Lord of the Oceans?

On January 25th, I blogged here about the "Law of the Sea Treaty." Pat Buchanan writes about it in his most recent column:

"In her confirmation hearings, Condi Rice was asked by Lugar if the administration supported LOST. The president 'certainly would like to see it passed as soon as possible,' said Rice. If George W. Bush authorized that statement, writes Phyllis Schlafly, he 'can no longer claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan's conservative legacy.'

Twenty years ago, Reagan saw this Law of the Sea Treaty for what it was: a joint scheme of the Soviet Bloc, the Third World and the United Nations to seize sovereignty over the oceans, mandate transfers of American technology and get kickbacks from profits U.S. companies might earn from mining and drilling. Reagan ordered it deep-sixed.

To see it dredged up by Republicans is to wonder whether we care any more about what is happening to American sovereignty."

Please read the entire piece. This is a serious issue that few have the courage to take on. The U.N. is at it's least influential point in history because of the corruption and ineptitude. Why on earth would the Bush administration want this treaty to be passed? The passing of this treaty only empowers the corrupt and inept body. What's the point?