Lost is a loser

Should the US Senate ratify the UN Law of the Sea Treaty, called LOST? There is a heated argument, except in the mainstream media, where it is being smuggled under the radar. There are a number of specifics that just go beyond most people's knowledge. President Bush and the US Navy are for it; many conservatives are against it

For me, the deal-breaker is US sovereignty. The LOST would divvy up all seabed resources among UN member states, establish binding arbitration for disputes, and tax its members via treaty --- without the consent of the people.

The fact that LOST is being run by the Senate in the dark of night should be an alarm signal. If it can't be debated in the light of day, it starts to get that dead fish odor.  Something doesn't smell right.

A Bush and Navy-supported treaty might be worth considering if the United Nations were a model of good governance. Unfortunately, the UN is a farcical parody of good governance, guided by the same Leftist political ideology that is now locking up half a billion people in Europe under the control of a tiny, unelected ruling class, which simply issues commands. Europe's people have been emasculated. They just snap to and salute when the EU commands are govern, like half a billion indoctrinated suckers, bought off by generous welfare --- which will become unsupportable very soon. So it's a classic bait and switch. 

The clear and stated goal of the EU and UN bureaucrats is to do exactly the same thing to Americans.

As Frank Gaffney just wrote
"... it is unimaginable that the United States would choose to expand the power and influence of the United Nations at a time when evidence of the latter's corruption, malfeasance and inherent anti-Americanism is growing by the day." (italics added).
LOST has tons of fine print that most of us can't decode. There could  be some good in it. But the critical question is: Can the UN LOST be trusted? If the process is corrupt and liable to sabotage by unelected UN members, who are foaming-at-the-mouth anti-American, all the nice words in the world are not going to fix it. Any organization that would vote for the Sudan to be on its Human Rights Commission is a farce, and can't be trusted.

As a rule,  you don't sign a  permanent contract to divvy up all the earth's oceanic resources with corrupt international regimes, eager for power and money, and unresponsive to our political rights.

One balance, that has got to mean a "thumbs down" on the LOST.

The Senate needs to hear from Americans, and soon, or this thing is going to slip through.

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/
Should the US Senate ratify the UN Law of the Sea Treaty, called LOST? There is a heated argument, except in the mainstream media, where it is being smuggled under the radar. There are a number of specifics that just go beyond most people's knowledge. President Bush and the US Navy are for it; many conservatives are against it

For me, the deal-breaker is US sovereignty. The LOST would divvy up all seabed resources among UN member states, establish binding arbitration for disputes, and tax its members via treaty --- without the consent of the people.

The fact that LOST is being run by the Senate in the dark of night should be an alarm signal. If it can't be debated in the light of day, it starts to get that dead fish odor.  Something doesn't smell right.

A Bush and Navy-supported treaty might be worth considering if the United Nations were a model of good governance. Unfortunately, the UN is a farcical parody of good governance, guided by the same Leftist political ideology that is now locking up half a billion people in Europe under the control of a tiny, unelected ruling class, which simply issues commands. Europe's people have been emasculated. They just snap to and salute when the EU commands are govern, like half a billion indoctrinated suckers, bought off by generous welfare --- which will become unsupportable very soon. So it's a classic bait and switch. 

The clear and stated goal of the EU and UN bureaucrats is to do exactly the same thing to Americans.

As Frank Gaffney just wrote
"... it is unimaginable that the United States would choose to expand the power and influence of the United Nations at a time when evidence of the latter's corruption, malfeasance and inherent anti-Americanism is growing by the day." (italics added).
LOST has tons of fine print that most of us can't decode. There could  be some good in it. But the critical question is: Can the UN LOST be trusted? If the process is corrupt and liable to sabotage by unelected UN members, who are foaming-at-the-mouth anti-American, all the nice words in the world are not going to fix it. Any organization that would vote for the Sudan to be on its Human Rights Commission is a farce, and can't be trusted.

As a rule,  you don't sign a  permanent contract to divvy up all the earth's oceanic resources with corrupt international regimes, eager for power and money, and unresponsive to our political rights.

One balance, that has got to mean a "thumbs down" on the LOST.

The Senate needs to hear from Americans, and soon, or this thing is going to slip through.

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/