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

Skip to comments.

Global nightmare: Saving the LOST
World Net Daily ^ | March 4, 2004 | Jane Chastain

Posted on 03/04/2004 8:04:55 AM PST by hedgetrimmer

When I first heard of the LOST (Law Of the Sea Treaty), it sounded like a bad plot for a science-fiction movie.

In the '60s and '70s, when the United Nations organized and led a series of conferences on the Law of the Sea, most considered the idea too weird to be taken seriously.

However, this maritime nightmare is about to become a reality.

The LOST was hatched by a group of internationalists who want to give the United Nations control of seven-tenths of the earth's surface area. It creates an International Seabed Authority to regulate the vast oceans and everything that happens beneath these waters, as well as everything that travels above or below their surfaces.

In addition, it would – for the very first time – create a revenue stream for the United Nations and give this onerous international bureaucracy true independence from its member nations.

Under the LOST, the United Nations would have the power to tax any and every type of sea-going vessel, as well as any type of ocean research and exploration. In fact, it would give the United Nations absolute control of these activities.

How would the United Nations exercise this control? It could persuade member nations to provide "seakeepers" to do its bidding. However, if that should fail, with its own revenue stream, the United Nations would be free to recruit and maintain its own standing army of paid international enforcers. Many believe that if you can control the great seas and oceans of the world, you control the world!

President Ronald Reagan was not about to give away the ability we now have to conduct activities in international waters. When Reagan refused to support the LOST, it slipped quietly beneath the waves until 1994, when President Bill Clinton dredged it up and signed it.

However, when the LOST went over to the Senate for ratification, Foreign Relations Chairman Jesse Helms told Clinton to get lost. Clinton was followed by George W. Bush, a president cut from the mold of Ronald Reagan, who was willing to work with the United Nations, but unwilling to be controlled by it. The LOST was gone forever, or so it seemed.

It has recently come to light that some members of the Bush administration have been working behind the scenes with a group of international businessmen who want to resurrect this many-tentacled ocean monster. It likely has something to do with the black gold hidden under the sea

It now appears that its ratification is being pushed by Vice President Dick Cheney, the man who ran Halliburton before being pressed back into public service by President Bush.

Mr. Cheney, say it isn't so!

Many of Cheney's buddies in the oil industry see the LOST as a way to recoup the millions they have been denied by our capitulation to the radical environmentalists, who keep us from drilling in our territorial waters. Understandably, they would like to see some protection for the millions they would like to sink into undersea oil exploration in international waters. They mistakenly see the United Nations as that protection.

Since when has the United Nations – largely is controlled by a pack of socialists or outright dictators and thugs – protected our interests?

Even more troubling, the U.S. Navy is quietly pushing for LOST ratification. The Center for Security Policy correctly states that the treaty effectively prohibits two functions vital to American security: intelligence collection in – and submerged transit of – territorial waters.

Why would the Navy sink under pressure for the LOST?

In the 1990s, following the Tailhook incident, the Navy allowed itself to be bullied by a bunch of finger-wagging, radical feminists. Should we be surprised that the Navy now has allowed itself to be torpedoed by a bunch of over-the-hill guys in business suits?

Unfortunately, the threat from the LOST is real and immediate!

Dick Lugar, the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, dutifully carried the water for the administration on the LOST, only allowing proponents to testify at a brief hearing. He is hoping to bring it to the floor for a surprise vote before any opposition can be organized.

Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club sued Mr. Cheney to get the records of what went on behind the closed doors of his Energy Task Force. It must be pretty embarrassing, because Mr. Cheney refused to comply with two lower-court rulings and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court in order to keep those records away from the American people.

Perhaps, just perhaps, it was this battle plan for the LOST.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: conspiracy; environment; govwatch; lost; maritime; mining; oil; propertyrights; sovereignty; sovereigntylist; un; unlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 last
To: .30Carbine
within 12 miles of our shores.

Darn. That should read: "to within 12 miles...."

81 posted on 03/07/2004 4:03:26 AM PST by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
"Iceberg..."

?????????????????????

82 posted on 03/07/2004 8:35:49 AM PST by Mikey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
It just hit me (excuse me but I have a cold and sore throat). Not thinking straight.

You mean I'm just hitting the tip of the iceberg.
Agreed

83 posted on 03/07/2004 9:13:59 AM PST by Mikey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Mikey
LOL That interpretation works but I was thinking that you and I and those other few who are trying to raise the alarm here seem to be like a mouse on the Titanic shouting 'iceberg' while the band plays and the people party. It's not your fault, my post was a little obscure. Highlight the post after that one.

Sorry to hear you are under the weather. That sore throat/cold thing is no fun. I nursed my wife through it; she was miserable.

84 posted on 03/07/2004 10:10:20 AM PST by TigersEye (Carrying a gun is a social obligation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
This needs to be kept "bumped" for more exposure.
85 posted on 03/07/2004 2:29:37 PM PST by JimRed (Fight election fraud! Volunteer as a local poll watcher, challenger or district official.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush
What makes me sick is how many people don't see what's happening in both parties.

Oh they see all right. They just don't want to throw their vote away by voting for a third party or ,horror of horrors, electing [whoever either party is promoting as the opposing demon], by taking votes from [whoever either party is promoting as the lesser of demons].

86 posted on 03/07/2004 2:59:25 PM PST by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
Bump back at you.
87 posted on 03/08/2004 7:47:19 AM PST by TigersEye (Carrying a gun is a social obligation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush
You forgot "corporatist", but otherwise spot on.
88 posted on 03/08/2004 8:10:43 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Constantine XIII
So why did Reagan oppose it?
89 posted on 03/08/2004 8:12:08 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
I found this on the LOST--

"Proponents of the move say ratification is needed to ensure U.S. interests are included in international action in the arena and to protect resources up to 200 miles from U.S. shorelines as guaranteed under the convention."

Isn't this why we have a military-- to ensure U.S. interests and to protect our resources? Why do we need the UN's permission to do any of these things?
90 posted on 03/08/2004 8:24:33 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
The same reason we have "homeland" security instead of national security. Nations may not protect their interests, that threatens the UN. But homelands are ok, because they balkanize nations.

For example, the United States is one nation of 50 states with the full protection of the US Constitution.

But, in the UN view, the United states is a collection of "homelands", with the population based on ethnicity. So the southwest is an hispanic homeland. Homelands cross state borders and become "states within states" degrading our Constitution and our representative government. The UN prefers homelands instead of nations, and then convinces people that it will help you protect your "homeland" if you get into "trouble".

The Congress and President have been giving the UN more and more power over we the people. The FTAA scheduled to be implemented next year is also a UN project.
91 posted on 03/08/2004 8:50:48 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
"Highlight the post after that one."

"Iceberg, you idiots!"

" like a mouse on the Titanic shouting 'iceberg' while the band plays and the people party."

The band is still playing and the people continue to revel in their ignorance.

92 posted on 03/08/2004 12:56:39 PM PST by Mikey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Mikey
I was ignorant of LOST until today, I confess.

With the passage of time, United Nations involvement with the law of the sea is expected to expand as awareness increases that not only ocean problems but also global problems as a whole are interrelated.

From U.N. Oceans and Law of Sea Website
93 posted on 03/09/2004 9:06:49 AM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
"I was ignorant of LOST until today, I confess."

Thank God your eyes have opened. Now you must help others to see.

94 posted on 03/10/2004 9:44:33 AM PST by Mikey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 last

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