The Law of the Sea Treaty - LOST 

Read the complete Law of the Sea Treaty here.

The Law of the Sea Treaty, formally known as the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS III, was adopted in 1982. Its purpose is to establish a comprehensive set of rules governing the oceans and to replace previous U.N. Conventions on the Law of the Sea, one in 1958 (UNCLOS I) and another in 1960 (UNCLOS II), that were believed to be inadequate.

Negotiated in the 1970s, the treaty was heavily influenced by the “New International Economic Order,” a set of economic principles first formally advanced at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). That agenda called for “fairer” terms of trade and development financing for the so-called under-developed and developing nations.

Another way the New International Economic Order has been described is “redistributionist.”

The Law of the Sea Treaty calls for technology transfers and wealth transfers from developed to undeveloped nations. It also requires parties to the treaty to adopt regulations and laws to control pollution of the marine environment. Such provisions were among the reasons President Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty in 1982. As Edwin Meese, U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan, explained recently, “…it was out of step with the concepts of economic liberty and free enterprise that Ronald Reagan was to inspire throughout the world.”

Full Story Here:
Law of the Sea Treaty

Ronald Reagan did NOT support LOST. That should tell any thinking Conservative all they need to know about LOST. Maybe the problem is, a lot of Conservatives don’t know what LOST is, or, maybe they’ve never heard of it.

I get tons of email tips concerning blog posts, and I have floated references to LOST on several occasions, but I never did much more that just put it out there. I assumed that most folks would see the references to LOST and at least do a Google and look it up. Some did, many didn’t.

Far too many never researched LOST and looked into the full ramifications of it’s wordings.

In her article entitled “Why we need the Law of the Sea Treaty (Navy, December 2009), Meg Giles deserves credit for revisiting a politically and legally controversial topic with direct implications for the Navy: whether the U.S. should accede to the vast and deeply flawed UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS�? or “the Convention�?).

But the article – essentially a review of venerable pro-UNCLOS talking points – failed to explore adequately the concerns of many UNCLOS opponents. This should be remedied because Ms. Giles wrote for a Navy audience, and it is precisely the Navy which is most likely to suffer direct harm from U.S. accession to UNCLOS.

Full Story Here:
The UN Law of the Sea Treaty: Threatening to Put the U.S. Navy in a Straitjacket

I would suggest to my readers that they read these articles. More can be found here:

President Bush has demonstrated his willingness to stand alone internationally. Yet for little better reason than go-along, get-along multilateralism, the administration is now pushing the Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty, which was just unanimously voted out of Richard Lugar’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee. At a committee meeting in February, Lugar noted a wide range of support from American interests “for U.S. accession to be completed swiftly.” However, the treaty is a flawed document, and there would be serious costs from accepting it.

The Law of the Sea Treaty originated in the 1970s as part of the United Nations’ redistributionist agenda known as the “New International Economic Order.” The convention covers such issues as fishing and navigation, but the controversy arose mainly over seabed mining. In essence, the Law of the Sea Treaty was designed to transfer wealth and technology from the industrialized states to the Third World.

Full Story Here:
Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty — Cato Institute

So, we know that George W. Bust was a supporter of LOST. Dick Lugar was a strong proponent of LOST, that in and of itself should set off alarm bells.

What really needs to be looked at is this; just WHO still supports LOST? And who is in a position to help make it happen? Or, who could possibly be in that position soon? Say possibly in 2012?

Someone, somewhere once quipped that the debate they would really like to see is between Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and his running mate, Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK). They disagree on global warming, Pakistan, and Arctic drilling. And now we can add at least one more item to that list.

Palin supports the Law of the Sea Treaty. McCain supported it for ten years, and then changed position as his presidential campaign began late last year. In responding to a survey from the Iowa Christian Alliance, McCain said he opposes the treaty.

Palin, on the other hand, has sent at least one letter to the U.S. Senate urging ratification of the treaty. She said, “If the U.S. does not ratify the convention, the opportunity to pursue our own claims to offshore areas in the Arctic Ocean might well be lost. As a consequence, our rightful claims to hydrocarbons, minerals, and other natural resources could be ignored.”

Palin’s position is supported by President Bush, the U.S. Navy, and 155 other countries. Will she be able to persuade McCain?

Full Story Here:
Palin Supports Law of the Sea Treaty

Of course McCain dropped his support for LOST, he will drop his support of eating dinner if he thinks it will get him elected to ANY office.

You want more? There’s more, there’s always more.

For those who don’t know, the Law of the Sea Treaty was rejected by Ronald Reagan, but revived by GW Bush. It constitutes a HUGE grant of power over most of the earth’s surface to the United Nations. It also creates the first global taxing authority, with power vested in an unelected bunch of international bureaucrats. SOURCE

More you say? OK…

January 28, 2009

Hon. Sarah Palin
P. O. Box 110001
Juneau, Alaska 99811

Re: Law of Sea Treaty (LOST)

Dear Governor Palin:

You are considering the implications of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). We urge you to oppose it as being detrimental to the interests of the State of Alaska and the rest of the country.

Under LOST, the State of Alaska has absolutely no say or standing whatsoever with regard to ocean boundaries or resources. The U. S. Department of State claims 100% authority in these matters for the United States, with no power for states, including advisory and co-equal status. Under LOST, the problem gets one step worse with authority thrown over to the unaccountable and opaque United Nations.

Alaska already suffers from being ignored totally by the U. S. Department of State over maritime boundary issues. You can read two resolutions of the Legislature of 1999 regarding the adverse situation of maritime boundaries with Russia and Canada. HJR 26 and HJR 27 passed the Legislature nearly unanimously. A decade later, the State Department has done absolutely nothing to resolve these important issues for Alaska.

Under LOST, the situation of the State of Alaska will only get worse. There is no upside. You should oppose it. You should also press the State Department to implement HJR 26 and HJR 27 immediately. Please direct all replies to our West Coast Office.

Sincerely,

Carl Olson
Chairman
State Department Watch
www.statedepartmentwatch.org

But Sarah Palin is still, to the best of my knowledge, a supporter of LOST.

LOST is a One World Government supporters dream. That’s why George W. Bush revived LOST support, and supported it to the bitter end of his presidency. One World Government. Does that not set off your alarm bells?

Here is one more bit of opinion against LOST, well stated in my opinion.

Why must those who believe in American sovereignty have to keep fighting the same battles over and over again? President Ronald Reagan rejected the Law of the Sea Treaty in 1982, not because of picky details in the text, but because the treaty would put the United States in the clutches of a supranational ruling clique.

The argument is being made that Reagan’s objections were “fixed” in 1994. That’s a sham because no one country can legally change the terms of a treaty that has already been signed and ratified by more than 100 countries, and 25 countries have not agreed to the 1994 changes anyway.

Furthermore, changing a few details of the treaty does nothing to address the massive loss of U.S. sovereignty, which Reagan and other Americans found impudent and obnoxious.

Full Story Here:
Law of the Sea treaty doesn’t hold water

Wake up America! Do your homework and figure out who the real enemy is.

Anyone that supports the Law of The Sea Treat (LOST) is the enemy. They are One World globalists and there is no other way to look at it.

Don’t let the *Rah-Rah* BS from Palin blind you. Don’t let the cheerleader persona or the *Mama Grizzly* nonsense be what you hear and see, not ALL that you hear and see. Never mind the fact that Palin hunts and fishes. Never mind the fact that she truly is a Drama Queen and media whore. None of that will mean SPIT if she’s elected POTUS.

Look at the part that really matters to America and our future, and look at what Palin really supports. If this isn’t enough to open the minds and eyes of the Palinites, we, as a nation, are a lost cause. No pun intended.