Skip to comments.LOST and found (u.n. law of sea treaty)
Posted on 08/10/2007 8:11:43 AM PDT by processing please hold
The Law of the Sea Treaty, a k a "LOST," the leviathan of all U.N. regulatory and environmental treaties, has again reared its ugly head, despite having been "deep-sixed" years ago by the Reagan administration.
A legacy-oriented White House is now shepherding it through a Congress whose majority enthusiastically embraces collectivist European-style environmental activism and multilateral treaty-making at the expense of constitutionally-protected individualism and property rights.
Is the White House merely ill-informed, or has it intentionally chosen to ignore the lessons of history? Does it not recall the past decade of highly contentious trade disputes between the United States and an environmentally-obsessed and protectionist European Union, which operates on what is known as the "precautionary principle" "I fear, therefore I shall ban."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
And it will again and again until they ratify it. Deepsix the un-in total agreement with that. Not only does he support it, he pushes it.
Thank you. I’ll do it tonight.
“That is one of the questions we asked Congressman Hunter for Mondays Freep conference.”
This coming Monday? 8/13?
Yes. around noontime. I will post the questions we sent him a couple weeks ago and his answers. He will then take followups live on monday
So who came up with this?
If you want to find out what inspires any questionable idea, it is necessary to go to the source.
For that, we are indebted to Cliff Kincaid whose America's Survival website has dug deep through a mountain of research on that specific question.
It turns out that one of the authors of LOST is one Elisabeth Mann Borgese, a socialist and key figure in the pro-world government World Federalists of Canada. Kincaid cites original source material for the first Peace in the Oceans Conference which the German-born Borgese (who died in 2002) organized. Out of the conference emerged the idea of an "Ocean Development Tax." Revenue derived from that source, according to Borgese, would help underwrite the United Nations.
In her book The Oceanic Circle: Governing the Seas as a Global Resource, Borgese openly proclaimed her admiration for Karl Marx.
While establishment figures such as John Temple Swing of the Council on foreign Relations (CFR) endorsed the effort to pass the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Kincaid's ASI has come up with solid documentary evidence that "the treaty was viewed by many early supporters as part of a communist-supported New International Economic Order to undermine the U.S. Some key treaty backers were pacifists, proud members of the world government movement who opposed a strong national defense for the U.S. and feared that the U.S. would unilaterally exploit the resources of the ocean. They were outraged by opposition to the pact by President Reagan and his top advisers."
President Bush's better advisers should try to talk him out of this. Otherwise, conservatives need to treat it as a Harriet Miers moment and apply their shoes to the sand, and let the foot-dragging begin.
If this tidbit doesn't tell you all you need to know about who's behind this garbage, nothing will.
PING to my post 56.
, would help underwrite the United Nations.
The way the treaty is written, the UN will receive a 2% tax on everything that comes from the oceans or the ocean floor. Instant billionaires!
1. A State Party may, by written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, denounce this Convention and may indicate its reasons. Failure to indicate reasons shall not affect the validity of the denunciation. The denunciation shall take effect one year after the date of receipt of the notification, unless the notification specifies a later date.
and thank you.
Know where it is to be based? From what I can glean, Jamaica!
Headquartered in Jamaica, the International Seabed Authority has an assembly, a council, a bureaucracy and commissions, all drawing tax-free salaries. If the United States ratifies the treaty, Americans would have the same vote in the International Seabed Authority as Cuba, an unprecedented surrender of U.S. sovereignty, independence of action and wealth.
The treaty also created the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, headquartered in Hamburg, Germany, with the power to decide all disputes and enforce its judgments. Of course, there is no guarantee that the United States would have even one judge on this 21-member international court, and it's reasonable to assume inherent bias against the United States by the anti-American countries whose representatives will make all decisions.
There can be no appeal from this tribunal's decisions, even though they would affect the sovereignty, security and economic interests of the United States. There is no restriction on the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Administration lobbyists claim that the original problems with the treaty have been fixed. That is not believable because the text of the treaty can't be changed unilaterally.
Hey RW, read the last sentence. There goes your clause theory out the window.
I had to read the whole thing up to that point to find it. Took six minutes. Not interested in reading in reading amateur commentary.
It cannot be changed unilaterally. I'm sure all our friends in the un will allow us to change what we're not comfortable with. After all, the un and its members are our closest friends and they support us in all we do.
What part of ‘unilateral’ do you not understand? Thank you.
The discussion was about repealing the Treaty. There is always an out clause just as there is in the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty. The Pres has authority to do this by himself and Congress has already given permission by adopting the Treaty and need not be consulted further.
We cannot unilaterally change the treaty. How do you not understand that? There is no clause. It's a smoke screen. And it's working on you.
It’s not my clause. It’s actually in the Treaty. There does appear to be a hermeneutical situation going on here, so we’ll have to give this up as a lost cause rather than a LOST CLAUSE.
It's a Marxist program with the un controlling the purse strings.
I can just imagine that 10 years from the time it passes there will be at least one UN inspector on every commercial boat and ship that’s underway. Probably some fool that the Captain has to receive permission from in order to avoid hitting another ship. Without the written permission he will lose his papers for unauthorized course changes.
Naturally the UN appointees on our military ships will either be Chinese or Russian.
>There is always an out clause just as there is in the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty.<
If it’s there, then bring it out for all to see. Get your research teams working on it or else shut up about it.
Have you read the Cato report on this beast.
See above and watch your language.
See above and watch your language.
Chinese and Russians already use SOLAS for boarding American vessels. They use it as a form of harassement.
The Testimony of Baker Spring
F.M Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy
The Heritage Foundation
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
The House Committee on International Relations
May 12, 2004
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is a modest step toward the creation of an international sovereign authority unchecked by the governed. Nevertheless, it is a significant one. Given that modern states, including the one envisioned for a united Europe, are the product of a combination of just such steps, it is one the United States should not be taking. Further, the treaty contains a number of specific provisions in such areas as regulation, energy, the environment, national security, and constitutional law that are deeply troubling.
National leaders in Europe seem to aspire to relegating their nations to the status of provinces inside a supranational European authority. In this context, it is not surprising that some outside the United State see this move in the direction of broader authority for international entities, which Secretary Shultz has warned against, as desirable.
As for Americas leaders, they should firmly reject such aspirations for their nation now. Insofar as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea seeks to move the United States in this direction and serves as an indicator of steps yet to come, it poses a danger to the vision Americas fathers had for the nation they founded in 1776.
Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have regarding the Convention.
Entire article HERE
I would hope that we at least return the favor. You know just to give them something to scratch.
This dead chick, the creator of LOST also had this to say:
Borgese replied "there is a strong counter-trend. It's not called socialism, but it's called sustainable development, which calls ... for the eradication of poverty. There is that trend and that is the trend that I am working on."
The concept of "sustainable development," considered a euphemism for socialism or communism, has been embraced in various pronouncements by the U.N. and even the U.S. government.
Sec. B. Reservation of Powers
The powers not delegated to the World Government by this World Constitution shall be reserved to the nations of the Federation of Earth and to the people of Earth.
I almost split a gut on that one.
And to think, the un gave this queen of wacko an environmental prize in '87.
This is why we must remove any congressmen,senators, or presidents who are globalists, and stop electing new globalists to take their place. The next election is going to be very very important, and ever patriot needs to volunteer to poll watch and observe the vote counting.
Could either of you priortize the following straits in importance to US interests?
Hormuz, Mallacca, Formosa, Bering, Gibralter, Florida.
Additionaly can/will you priortize all the world's 180 straits?
Given all the hype about Russia's recent LOST claims in the Arctic and Canada's and Denmark's competing claims, would it be better for the US to back either of those competing claims, or would it be better for the US to try to prevent any of those nation's claims to the Arctic?
I believe most of them are so deeply embedded in this country's politics, it's going to be nearly impossible to root them out.
The next election is going to be very very important, and ever patriot needs to volunteer to poll watch and observe the vote counting.
I believe this country's freedom hinges on our next election.
Only if we can remain free until the next election. The Rockerfellow Republicans are in their glory singing and dancing with the likes of Ted Kennedy. Our country is in a mess right now.
S. HRG. 108498
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW
OF THE SEA
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
MARCH 23, 2004
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and
It's 200 pages. When it's completed(I hope this year)I will look through it and see if their names are listed.
Would you like me to ping you on it?
President Bush deserves some credit. He has announced to small group of trusted Republican grass-roots organizers that he is going to strongly support U.S. Senate ratification of the Law of the Sea convention. Word is that a public announcement is imminent. Once he does so we all should look to Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) Chair Joe Biden for quick action because the ratification window is relatively small.
Bushs public support will ensure enough votes for the treaty to pass handily on the Senate floor. Bushs endorsement will push the numbers into the high 70s to mid 80s. Pretty much all Democrats are expected to support it and there are enough Republicans on board now to ratify it (including senior senators such as McCain, Stevenson, Warner, Lugar, & Hagel). But floor votes have never been the problem with putting this piece of old business to bed. The problem has been politics.
In 2004, when Senator Lugar received unanimous support for the treaty from SFRC, "amateur admirals" geared up their lie machine and create enough flack to keep then Majority Leader Frist from allowing it to come to the floor. The environment is different now and Senator Reid is much more supportive then Frist. In fact, far right opposition might be a good motivator for him to bring it to the floor just to show how out of touch they are -- considering the incredibly broad support there is for ratification of this treaty.
But in the Senate timing is everything. Senator Biden has a great opportunity to display bipartisan (and presidential-like) leadership now. He should immediately call for hearings once the Presidents announcement is public, and get the job done before the August recess. Right now Senate presidential candidates Biden, Clinton, Obama, McCain, and Dodd are all on the same page. Once September hits, considering the incredibly accelerated pace of the presidential election cycle, all bets are off for principled bipartisan cooperation.
Senator Biden the window is open. Sorry for mangling metaphors, but it is time to throw this hot potato and you're on the mound.
Why don’t you answer your own questions and we’ll see if we agree with your answer(s).
Here it is. I haven't read it yet but will later tonight.
Are you also against campaigning against RINO Senators?
I’m sure that Richard Lugar (Traitor-IN) is doing all he can to make this abomination become law.
I consider our national sovereignty to be a national treasure. Just because government employees are willing to trade it away in order to continue their careers doesn’t convince me that it is the wise thing to do.
Yes, I’ve heard it before. Those evil admirals are trying to destroy America.