Skip to comments.Obama's Land of the LOST
Posted on 05/24/2012 9:39:45 PM PDT by Kaslin
What's green and blue and grabby all over? President Obama's new pressure campaign for Congress to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).
The fight over LOST goes back three decades, when it was first rejected by President Ronald Reagan. He warned that "no national interest of the United States could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth's surface over to the Third World." According to top Reagan officials William Clark and Ed Meese, their boss believed the "central, and abiding, defect" was "its effort to promote global government at the expense of sovereign nation states -- and most especially the United States."
The persistent transnationalists who drafted LOST favor creation of a massive United Nations bureaucracy that would draw ocean boundaries, impose environmental regulations and restrict business on the high seas. They've tinkered with the document obsessively since the late '60s, enlisted Presidents Clinton and Bush, and recruited soon-to-depart GOP Sen. Dick Lugar to their crusade. Ignore the mushy save-the-planet rhetoric. Here's the bottom line: Crucial national security decisions about our naval and drilling operations would be subject to the vote of 162 other signatories, including Cuba, China and Russia.
While our sovereignty would be redistributed around the world, most of the funding for the massive LOST regulatory body would come from -- you guessed it! -- the United States. Forbes columnist Larry Bell reports that "as much as 7 percent of U.S. government revenue that is collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast" would be meted out to "poorer, landlocked countries." This confiscatory act of environmental justice would siphon billions, if not trillions, away from Americans. International royalties would be imposed; an international tribunal would be set up to mediate disputes. There would be no opportunity for court appeals in the U.S.
LOST is just the latest waterlogged power grab by the Obama administration. As I reported in 2010, the White House through executive order seized unprecedented control from states and localities over "conservation, economic activity, user conflict and sustainable use of the ocean, our coasts and the Great Lakes." Obama created a 27-member "National Ocean Council" by administrative fiat that is specifically tasked with implementing ocean management plans "in accordance with customary international law, including as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention."
The panel is chaired by radical green science czar John Holdren (notorious for his cheerful musings about eugenics, mass sterilization and forced abortions to protect Mother Earth, and for hyping weather catastrophes and demographic disasters in the 1970s with his population-control pals Paul and Anne Ehrlich) and White House Council on Environmental Quality head Nancy Sutley (best known as the immediate boss of disgraced green jobs czar/self-avowed communist Van Jones).
Other members include Dr. Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and a former high-ranking official at the left-wing Environmental Defense Fund, which has long championed draconian reductions of commercial fishing fleets and recreational fishing activity in favor of centralized control, and fraudster Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who doctored the administration's drilling moratorium report.
It is not hyperbole to expose LOST's socialist roots. Meddling Marxist Elisabeth Mann Borgese, the godmother of the global ocean regulatory scheme, made no bones about it: "He who rules the sea," she exulted, "rules the land." LOST is a radical giveaway of American sovereignty in the name of environmental protection. And it should be sunk once and for all.
Possibly the best thing about Reagan was simply the fact that he always remembered whom he worked for.
Dear Mr. __________
Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). I share your concern over investing too much authority in any agency that is not accountable to U.S. citizens.
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is a treaty which came out of a series of conventions in the 1980s. It grants the power to police the oceans both shipping on the oceans and countries use of their resources, including their fisheries to a new, independent body under the aegis of the United Nations.
Opinions on the treaty split into two main camps: opponents of this treaty argue that it erodes United States sovereignty by vesting too much maritime authority in the United Nations. Many also fear that ratification of the Law of the Sea could hinder the United States militarys freedom of action, thereby impairing our national security. Supporters assert that the treaty clarifies much of the legal confusion surrounding international conflicts over the oceans in order to maintain free, open, and fair trade on the high seas. Proponents of this treaty argue that it would give the United States unprecedented access to other nations waters, allowing armed forces to patrol freely non-US territory and granting US access to oil, natural gas and many other natural resources. Many also believe that ratification of the treaty would give the US a prominent position in resolving international disputes, such as the Arctic sea lanes claims. Perhaps most importantly, supporters argue that the treaty would help protect fisheries and other important ecosystems.
The Senate last considered this treaty in October 2007. After hearing testimony from both supporters and opponents of the treaty, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17 - 4 to send UNCLOS to the Senate for ratification. The treaty, however, has yet to be considered by the Senate. I have not yet had the opportunity to vote on this bill, but if I do, I will keep your opinions in mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can ever be of assistance to you on this or any other matter.
Charles E. Schumer United States Senator
Please do not respond to this email. To send another message please visit my website at https://schumer.senate.gov/Contact/contact_chuck.cfm . Thank you.
IMHO, EVERY Senator who votes for LOST is a TRAITOR!
Those Senators who do vote for LOST should be charged, tried, convicted and imprisoned for TREASON!
The US Senate cannot and must not be allowed to substitute the US Constitution for an international treaty!
Just in case you are wondering, I am opposed to LOST, and I notified my Senators of my opposition to it.
Anyone that can’t see a problem with turning the seas over to the United Nations doesn’t belong on this forum, or in this nation. It’s that big of an issue.
Schumer will be voting for it. And as for listening to you, I’d sooner think he’s got a wire tap on your phone after that letter. Your kind (mine too) are not needed in his world.
This is all part of Agenda 21. Beware!!!
Given that only one sentence is dedicated to what opponents think, I suspect he really doesn’t “share your concern”.
Treason is a hanging offense.
Supporters of LOST
creation of a massive United Nations bureaucracy
And who would they expect to PAY for this massive bureaucracy of corruption?
I think my “representatives” in CONgress are getting tired of hearing from me. I’m sure I’ve made a “list” somewhere. But I still keep on writing! I’ve carry a copy of the US Constitution and I’m not afraid to use it!
...the Self-Admited TRAITOR and bottom-feeding SNAKE (who should have been prosecuted for violations of the Logan Act when as a "private citizen" traveled to Paris to enter into "negotiations" with our enemies--North Vietnam and the Viet Cong)....
...is the one who is heading these hearings and yet again, advancing the DEMO-RAT Party's primary position/agenda: SURRENDER AND DEFEAT...
...and is engaged (once again) in an effort to act in a manner inimical to our country's best interest.
What bothers me the most is that there are apparently some 15 - 20 REPUBLI-TARD Senators (identities unknown at this time) who are committed/leaning towards ratifying this treaty.
Someone needs to find out who they are and let them know their support will NOT go unnoticed.
I certainly agree with you.
Every Senator that votes for this IS a traitor, but let’s not stop with Senators.
The man who is pushing this is also a Traitor.
The woman who is pushing this is a Traitor.
Need I mention names?
this LOST must be buried once and for all.....and Bambi the loser must be voted out.....
It must indeed, and so deep that it can never come out
One additional thought to buttress my traitor argument:
The PRIME duty of our elected AND appointed government officials is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.
To not do so, by, for example, voting in favor of LOST, would, IMHO, be TREASON!
The same authority President Thomas Jefferson recognized when he launched attacks against the Barbary Pirates in the late 1700s.
My only question is why did Bush and Obama fail to take action against the Somali Pirates? Did they not wish to keep the seas open and safe?
Perhaps I’m not fully understanding what’s in your mind though. Is there something more than war time or reasoned military intervention that is called for, that you are thinking about?
Generally I don’t think we’re hindering or harassing shipping.
If we’re talking contraband headed for our shores, then there is more taking place. I think that’s reasoned as long as our laws are what they are. If we wish to change those laws, then some changes would take place.
Even legalization wouldn’t satisfy the revenuers (IRS) for better or worse though.