LOST and found (u.n. law of sea treaty)

Washington Times ^ | August 8, 2007 | Lawrence Kogan

[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."

[processing please hold]

You’re such a dufus. But you are entertaining.

[processing please hold]

No. read this. Hunter will be here on monday.

*Breathing a sigh of relief* I thought I missed it. Thanks, I'll be sure to be there.

[RightWhale]

UFO threads have higher modality than UN threads.

[Publius6961]

I don’t think we’re going to replace just one person.

I meant that collectively and universally; all of them, if that's what it takes.

Sorry I wasn't more clear.

[processing please hold]

Think what you want or think what the little voices tell you.

Ya know, RW, you'd look more intelligent on this subject if you just shut your eyes, put your fingers in you ears and chanted, 'it's not true, neener, neener, neener.'

But, like I said, you're entertaining and more so with each additional post you make. :)

[RightWhale]

The UN ranks below Aztlan on the projected power scale.

[processing please hold]

UFO threads have higher modality than UN threads.

Then I'm in your debt for bumping them so much. Well, your not totally useless on these threads, you have two redeeming qualities after all. Bumping and entertaining. :)

[processing please hold]

Thank you again.

[CJ Wolf]

This stupid treaty keeps coming back. We just need to deepsix the whole of the UN. Can’t believe Bush supports this. (well maybe I can)

[B4Ranch]

Sure, go for it.

[processing please hold]

This stupid treaty keeps coming back. We just need to deepsix the whole of the UN. Can’t believe Bush supports this. (well maybe I can)

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.

[processing please hold]

Thank you. I’ll do it tonight.

[sageb1]

“That is one of the questions we asked Congressman Hunter for Monday’s Freep conference.”

This coming Monday? 8/13?

[pissant]

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

[ChildOfThe60s]

BTTT

[processing please hold]

Ever ask yourself this question, where did the law of sea treaty come from? Pssssst, the CFR is mentioned too.

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.

[processing please hold]

The worst thing to me about the treaty is that the UN will never again have to beg and scrape for money.

PING to my post 56.

, would help underwrite the United Nations.

[sageb1]

Thanks!

[B4Ranch]

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!

[RightWhale]

What’s this?

Article 317

Denunciation

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.