Replies

Interesting that the most significant issue regarding LOST is lost in the article. If the source hadn't been dedicated to defense policy, I would have said that such a glaring oversight could be deliberate misdirection.

The land use control gained by this global bureaucracy will gain via LOST will be justified to "protect" the marine environment. It isn't hard to see. Many oceanic species breed in estuaries within the United States. Estuarine health isn't doing very well for a number of reasons (many of which politicized science will conveniently miss). The estuaries are fed by rivers. The rivers are lined with cities.

Marine sanctuaries and global biospheres are model for what is planned for LOST. If all we accomplish is to alter the treaty to gain protection for our military, we will have missed the point.

LOST is a straitjacket fully capable of crippling this nation (which certainly affects its ability to defend itself). That the White House says it knows nothing about it belies the fact that, according to the email I get from ALRA, the White House and Chuck Hagel are the instigators in pushing this treaty through in the dark of night after the Reagan Administration had rejected it out of hand.

If you think how much we all despise the "Blue Helmets", well, the "Blue Hulls" is a United Nations Navy supported by all the member nations! Guess who will be the donor of the ships? Yup, The compassionate US of A! It will be signed and done before the election by a voice vote unless we keep our ears open about everything to do with LOST.

"The land use control gained by this global bureaucracy will gain via LOST will be justified to "protect" the marine environment."

You nailed it, Carry_Okie, that is a gigantic back door into private property rights via treaty. It's got to be stopped.

--Boot Hill

LOST is a straitjacket fully capable of crippling this nation (which certainly affects its ability to defend itself).

Agreed.

That the White House says it knows nothing about it

...President Bush explicitly declared that to Gaffney...and I believe Gaffney.

... belies the fact that, according to the email I get from ALRA, the White House and Chuck Hagel are the instigators in pushing this treaty through in the dark of night after the Reagan Administration had rejected it out of hand.

Either Bush is lying point blank to a mainline Reagan national security official...or he is less-than-a-puppet with someone else actually running the show.

I confess I lean heavily to the conclusion that when confronted on the White House's ulterior liberal foreign policy agendas... Bush is not above lying to us. He is not conservative. He feels no common ground.

As for Chuck Hagel...his little run for the Presidency needs a good set of "LOST" torpedoes up his fan-tail....this really needs to be made an issue in the debates Wednesday...

"...the White House and Chuck Hagel are the instigators in pushing this treaty through in the dark of night..."

And lets not overlook that little RINO faux conservative weasel, Orrin Hatch of Utah, who has been a prime advocate of LOST.

The 2006 midterms have taught the GOP nothing. They deserve another good whacking from the conservative base in 2008. And they're well on the way...