The L.O.S.T. vote is postponed until after the election, how convenient, but here is a Malkin piece with history.

[Peggy Hall]

What's green and blue and grabby all over? President Obama's new pressure campaign for Congress to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

The fight over LOST goes back three decades, when it was first rejected by President Ronald Reagan. He warned that "no national interest of the United States could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth's surface over to the Third World." According to top Reagan officials William Clark and Ed Meese, their boss believed the "central, and abiding, defect" was "its effort to promote global government at the expense of sovereign nation states -- and most especially the United States."

The persistent transnationalists who drafted LOST favor creation of a massive United Nations bureaucracy that would draw ocean boundaries, impose environmental regulations and restrict business on the high seas. They've tinkered with the document obsessively since the late '60s, enlisted Presidents Clinton and Bush, and recruited soon-to-depart GOP Sen. Dick Lugar to their crusade. Ignore the mushy save-the-planet rhetoric. Here's the bottom line: Crucial national security decisions about our naval and drilling operations would be subject to the vote of 162 other signatories, including Cuba, China and Russia.

While our sovereignty would be redistributed around the world, most of the funding for the massive LOST regulatory body would come from -- you guessed it! -- the United States. Forbes columnist Larry Bell reports that "as much as 7 percent of U.S. government revenue that is collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast" would be meted out to "poorer, landlocked countries." This confiscatory act of environmental justice would siphon billions, if not trillions, away from Americans. International royalties would be imposed; an international tribunal would be set up to mediate disputes. There would be no opportunity for court appeals in the U.S.

LOST is just the latest waterlogged power grab by the Obama administration. As I reported in 2010, the White House through executive order seized unprecedented control from states and localities over "conservation, economic activity, user conflict and sustainable use of the ocean, our coasts and the Great Lakes." Obama created a 27-member "National Ocean Council" by administrative fiat that is specifically tasked with implementing ocean management plans "in accordance with customary international law, including as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention."

The panel is chaired by radical green science czar John Holdren (notorious for his cheerful musings about eugenics, mass sterilization and forced abortions to protect Mother Earth, and for hyping weather catastrophes and demographic disasters in the 1970s with his population-control pals Paul and Anne Ehrlich) and White House Council on Environmental Quality head Nancy Sutley (best known as the immediate boss of disgraced green jobs czar/self-avowed communist Van Jones).

Other members include Dr. Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and a former high-ranking official at the left-wing Environmental Defense Fund, which has long championed draconian reductions of commercial fishing fleets and recreational fishing activity in favor of centralized control, and fraudster Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who doctored the administration's drilling moratorium report.

It is not hyperbole to expose LOST's socialist roots. Meddling Marxist Elisabeth Mann Borgese, the godmother of the global ocean regulatory scheme, made no bones about it: "He who rules the sea," she exulted, "rules the land." LOST is a radical giveaway of American sovereignty in the name of environmental protection. And it should be sunk once and for all.

[Patricia M. McBride]

Peggy, where is the link or proof to something that says this is true?  This issue has been around for a very long time, but that does not change the fact you didn't post something that proves what you have posted as fact is indeed true. 

[Peggy Hall]

Patricia that is fine,nothing to be sorry about.  You don't want to take my word or Carole's word that is just fine.  You can do your own investigations. That is exactly what I do, and did.  Other than that, there is nothing else to say.

[Patricia M. McBride]

Sorry Peggy, but I don't see verification and I don't take your word for this!  I wrote to Rubio and have not heard back that this was put off.  

[Peggy Hall]

Carole called Rubio's office.  They verified.

 

 

[Patricia M. McBride]

Peggy, where is the link to the postponement you state as fact?   I looked yesterday and again today, and the only article I could find posted in the WSJ was one that said they wanted to put off this vote until after the election (and not that it was actually put off), but I also know the president and many others are pushing for a vote NOW and Obama has signed the treaty and written one of his infamous executive orders for it..............which I have posted as well (thank goodness they carry no weight because he has no authority to impose an unratified treaty on anyone). 

I understand we should just take your word, but providing a few links where we can verify what you say is quite helpful and for me, at least, paramount to my believing statements (which is why I tried to verify your statement when you made it on another blog and could not find a statement in any WSJ article indicating this vote was put off..............if you have a link to the article could you please post it?).   I don't plan on wasting any more time on it nor will I just be taking your word for it :).  Based on the fair use act, we must give folks credit for their words if we copy them..........................links are quite useful for doing that?