George W. Bush, Globalist

Have the Bush Republicans ceased to be
reliable custodians of American sovereignty? So it would

President George W. Bush began well. He
rejected the Kyoto Protocol on global warming

negotiated by Vice President Al Gore
as both
injurious to the economy and rooted in questionable
science. He refused to allow the armed forces and
of the United States t
o be brought under the

jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

But now President Bush is about to take
his country by the hand and make a great leap forward

into world government.
He has signed on to the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or the

Law of the Sea Treaty
(LOST), which transfers
jurisdiction over the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian and
Arctic oceans and all the oil and mineral resources they
contain, to an

International Seabed Authority.
This second United
Nations would be ceded eternal hegemony over two-thirds
of the Earth. It is the greatest

U.N. power grab
in history and, thanks to George
Bush, is about to succeed.

Within the Authority, consisting of 155
nations, America would have one vote and no veto.
However, we would pay the principal share of the
operating costs, as we do today of the United Nations.

In 1978, Ronald Reagan

, "No national interest of the United
States can justify handing sovereign control of
two-thirds of the Earth`s surface over to the Third

Rejecting the New International Economic
Order that sought to effect a historic transfer of
wealth and power from the First World to the Third,
President Reagan in 1982

refused to sign the Law of the Sea
Treaty or send it
to the Senate. Now, Bush, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.,
and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., have resurrected this
monstrosity and are about to ram it through the U.S.
Senate with, if you can believe it, the support of the
U.S. Navy. 

The rot of globalism runs deep in this
capital city.

What is the matter with Bush? What is
the matter with the U.S. Navy? For the sea treaty grants
us no rights we do not already have in international law
and tradition—it only codifies them. It siphons off
national rights, national sovereignty and national
wealth, however, and empowers global bureaucrats and

Third World kleptocrats
whose common trait is

jealousy of and hostility toward
the United States.

Under LOST, if the United States wishes
to mine the ocean or scoop up minerals from its floor,
we would have to pay a fee and get permission from the
Authority, then provide a subsidiary of the Authority
called the Enterprise with a comparable site for its own
exploitation with our technology. Eventually, the
Authority would collect 7 percent of the revenue from
the U.S. mining site, giving this institution of world
government what the United Nations has hungered for for
decades: the power to tax nations.

While the treaty assures the right of
peaceful passage on the high seas and through narrows
that are territorial waters, we already have that right
under international law. And for the past two centuries,
we have had as guarantor of the right of free passage
the U.S. Navy. Now, we will have it courtesy of the
International Seabed Authority.

"It is inconceivable to
this naval officer,"

writes Adm. James Lyons, former commander of U.S. forces
in the Pacific, "why the Senate would willingly want
to forfeit its responsibility for America`s freedom of
the seas to the unelected and unaccountable
international agency that would be created by the
ratification of LOST.

"The power of the U.S.
Navy, not some anonymous bureaucracy, has been the
nation`s guarantee to our access to and freedom of the
seas. I can cite many maritime operations—from the

blockade of Cuba in 1962
, to the reflagging of ships
in the Persian Gulf, to our submarine
intelligence-gathering programs—that have been critical
to maintaining our freedom of the seas and protecting
our waters from encroachment. All those examples would
likely have to be submitted to an international tribunal
for approval if we become a signatory to this treaty.
… This is incomprehensible."

LOST at sea?
, By  James Lyons October 5, 2007]

U.S. warships today inspect vessels
suspected of carrying nuclear contraband. In the

Cold War
, U.S.

entered harbors to tap into
communications cables to protect our national security.
Our subs routinely transit straits submerged. To do
this, post-LOST, the Navy would have to get permission
from an Authority composed of states most of which have
an almost unbroken record of voting against us in the
United Nations.

Why are we doing this? Do we think we
will win the approbation of the

international community
if we show ourselves to be
good global citizens by surrendering our rights and our

The Law of the Sea Treaty is an utterly
unnecessary transfer of authority from the United States
and of the wealth of its citizens to global bureaucrats
who have never had our interests at heart, and to Third
World regimes that have never been reliable friends.
That Republicans senators think this is a good idea
speaks volumes about what has become of the party of T.R.,

Bob Taft,

Barry Goldwater

Ronald Reagan

And they call themselves conservatives.



Patrick J. Buchanan

no introduction
readers; his book

State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and
Conquest of America

can be ordered from