Doug Wrenn"L.O.S.T." Treaty Appropriately NamedFri Jan 28, 2005 16:33188.8.131.52
"L.O.S.T." Treaty Appropriately Named
By Doug Wrenn
Jan 27, 2005, 09:13
In a disturbing revelation during her recent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State nominee Condoleeza Rice expressed her support for President Bush's plan for the US to sign on to the so called "L.O.S.T." Treaty ("Law Of The Sea Treaty). This treaty, which compromises US sovereignty and national defense is backed by the UN's newly created International Seabed Authority (ISA), and is pitting globalist free traders against nationalist isolationists throughout the country and particularly among the Republican Party and conservatives. The bottom line here is the almighty dollar vs. our national security. As such, perhaps this treaty, backed by our good pals at the UN might better be called, "Loss Of Sovereignty to Tyrants."
This sad and scary story actually begins circa 1982. The theory behind LOST was similar to to a more recent treaty called "Kyoto," the premise of which was to penalize the US and restrict our usage of natural energy sources while giving poorer countries (who cause far more pollution than do we) a pass on environmental restrictions in industry.
Likewise, LOST is in fact, a transfer of wealth, suggested then by the Soviet Union, and rejected then by President Reagan. LOST, now ratified by 140 countries, calls for restriction and regulation of exploration and mining rights within a 200 mile limit off our coast. At the same time, it would also allow the US to stake seabed claims beyond the 200 mile limit. The plan was backed in the late 90's by then President Clinton and the Chemical Manufacturers Association (until inspections of cargo and documents were since increased on their ships, and exposing them to possible espionage) and the oil industry and other corporate interests, who see money to be made in this venture. But the money to be made, however, is outweighed by the risks to US homeland security and our other offshore industries.
The bill made it through Senator and Chairman Dick Lugar's (R-IN) Foreign Relations Committee last year, but was stopped from going to a vote in the full Senate by public outrage and from lobbyists opposing the measure. At present, the fight has resumed. President Bush, who previously gave mixed messages on this topic has been pushing for this legislation to advance since winning re-election. Coincidentally, President Bush opposed LOST when then presidential candidate Senator John Kerry voted in favor of the treaty by proxy on February 25, 2004. Now secure in the Oval Office for another 4 year term, Bush is anxious to advance the treaty, as is Vice President Cheney, Dr. Rice, and Senator Lugar.
In recent months, much has been written about LOST by Paul Weyrich, Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation, Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy and the Liberty Committee, chaired by Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul. Interestingly enough, the Liberty Committee web site has a link to the testimony of Dr. Peter Leitner before the US House Committee on International Relations on May 12, 2004, in which Dr. Leitner, a Senior Strategic Trade Advisor to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) expressed his vehement opposition to LOST, and cited that the signing of the treaty could set the US up for a defenseless nuclear submarine attack by China. (Mind you, this would be the same China which threatened to nuke Los Angeles a few years ago over our intervention with Taiwan, pointed 14 missiles at our country and has been fortifying its military, courtesy of the 600 billion dollar trade defect that we have them!) One of the stipulations of the LOST Treaty is that it overrules the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), created by President Bush and signed on by several of our allies, which allows for sea interdiction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). LOST is strongly supported by China, Russia and India, who also oppose PSI.
I find it interesting that once again there appears to be a rift in the Bush cabinet, as the Defense Department seems to oppose LOST, while the new aspiring Secretary of State embraces it, in lockstep with the President. It is even more disturbing, that presumably, Rice has switched positions, if she was in lockstep with the President's Defense policy in her previous job. Reading between the lines, it appears to me that Dr. Rice, whom I otherwise have high regard for, is nevertheless possibly a "good little soldier," and becoming a chameleon in her recent job transition to assimilate into her boss's own convoluted and contradictory policies. Assuming LOST gets through the Foreign Relations Committee, it still needs to also be debated in the Senate Committees of Armed Services, Intelligence, Commerce, Environment & Public Works, Government Affairs, Finance and finally, the full Senate itself, before then going through the various commmittes of the House of Representatives, then to the floor of the House for a full vote, and then on to President Bush's desk, where his pen appears to be already so poised.
While there are short term profits top be made by the LOST Treaty, and certainly for the oil industry, there are astronomical fees to be allowed into this scam of an elitist club. According to a recent article written by Carrie E. Donovan, Production & Operations Coordinator in the Kathryn Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at the Heritage Foundation, the initial fee for companies to operate under the LOST Treaty was $500,000.00, now $250,000.00, but it doesn't end there. There is then an annual fee of one million dollars per year, plus annually increasing increments of taxed profits, capping eventually at seven percent.
The battle over LOST is a heated and growing one. High profile opponents to LOST besides those already mentioned also include Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe, as well as Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafley. LOST would control 70% of the world's surface area, and would grant even more power to the already corrupt and US hating UN. It should also be noted that LOST first came about over 20 years ago, long before many of us gave much thought to terrorism, let alone a war on terrorism. The provisions of LOST still do not take terrorism into account, or our precarious position with China over Taiwan, another matter further aggravated by President Bush sending mixed messages to both countries, and flying in the face of the US Taiwan Relations Act.
According to Paul Weyrich, the provisions of LOST include:
* The US Navy must recognize that the seas are reserved for peaceful purposes.
* No military use of force.
* Our Navy would only be allowed to interfere with ships from other nations to investigate or interdict piracy, slave trade, or some forms of unauthorized broadcasting, but not terrorism.
* President Bush's PSI would not be recognized, and thus, prohibited. This is especially troubling, as Weyrich points out as there are concerns in the US homeland security community that al Qaeda could very likely attempt to smuggle a WMD into the US in a cargo ship. Weyrich also points out and presumably, correctly so, that while LOST establishes rules for member countries to abide by, al Qaeda and other terrorist groups would obviously not abide by any such ridiculous regulations, and if anything, would more than likely manipulate those same regulations to benefit their evil cause.
Other concerns regarding the LOST Treaty,as cited by Congressman Paul of the Liberty Committee include:
* Under LOST, the US would be required to pay an additional tax to the UN.
* The UN would hold significant control of our sovereignty on the seas.
* Disputes filed under LOST would be settled by a multi-national court system, much like the International Criminal Court (ICC) , which President Bush refused to sign on, and later back peddled on some of its provisions. The ICC is a globalist kangaroo court, comprised of many countries with an agenda against the US and Israel which could and would prosecute our own soldiers for whatever it deemed to be "war crimes" without any regard for our Constitutional rights and liberties. By signing onto LOST after fighting the ICC, President Bush has pretty much taken one step forward and two steps back.
* LOST would also give jurisdiction to China of the South China Sea, and Taiwan. Never mind the war on terrorism, that scenario is itself a powder keg and a lit match waiting to meet! Once again, under this provision, Bush is clearly and hypocritically violating, if not confusing our recognition of Taiwan's independence and our pledge to protect that independence, by military force if necessary, if threatened by China. As it is, that is a situation that has been steadily intensifying from both sides for several years, and possibly coming to a head in 2006 during or soon after Taiwanese elections.
I voted for George W. Bush in 2000, albeit reluctantly. After all the true conservatives, Ashcroft, Smith (whose campaign I worked on), Bauer, Keyes (whom I voted for in the primary) in the GOP (Buchanan had already switched parties) had one by one fallen in the primary, I saw Bush as the only realistic alternative to the nightmare of an Al Gore presidency, so I held my nose and voted accordingly. I never really liked Bush, and quite frankly never understood why so many fawned over him. Even in the early days, I could see through him as a liberal in conservative clothing. Four years later, I couldn't take any more. (See my October 30 column, "Why W Has Lost My Vote"), and gave my vote to Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party. I missed out on all the victory hoopla, but still knew I made the right decision. "W" has confirmed that I was right ever since.
Radio commentator Michael Savage has predicted for quite some time now, that once safe in a second term, the real George W. Bush, the liberal, will emerge. Savage read my mind. Every day, we see yet more proof of the President's true identity. In a recent edition of The Hill, former Clinton political advisor, Dick Morris wrote an insightful column about what presidents have been like in second terms. Historically, as Morris points out, they acted with hubris and arrogance, and their second terms for the most part were blunders turned into disasters.
LOST is a prime example of Bush hitting the ground running into his second term abyss, and taking the American people, including his tunnel visioned, boot licking, gullible Republican minions with him. To his credit, Bush stood firm to the UN on Kyoto (Al Gore's pet project) and the ICC. Nevertheless, he obviously learned nothing from the Iraq oil for food scandal and our alleged "stingy" tsunami relief effort. While acting tough with Islamo-Fascist third world country fanatics, still wallowing in the seventh century by choice, and an isolated, has-been, geriatric cigar chomping dictator in desperate need of a decent barber on a tropical island 90 miles off our shore, Bush cowered to the Chinese over the EP-3 downing incident, as well as over Taiwan when meeting with the Chinese Premier, and made a blithering fool out of himself for his warm and fuzzy, sickening talk about his good friend, Vladimir Putin, who has been plotting behind our back via the UN and Saddam Hussein, and returning iron fist policies to once finally free Russia (and possibly intervening in Ukraine) ever since.
The core of our pathetic and dangerous immigration problem with Mexico straddles between the relationship between Bush and Vicente Fox, who befriends our President half the time, while dictating policy and bullying him with impunity the rest of the time. Now, with LOST, Bush and his myopic, quivering foreign policy vision show that he too, is "lost" in dealing effectively with our international neighbors.
When perplexed by a dilemma, go back to the basics. In the Christian religion, that means the Bible and the Ten Commandments. In our government, that means the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers. Here are several inspiring and noteworthy tidbits from the latter, that might help our "lost" president find his way back:
* Federalist # 3-Jay emphasizes the need to maintain national security over foreign influence. (I believe it may have been George Washington, or another one of our forefathers who also once advised against such foreign "entanglements."
* Federalist # 11- Hamilton emphasizes the importance of healthy maritime commerce for the good of the nation, with the crucial existence of a strong navy to achieve that goal.
* Federalist # 64-Jay writes that treaties must be conducted by honest men (free of influence) who are knowledgeable about the conditions of the treaty as it relates to the overall concerns and well being of the nation.
* Federalist # 71- Hamilton speaks of the positive aspects of a chief executive serving only one four year term. That's the premise. Now go back and read Dick Morris's column like I suggested. That's the proof! How true, the sage old cliche, that those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it!
* Federalist # 75-Hamilton writes of treaties and the importance of the very delicate balance of power between the President and the Senate as it pertains to treaties. This is especially worth noting with President "Fast Track" Bush, who likes to fast track everything, and thus in so doing, usurp existing legislative procedures and the Constitution itself. (Mind you, this is "Mr. Strict Constructionist"!) Bush wanted to further advance NAFTA and GATT as well as other newer trade treaties with Asia, the Caribbean, and Australia. His several attempts, through both the front and back door at procuring out and out amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants is the most egregious example of that. President Bush has now well established himself as a liberal, globalist, who not only wishes to make US sovereignty extinct, but is continually and consistently on a "fast track" to do it.
Considering President Bush hypocritically called campaign finance reform "unconstitutional" (and it is), just before he signed it into law, and has aggressively pushed for federal educational, healthcare and social welfare programs not called for by the Constitution, and in violation of the 10th Amendment clause of states rights, I don't expect him to read, let alone give any credence or reflection to the writings of our forefathers any time soon. That is why, it is up to us, my friends, yes, you and I, Joe and Jane American, to call, write, or visit our Congressional legislators, both in the House and in the Senate, and tell them to vote against "LOST." We won the battle in 2004. Make no mistake about it, this year is a pivotal one as it relates to this issue. If we don't act soon, this time, "LOST" will be more than just a treaty. It will soon become our new way of life in the even more endangered and once sovereign and proud United States of America.
Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST)
From: The Liberty Committee [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 6:06 PM
Subject: Law of the Sea Treaty
January 27, 2005
Now that the elections are over, the politicians and special interests in
Washington will feel free to do what they want -- ignore public opinion --
unless we convince them otherwise.
Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, wants the U.S. Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST)
as soon as possible. Lobbyists representing multi-national corporations are
busy convincing U.S. senators to vote in favor of LOST, and well-funded
think tanks are holding briefings to marshal support for ratification.
Let's remember that over 20 years ago President Reagan opposed LOST. So
what has changed since then? The treaty is the same. What has changed
Main Page - Tuesday, 02/01/05
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES