Why We LOSE If LOST Wins

The New American ^ | March 7, 2005 | William Norman Grigg

[ExSoldier]

Law Of the Sea Treaty

Why We Lose if LOST Wins

By asserting UN authority over seven-tenths of the Earth’s surface, LOST would be the largest territorial conquest in history.

In principle, the treaty would assert UN jurisdiction over U.S. territorial waters, and eventually over waterways within our country.

It would create a huge bureaucratic entity called the “Enterprise” which would regulate and tax all commercial uses of the high seas.

By taxing all efforts to develop the wealth of the seabed, the UN would be given a huge revenue stream, independent of national governments, to push its agenda for international socialism.

The treaty would require the redistribution of cutting-edge technology from the U.S. to all governments in the “developing world,” including extremely repressive governments.

NOTE: Highlights are ExSoldier's picks for emphasis.

[ExSoldier]

I'm resubscribing to The New American because we're just not getting the right info elsewhere. Here's the truly frightening part of this Treaty (which like all treaties will cut across the Bill of Rights and be Constitutionally correct and valid) to wit: Both President GW Bush and the potential heir apparent, Secretary of State Condi Rice ALSO strongly supports this trash! Look, I think both GW and Condi have basically been the political saviour of this country and I'd still volunteer for Condi if she wants the Oval Office, but this is outrageous in the extreme. I think this bears watching and anybody who supports this also bears watching....

[Spruce]

This "treaty" should have been still-born. The fact that it still has breath is frightening.

[neverdem]

bump for later

[Archon of the East]

This does give me some doubt about the oil lobby and this adminsitration. I to like W and Condi but it seems that they are willing settle for some short term gains in offshore drilling at the cost of future global taxation. Again I have written congress and used ACU to blast fax all members but like everything else it seems We the People aren't running the show.

[MJY1288]

I think they're giving this Treaty lip service knowing that Congress (controlled by Republicans) would never ratify it. Global Politics is what I think this is and it will most like;ly be shot down. If this does get retified it will be the biggest mistake this Administration has made so far

[AlwaysFree]

Click here to see an article describing all the conditions that would have to be met if the STUPID treaty is confirmed by the U. S. Senate. This treaty needs to be put through the paper shredder and never brought up in the U. S. Senate again!!!!!!!!!!!

[Publius6961]

There is both irony in all this crap as well as a blatant (and contradictory) power grab.
At different points in history there have been various empires and nations capable, if they so wished, to impose total control over the oceans. The consequences made total sense. Open the seas to everyone, since that would prevent endless armament and war, and no single power, in any case, could prevail indefinitely against every other coastal nation on earth. A rational standoff and solution.

This is the reverse, and non-sensical in the extreme: that every useless coastal nation on earth, unable to care for their own people, can now conspire against the most advanced nations, and try to take control of the seas without firing a shot.
They would dream to accomplish what raw power could not, without an explanation as to why it's necessary!

This is a total lose-lose proposition. I have yet to hear a single rational argument to justify this proposal.
If anyone has seen one or heard of analysis of the proposal, I would love to hear about it.

[deadmenvote]

Carrier group here, Carrier group there, etc. Yea,right.

When the UN gets it,s 1st row boat I'll get worried.
"sarcasm here".

This just shows what the UN socialist have in mine. Lets make happy to all?

[ExSoldier]

I'd feel a whole lot safer if you'd said: I think they're giving this Treaty lip service knowing that Congress (controlled by Republicans strict constructionist Constitutionalists) would never ratify it.

Hello? The President and the Sec State are both "Republicans" and alledgedly conservative. But now, I dunno. How many 'Pubbies rate the title RINO? Would they embrace this atrocity? You betcha.

This isn't lip service, it's a trial balloon and it's going to keep coming up until it passes.

[MJY1288]

Has the President signed this Treaty and sent it to the Congress? So far .... All I've heard is that it's being considered... Am I wrong?

[ExSoldier]

Of course you're not wrong, but...BUT a President with the best interests of his country in his heart would have shredded this out of the gate. Condi and GW aren't stupid they're politically extremely astute. As I said, this is a trial balloon. Condi enthusiastically sounded off on this treaty during her confirmation hearings. Is it any wonder she was confirmed by the socialists in Congress as they fell over themselves in fawning admiration? Not exactly a rising tide of conservative ethos. If GW or even an eventual President Rice really pushes the Congress to deliver this unto the Presidential signature, I think it'll get to the President's desk. I really do.

[MJY1288]

When I look at how this President has dealt with the U.N. over the past 4 years, I can't fathom him signing on to this Treaty. I know it was discussed before GWB and Condi went on their Euroweenie love fest, but I think it was just a gesture, not a commitment.

With the nomination of John Bolton, I seriously doubt Dubya is caving to the UN's desires. With that said, I agree with you 100% on this issue. There is no good reason why we should sign over any authority to the UN, their record is clear and I think President Bush would like to see that organization replaced by NATO. At least NATO has real muscle

FReegards my friend and Thank You for your service

[LibertarianInExile]

What makes you think the Senate won't ratify it? The House has nothing to do with it! The Senate has sold conservatism and the U.S. down the river so often both are floating in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico with a shackled Valet de Chambre looking on from shore.

We are LOST if that treaty is signed. The oil interests must think they own the UN, and the UN is ready to reap the benefits of worldwide graft and a stranglehold on the seas.

[MJY1288]

We will see, If and when it is signed and given to the Senate for ratification, I will be at your side demanding this gets rejected, until then, it's just a waste of emotion.

I'll bet the rent it never sees the light of day, nothing in the past four years convinces me that this garbage has a snowball's chance in hell being passed, and I'm not gonna waste much of my time worrying about it until I see John Bolton advocating this Treaty :-)

[B4Ranch]

>>Has the President signed this Treaty and sent it to the Congress? <<

In our gov't things work the other way. Congress sends it to the SEnate and the Senate sends it to the President for his signature.

[MJY1288]

Not on Treaties, The President signs and the Senate ratifies. Clinton signed Kyoto and the Senate voted it down 95 - 0