The 'Pro-America Principle' of National Sovereignty

Jordan Henry

American sovereignty is one of the foremost issues of our day. From the dawn of time, nations have been defined by their ability to control a distinct geographical region and the natural resources therein. If a nation does not look after its own people, its own territory, and its own resources, it is doomed to fall. That message is a large part of what propelled President Donald Trump into the White House. The American people were tired of leaders who pretend that the needs of the so-called “global community” are more important than the safety of our own citizens. Many people know about this principle from the slogan “America First.” In February 2005, the Phyllis Schlafly Report alerted the American people to an attack on American sovereignty being disguised as a global peace agreement. That attack was aptly known as the Law of Sea Treaty, or LOST.

While LOST claimed to be the best way to settle maritime disputes among nations, it would have done nothing but strip America of the right to rule her citizens by creating a sovereign international body to rule the seas. This international body, called the International Seabed Authority (ISA), has many of the anti-American features of the United Nations and several more on top of that. Like the United Nations, ISA was given the power to prosecute citizens through an independent international judiciary. Like the United Nations, ISA has a very strong anti-American bias. However, unlike the United Nations, ISA was given authority to regulate a larger geographical region than any other nation on earth, namely all of the world’s seas. Also unlike the United Nations, ISA was given the authority to tax almost any activity on the high seas. With territorial control and taxing power, the ISA looks a lot more like a sovereign power than an international peacekeeping organization.

The idea that any informed American would fall for the Law of the Sea Treaty is befuddling. As American citizens, we have protection from governmental tyranny in the form of a written Bill of Rights and elected public officials. Why would we ever want to turn over the authority to prosecute Americans accused of crimes on the sea to an unaccountable international body? As American citizens, we enjoy the protection of a sovereign military force which operates under the sole discretion of the United States of America. Why would we want to tell our submarines and ships that they have to do what the ISA tells them to do and only go where the ISA tells them to go? As American citizens, we enjoy the prosperity of our economy. Why would we give taxing power to an entity which has a long history of redistributing money from wealthy nations like ours to give to so-called “developing nations,” most of which are failed communist dictatorships? When LOST is looked at from the perspective of American sovereignty, there is no justification for its ratification.

Do not think that the threat of this encroachment on American sovereignty has ceased to be relevant. LOST has been around since 1983, yet it remains a highly contentious issue. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton made it a priority to get LOST ratified as late as 2012, although she was not successful. In addition to LOST, there are many other multilateral treaties that march under the banner of peace but secretly threaten the single greatest peacekeeping force on the planet: a strong United States of America. Let’s not be fooled by these Trojan horses. Phyllis saw through the deception, and she shared her insight freely in the February 2005 Phyllis Schlafly Report. More than any multilateral treaty, a strong and sovereign United States is the surest path to peace for Americans citizens and every person around the globe.

To view the February 2005 Phyllis Schlafly Report in its entirety, please click on the image below.

Phyllis Schlafly Facebook
PS Eagles Google
PS Eagles Twitter