The UN program known as LOST (Law Of the Sea Treaty) seeks to redistribute wealth and favor third world nations.  This UN power grab which former Presidents Reagan and Clinton wouldn't go near now seems to be back.

LOST would tax minerals mined from the oceans and give the UN power of 70% of the planet.  One wonders why America should pay tribute and taxes for freedom of the ocean.  LOST passed a senate committee in February of 2004 on a 19-0 consisting mostly of democrats and RINO senators like Lugar.

As Governor George W. Bush said to Mr. Wead before he announced he would run for President of the United States of America: ``Sovereignty. The issue is huge. The mere mention of Kofi Annan in the UN caused the crowd to go into a veritable fit. The coalition wants America strong and wants the American flag flying overseas, not the pale blue of the UN."  Bush proved that he was loyal to America's sovereignty when he refused to sign or support both Kyoto, the International Criminal Court, and that horrible global anti-tobacco treaty that just recently went into effect (only the major countries of America and China refused to join that anti-tabacco tax garbage.)  Now all evidence points towards supporting LOST.

Supporters argue that LOST will give America a say in the world's ocean body and the ISA.  But in a one vote per country system in which there are 150 countires, 120 of which are hostile towards the United States of America, our supporting LOST will just take away our freedom and move more towards a new world order of which the vast majority of Americans oppose.  Do the math.

LOST would never be considered in the US House, but as the US Constitution states the President has the authority to make treaties and alliances with consent of two-thirds of the US Senate (note no meantion of the US House.)  Two-thirds would mean it would take 67 votes, which is highly unlikely with the new republican majority and big supporters of LOST like Tom Daschle out of the picture.  The issue is a non-starter in the US Senate, but a vote is likely after a floor debate (something Lugar opposes.)  The government wants to pass this without any media attention and under the noses of Americans, because they know that a huge majority of Americans are opposed to this.  Hence why you're probably just now hearing about it for the first time or the first time since early in the Clinton presidency.

LOST needs to get lost, this time for good.

The UN program known as LOST (Law Of the Sea Treaty) seeks to redistribute wealth and favor third world nations. 
Oh well then that's it.  Say no more. It has got to go!!!
We always must concentrate wealth back on Wall Street and saddle the "third world" with unpayable debts via the World Bank and the IMF (Institute of Misery and Famine).
Now get out of my way g-d it, I'm an American, now gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme....

Oh well then that's it.  Say no more. It has got to go!!!



Okay, how much do you know about this pro-UN globalist garbage known as LOST?

How much of our sovereignty should we sell out?  Did you even read what I wrote?

Granted LOST has little chance in the US Senate, but it's insulting that this treaty was even introduced again!  We must rally at least 34 US Senators against this...republican or democrat!

120 out of 150 countries are hostile to America? Maybe that's a sign that America needs to change policy to not be so hated.

LOST would tax minerals mined from the oceans and give the UN power of 70% of the planet.  One wonders why America should pay tribute and taxes for freedom of the ocean.  LOST passed a senate committee in February of 2004 on a 19-0 consisting mostly of democrats and RINO senators like Lugar.


I call BS on that one.  There is no such thing in a Republican majority controlled Senate as a committee consisting of nothing but Democrats or even a massive majority. 

Okay, how much do you know about this pro-UN globalist garbage known as LOST?

How much of our sovereignty should we sell out?  Did you even read what I wrote?

Granted LOST has little chance in the US Senate, but it's insulting that this treaty was even introduced again!  We must rally at least 34 US Senators against this...republican or democrat!


I read what you wrote, and it seems to me tyhat the oceans of the world belong to the world, not just to companies that can afford to exploit them.  Such a tax would provide the UN (which I know you hate) with the where-with-all to mount effective anti-poverty programs throughout the 3rd world and would relieve the tax burden on the tax payers of donar nations.  This is not an issue of US soverignty, since we do not have soverignty over the world's oceans.  Or do you think we should claim such?

I call BS on that one.  There is no such thing in a Republican majority controlled Senate as a committee consisting of nothing but Democrats or even a massive majority. 


Well it's impossible to give you a link to the website because it's an all new Senate Foreign relations committee.  The website updated after the November 2004 general election as was the committee with new senators who oppose LOST like Mel Martinez from Florida.

But let me say that the committee was packed with RINOs like Hagel, Lugar, Lott and packed with people like Kennedy and Kerry.  There was not one true conservative like Coburn (though he wasn't elected at the time) on it.

The likelyhood of LOST getting 67 US Senate votes is slim to none.  But it's insulting that this thing was even introduced again.

I call BS on that one.  There is no such thing in a Republican majority controlled Senate as a committee consisting of nothing but Democrats or even a massive majority. 

Woulda slipped right by me, and I was a PoliSci minor!
;D ::)

I do admit to knowing diddly about the LOST program, but I am overly familiar with the "we-hate-the-U.N." sentiment.

Well it's impossible to give you a link to the website because it's an all new Senate Foreign relations committee.  The website updated after the November 2004 general election as was the committee with new senators who oppose LOST like Mel Martinez from Florida.

But let me say that the committee was packed with RINOs like Hagel, Lugar, Lott and packed with people like Kennedy and Kerry.  There was not one true conservative like Coburn (though he wasn't elected at the time) on it.

The likelyhood of LOST getting 67 US Senate votes is slim to none.  But it's insulting that this thing was even introduced again.


They're not true conservatives because the would have voted for this?

man... the Republican party gets more scary everytime I hear something new like that one.  Follow the herd, don't deviate or expect to get hell for it..

even before the election, the panel would have had at least a 50% mix, and I doubt an important cabinet would have been stocked with anything less than true blue Republicans for their half.

which conservative talk show host is rallying around this issue this week?  Anything to take attention away from Bush's inability to convince even his own party the new Social Security plan he's putting forth makes sense.

which conservative talk show host is rallying around this issue this week?  Anything to take attention away from Bush's inability to convince even his own party the new Social Security plan he's putting forth makes sense.


None of them as far as I know (I can't hear them all.)  Rush is talking about Afghanistan, Boortz is talking about the national sales tax, Hannity about Mark Levin's new book, Savage about the idiots on the US Supreme Court who voted down executions for 16 and 17 year-olds, and the Kimmer is still doing his newsmaker lines.

Bush will probably fail on social security, and to be frank I'm not sure if 800 billion to 2 trillion in extra spending on this was a good idea anyway.  Still a shame, but maybe now we can ignore it and let it die.

The media is trying to let this thing come to a vote with no press coverage, thinking that will give it a few more votes if it's to late for the American people to complain.  Thank God The Weekly Standard, The New York Post, and The Washington Times aren't letting this go, not until the US Senate votes in down hopefully very soon.

I'm being ignored again  ::) I wonder why?

I'm being ignored again  ::) I wonder why?


It used something called logic.  There's an entire political party devoted to stomping that out.

I read what you wrote, and it seems to me tyhat the oceans of the world belong to the world, not just to companies that can afford to exploit them. 


The oceans belong to every nation, not to the UN.  As I stated above why should America pay tribute and taxes for freedom of the ocean, something we have always had?  Why should the corrupt UN be able to own 70% of the world?

The oceans belong to every nation, not to the UN.  As I stated above why should America pay tribute and taxes for freedom of the ocean, something we have always had?  Why should the corrupt UN be able to own 70% of the world?


And, in that case, why should not those nations, and more specifically corporations, that have the means to exploit the resouces that "belong to every nation" be required to pay part of the proceeds of that exloitation to the real owners of those resources?  I (the world) own a piece of property (the oceans) which contains valualbe resources.  You (a for profit corprporation) wants to exploit them.  Should you be able to do so without compensating me?  I think not.  If a private corporation is going to exploit resources that YOU have acknowledged belong to "every nation" should they not pay "every nation" for the right to do so?  Freedom of the seas has always been interpreted as the freedom to move across the seas unhindered until one reaches the territorial waters of some  other sovereign power. at which point their laws come into play.  In fact, there is a case right now before the Supreme court dealing with weather foriegn registered ship using US ports should be forced to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

And imperfect as the UN may be, what better forum to resolve these issues?  Certainly not in the US Congress, which makes law, as I understand it, for the US only.

Certainly not in the US Congress, which makes law, as I understand it, for the US only.


;D This just made me laugh, considering the state of things at present.

Why should the corrupt UN be able to own 70% of the world?


Your paranoia knows no boundaries, does it? The UN isn't even a government and has no territorial rights over anything. This proposal is a treaty agreement, not a law.

Though I will admit that 3rd World countries need help, the road to H*** is still paved with good intentions. We do not know for a fact that LOST would actually help these countries. It sounds to me like a exercise in nepotism, where the low income territories would for their own benefit, leading to even more bloodshed. LOST needs to be revised and made clear, if not banned altogether. :(

LOST needs to be revised and made clear, if not banned altogether.


Other countries may have ratified it, but the US will not anytime in the foreseeable future.

Other countries may have ratified it, but the US will not anytime in the foreseeable future.


Probably not.  Another example of our jingoistic arrogance and imperialist intentions.  Love us, love us, love us, we're America.