Posted on 05/07/2012 2:32:18 PM PDT by Red Steel
The United Nations treaty called Law of the Sea was negotiated by the State Department, and then presented to Ronald Reagan for signing as soon as he became President in 1981. Reagan immediately recognized it as a bad treaty that would restrict U.S. sovereignty and require us to pay an international body half of all our royalties from offshore drilling. UN bureaucrats would then distribute the money as they wanted, because the U.S. would have only one vote out of 160.
Reagan rejected the Law of the Sea Treaty, and we thought that took care of the problem. The American people and the U.S. Senate have refused to ratify it. But like a bad penny, this obnoxious UN treaty keeps coming back again and again. Now the Obama Administration is making its effort to get our Senate to ratify it.
Let me tell you a few of the really objectionable provisions of this UN Law of the Sea Treaty. It creates an International Seabed Authority and gives it unprecedented powers to regulate seven-tenths of the world’s surface; and the power to levy international taxes; and the power to impose production quotas on deep-sea mining and oil production; and the power to regulate ocean research and exploration; and the power to create a multinational court system to make judgments about who owns what, and enforce those judgments. And that’s not all. The Law of the Sea Treaty also imposes mandatory information-sharing so that our enemies will get all our confidential military information. And the Treaty requires obligatory technology transfers that would equip actual or potential enemies with sensitive information about all our submarine and anti-submarine technology.
Tell your U.S. Senators to vote No any time the Senate brings up the Law of the Sea Treaty.
According to Dick Morris, this UN treaty is a multi-headed hydra to include pollution control, UN gun control, International court jurisdiction over the United States, and the ability to stop the US to make war on belligerents. Morris says Hillary Clinton is now negotiating LOST with UN/International parties, and it will be presented in the US Senate this summer.
Globalist Dick Lugar no doubt dreamed about getting LOST as US law.
Lugar was one of LOST’s biggest proponents.
The good people of Indiana will take care of the Lugar problem tomorrow.
These things where we are on the verge of turning things over to the U.N. just keep coming back.Each time we have to fight hard to avoid them. What can be done to permanently stop any such treaties? There must be some “fix” because if they push and push and push, eventually they will get what they want. Maybe it is too late anyway.
What Alaska may have gained would have been completely negated by the rest of this bad UN treaty.
Quit the UN. It's the only way.
WTF? I thought Sarah had more sense than that. Someone should ask her if she still supports it.
I agree.
Time was that I thought the folks who spoke of Admiralty law and gold fringe on the flag in court...were on the dark side of the moon. LOST is everything we think it is.
The Dems that were run as candidates in 2008 were the 1st 3 Leftists. 0bama, Biden, Clinton.
God bless all who are fighting against this treason.
A lot of people don't realize that LOST has been international law for quite a while, because the majority of nations ratified the treaty long ago, an only a few nations haven't ratified, and those are mostly landlocked nations.
Recently Inhofe changed his position and now supports LOST because of events in the South China Sea.
Well, watch the Indiana primary tomorrow for a Lugar loss. Unfortunately, I cannot vote for Newt. With that said, we need a National Primary Day and not an Iowa, NH, etc picking our candidates.
“Sarah Palin supported LOST when she was Governor.”
At that time, Bush also supported LOST. Then the Wall Street Journal read parts of that treaty (it’s impossible to read the whole thing) and noticed a few things. Like submarines would be required to travel on the surface at all times, while flying their national flags.
I think Bush supported a few things that were not good for us....
This is what happens when you elect a creep who thinks of himself a a “citizen of the world”.
Time for the South and others to rise up again.
I suspect that these major international treaties are the size of Obamacare. No president can become aware of every piece of crap that some radical State Dept clerk sneaks into the text.
The big issue with LOST isn't about the ocean; it's about land use control.
This global bureaucracy will justify control of land use 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.
10 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:52:12 AM by Carry_Okie (Environmental deregulation is critical national defense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Maybe this is the maritime version of Agenda 21.
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.