Thread: Defeat Law of the Sea Treaty -- Again (Dick Lugar with a vengeance)

Defeat Law of the Sea Treaty -- Again

Phyllis Schlafly

The stunning repudiation of Sen. Richard Lugar's, R-Ind., bid for a seventh term has sent shock waves through Washington's internationalist lobby. A former Rhodes Scholar, Lugar has spent his career promoting a globalist agenda, since he succeeded the late Jesse Helms as the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

One day after Indiana Republicans handed Lugar his walking papers, an outfit called the Atlantic Council held a forum to promote the discredited Law of the Sea Treaty. As former Republican U.S. Sens. Chuck Hagel and John Warner beamed their approval, Obama's Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta declared that "the time has come" for the Senate to ratify the treaty.

Hagel, Warner and Lugar share an internationalist mindset. All three senators supported "comprehensive immigration reform" (aka amnesty) bills that failed to pass Congress in 2006 and 2007. In support of LOST, they are joined by former Republican Sen. Trent Lott, now a high-priced lobbyist who no longer answers to his former Mississippi constituents.

Americans today are in no mood for subordinating U.S. sovereignty, plus seven-tenths of the world's surface area, to another entangling global bureaucracy, so advocates are using Orwellian talking points to pretend that LOST would do the opposite. Panetta's statement is over the top: "Not since we acquired the lands of the American West and Alaska have we had such an opportunity to expand U.S. sovereignty."

The coalition for ratification includes three groups whose interests are rarely on the same side: the U.S. Navy, the big multinational oil companies led by Shell, and the radical environmentalist lawyers. That peculiar alliance should make you suspicious.

The Navy says we need LOST to preserve our freedom of transit in dangerous waters, such as the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has threatened to block and the South China Sea, where China wants to be the dominant naval power. Panetta said, "How can we argue that other nations must abide by international rules when we haven't officially accepted those rules?"

In fact, freedom of navigation is recognized by centuries of international law, effectively policed by the British Navy for 400 years and by our U.S. Navy since 1775. The United Nations has no navy of its own, so American sailors will still be expected to protect the world's sea lanes and punish piracy.

Big oil supports LOST because of its provision to extend jurisdiction over the continental shelf beyond the current 200-mile limit. But LOST would require a royalty of 1 to 7 percent on the value of oil and minerals produced from those waters to be paid to the International Seabed Authority based in Kingston, Jamaica.

There's no need for a 18-nation organization to regulate offshore and deep-sea production everywhere in the world, mostly financed by American capital, and then allow it to be taxed for the benefit of foreign freeloaders. The riches of the Arctic, for example, can be resolved by negotiation among the five nations that border the Arctic.

Environmentalists, the third leg of the unholy coalition to ratify LOST, are salivating over its legal system of dispute resolution, which culminates in a 21-member international tribunal based in Hamburg, Germany. The tribunal's judgments could be enforced against Americans and cannot be appealed to any U.S. court.

This tribunal, known as ITLOS, International Tribunal of LOST, has jurisdiction over "maritime disputes," which suggests it will merely deal with ships accidentally bumping each other in the night. But radical environmental lawyers have big plans to make that sleepy tribunal the engine of all disputes about global warming, with power to issue binding rules on climate change, in effect superseding the discredited Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. properly declined to ratify.

A paper just published by Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation lays out the roadmap for how the radical environmentalist lawyers can use LOST to file lawsuits against the U.S. to advance their climate-change agenda.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton warns us that the Law of the Sea Treaty is even more dangerous now than when President Ronald Reagan rejected it: "With China emerging as a major power, ratifying the treaty now would encourage Sino-American strife, constrain U.S. naval activities, and do nothing to resolve China's expansive maritime territorial claims." Bolton warns that LOST will give China the excuse to deny U.S. access to what China claims is its "Exclusive Economic Zone" extending 200 miles out into international waters.

The whole concept of putting the United States in the noose of another global organization, in which the U.S. has only the same one vote as Cuba, is offensive to Americans. LOST must be defeated.


source: Defeat Law of the Sea Treaty -- Again - Phyllis Schlafly - Townhall Conservative Columnists

Few victories are forever.

Senator Lugar is not taking his defeat in the GOP Indiana primary lying down. In retaliation against all Americans, Lugar and his pals are reviving the several-times-defeated Law of the Sea Treaty. Now it has to be deep-sixed, again.

RELATED U.S. SOVEREIGNTY UNDER CONSTANT ATTACK ..


2. Obama Seeks Sovereignty Surrender Via LOST Treaty

Sovereignty: Even if he's not re-elected, the president hopes to leave behind a treaty giving a U.N. body veto power over the use of our territorial waters and to which we'd be required to give half of our offshore oil revenue.
The Law Of The Sea Treaty (LOST) has been lurking in the shadows for decades. Like the Kyoto Protocol that pretended to be an effort to save the earth from the poisoned fruit of the Industrial Revolution, LOST pretends to be an effort to protect the world's oceans from environmental damage and remove it as a cause of potential conflicts between nations.
Like its Kyoto cousin, LOST is an attempt at the global redistribution of power and wealth, the embodiment of the progressive dream of the end of the nation state as we know it and the end of political freedom by giving veto over all of mankind's activities to a global body — in this case something called the International Seabed Authority, located in Kingston, Jamaica.
The ISA would have the power to regulate 70% of the earth's surface, placing seabed mining, fishing rights, deep-sea oil exploration and even the activities of the U.S. Navy under control of a global bureaucracy. It even provides for a global tax that would be paid directly to the ISA by companies seeking to develop the resources in and under the world's oceans.
As Heritage Foundation senior fellow Peter Brookes notes, the U.S. government now can collect royalty revenues from oil and gas companies that wish to drill on our extended continental shelf — the undersea areas beyond 200 miles of our coast. But if we ratify LOST, we'd have to fork over as much as 7% of that revenue to the ISA for redistribution to poorer, landlocked countries.
Maritime and jurisdictional disputes would be settled by the ISA, which presumably would tell the U.S. Navy where it could and could not go. Freedom of navigation has been guaranteed by the U.S. Navy and, before it, the British Royal Navy. Now it would be the ISA. This meets perfectly the definition of the "global test" Sen. John Kerry, a backer of LOST, said in 2004 that our actions must meet.

With a possible new White House occupant and Republican majority returning to the Senate in 2013, LOST is back on the front burner. Kerry is quietly working to recruit Republican votes needed to ratify the treaty. LOST is also backed by Sen. Richard Lugar. It will be brought up soon for ratification, perhaps as early as next month, and was delayed — analysts believe — by Lugar's belief it would hurt him in the Indiana primary. Read more here.
3. Former Senator Trent Lott Lobbies for U.N. Treaty He Vehemently Opposed

Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott is lobbying for the Senate to ratify a treaty that would undermine American sovereignty and damage the country economically – incidentally, characterizations that Lott himself has advanced.
During his time in the Senate, Lott vehemently opposed the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), saying it would create a “U.N. on steroids” that “would undermine U.S. military operations … and impair navigational rights” by subjecting maritime disputes to U.N. authority.
Lott denounced the measure in this 2007 press conference held by Sen. Jim DeMint (relevant segment begins at 1:33):

But despite his previous opposition, disclosure forms filed for the first quarter of 2012 (embedded below) show that Lott is one of four lobbyists from the Breaux Lott Leadership Group, a subsidiary of lobbying giant Patton Boggs LLP, pushing for Senate ratification of the treaty.
Lott, a Mississippi Republican, is Senior Counsel for Breaux Lott, which lobbied for LOST on behalf of the Shell Oil Company and Pike Associates, another lobbying firm, according to the disclosure forms.
“What happened to Lott in his time in the private sector to change his mind on all of these issues?” asked Heritage’s Brian Darling in response to the lobbying efforts. Lott’s office declined to comment on the apparent discrepancy in the former Senator’s position on the issue.
Shell has previously testified in support of LOST ratification, saying that it would ensure the United States’ ability to develop offshore oil resources – which would benefit Shell directly. According one of the disclosure forms, Shell paid Breaux Lott $80,000 during Q1 to lobby on issues including LOST. Read more here.

4. DeMint Urges Opposition to Sea Treaty, Citing ‘Redistribution of Wealth’ and ‘Freedom of Navigation’

(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) is urging his Senate colleagues to join him in opposing the Law of the Sea Treaty. So far he’s gathered 24 signatures on the letter he’s circulating.
“By its current terms, the Law of the Sea Convention encompasses economic and technology interests in the deep sea, redistribution of wealth from developed to undeveloped nations, freedom of navigation in the deep sea and exclusive economic zones which may impact maritime security, and environmental regulation over virtually all sources of pollution,” says the letter obtained by CNSNews.com.
Those who sign the letter agree that if the treaty comes to the Senate floor, “we will oppose its ratification.”
The two dozen signatures are just 10 votes short of the 34 needed to kill the treaty in the Senate.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is pushing for the long-dormant treaty to be ratified.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was adopted at the U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea on Dec. 10, 1982. It is intended to define the rights and responsibilities of all nations regarding their territorial waters and the conduct of their ships on the high seas.
While the Reagan administration participated in the U.N. conference, President Ronald Reagan refused to sign the treaty, raising several objections on sovereignty grounds. President Bill Clinton signed on to a revised version in 1994, but that treaty has yet to be ratified by the Senate.

In 2007, President George W. Bush endorsed the treaty, prompting objections from Senate Republicans.
Article 82 would require certain members to transfer a portion of royalties from use of the sea’s natural resources to the International Seabed Authority in Kingston, Jamaica. For the United States, resources located on the U.S. continental shelf – defined as 200 nautical miles or more from the shore – reportedly could be worth billions. So, if the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty, the country would be required to transfer part of royalties from drilling for oil and other activities to the ISA.
In his letter, DeMint writes, “To effect the treaty’s broad regime of governance, we are particularly concerned that United States sovereignty could be subjugated in many areas to a supranational government that is chartered by the United Nations under the 1982 Convention. Further, we are troubled that compulsory dispute resolution could pertain to public and private activities including law enforcement, maritime security, business operations, and nonmilitary activities performed aboard military vessels.”
The DeMint letter, addressed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), has not been sent to Reid at this point. Read more here.

The Law of the Sea Treaty
— LOST —

The United Nations itself is discussed here. This page is specifically about The Law of the Sea Treaty, also known (for good reason) as LOST.


False-flag operation on LOST. The usual suspects [...] are dusting off the hopelessly outdated and inequitable United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty in the hope of jamming its ratification through the Senate as was done two years ago with the defective New Start Treaty. Amazingly, they are doing so under what intelligence professionals would dub a "false flag" operation — an initiative that presents itself as one thing, in this case the "American Sovereignty Campaign," when it is exactly the opposite. If ever there were an anti-sovereignty treaty it is LOST.

Obama Seeks Sovereignty Surrender Via LOST Treaty. Even if he's not re-elected, the president hopes to leave behind a treaty giving a U.N. body veto power over the use of our territorial waters and to which we'd be required to give half of our offshore oil revenue.

Will Obama Leave The US In Shambles If He Loses the Election? Just like a spoiled child who doesn't know the word "NO", I believe that if Obama loses the upcoming election, he and his communist regime will do everything in their lame-duck power to destroy America to a point of no return for the incoming President. New information on five treaties that are currently being negotiated by Hillary Clinton and other members of the regime's state department could spell grave danger to the soverignty of the United States of America.

American Sovereignty: LOST at Sea? Thirty years ago, President Reagan wisely shelved this U.N. project. He viewed it, as most Americans who have serious concerns about that world body viewed it, as a typical example of liberal internationalist globaloney. Jimmy Carter, probably sensing that he would get the boot from American voters, began trolling for votes on the Nobel Peace Prize committee through such ill-considered measures. First, we need to throw overboard any "International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea." The U.N. would choose this maritime court.

After Opposing in Senate, Lott Lobbies for Law of Sea Treaty Ratification. Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, now a lobbyist, is backing ratification of the same Law of the Sea Treaty that he previously said "would put a number of our entities, including the private sector and the military in my opinion at the mercy of the U.N. bureaucracy." Lott is a lobbyist with Breaux Lott Leadership Group, a subsidiary of the lobbying firm Patton Boggs LLP. He is partnering with former U.S. Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana. According to lobbying reports filed this year, the firm is being paid $80,000 by Shell Oil Company and another $30,000 by Pike Associates LLC to promote passage of the Law of the Sea Treaty under consideration in the U.S. Senate.


DeMint Urges Opposition to Sea Treaty, Citing 'Redistribution of Wealth' and 'Freedom of Navigation'. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) is urging his Senate colleagues to join him in opposing the Law of the Sea Treaty. So far he's gathered 24 signatures on the letter he's circulating. "By its current terms, the Law of the Sea Convention encompasses economic and technology interests in the deep sea, redistribution of wealth from developed to undeveloped nations, freedom of navigation in the deep sea and exclusive economic zones which may impact maritime security, and environmental regulation over virtually all sources of pollution," says the letter obtained by CNSNews.com.

Obama Seeks Sovereignty Surrender Via LOST Treaty. Even if he's not re-elected, the president hopes to leave behind a treaty giving a U.N. body veto power over the use of our territorial waters and to which we'd be required to give half of our offshore oil revenue.

Law of Sea Treaty Could Cost U.S. Trillions. It's the year before a presidential election, so it must be time to debate the Law of the Sea Treaty ("LOST") again. As recently as last Thursday the Chief of Naval Operations pleaded for the U.S. to join the treaty. The Obama Administration has supported Senate action on LOST since at least May 2009 when it released its Treaty Priority List.

Obama's Ambitious U.N. Treaty Agenda. With Al Franken replacing Norm Coleman, Senate Democrats have another vote for the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, and there are strong indications that they intend to bring this controversial document up for a vote within days or weeks. Those who favor the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) believe that U.S. security lies in passing a treaty and hiring more lawyers to defend America before an international tribunal, rather than building more ships for the Navy and Coast Guard.

Somali Pirates: An Excuse to Ratify LOST? Our globalist-minded policy elites have the solution [for piracy], of course: more empowerment of the United Nations. If you haven't already heard of the LOST prescription for piracy, you soon will. Ratification of the UN Law Of the Sea Treaty is a "top priority" for the new Obama administration, according to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Senate Moves Toward Ratification of U.N.'s 'Law of the Sea Treaty'. The Senate is gearing up to ratify a Nixon-era U.N. treaty meant to create universal laws to govern the seas — a treaty critics say will create a massive U.N. bureaucracy that could even claim powers over American waterways. LOST — the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, also called the Law of the Sea Treaty — regulates all things oceanic, from fishing rights, navigation lanes and environmental concerns to what lies beneath: the seabed's oil and mineral wealth that companies hope to explore and exploit in coming years.

Last Stand for American Sovereignty. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), now being pushed by the Bush Administration for a quick vote, is already starting to get rave reviews from the press, with the Sacramento Bee saying that protecting the oceans of the world could be Bush's "legacy." The message to Bush is that he should go out as a liberal and he may salvage some of his reputation. But he will lose what is left of his conservative base.

Despite the title, this is on topic.
The Politically Incorrect Black American Hero. Even without the Law of the Sea Treaty, which is also known by the acronym LOST, [Carl] Olson points out that "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." However, "Under LOST, the problem gets one step worse with authority thrown over to the unaccountable and opaque United Nations," he points out.

They Just Don't Get LOST. This year [2007] a Democratic majority took power on Capitol Hill. But new leadership has done nothing to address an old problem: Lawmakers racing to pass bills they haven't actually read. ... Consider the Law of the Sea Treaty. President Reagan first scuttled LOST back in 1982 because it would've hurt American sovereignty. But President Clinton brought it back in the 1990s, and the treaty's been floating around Capitol Hill ever since.

Permission Slip for the Sea. In his 2004 State of the Union Address, President Bush said, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." Members of both parties and both houses of Congress applauded. But if the Senate votes to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — known as the Law of the Sea Treaty — or its appropriate acronym — LOST — he and his successors are going to need lots of permission slips.

LOST justice: I am not a lawyer. But you don't need to be one to recognize a legal train-wreck in the making. And that is what recent events portend if the U.S. Senate agrees to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty or LOST) in the next few weeks.

Law of the Sea Treaty Will Provide Key "Elements" of "World Government". U.S. military backing for LOST is truly ironic because the evidence and history show that the treaty was crafted and primarily pushed by those who not only favor the ICC but also the abolition of national armies and the creation of a U.N. military force to rule the world. In short, U.S. military leaders are supporting a treaty that comes from the same people who want to diminish, even abolish, the power of the U.S. military.

Sinister Secrets of the U.N.: Here lies one of the sinister secrets of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty that the major media are either too lazy or too dishonest to report. It is a "secret," of course, only in the sense that it is kept from the American people by papers like the New York Times. The shocking truth is that the Law of the Sea Treaty, one of several treaties being pushed by State Department Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III, was largely written by people like Sam Levering, a World Federalist devoted to world government.

Sovereignty at Stake: Losing Under a "Lost" Treaty. My husband and I have taught our three children that the people of the United States have a fundamental right to self-determination — that our national sovereignty is critical if we are to remain a free people. How do I explain to them that President Bush wants to sign a treaty that will seriously undermine America's sovereignty and put our security at risk?

The Top Five Reasons Why Conservatives Should Oppose the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea:
#1: The Treaty Will Undermine U.S. Sovereignty.
#2: The Treaty Will Become a Back Door for Environmental Activists.
#3: America Should Not Participate in Yet Another U.N. Bureaucracy.
#4: American Participation Will Undermine U.S. Military and Intelligence Operations.
#5: The U.S. Does Not Need the Convention to Guarantee Navigation Rights.

Possibly the Final Push for the Law of the Sea Treaty. [LOST] establishes an International Seabed Authority (ISA) to authorize seabed exploration and mining and collect and distribute the seabed mining royalty. President Reagan strongly objected to the provisions of Part XI, saying that they were unfavorable to America's economy and security. The provisions of the Treaty were not free-market friendly and were designed to favor the economic systems of the Communist states.

Why Reagan Would Still Reject the Law of the Sea Treaty. There is an ongoing debate regarding the position of President Ronald Reagan in regard to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). Fortunately, there are multiple sources indicating precisely what Reagan would do if presented with LOST today: He would reject it.

Senate panel OKs sea treaty, but fight looms. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee easily approved the Law of the Sea convention yesterday [10/31/2007], brushing back conservatives' objections and setting up a bruising ratification fight on the Senate floor, where Republicans say they can defeat it.

Defeat the Law of the Sea Treaty. The "new" treaty was approved Oct. 31 by a 17-4 Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote. What was wrong with LOST 25 years ago is what's wrong with it now — it would undermine American sovereignty and risk national security by putting American efforts to counteract nuclear-weapons proliferation and international terrorism under the control of foreign judges.

An Establishment Push for the Law of the Sea Treaty. How well I recall the Panama Canal Treaty fight of thirty years ago. The political establishment was adamantly in favor of the Treaty. The people were against it. There were two political consequences of the ratification of the Treaty. Many Democratic Senators insisted they knew better than the people. The first of these was Senator Thomas J. McIntyre (D-NH). "I was elected by the people. I know more than they do. Of course, I am in favor of the Treaty." Well, no. The people knew better than he did. He made that statement in 1977. The following year a co-pilot for Allegheny Airlines, Gordon J. Humphrey, upset McIntyre in the biggest story of that election.

U.N. sea treaty still a bad deal for U.S.. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (aka, the Law of the Sea Treaty) was first hammered out in 1982. Twelve years later, U.S. negotiators signed an amended agreement, but it was never ratified. Now Sen. John F. Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, is pressing for Senate approval, claiming the treaty would give the United States new rights and advantages.

The Bush Record on the U.N.: Increased funding of the U.N. (U.S. contributions to the U.N. System from risen from $3.1 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $5.3 billion in fiscal year 2005). Supports ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Supported Ban Ki-moon, the South Korean foreign minister, as new U.N. Secretary-General, despite his support for global taxes. Ordered Texas courts to comply with an International Court of Justice ruling in a death penalty case. Renewed membership in UNESCO, at a cost of $67 million a year.

McCain's Incoherent New World Order: In his March 26 speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, McCain never mentioned the need to preserve American sovereignty. He could have reassured conservatives by stating his forthright opposition to Senate ratification of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, which provides for international control over billions of dollars worth of oil, gas and minerals and undermines American claims to North Pole riches. But he chose not to.

Opportunity knocking: defeat the Law of the Sea Treaty. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was a terrible idea when then-President Reagan refused to sign it in 1982 and fired the State Department staff who helped negotiate it. It's an even worse idea today because of the additional dangers it poses.

Last Stand for American Sovereignty. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), now being pushed by the Bush Administration for a quick vote, is already starting to get rave reviews from the press, with the Sacramento Bee saying that protecting the oceans of the world could be Bush's "legacy." The message to Bush is that he should go out as a liberal and he may salvage some of his reputation. But he will lose what is left of his conservative base.

The Bush Record on the U.N.: Increased funding of the U.N. (U.S. contributions to the U.N. System from risen from $3.1 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $5.3 billion in fiscal year 2005). Supports ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Supported Ban Ki-moon, the South Korean foreign minister, as new U.N. Secretary-General, despite his support for global taxes.

Document location The Law of the Sea Treaty : LOST
Updated May 15, 2012.

Page design by Andrew K. Dart ©2012

MARITIME ATTACK: Law of the Sea Treaty in US Senate for Approval
by Admin on May 16, 2012 in Barrack Obama, Creeping Communism, Ronald Regan, Tyrrany, United Nations with No comments

By: Arlen Williams
Call to Action Contributors: volunteer activists of the Sovereignty Campaign – @SovCam

UNCLOSUNCLOS logo

The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs is once again diddling with the ultra-massive U.S. sovereignty and communitarian wealth giveaways known as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty (UNCLOS or LOST). Whenever one sees “communitarian,” one may think “global communist.” Neo-Marxist Saboteur Barack Obama‘s State and Defense Departments (including numerous compromised, NATO-head officers) are pressuring the Senate to adopt this travesty after years of resistance dating back to Ronald Reagan’s presidency. If the committee goes forward with it, they could choose either of two paths: 1. the honorable and traditional congressional method of holding hearings, or 2. “fast-track” it, in order to slip voting through with as little light of day or time for the People to react, as possible. The Senate is still Harry Reid’s crypto-Marxist Senate, and this committee’s chairman is John Kerry, so LOST may pop up for a vote like a rapist plunging from behind the bushes in the dark, within the next few days. Recent and upcoming reports may be found at Heritage.org: “heritageaction.com/tag/law-of-the-sea-treaty.” Gulag Bound will also continue to monitor: “gulagbound.com/tag/un-convention-on-the-law-of-the-sea-unclos-or-lost.” For other sources, see in Investors.com, “Obama Seeks Sovereignty Surrender Via LOST Treaty,” May 8, 2012; in U.S. News & World Report, “Kill the Law of the Sea Treaty,” May 10; and at Breitbart, Daily Caller, or American Thinker, “American Sovereignty: LOST at Sea?” by Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison, May 14. Perhaps the most thorough of the most recent articles is found at Liberty News Online, “The Creature from the Ocean’s Floor – the Law of the Sea Treaty,” by John W. Wallace, May 15. We hope Mr. Wallace does not mind our excerpting it at length.

The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) was first conceived in the early 1980’s by the United Nations as a method for them to gain control of most of the activities on, over, and beneath the ocean’s surface. The fundamental premise of the Law of the Sea Treaty is that the resources on the ocean’s floor belong to all of the people of the world and those resources should be protected and controlled by an international organization like the United Nations. Although that may sound like a noble goal, in order to achieve this goal, the United Nations has created a multinational, bureaucratic creature called the International Seabed Authority (“ISA”) and charged this entity with regulating and controlling the world’s mineral resources in the oceans. When President Reagan was president, he objected to several of the treaty’s provisions that would have resulted in surrendering our nation’s sovereignty and refused to sign it, but that didn’t stop the proponents of world government and the New World Order. In 1994, the “progressives (a nice term used to describe communists) at the United Nations decided to keep moving forward with their plans by creating a diversion they called an “Agreement of Implementation” that was supposed to address the concerns of the United States and other industrialized nations. It didn’t change anything. This new agreement was all smoke and mirrors, but our Oxford educated, globalist president Bill Clinton signed it anyway. The Senate, however, refused to ratify it, as required by the U.S. Constitution. Proposed regulations in the new Law of the Sea Treaty will require private companies that want to conduct exploration and mining operations in international waters to submit substantial application fees to the UN’s International Seabed Authority (ISA), which in turn would allow the ISA to use these application fees to partially pay for its own mining efforts through its own mining subsidy, called the Enterprise. Corporations from member nations operating in international waters would have to pay annual fees and even be taxed to pay a percentage of their profits to the ISA. These corporations would also be expected to share their mining and navigational technology with third world countries to ensure that opportunities aren’t restricted to more technologically advanced. This is insane. The decision to grant or to withhold mining permits in international waters would now be decided by unelected, globalist bureaucrats at the United Nation’s International Seabed Authority (ISA). The Treaty would essentially give the United Nations, a notoriously corrupt, anti-American, anti-capitalist and un-democratic organization, the power to assert control over 70% of the earth’s surface. Using the regulations issued by the ISA, the United Nations would now be given the power to levy international fees and taxes on American companies. Mining approvals would be highly politicized and could discriminate against American operators. The United Nations would be given the power to regulate ocean research, exploration, fishing, marine environmental protection and navigation. They could even impose production quotas and licensing requirements on American fishermen operating in international waters. The United Nations, through the ISA, would be given the power to create an international court system to render and enforce its judgments! This new system would lie outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. legal system and the U.S. Constitution, leaving American citizens and businesses at the mercy of international tribunals whose corrupt UN bureaucrats could subject them to Sharia Law or other non-Western legal traditions. The Treaty calls for prosperous member nations like the United States to provide financial and technical assistance not only to developing countries, but also to “people who have not attained full independence or other self-governing status” (codeword for groups such as the Palestinians). The Treaty would do irreparable harm to U.S. military and intelligence operations and would force the United States to hand over proprietary technology to less developed third-world countries, many of whom are actively hostile to U.S. interests. Giving up the U.S. Navy’s long established primary mission of “maintaining freedom of the seas for all” and handing it over to a historically corrupt organization like the United Nations should be unthinkable. The most important objection concerns Article 314 of The Law of the Sea Treaty (located in Part XVII) that empowers the LOST member Assembly, dominated by nations of the developing world, to amend the terms of the treaty over the objection of any individual member state. In other words, the terms of the treaty could be changed significantly and the United States would have to abide by those changes without the U.S. Senate having the opportunity to consent to the changes. This undermines U.S. sovereignty and is clearly unconstitutional. The Law of the Sea Treaty creates a new United Nations’ worldwide bureaucracy that will create a whole new restrictive system of destructive environmental regulations that would be costly and counter-productive to American businesses, while at the same time, handing over the hard-earned, American taxpayer money to many of our enemies. The socialists, Marxists, globalists and other supporters of the New World Order keep pushing for this treaty. Senator Harry Reid has indicated that he might reintroduce the treaty in the Senate for a vote in the near future and Barack Obama, our socialist President, who is a long term advocate of the Law of the Sea Treaty, has indicated that he will sign it if passed by the Senate.

The Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty has brought an open letter to the senate, coordinated by Frank Gaffney, with the signatures of nineteen notables. This letter is featured in The Minority Report, which would also expose a separate, false-hood front group calling itself The American Sovereignty Campaign, purporting itself as pro-sovereignty while lobbying for LOST. The American Sovereignty Campaign – interesting – almost as if someone’s email or telephone conversations were caught. Oh well. It is a common practice for immoral Marxists and other ideological movements sponsored by the kleptocratic central bank complex to either attempt to control their opposition, or to set up an operation posing as a faction of it.
Sen. Kerry summoning a political jiu-jitsu pose

It is again time for immediate and forcefully amassed communications to U.S. Senators of all kinds, even their numerous Fabianists. A two-thirds majority is required to approve a treaty, but these people are being heavily pressured by the kleptocracy and their globalist co-conspirators. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations membersLeaders

John F. Kerry (MA-D) Chairman
Richard G. Lugar (IN-R) Ranking Member – rank globalist traitor on the GOP side, exiting by recent popular vote

Democrat majority members

Barbara Boxer (CA)
Robert Menendez (NJ)
Benjamin L. Cardin (MD)
Robert P. Casey (PA) – isn’t he okay? isn’t he pro-life? </sarcasm>
Jim Webb (VA) – the conflicted one
Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
Christopher Coons (DE) – self described former “bearded Marxist;” now shaves
Richard J. Durbin (IL) – designated neo-Marxist spinmeister following in Joseph Biden’s footsteps, often comic, always dangerous
Tom Udall (NM)

Republican minority members (to be contacted and watched with no less diligence)

Bob Corker (TN)
James E. Risch (ID)
Marco Rubio (FL)
James M. Inhofe (OK)
Jim DeMint (SC)
Johnny Isakson (GA)
John Barrasso (WY)
Mike Lee (UT)

Another response, though typically of lesser impact, a petition to the senate is being sponsored by conservative PAC, Right March. Following is notable and extensive analysis from the recent past.

“Media Prepare Russian Treaty Trap for the U.S.” (specifically on LOST) by Cliff Kincaid, August 2011
“National Ocean Council & Executive Order 13547; Obama’s Latest Assault on Liberty,” by Henry Lamb, July 2010 (and yes, the massive false-hood Agenda 21, environmentalist movement is rife in this)
Reject the Law of the Sea Treaty (2007-2008, Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty – CLOST)
“Our Global Neighborhood,” by Henry Lamb, Sovereignty International, 1996

Video from 2007, “CPAS LOST Issue Ad,” by the aforementioned group
It is past time to move beyond fear of being called a “conspiracy theorist” by pointing out the past, present, and impending future of the concerted efforts of globalist movements and the criminal financial powers behind them. If you agree, please see the activist organization of which we who have prepared this article are a part. If you agree withSovCam’s Mission, join us. And call your two senators. If they are not on the Foreign Affairs Committee tell them to have a chat with those who are. Since America’s well-being and vital sovereignty require this treaty to never be approved, so do their careers.
Related articles

Ratifying This Misrepresented Sea Treaty Would Cause Our Sovereignty To Be LOST (givemeliberty01.wordpress.com)
Law of the Sea Treaty as a peace tool for US (blacklistednews.com)
Frank J. Gaffney Jr.: False-flag operation on LOST (junkscience.com)
US Administration Renews Push to Ratify Law of Sea Treaty (voanews.com)
Defeat Law of the Sea Treaty – again (wnd.com)
Law of the Sea Treaty: A Tool to Combat Iran, China, and Russia? or Redistribution of wealth (mb50.wordpress.com)
Law of the Sea Treaty as a peace tool for US (csmonitor.com)
Obama About to Cede Sovereignty of Our Oceans to Marxist UN (independentsentinel.com)
American Sovereignty: LOST at Sea? (thebusypost.wordpress.com)
Former Senator Trent Lott Lobbies for U.N. Treaty He Vehemently Opposed (heritage.org)


Congressman Tom Tancredo

This needs to be defeated. It is loss of our resources, sovereignty and country.

Wednesday, 16 May 2012 10:06
Trent Lott Lobbies for Treaty He Opposed as Senator
Written by Michael Tennant



Trent Lott Lobbies for Treaty He Opposed as Senator

“If you want a UN on steroids, you want the Law of the Sea Treaty,” then-Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) declared in a 2007 news conference. The treaty, Lott explained, “undermines U.S. sovereignty,” “would create a huge UN bureaucracy” to rule the U.S. private sector and military, “would undermine U.S. military and intelligence operations,” and “would be a huge problem in terms of navigational rights.”

Lott, then just months away from resigning from the Senate, added that he had fought the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) during his entire 34-year political career. “It was bad law” in the 1980s, he said, “and it is today.”

Five years later, however, the man who once claimed that Senate ratification of LOST would “cede our national sovereignty — both militarily and economically,” is lobbying that very body to approve the treaty. “Despite his previous opposition,” writes Lachlan Markay of the Heritage Foundation, “disclosure forms filed for the first quarter of 2012 … show that Lott is one of four lobbyists from the Breaux Lott Leadership Group, a subsidiary of lobbying giant Patton Boggs LLP, pushing for Senate ratification of the treaty.”

What changed Lott’s mind about LOST? The obvious answer is money. Shell Oil Company, which thinks it stands to gain financially from LOST ratification, paid Breaux Lott $80,000 during the first quarter of 2012 to lobby for the treaty. Pike Associates, another lobbying firm, gave Breaux Lott $30,000 to lobby for LOST ratification, at least in part to advance environmental interests. The Pew Charitable Trusts, which hired Pike to lobby for LOST, “pushed hard for the treaty with a campaign headed up by the former head of governmental affairs for the radical environmentalist group Greenpeace,” Markay reports.

Lott’s office, says Markay, “declined to comment on the apparent discrepancy in the former Senator’s position on the issue” when Heritage’s Brian Darling asked about it. Yet it is difficult to think of any other reason that Lott should suddenly support a treaty he had so vehemently opposed for so long.

Indeed, Lott’s departure from the Senate was viewed by many as an attempt to cash in on his years of experience on Capitol Hill. He resigned on December 18, 2007, just two weeks before the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which prohibits legislators from becoming lobbyists for two years after leaving office, went into effect. On January 7, 2008, he and former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) opened Breaux Lott, and they’ve been raking in the simoleons ever since.

Unfortunately, Lott was right about LOST during his time in the Capitol, and he is now doing a disservice to his country by lobbying for its ratification. As Dot Ward of the Jackson, Mississippi, Clarion-Ledger explains:

The U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) has been around for years having been ratified by 153 countries, but never ratified by the U.S. Senate. LOST created the International Seabed Authority giving it total jurisdiction over all the oceans and everything in them, including the ocean floor with “all” its riches (“solid, liquid or gaseous mineral resources”) along with the power to regulate seven-tenths of the world’s surface. LOST would levy international taxes, impose production quotas, govern ocean research and create a multinational court to render and enforce its judgments.

These were the very reasons Lott gave for opposing LOST ratification in 2007. He pointed out that if the United States joined LOST it would have to pay 25 percent of the cost for the treaty’s implementation but would not have proportional representation on its various assemblies and tribunals. Instead, other countries, including many ruled by corrupt and tyrannical regimes, would be able to use LOST to penalize American businesses and the U.S. military. Then-Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, Lott remarked, “acknowledged the possibility that a Law of the Sea conference could rule adversely and harm U.S. operational planning activities and our security.”

Perhaps Lott has reasons other than the pursuit of pelf for now pushing for LOST ratification; but if so, he isn’t letting on what they are. Should Lott succeed in subjecting the United States to the “UN on steroids,” his success will come at a far greater price to Americans than the $110,000 his clients have paid.

Trent Lott Lobbies for Treaty He Opposed as Senator

Law of the Sea Treaty Offers Few Benefits, Harms U.S. Interests

Michaela Bendikova

July 12, 2011 at 5:17 pm


The Obama Administration is working hard toward the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) in the U.S. Senate. The treaty offers little to no benefits for the U.S. and harms U.S. interests, writes Peter Brookes in his latest op-ed on the subject. Some of LOST’s implications:

Redistributes U.S. wealth. First, the treaty would make the United States subject to Article 82, meaning that the United States would be required to transfer up to hundreds of billions of dollars generated by mining on the U.S. extended continental shelf to the International Seabed Authority (ISA). This body has the authority then to redistribute those funds as it sees fit.

Funnels money to corrupt nations. Second, the Assembly—the supreme organ of the ISA consisting of one representative of each party to the treaty—would have the last say as to how U.S. contributions are distributed, preferring developing and landlocked nations. Some of these nations are corrupt, undemocratic, and even sponsors of terrorism. Because the United States would be only one of some 160 members, it might not be able to prevent its funds from being distributed to Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Somalia, Syria, or Zimbabwe, to name a few. In addition, there are no limitations on how these funds should be spent in recipient countries. With a lack of transparency, the funds could end up in the private accounts of the most reckless leaders around the world.

Creates barriers to exploration. Third, LOST claims the deep seabed resources of the oceans as “the common heritage of mankind” and forbids mining unless permission is first received by the ISA. This might create an international obstacle for U.S. companies willing to invest their time and money in exploring and developing vast deep seabed resources. It might take months to secure the ISA’s permission, which would likely discourage U.S. companies from participating in such activities. Meanwhile, the magnitude of the mineral wealth on and beneath the U.S. extended continental shelf remains to be determined.

The United States was not able to secure a veto over the ISA’s decisions during the treaty’s renegotiations in 1994. The only stated benefit of the treaty—securing navigational rights—is already guaranteed by customary international law. The U.S. Navy has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to access key strategic straits and archipelagic waters and to protect its high seas freedoms. Clearly, the U.S. government should retain any wealth derived from the U.S. extended continental shelf for the benefit of the American people rather than the unaccountable ISA.


Problems with the LOST Treaty

Don't Let the UN Take Over Everything Over, On, In, and Under the Oceans
By: Larry Greenley
May 17, 2012


Don't Let the UN Take Over Everything Over, On, In, and Under the Oceans
Video

Since 1982 when then-president Ronald Reagan refused to sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), it has been kept on a legislative backburner awaiting a ratification vote in the U.S. Senate. Suddenly in early May, both Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, both announced that they were in favor of getting LOST ratified this year. According to some pundits, Kerry would have already scheduled hearings on LOST, but postponed them to avoid hurting the chances of key LOST supporter, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), in his primary face-off with tea-party-backed Richard Mourdock on May 8. It turns out that Lugar lost anyway. (Scroll down to view a short video of Dick Morris warning about LOST.)

So, now that Lugar's primary election is over, Kerry says he will work hard to find the right time for holding hearings and a ratification vote this year. At this point, it's hard to predict when a ratification vote might occur. We have to expect it could occur as early as June and as late as a lame-duck session after the elections in November.

Most of the opposition to LOST is based on opposition to its creation of the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which has been established to administer the natural resources of the seabeds and ocean floor. If the United States ratifies LOST, American entrepreneurs who mine the ocean floor would be required to pay substantial royalties to and share technology with the ISA, thus providing a revenue stream for an arm of the UN.

However, there is a much better reason to reject ratification.

Read this statement from an official UN document, "25th Anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea," Oct. 17, 2007:

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ... is perhaps one of the most significant but less recognized 20th century accomplishments in the arena of international law.... Its scope is vast: it covers all ocean space, with all its uses, including navigation and overflight; all uses of all its resources, living and non-living, on the high seas, on the ocean floor and beneath, on the continental shelf and in the territorial seas; the protection of the marine environment; and basic law and order.... The Convention is widely recognised by the international community as the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and the seas must be carried out. ("25th Anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea," Oct. 17, 2007; emphasis added.)

Notice that this UN document, which was posted by the UN's Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, reveals that the UN’s understanding of LOST is that it gives the UN authority over everything, over, on, in, and under the oceans and seas of the world. That includes both military and economic uses. That’s why it is so important that the U.S. Senate does not ratify LOST.

And, remember under the UN division that administers LOST, our nation wouldn't have veto power like we do in the UN Security Council. We'd have just one vote among 163 votes.

Yes, 162 nations have already ratified LOST, and yes, the United States has already been implementing nearly every chapter of the Law of the Sea Treaty since it went into force in 1994 when 60 nations had ratified it. However, U.S. ratification would provide that final stamp of legitimacy for the UN’s power grab over the oceans and seas and constitute a major step into world government.

Therefore, we must hold the line.

Let your Senators know that they must not ratify LOST.
Dick Morris Warns About the UN Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST)



Don't Let the UN Take Over Everything Over, On, In, and Under the Oceans - John Birch Society

Kill the Law of the Sea Treaty
May 10, 2012 RSS Feed Print

The Law of the Sea Treaty is a complex international agreement that's been around since Ronald Reagan was president. Its ostensible purpose is to define the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources.

Reagan objected to several of the treaty's provisions and refused to sign it without amendments changing it, but like a bad penny, it keeps turning up. In 1994 the United Nations attempted to move the ball down the field by creating an "Agreement on Implementation" that would address the concerns expressed by the United States and others. It didn't really make the treaty any better but President Bill Clinton signed it anyway. The U.S. Senate, however, has never, as the Constitution requires, voted to ratify it.

The global governance crowd remains undeterred. The treaty may again see the light of day in the Senate, perhaps as early as next week. And this doesn't sit well with some people.

"One of the primary missions of the United States Navy for over two centuries has been to maintain freedom of the seas for all. As a Navy veteran, I am offended to think that the Senate and the Chief of Naval Operations would even consider ceding any part of that mission to the United Nations," said Colin Hanna, president of Let Freedom Ring—a nonpartisan organization where I am a senior fellow.

In reality the Law of the Sea Treaty is one more step towards a system of global governance under which U.S. sovereignty would be subordinated to an international system managed by an unelected, self-perpetuating form of bureaucratic aristocracy that cares little for democratic traditions. Which, Hanna suggests, is one of a series of reasons the Senate should continue to vote down efforts to ratify it.

The Law of the Sea Treaty would do irreparable harm to U.S. military and intelligence operations and would force the United States to hand over proprietary technology to countries actively hostile to U.S. interests. It would also create a system for resolving disputes lying outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. legal system, leaving American citizens and businesses at the mercy of international tribunals whose members are not necessarily adherents to Western political or legal traditions and who may not hail from democratic nations.

The Law of the Sea Treaty, as previously mentioned, establishes a global bureaucracy that could leave U.S. businesses awash in a sea of destructive environmental regulations that would be costly and anticompetitive while these same bureaucrats handed out U.S. government money to give the economies of unfriendly countries a boost. The treaty would, Hanna says, impose global royalties and fees on American energy companies that will destroy U.S. jobs and make energy from traditional sources like natural gas and oil even more expensive. It might also embolden the military of countries like the People's Republic of China, who could use its language to justify a more aggressive posture in the South China Sea, while at the same time impeding the ability of the United States to interdict weapons of mass destruction being transported from one nation to another on the high seas.


Finally, says Hanna, "There is no guarantee that the treaty will remain what it is at the time of ratification. Under its terms, its content can later be changed by an amendment process that does not require the approval of the United States government. This undermines U.S. sovereignty and, to put it bluntly, is unconstitutional."

The issue is not one that gets much attention while those who oppose it are often dismissed as raising concerns that lie outside the mainstream of American political belief. The treaty has the support of Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, the committee's ranking Republican, who was defeated Tuesday in his bid for renomination. Both men are the kind of internationalists who believe the United States needs to deepen its involvement in global affairs—not as the leader of the free world—but as a kind of first among equals which, history has shown, is not in the best long-term interests of the nation as a whole or the values upon which it was founded and continues to represent to the rest of the world.


Kill the Law of the Sea Treaty - Peter Roff (usnews.com)