senator Jesse Helms, concluded that despite cosmetic changes the treaty remained hopelessly flawed. He sent it back to the president in 2000 with no action.

It seemed as though this treaty would finally die. But it did not. Undeterred, LOST supporters in the State Department sent the treaty back to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2003. This time the Committee voted unanimously, just this February, to send it to the full Senate for ratification! LOST currently sits before the Senate, available at any time for a full Senate vote on ratification. Despite President Reagan’s rejection and Senator Jesse Helms’ rejection, LOST therefore is still very much alive.

Together with 13 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, I sent a letter last week to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist urging him to reject this dangerous and foolish treaty. Should the United Nations succeed in its dream of taxing American citizens when they do business abroad, how much longer will it be until they begin taxing us at home? Just last month, in fact, UN bureaucrats gathered in New York to look for ways to revive their dream of imposing UN control and a global tax on the internet. Imagine a global policy on internet content dictated by nations such as Saudi Arabia and China – and paid for by Americans! Let us hope that the Senate does the sensible thing and rejects LOST and any further UN encroachments on our sovereignty.


It's not about "claiming sovereignty over the sea". It's about nations remaining FREE to work out their own differences on the sea without interference from an unelected international bureaucracy. Are you going to support a "law of the space" treaty next just because we don't have sovereignty over the galaxy? Should the U.S. have to ask U.N. permission before launching a satellite too?

Regards,

John M. Drake

[RickSp]

It is hardly a perfect treaty but it is a basic for making further progress. Claiming that an agreement addressing the deep ocean floor somehow impacts US national sovereignty is simply bizarre unless you are claiming the US has sovereign control over the ocean floor. In this case Dr. Paul is simply wrong.

[jmdrake]

It is hardly a perfect treaty but it is a basic for making further progress. Claiming that an agreement addressing the deep ocean floor somehow impacts US national sovereignty is simply bizarre unless you are claiming the US has sovereign control over the ocean floor. In this case Dr. Paul is simply wrong.

Yeah. You seem to be saying that a lot lately. Planing to switch to the Kucinich campaign? He may be a better match for you.

Anyway, you clearly don't understand sovereignty. It's not just about property you own directly. I gave you the answer of outer space. Nobody owns that. That doesn't mean the U.N. should be given authority over all space launches. I see that you ignored that question. It must be because deep down you know that you are wrong.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[pcosmar]

It is hardly a perfect treaty but it is a basic for making further progress. Claiming that an agreement addressing the deep ocean floor somehow impacts US national sovereignty is simply bizarre unless you are claiming the US has sovereign control over the ocean floor. In this case Dr. Paul is simply wrong.

It has nothing to do with claiming control of the entire ocean.
It has to do with allowing (or NOT) an outside Global authority to have authority over the US.
I would chose to NOT have a bunch of Foreign interests dictating policy to this country.

[RickSp]

Yeah. You seem to be saying that a lot lately. Planing to switch to the Kucinich campaign? He may be a better match for you.

Anyway, you clearly don't understand sovereignty. It's not just about property you own directly. I gave you the answer of outer space. Nobody owns that. That doesn't mean the U.N. should be given authority over all space launches. I see that you ignored that question. It must be because deep down you know that you are wrong.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I guess Ron Paul has so many supporters that you tinfoil hat conservatives feel free to ask some of us to leave. Not gonna happen. Deep down I know you sovereignty obsessed xenophobes are nuts.

[reaver]

What impact would LOST have on the exploitation of natural resources around the North Pole?

[jmdrake]

I guess Ron Paul has so many supporters that you tinfoil hat conservatives feel free to ask some of us to leave. Not gonna happen. Deep down I know you sovereignty obsessed xenophobes are nuts.

I'm no more "sovereignty obsessed" than Ron Paul. In fact I'm less so. Ron Paul has long advocated getting us out of the U.N. for instance but I haven't yet made up my mind. And no, I'm not asking you to leave. But I'm just curious that if you attack Ron Paul's positions as being "tinfoil hat" and "obsessed xenophobia" then I'm curious as to why you support him? There are some issues (very few) that I disagree with Ron Paul on, but I don't attack those who agree with Dr. Paul on those positions because I'm intelligent enough to know that such action would be an indirect attack on Dr. Paul.

Regards,

John M. Drake