Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Law of the Sea Treaty Threatens Sovereignty
NewsMax ^ | Nov 24, 2004 | Paul Weyrich

Posted on 11/24/2004 8:38:12 AM PST by LarkNeelie

...LOST would have our country surrender its sovereignty on the seas to a body called the International Seabed Authority (ISA), whose membership is stacked in favor of Third World nations. If the Senate ratifies LOST, we will have given the ISA the authority to determine what rights our country will have to mine minerals located on the ocean floor and the right to tax their extraction

only hope that conservatives across this nation will come to the defense of our country’s sovereignty by making it absolutely clear, in no uncertain terms, where they stand. If everyone does, I am confident that, with an incoming Senate more conservative in terms of its membership, the forces in defense of our nation’s sovereignty will prevail.


(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 1982; authority; awmakers; bush; congress; economy; grassroots; lawofthesea; lost; national; ratify; redistribution; ronaldregan; senate; socialism; sovereignty; treaty; un; unitednations; vote
I did some research and summarized the parts of the Treaty (see below).

After reading it, I think the "Law Of The Sea Treaty" is merely another poorly-disguised effort by the UN to birth a one-world government and institute socialist income redistribution by strangling First World nations (guess who?).

We, as citizens, must vociferously voice our protests to our lawmakers before they ratify this stupid thing, first rejected by Ronald Reagan in 1982. How do you think Kerry's going to vote on this?

After reading the following, anyone who is not completely outraged that our lawmakers are even considering this should examine their heads.

Right off the bat, the Preamble describes the committment to a world socialist order.


1 posted on 11/24/2004 8:38:14 AM PST by LarkNeelie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LarkNeelie

America should evict the UN and pave over any pissant Turd World country that wants to f*ck with us.

These filthy, evil, socialist despots will never, NEVER stop until they force America to her knees with UN Blue Helmets on every street corner.

This crap just reinforces our need for a Navy that commands, dominates, and controls the seas.


2 posted on 11/24/2004 8:48:41 AM PST by PeterFinn ("Tolerance" means WE have to tolerate THEM, they can hate us all they want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LarkNeelie
No...No...A thousand times NO!!!
3 posted on 11/24/2004 8:50:38 AM PST by Edgerunner (The left ain't right. Hand me that launch pickle...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LarkNeelie

Time to Hammer them with e-mails and phone calls. We should be getting out of the UN and getting the UN out of the US!!


4 posted on 11/24/2004 8:51:48 AM PST by 26lemoncharlie (Defending America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LarkNeelie

Me thinks the UN and most everyone in it should be tossed into the frigid North Atlantic. If the U.S. Senate ratifies this I would consider independence for this U.S. island/commowealth.

CLl


5 posted on 11/24/2004 8:52:33 AM PST by cll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn

Peter, unfortunately, the US Navy SUPPORTS this idiocy!! On that UN website, a list of donors is available. There are several US entities, including a PEW institute.


6 posted on 11/24/2004 9:00:14 AM PST by LarkNeelie (Shock 'N Awe - liberals stunned by defeat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cll

This is little more than a permanent meal ticket for UN bureaucrats. This would allow them free reign. Time to make them pay as you go.


7 posted on 11/24/2004 9:00:32 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LarkNeelie

How? Could you site a source for this info?


8 posted on 11/24/2004 9:02:39 AM PST by TexasTransplant (When you are over the hill, you pick up speed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LarkNeelie

The PEW institute is a major arm of the UN agenda. It is one of the hand selected "civil society" organizations that the UN uses to replace duly elected governmnent.

The UN is pushing this treaty again, because they want to get it passed before Americans kick them out of the country.

They are also in a rush to get the world under the thumb of their socialist, centralized government plan, called sustainable development.

UN Wants Faster Action On Sustainable Development
http://www.europaworld.org/week201/unwants191104.htm


9 posted on 11/24/2004 9:10:24 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TexasTransplant

Search on keyword LOST, on this site:



Rescuing the Law of the Sea

Posted by Pikamax
On News/Activism 08/21/2004 9:41:24 PM PDT · 10 replies · 245+ views

NYTIMES ^ | 08/22/04 | Editoral
worthy global treaty has been awaiting Senate ratification for 22 years. If a tiny but noisy group of xenophobic activists, assisted by a callow Senate leadership, have their way, it will wait forever. And the world, the oceans and the strategic interests of the United States will be the poorer. The treaty in question is the Law of the Sea, which, despite its soporific name and noble intent, has inspired lively ideological warfare over the years. Written in 1982 under United Nations auspices, it gives each nation control over its own coastal waters - an "exclusive economic zone" extending 200...



Sovereignty obsession blunts region's steps

Posted by hedgetrimmer
On News/Activism 08/12/2004 8:27:06 PM PDT · 15 replies · 178+ views

Shipping News ^ | August 12, 2004 | Shipping News
Anti-piracy advocate calls for changes to UN Convention (SINGAPORE) International shipping is paying the price for the 'obsessive' emphasis on sovereignty in the Straits of Malacca, said anti-piracy advocate Alan Chan who is urging changes to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). The 22-year-old Unclos needs to be updated to extend its emphasis on safety to include security, said the anti-piracy advocate and chairman of tanker firm Petroships. 'Unclos is very much concerned with safety,' Mr Chan told delegates at the recent International Maritime & Port Security Conference. 'In those days the issue of security...



Why is Bush for Law of Sea Treaty?

Posted by MindFire
On News/Activism 07/20/2004 12:57:53 PM PDT · 74 replies · 838+ views

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE ^ | July 19, 2004 | John Gizzi
http://www.humaneventsonline.com Why Is Bush for Law of Sea Treaty? by John Gizzi Posted Jul 19, 2004 Despite its strong record of standing up to the United Nations, the Bush Administration has dismayed conservatives by supporting ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). Originating in the 1970s as part of the UN agenda, critics say LOST would severely weaken U.S. sovereignty over territorial waters and subject U.S. oil exploration and other activities on the high seas to the jurisdiction of an international tribunal. In 1982, President Reagan refused to sign the treaty. Twelve years later, with diplomats claiming...



U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty Threatens U.S. Sovereignty

Posted by datura
On News/Activism 07/10/2004 4:55:55 AM PDT · 30 replies · 739+ views

Eco Logic Powerhouse ^ | 10 Jul 04 | Tom DeWeese
Obstructed freedom... U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty Threatens U.S. Sovereignty By Tom DeWeese National Sovereignty Vote Index Those driving the battle to entangle the United States in the United Nations' Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) are fighting back, determined to paint any opponent as a radical who is out of touch with the way the world really works. Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) and his allies are mad because they had hoped to sneak LOST through the Senate before anyone noticed. Opponents to the Treaty foiled that trick, and blasted it to the nation. Americans rose...

there's quite a few more.


10 posted on 11/24/2004 9:14:00 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LarkNeelie
If this treaty is enacted the United Nations will have control of all the oceans and seas of the world and all land under the water.

Today, a 12-mile buffer zone. Tomorrow, no buffer zone. The next day, jurisdiction over all the waterways of the world that feeds the oceans, rivers, lakes, streams and ponds.

Hey wait! They are doing things backwards! The UN already did that.

11 posted on 11/24/2004 9:50:55 AM PST by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasTransplant

I"m sorry, I have misplaced the specific link (among HUNDREDS! egad)on the UN Website with that particular list. It was a fairly short list, and included an outfit in San Jose (CA), La Jolla, US Navy (Newport), PEW and a couple others I could identify as US based.

Perhaps someone else more skilled in web searching than me can find it!


12 posted on 11/24/2004 9:53:20 AM PST by LarkNeelie (Shock 'N Awe - liberals stunned by defeat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LarkNeelie

You omitted the part about the Exclusive Economic Zone?


13 posted on 11/24/2004 10:04:28 AM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
I believe this treaty also concerns assets that might exist on the moon. This treaty is bad news.
14 posted on 11/24/2004 10:07:55 AM PST by zeugma (Come to the Dark Side...... We have cookies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

It is easy to visualize thousands upon thousands of UN oceancraft patrolling the open seas, checking every boat and ship afloat for registration, insurance, flotsom and jetsom, and contraband fish.


15 posted on 11/24/2004 10:15:35 AM PST by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LarkNeelie

Outer Space is following the model of the Law of the Sea. The underdeveloped countries are holding us back in case we might pick off the plums leaving nothing for them in 100,000 years when they finally get out there.


16 posted on 11/24/2004 10:18:26 AM PST by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

No, these are brief summaries. Economic restrictions on member States and other economic issues are mentioned throughout.

The entire thing is available at the link in my original comment (Preamble) if you want to examine the treaty in more detail.


17 posted on 11/24/2004 10:20:58 AM PST by LarkNeelie (Shock 'N Awe - liberals stunned by defeat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LarkNeelie

Thanks, but I don't rely on Newsmax as a credible source.


18 posted on 11/24/2004 10:27:16 AM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

My source for this information is the UN Website itself, not NewsMax. You may see for yourself if you go to the UN Website. (Hopefully, you can navigate the maze well enough to find the list I mentioned)



19 posted on 11/24/2004 10:32:03 AM PST by LarkNeelie (Shock 'N Awe - liberals stunned by defeat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LarkNeelie

Allow me to suggest a key words search at www.state.gov/


20 posted on 11/24/2004 11:35:37 AM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
It is easy to visualize thousands upon thousands of UN oceancraft patrolling the open seas, checking every boat and ship afloat for registration, insurance, flotsom and jetsom, and contraband fish.

Actually, that's not what this is about at all. What this treaty is about, at it's base, is money. The third world wants to extract a tax (tribute, payment, whatever the hell you want to call it), from those who exploit the resources of the open ocean.

It goes like this: Exxon build, at huge expense, a rig in the open ocean - outside of any nation's territorial waters. They hit a big pool of oil, and begin to pump it out. Every little third world dictatorship on the planet wants to get a cut of the profits because this oil at the bottom of the ocean - that they did nothing to extract - and took none of the risks inherrant in drilling - is supposedly owned by the world at large, and is a jointly held asset of all the nations of the earth. As allways, it's all about money. They want money for nothing. This is just business as usual, and is yet another way to extract money from us.

They want to do the same thing with the moon, and from what I understand, this treaty is designed to set precedent for that. Someday, man will mine the moon and asteroids. (One moderate-sized asteroid would provide as much metal as has been mined in the entire history of the earth.) The U.N. wants to make sure that those of us who foot the bill and take the risks do not profit from it without them getting a cut.

21 posted on 11/25/2004 8:24:30 AM PST by zeugma (Come to the Dark Side...... We have cookies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

Yes, I figured that. My reply was sly humor. But you are correct. The UN has become the god-father and executive branch of the international mafia.


22 posted on 11/25/2004 9:06:30 AM PST by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LarkNeelie
"Do you think America should submit itself to this treaty?"

That's a big Negarory back atcha!

23 posted on 12/01/2004 9:02:18 AM PST by Designer (Sysiphus Sr. to Junior; "It was uphill, all the way, both ways!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LarkNeelie

Not only the US Navy, but it looks like our illustrious Pres. and company do too.


24 posted on 02/15/2005 8:08:19 PM PST by Proud2BAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Proud2BAmerican

Exactly. It's the Senators we have to pressure to reject it!


25 posted on 02/16/2005 1:37:18 AM PST by LarkNeelie (Shock 'N Awe - liberals stunned by defeat on 11/2/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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