The UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty Is Back – This Time with a Friend in the White House

(Compiler's note: A must read.)

J. D. Longstreet

The leftists of the world have been encouraging the United States to sign the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which was rightly vetoed by President Reagan decades ago and rejected by American Presidents, both Democrat and Republican

, ever since. Now, with President Obama, the treaty has a friend in the White House.

It ought to scare the living daylights out of you. Why? Let's look at some reasons why the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is important to you as an American.

By asserting UN authority over seven-tenths of the Earth's surface, LOST would be the largest territorial conquest in history.

In principle, the treaty would assert UN jurisdiction over U.S. territorial waters, and eventually over waterways within our country.

It would create a huge bureaucratic entity called the "Enterprise," which would regulate and tax all commercial uses of the high seas.

By taxing all efforts to develop the wealth of the seabed, the UN would be given a huge revenue stream, independent of national governments to push its agenda for international socialism.

The treaty would require the redistribution of cutting-edge technology from the U.S. to all governments in the "developing world," including extremely repressive governments.

Get the picture? It's that "One World Government," or "Global Governance" our current President is so fond of. You know... it is the "Globalists" at work.

So, where do we stand today on LOST? Not good, I'm afraid.

The last time this treaty came before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, they passed it by a vote of 17-4. If the committee approves it again it will go before the entire Senate for ratification.

The National Center for Public Policy Research provides educational resources on the Law of the Sea Treaty (also known by the acronyms LOST and UNCLOS). National Center Vice President David Ridenour has said:

"The Law of the Sea Treaty is a terrible deal for the U.S. It would threaten our sovereignty, place a significant portion of the world's resources under the control of a UN-style body, and complicate our efforts to apprehend terrorists on the high seas by subjecting our actions to review by an international court unlikely to render decisions favorable to the U.S."

Ridenour went on to say:

"The Law of the Sea Treaty would help radical environmentalists achieve what they haven't been able to achieve through legislation. Greenpeace has said 'the benefits of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea are substantial, including its basic duties for states to protect and preserve the marine environment and to conserve marine living species.' The Natural Resources Defense Council challenged the Navy's use of 'intense active sonar,' arguing that it violates the treaty by posing a danger to marine life. The Navy ultimately agreed to scale back use of this technology. The Law of the Sea Treaty has also been used by Australia and New Zealand in an attempt to shut down an experimental blue fin tuna fishing program and by Ireland in an attempt to shut down a plant on land in England."

The United National Law of the Sea Treaty Information Center contains a collection of research papers, commentaries and blog entries about LOST from a variety of think-tanks, scholars, opinion writers and bloggers.

"Although the Law of the Sea Treaty has been around for decades - the National Center for Public Policy Research first worked on it in 1982 - relatively few people know much about it," said Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. "The United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty Information Center website is designed to help correct this."

And for even more information on this proposed treaty, I urge you to go here.

It is more important than ever before to contact your senators and urge them to educate themselves about the realities of the Law of the Sea Treaty.

This is serious stuff, and we are not hearing about it in the MSM. Why not?