Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Global nightmare: Saving the LOST
World Net Daily ^ | March 4, 2004 | Jane Chastain

Posted on 03/04/2004 8:04:55 AM PST by hedgetrimmer

When I first heard of the LOST (Law Of the Sea Treaty), it sounded like a bad plot for a science-fiction movie.

In the '60s and '70s, when the United Nations organized and led a series of conferences on the Law of the Sea, most considered the idea too weird to be taken seriously.

However, this maritime nightmare is about to become a reality.

The LOST was hatched by a group of internationalists who want to give the United Nations control of seven-tenths of the earth's surface area. It creates an International Seabed Authority to regulate the vast oceans and everything that happens beneath these waters, as well as everything that travels above or below their surfaces.

In addition, it would – for the very first time – create a revenue stream for the United Nations and give this onerous international bureaucracy true independence from its member nations.

Under the LOST, the United Nations would have the power to tax any and every type of sea-going vessel, as well as any type of ocean research and exploration. In fact, it would give the United Nations absolute control of these activities.

How would the United Nations exercise this control? It could persuade member nations to provide "seakeepers" to do its bidding. However, if that should fail, with its own revenue stream, the United Nations would be free to recruit and maintain its own standing army of paid international enforcers. Many believe that if you can control the great seas and oceans of the world, you control the world!

President Ronald Reagan was not about to give away the ability we now have to conduct activities in international waters. When Reagan refused to support the LOST, it slipped quietly beneath the waves until 1994, when President Bill Clinton dredged it up and signed it.

However, when the LOST went over to the Senate for ratification, Foreign Relations Chairman Jesse Helms told Clinton to get lost. Clinton was followed by George W. Bush, a president cut from the mold of Ronald Reagan, who was willing to work with the United Nations, but unwilling to be controlled by it. The LOST was gone forever, or so it seemed.

It has recently come to light that some members of the Bush administration have been working behind the scenes with a group of international businessmen who want to resurrect this many-tentacled ocean monster. It likely has something to do with the black gold hidden under the sea

It now appears that its ratification is being pushed by Vice President Dick Cheney, the man who ran Halliburton before being pressed back into public service by President Bush.

Mr. Cheney, say it isn't so!

Many of Cheney's buddies in the oil industry see the LOST as a way to recoup the millions they have been denied by our capitulation to the radical environmentalists, who keep us from drilling in our territorial waters. Understandably, they would like to see some protection for the millions they would like to sink into undersea oil exploration in international waters. They mistakenly see the United Nations as that protection.

Since when has the United Nations – largely is controlled by a pack of socialists or outright dictators and thugs – protected our interests?

Even more troubling, the U.S. Navy is quietly pushing for LOST ratification. The Center for Security Policy correctly states that the treaty effectively prohibits two functions vital to American security: intelligence collection in – and submerged transit of – territorial waters.

Why would the Navy sink under pressure for the LOST?

In the 1990s, following the Tailhook incident, the Navy allowed itself to be bullied by a bunch of finger-wagging, radical feminists. Should we be surprised that the Navy now has allowed itself to be torpedoed by a bunch of over-the-hill guys in business suits?

Unfortunately, the threat from the LOST is real and immediate!

Dick Lugar, the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, dutifully carried the water for the administration on the LOST, only allowing proponents to testify at a brief hearing. He is hoping to bring it to the floor for a surprise vote before any opposition can be organized.

Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club sued Mr. Cheney to get the records of what went on behind the closed doors of his Energy Task Force. It must be pretty embarrassing, because Mr. Cheney refused to comply with two lower-court rulings and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court in order to keep those records away from the American people.

Perhaps, just perhaps, it was this battle plan for the LOST.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: conspiracy; environment; govwatch; lost; maritime; mining; oil; propertyrights; sovereignty; sovereigntylist; un; unlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last
To: hedgetrimmer

2d Session

H. CON. RES. 268
To express the sense of the Congress that the United States should refrain from signing the seabed mining agreement relating to the Law of the Sea Treaty.


July 19, 1994
Mr. FIELDS of Texas submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

To express the sense of the Congress that the United States should refrain from signing the seabed mining agreement relating to the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Whereas many of the minerals underlying the seabed have strategic and military importance to the United States;

Whereas the Law of the Sea Treaty will come into force on November 16, 1994, having been ratified to date by sixty-one countries, none of which is industrialized;

Whereas a new seabed mining agreement amending the Law of the Sea Treaty will be open for signature on July 29, 1994, and the United States will sign the agreement;

Whereas the Law of the Sea Treaty, even as amended, continues to discriminate against the United States and our industrialized allies, is antithetical to business interests and will discourage United States investment in seabed mining;

Whereas signature of the agreement will bind the United States provisionally to the seabed mining agreement and portions of the Law of the Sea Treaty for up to four years, even absent Senate ratification of the agreement and the Law of the Sea Treaty;

Whereas this provisional application will force the United States to finance 25 percent of the operations of the large bureaucracy created by the Treaty, including the International Seabed Authority, which will eventually support a direct competitor to United States' and private mining interests, and distribute revenues from seabed mining to developing countries and groups of national liberation;

Whereas provisional application will coerce United States seabed miners to participate in the regime by filing mining claims and paying quarter million dollar exploration and exploitation application fees to the International Seabed Authority;

Whereas the plain language of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 prohibits the participation by the United States in an international organization and other international activities for which provision has not been made by any treaty for longer than one year without approval of Congress; and

Whereas possible ultimate failure by the United States to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty will cause chaos for the United States seabed mining industry: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should refrain from signing the seabed mining agreement relating to the Law of the Sea Treaty.
H.CON.RES.268 : To express the sense of the Congress that the United States should refrain from signing the seabed mining agreement relating to the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Sponsor: Rep Fields, Jack [TX-8] (introduced 7/19/1994) Cosponsors: 12
Committees: House Foreign Affairs
Latest Major Action: 7/19/1994 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

21 posted on 03/04/2004 9:59:43 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
It's a lot to digest. Entire legal careers are dedicated to Law of the Sea, and a couple are already dedicated to Space Law. As Law of the Sea goes, Space Law will follow by simple extension.

The problem for those who wish to exploit either the sea or space is that a private individual or corporation is excluded from such activity without sponsorship of his home country and the home country is severely constrained by treaty. Thus, there can be no moon mining, no asteroid mining until the signatories come to some agreement on the specific plan for the specific asteroid, and such mining would be highly regulated and taxed at least. The chance of profit under those conditions is near zero. Therefore, space will not be developed. However it is only a treaty and can be withdrawn from. There would be repercussions in the diplomatic arena and howls from the postmodernists. The postmodernists would give in immediately since they consider they have already lost everything; the diplomats would smooth everything out so the withdrawal shouldn't have any real negative effect. Anyway, Space Law is in its infancy and shouldn't necessarily be developed in an evolutionary way from Law of the Sea.

22 posted on 03/04/2004 10:45:28 AM PST by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer; farmfriend; Travis McGee; GeronL; Tailgunner Joe
From Henry Lamb's email on the topic: Among the treaty’s many flaws, it authorizes the U.N. to impose a tax, and to extract royalties on activities in and on the international seabed. It requires the transfer of technology - including information that may have security implications. For more detailed information about this terrible treaty, see these two great articles by Frank Gaffney, Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan.

We must take two actions - NOW!

First, call Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - 202-224-3344 - and ask him to not allow this treaty to by placed on the “unanimous consent” calendar.

Next, call your Senator, and ask him/her to file an objection to force a floor debate and vote. Then ask the Senator to vote against the treaty.

23 posted on 03/04/2004 11:00:17 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
24 posted on 03/04/2004 11:43:58 AM PST by RickofEssex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Senator Richard G. Lugar
Chairman Senator Joseph R Biden Jr.
Ranking Minority Member

Message from the Chairman:
Welcome to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee website.
Our Committee is responsible for the foreign policy activities
of the U.S. Senate. We evaluate all treaties with foreign governments;
approve all diplomatic nominations; and write legislation pertaining
to U.S. foreign policy, the State Department, Foreign Assistance
programs, and many associated topics. During 2003, the Committee
has maintained an extremely busy schedule of hearings and
legislative work. I hope that you find this website to be a valuable
resource in following our activities and understanding the role of the
Senate in foreign policy.

25 posted on 03/04/2004 11:46:59 AM PST by RickofEssex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.
26 posted on 03/04/2004 11:49:01 AM PST by RickofEssex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush

27 posted on 03/04/2004 11:57:39 AM PST by RickofEssex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
28 posted on 03/04/2004 12:02:55 PM PST by RickofEssex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
New World Order Rising? - Thoughts on the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development
29 posted on 03/04/2004 12:10:56 PM PST by RickofEssex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Thanks for the very constructive suggestions.
30 posted on 03/04/2004 1:42:02 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RickofEssex
We are deeply enmeshed in in Agenda 21 here in Santa Cruz county.

So much so that there is even a website here locallythat monitors and explains Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is what happens when you elect communists and socialists to a republican government. Suddenly the Republic isn't free anymore, but becomes the twisted vision of the communist utopianists:

It used to be against the law for a communist to run for or hold office. But since no one claims to be a member of the communist party, and there are plenty of communist political parties without the word communist in their name, its an end run around the rules.

31 posted on 03/04/2004 1:47:10 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ribeye
Old man Bush was always nattering on about "the new world order." Unfortunately, people just let him natter on about it and never questioned what he was talking about.

32 posted on 03/04/2004 1:50:32 PM PST by ladylib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Right up until the this glob of horse hockey fell upon Cheney I was in sync. Now I realize that it is nothing but spin from the loonie liberal democrats. It is they who are joined at the hip with the UN, not Cheney or any other Republican.
33 posted on 03/04/2004 2:57:31 PM PST by F.J. Mitchell (With only one John left there will now be a lot of democrats standing cross legged.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F.J. Mitchell; Constantine XIII
Now I realize that it is nothing but spin from the loonie liberal democrats.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. President & CEO, The Center for Security Policy

Your credibility is really sucking hind teat, F.J., when you pass off someone like this as a liberal spinmeister.

34 posted on 03/04/2004 5:42:37 PM PST by TigersEye (Carrying a gun is a social obligation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
you are so Right
35 posted on 03/04/2004 8:49:12 PM PST by RickofEssex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: F.J. Mitchell
If anyone has an ear, let him hear.

It is the God of the Bible who first warned of one-world government, economy, and religion. If you do not see (especially after reading the very appropriate and relevant links provided on this thread) every conceivable stone of this tower of man being put into place you simply don't have eyes to see.

I've been watching the rise of the one-world government, economy, and religion for years now. It is absolutely undeniable, not only because it is biblical, but because I can not deny what my eyes see and what my ears hear. The LOST legislation is simply one more brick in its building.

I believe men of God will fight every step of the way, and rightly so, but in the end prophesy will be fulfilled.
To deny it is to deny the God who spoke it.

"See," Jesus said, "I have warned you ahead of time."

36 posted on 03/05/2004 2:59:50 AM PST by .30Carbine (watch and pray)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Thank you so much for all the research you did and posted here.
37 posted on 03/05/2004 3:29:36 AM PST by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constantine XIII
Some "baloney meters" are in need of calibration.
38 posted on 03/05/2004 3:32:15 AM PST by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
I'd just like her to back up what she's saying a bit. W's administration has gone out of its way to make fools of the UN, one of the reasons why he is an awesome president. We could talk all day about how he's stuck his finger in their eye by killing off the Tobin Tax in Mexico city during his first few months in office, stopping Kyoto and the ICC, cutting out UN "family planning" funding, stomping Saddam, and so on.

In light of this, to claim that W's vice president and the US freakin Navy are part of the UN's plan to become a global government seem pretty far fetched. Extraordinary claims require extraordiany evidince, and she provides none. Her argument consists of mostly "it appears that", "it seems", and nameless nameless, nebulous clues.

Yeah, the UN sucks, I've made plenty of people upset over the years saying so, too, but they don't have spies in my rice crispies, and they certainly haven't bought off the VP and the Navy. :)
39 posted on 03/05/2004 6:30:13 AM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
Mind you, I don't doubt Kofi would like to be King of the World. It's just that they really don't have the means to pull this off in the near term. Now, if people stay home and elect Dems for president and congress, that could be a whole different kettle of fish.

This thought should provide some encouragement to "dance with who brought you" for those who want to "send the R's a message" by getting J F'n K elected.

JMHO, o'course!
40 posted on 03/05/2004 6:34:28 AM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson