Have they L.O.S.T. their minds???
By ladyluna
@ladyluna (7004)
United States
November 3, 2007 5:43am CST
Oh no! They're at it again! And, this time it stinks like rotten fish!
The U.S. Senate, with President George Bush's support, is once again poised to sell us out! Another inequitable, irresponsible International treaty is up for vote. Remember, a treaty must be ratified by a 2/3 vote of the Senate, and funding relegated to Congress.
In 1982 the UN devised a vulpine scheme called "The Law of the Sea Treaty", or L.O.S.T. For 25 years, 'One World Orderists' have been lobbying the USA to sign on to this treaty, thereby relinquishing even more of our sovereignty, providing heretofore unknown powers of oversight and regulation on to a new UN beurocracy, and imposing irredressable taxation on to the American Taxpayer. Yup, not even your Senator or Congess Person will ever have a say in the oversight or the amount of taxes this UN beurocracy will levy against us -- the US Taxpayer.
I have spent the last couple of months reviewing the original treaty, the changes made since our (the USA's) previous refusals to sign, and the arguments for and against. Suffice it to say, it was alot of reading.
I will spare you the entirety, so as to not encumber your time or precious eyesight.
However, I'll provide a few hightlights. And, beseech you to contact both you Senators and Congressional representatives to send an unequivocable, resounding "NO" to passage of this unconstitutional treaty.
Please bear in mind that in this post, I haven't even touched on any of the aggregious treaty articles relating to:
1. The treaty's imposed restrictions upon the U.S. Navy
2. The establishment of a LOST oversight/compliance system, given final say in all matters relating to the seas, and territorial waters.
3. The levy of taxation upon the member nations -- in an inequitable fashion (Yup, that means that the USA will pay the lion's share).
4. Or the nature of the imposition of such taxation, fees, fines, penalties, etc...
Here are some links to recommended reading on this issue:
1. Excerpts from the American Geological Institute
http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis108/lawofthesea_hearings.html
2. Heritage
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm470.cfm
Excerpt from #2:
"the Treaty creates the International Seabed Authority ("Authority") to regulate and exploit mineral resources. It requires a company to submit an application fee of $500,000 (now $250,000), as well as a bonus site for the Authority to utilize for its own mining efforts. Additionally, the corporation must pay an annual fee of $1 million, as well as a percentage of its profits (increasing annually up to 7%), and must agree to share mining and navigational technology--thereby ensuring that opportunities aren't restricted to more technologically advanced countries. The decision to grant or to withhold mining permits is decided by the Authority, which consists disproportionately of underdeveloped countries. Technology-sharing is no longer mandatory, however, there are remaining "principles" to guide its use and distribution. Additionally, the Council has been restructured so that the United States has a permanent seat, and developed countries can create a blocking vote.
*** Please don't underestimate the insideous nature of this provision:
"It requires ... as well as a bonus site for the Authority to utilize for its own mining efforts."
3. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2567
Excerpt: "....Remember the luckless USS Pueblo in 1968? International law did not prevent North Korea from seizing the intelligence ship; approval of the Law of the Sea Treaty would have offered the Pueblo no additional protection. America was similarly unaided by international law in its 2001 confrontation with China over our downed EP-3 surveillance plane."
4. http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd36.htm
* If you're not familiar with Devvy Kidd, she is one sharp cookie!
5. http://www.usasurvival.org/ck42705.shtml
6. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/2/9/150346.shtml
And now to the actual text of the treaty. In reviewing the text, I have highlighted no less than 43 objectionable articles. Perhaps the most aggregious being:
"Article181
Archives and official communications of the Authority
1. The archives of the Authority, wherever located, shall be inviolable
Article182
Privileges and immunities of certain persons connected with the Authority
Representatives of States Parties attending meetings of the Assembly, the Council or organs of the Assembly or the Council, and the Secretary-General and staff of the Authority, shall enjoy in the territory of each State Party:
(a) immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in the exercise of their functions,..."
"Article183
Exemption from taxes and customs duties
1. Within the scope of its official activities, the Authority (which is the supreme L.O.S.T. governing body), its assets and property, its income, and its operations and transactions, authorized by this Convention, shall be exempt from all direct taxation and goods imported or exported for its official use shall be exempt from all customs duties. The Authority shall not claim exemption from taxes which are no more than charges for services rendered.
2. When purchases of goods or services of substantial value necessary for the official activities of the Authority are made by or on behalf of the Authority, and when the price of such goods or services includes taxes or duties, appropriate measures shall, to the extent practicable, be taken by States Parties to grant exemption from such taxes or duties or provide for their reimbursement. Goods imported or purchased under an exemption provided for in this article shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of in the territory of the State Party which granted the exemption, except under conditions agreed with that State Party.
3. No tax shall be levied by States Parties on or in respect of salaries and emoluments paid or any other form of payment made by the Authority to the Secretary-General and staff of the Authority, as well as experts performing missions for the Authority, who are not their nationals."
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm
Folks, this stinks to high Heaven! Please don't let the Senate sign away more of our sovereign rights, or subject us to globalist taxation, and unconstitutional judicial mandates.
Let's remember: THIS IS OUR COUNTRY!
Thank you all for taking the time to educate yourselves about this perfidious treaty.
3 people like this
11 responses
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
3 Nov 07
Wow, I guess you did your homework. lol. I fell asleep at the wheel on this one. I don't generaly subscribe to conspiricy theories such as the new world order thing, but I know this treat to be the real thing and deserving of focus. thanks for bringing it to the forfront for us. I will be jotting of a few emails and making a stop at an office on monday over this. Much apreciate your vigilance Luna, as always, your brain is working over time for the rest of us.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
3 Nov 07
Hello Xfahctor,
Thanks for reading this really long post.
This treaty makes no apologies, or attempts to disguise it's socialist agenda. Much of the treaty relates to exemptions being made for developing countries, and the direct assignment of monies, and technology taken from the developed countries, and freely handed over to whomever 'The Authority' deems deserving.
You will surely find the link to savetheusa.com very interesting. It identifies the creator of this treaty, an unabashed Marxist whose great claim to fame was her charge that she taught her dogs how to play the piano. I kid you not!
Anyway, thanks in advance for every e-mail, phone call, and personal visit you make to your representatives on 'the hill'.
@drannhh (15219)
• United States
3 Nov 07
Ah, yes, the "Halloween Treaty" as the freepers call it. Well, due to my preference to avoid jumping into the middle of discussions involving politics and religion on myLot (this is just my own proclivity, not a recommendation for others, by the way), let me just say that I've been following the topic on this site:
http://www.freerepublic.com
BTW, Devvy Kidd ROCKS! She is even more awesome than Ann Coulter. I have had many jobs where I could have/should have/would have filed a fraud, waste & abuse claim, but she actually did it...against her own job. Fiscal responsibility in action!
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
3 Nov 07
Ahhh, Thanks for the interesting link Drannhh. I see a club near and dear to my heart -- The Gathering of Eagles.
I also see many other interesting links like:
Revolutionary Laser Technique Destroys Viruses And Bacteria Without Damaging Human Cells (AZ)
All in all, I'd say I could get lost for a while on this site.
Of course, out of respect for your inclination to stay out of the fray, I will simply thank you for taking the time to stop by, and sharing the great link.
Oh, and it's really nice to know there's another Devvy fan on MyLot!
@drannhh (15219)
• United States
4 Nov 07
The continual uproar over Farah's remarks reminds me of a time when I was teaching first-year composition and treated the college kiddies to Swift's Immodest Proposal at the same time a parody on it was circulating wherein the theme was cats for dinner instead of people. I know you recognize this, but some people here may be unaware that Swift was satirizing the concept of population control and did not really mean for people to regard his culinary suggestions as recipes meant to be prepared in earnest. Some cat-lovers found the parody, however, and an ungodly number of people who did not understand the concept of a literary device, never heard of Swift, and did not recognize that it was satire became outraged and began a letter-writing campaign to the editors of many newspapers. About that time also, some folks with a distorted view of life or maybe just a bit too much time on their hands decided to take the satire one step further and faked some photos of what cats would look like if they were encapsulated in glass cubes, with the result that even the FBI got involved in investigating this alleged outrage. If you never saw the Bonsai Kitty website, here is a review:
http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/bonsai.asp
To this day, I have yet to see anyone put into print even the remote suggestion that this was not really an urban legend hoax, but rather yet another modern parody on Swift.
In my book, Farah's only crime has been his continual insistence upon committing public literacy.
1 person likes this

@NeoComp (1316)
• United States
5 Nov 07
This is horrible.
They better not ratify this!
Keep the New World Order out of our country!
They should all be banished.. and left on a remote island.. this is the United States.. it belongs to the PEOPLE.. not scum.. like David Rockefeller
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
5 Nov 07
Hello NeoComp,
Come on now, don't be shy about telling us how your really feel. (chuckle, chuckle)
All kidding aside NeoComp, you're right. This is the USA, a nation founded on freedom-first principles.
If you don't like the sound of this treaty, and I can't imagine anyone agreeing with this garbage, then get on your computer, phone, and fax and let your representatives know your concerns, especially your Senators.
As for banishment to a remote island, well that would be somewhat fascist, don't ya' think? Fascism is the realistic evolution of socialism, not capitalism. I say, let's beat 'em in the arena of ideas!
Of course, you're welcomed to start scoping out an appropriate island, if you're so inclined.
@Angelwhispers (8978)
• United States
6 Nov 07
Lady Luna, I am one of those Americans that has just awaken from our peaceful slumber. I am just beginning to understand the importance of the proverbial mark of the beast, and how close it is upon us. I have watched certain documentary's, and then did the research on my own to prove we are in a global march to make oil and power, money for a select few countries. Yet we here in the US have a roadway, combining Mexico, US and Canada. Why? Why are we going to spoil the last vintage outreaches of north america? Here in Nashville, the very last of the US tech support for Dell has gone to the way side of call centers. Now you will not get an American, not for support in dell, 250 people are with out jobs. Our last American speaking TECHS for Dell.
The income tax with all the bravo of the IRS was never ratified. They are imprisoning folks with no real authority. Our civil rights are being hacked away with each new law........... the thing is Luna most of americans ask for it. They are blinded by something they call faith. I have faith.... I have a spiritual side. God is screaming do not do this. What is ironic, is that the very Christian foundation will lead us to this beast. This is our country. We have let the Federal Reserve, and the paper money which means nothing rule. Its time to start asking the hard questions.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
6 Nov 07
Hello Angelwhispers,
What a thoughtful, and thought-provoking response!
It's remarkable how many important issues you touched on in your single paragraph.
I absolutely concur with your assessment that "Its time to start asking the hard questions."
Oh, and welcome to the wide-awake nightmare. I do hope that you won't be shy about voicing your concerns to our elected. That's our best hope for shifting us off of our current course.
@theprogamer (10532)
• United States
3 Nov 07
Isn't it great Luna!? No one else (in general) is talking about this! Oh yes, props to Devvy for being on this, I give credit where credit is due. This definitely needs to be out in the open. I can't believe this is back, at least thats what some of me says. The cynic says "what a surprise" /sarcasm.
Look at the lopsided standards this thing presents. Reduction in naval power and no protection for wayward crafts? And there's a nice US pays the bulk clause, no surprises. Then the thing goes into different immunities for some (especially their own)!? "..." ...sigh
I'm reviewing this too Luna. Don't worry about my eyesight, I just went through 4 years of federal budget and various documents on divisions of federal government authority as part of an answer to another thread (that was a lot, to say the least).
1 person likes this

@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
4 Nov 07
You are a peach, Progamer!!!
You, I'm sure, know how much time it takes to dig through the various layers to find this info. Thank you so much!!! I believe, it's once again, time to apply foreign aid spending to a model comparing the national debt, the trade imbalance, and foreign relations. That's always an eye-openner.
No doubt, you get a great big, shiny, gold star for sharing!
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
4 Nov 07
Hello Progamer,
Like you, I find it difficult to fathom that this is on the voting block, yet again. How many times do we have to say "NO"?
Yes, you're right about lopsided standards. While the governing authority of L.O.S.T. is poised to reap the benefit of tax free wealth accumulation, their mandates will put a very great, undo burden on small fishing nation-states -- just the people they alledge to help. And, will force every nation's maritimers to become intimately familiar with the laws of other nations, so as to avoid arrest, and imposition of fines to be forwarded to L.O.S.T. Grrr!
Since you've just done so much intense research of our annual budgets, do you know off-hand, approximately how much the USA allocated to Foreign Aid over recent years? I have been wondering, but haven't gotten around to tackling a budget review again. I'd sure appreciate you sharing anything you can on this question.
Thanks a bunch, Progamer!
1 person likes this
@theprogamer (10532)
• United States
4 Nov 07
Sorry for the delay Luna!
Its over $20 billion (almost 23 billion) In terms of Federal Budget comparison, this only accounts for about 1% of the spending. In terms of monetary comparison, this spending is right below/nearby Energy. and above "general government". Some of the spending on foreign aid can be found in Agriculture spending for example. For another fact around $90 billion is used for foreign aid but that comes from private sources.
Of course, I'm one to still question it, since I've seen some midlevel convolution in federal hierarchy and spending. For the time being, I'd actually accept a 25-35 billion range.
And for those that want it...
This is a Fed/Congress document over it with the spending (04) and comparing it to % of GDP as well as a 10 year period
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf
This is a comprehensive but medium sized document comparing aid 2003-2006 in multiple mathematical representation. Again, note the $20 billion and also how it's compared.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
1 person likes this

@lancingboy (1385)
• United States
4 Nov 07
I have no idea what any of this means to tell you the truth. The way these forms are worded, it's hard to understand. Is that the goal here? To make sure the Senate doesn't know what is really in those documents? Maybe after I finish my Business Law course, I'll understand at least a little bit of what these mean.
1 person likes this

@lancingboy (1385)
• United States
5 Nov 07
Thank you for that explanation. Yes, when it is worded like that, it is a really bad idea if the people's freedoms are taken away.
1 person likes this
@rogue13xmen13 (14402)
• United States
4 Nov 07
*Points finger at a picture of Bush on a television screen*
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
4 Nov 07
Hello Rogue,
Yes, President Bush is deserving of the most scathing criticism for supporting the ratification of this treaty. Yet, let's not forget EVERY other elected representative who seems more than willing to surrender our national sovereignty to the UN.
You will find scattered L.O.S.T. support from the Republicans, yet overwhelming support from the Democrats. Every single supporter of this treaty is in violation of their oath to uphold our Constitution. It's up to you to check the voting records of candidates to glean whether they support U.S. sovereignty, or align themselves with U.N. governance.
Yet, the most pressing issue is to let your representatives know that ratifying this treaty is simply very bad for the USA. Call them, fax them, or stop by their local offices to voice your opposition now -- before the Senate ratifies this treaty. Next year you can hold them accountable when you enter the voting booth.
Thanks for stopping by Rogue.
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
3 Nov 07
That this is in danger of being ratified is an example of why I call the major parties dumbocrats and retardicans.
That this is in danger of being ratified is proof, we the voters, do not elect people to truely represent us.
The whole L.O.S.T mess saddens me greatly. I will fight against it. I will not vote for any politican supporting it.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
3 Nov 07
Hello Redyellowblackdog,
I know this is a long post. So, thank you for taking the time to read it.
As to your election choices, your presidential choice will be limited to either a Republican or a Third Pary Candidate -- as I am pretty sure that every Dem running has voiced support of L.O.S.T. I'm not certain about the lesser tiers candidates, but all of the top-tier Dem's are supporting it.
Every one of the G.O.P. candidates has voiced opposition.
Among the body of the Senate GOP, surprisingly there are some Republican Senators who are on board with this. I have to believe it's because they haven't taken the time to read the text of the treaty.
Thanks again for stopping by.
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
4 Nov 07
I saw something about some of this the other day somewhere.
I can't understand why so many are so eager to have the US give up it's sovereignty for any reason.
This One World Order bunch just keeps growing all of the time.
The time has come for us to take back the control of our government and let these politicians know that they serve at OUR pleasure.
It is also time to cut the worthless UN loose. They ceased having any meaningful purpose long ago.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
4 Nov 07
Hello Destiny,
I'm heartened that you at least saw some reference to this treaty being on the voting block, yet again. Fortunately, it isn't being completely ignored.
I believe the reason why growing numbers of people are willing to give away our freedom and rights is none other than guilt. Guilt over being advantaged. Personally, I can think of many better ways to help the less advantaged. But, I guess that's just me.
And, you're right. The elected do serve at our pleasure. Or, at least they're supposed to. I guess we simply need to keep reminding them with phone calls, faxes, and e-mails. At least we know those who are up for re-election make a modest attempt at appearing to listen.
Thanks so much for taking the time to read this lengthy post, and to share your perspective with us.











