Law Of The Sea Treaty

[aviyah]

Is anyone keeping up with the current activity of Meshech in and around the North Pole?

I hope all Americans are currently aware of the L.O.S.T. Convention which has been, for the past 20 years or so, and is currently, trying to steal America's sovereignty right out from under our noses.

This treaty would concede control of all of the seas (70% of the world's surface) to the United Nations. The only current members of this convention are Russia (Meshech) and Norway. Russia is very eager to get this treaty up and rolling because they believe it will give them access to the oil rich sea bed in Canadian/American territorial waters which they have already laid claim to in Aug. of this year.

Certain U.S. Senators tried to ratify this treaty without Americans even being aware of it, much less given an opportunity to oppose it.

Contact your Senators and tell them that we would like to keep our Sovereignty and our own Constitution intact, thank you very much!!!

God Bless, AviYAH

[smyrna]

Aviyah,

Nice to hear from you again. How does this tie in with the teachings of the SC? Though I wouldn't be surprised if Pastor Murray mentions it on his weekly phone message, perhaps this is yet another move towards a one world government?

If so, which I think it is, this is a partial fulfillment that globalism is alive and well and will take on more meaning as prophecy unfolds, and reveals a system that will be in place when the anti-christ appears.

[dodge]

John Norton Moore, director of the Center for Oceans Law and Policy, said that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) "strongly supports United States national interests. It protects the sovereignty of American ships and aircraft and more than doubles the resource jurisdiction of the United States. It affirms traditional United States leadership in oceans affairs. Indeed, the Convention is one of the greatest negotiating successes in United States diplomatic history." You can find Moore's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee concerning the Law of the Sea Convention at:

http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2003/MooreTestimony031014.pdf

To view the full text of the Law of the Sea Convention:

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) says that conspiracy theories about the U.N., international lawyers, and U.S. sovereignty have hampered congressional progress on this issue. Congressmen are busy responding to citizens who have an incorrect view of the U.N.'s role and its authority as it pertains to the treaty.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200710/NAT20071004c.html

This ocean treaty is strongly supported by our military leaders and aids our national security in crucial ways. It provides legal certainty for U.S. naval vessels navigating the world's oceans. The Navy, the Coast Guard, and our fishing, shipping, undersea cable, mining, asnd oil and gas industries all support ratification of this convention.

http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=30

Let the facts inform you, not conspiracy theories based on Biblical interpretation.

[watchman_2]

dodge wrote:
*****
Let the facts inform you, not conspiracy theories based on Biblical interpretation.
*****

<font color="0000ff">Gen 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
</font>

Not to worry dodge -- there is nothing mankind will do to mess up this nations control of the seas. The Lord has ordained it!

[lutheratx]

"The VCLT was drafted by the International Law Commission (ILC) of the United Nations" Wikipedia

The state of Texas is scheduled to execute Heliberto Chi on October 3, 2007. Chi is a citizen of Honduras who was sentenced to death for the March 24, 2001 murder of Armand Paliotta, 56, at the K&amp;G Men's Superstore in southwest Arlington.

Chi's court-appointed attorney, Wes Ball, says that Chi was not allowed to contact his country's consulate as prescribed by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. That 1963 treaty was meant to allow foreigners who are arrested the right to speak with their consulates.

http://stopexecutions.blogspot.com/2007/10/heliberto-chi-write-gov-perry-to-stop.html

My intention here is not to provoke a debate over the death penalty, but to show that nations taking part in the United Nations has been setting in place a one world constitution. We are becoming more and more subject to a law that is of the world. Which shows that not only that there is a strengthening one world government, in which we are a big player, but it is already in actuality in effect right under your noses. There is proof all over the place.

The bible said this would take place and it leads to a fake peace that the Antichrist sits at the head of upon his arrival. If you are not putting God's word in your mind you will worship him, maybe with out even knowing what you are doing. You will try to think when you are faced with a god on earth, some being outside of this world that is all to familiar with you, what was said to you by the SC, but we are not your salvation, and God has tried to show you the importance of coming to full knowledge. You will fail if you do not heed the warnings of the Prophets, and I do mean the ones of the Old Testament. Antichrist will know your weakness, however there is no weakness in the word of God. This is the reason that it is important for you to know as many truths in the bible as you can. Even down to who Israel is, it will fall into place. If you know exactly what takes place in the end times you will see, when Antichrist is here, that everything you believed is and has unfolded right before your eyes.

[dodge]

The Law of the Sea Convention is supported by the President, senior cabinet officials, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Commandant of the Coast Guard, a host of former legal advisors for the Department of State, our current and former Secretaries of the Navy, and former Chiefs of Naval Operations.

Our Navy can better protect the U.S. and the American people if we join the Law of the Sea Convention.

http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2007/WalshTestimony070927.pdf

Gordon England, Deputy Secretary of Defense and prior Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security and Secretary of the Navy testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month, saying that the “legal framework that the Convention establishes is essential to the mission of the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security” and is “essential for their mission.”

Secretary Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Military Department Secretaries, all of the Combatant Commanders, and the Commandant of the Coast Guard call for swift approval for U.S. Accession to the Law of the Sea Convention and ratification.

http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/testEnglandTestimony070927.pdf

John D. Negroponte, Deputy Secretary U.S. Department of State stated, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month that the U.S. role in leadership on oceans issues such as maritime security would be lessened without our accession to the Convention. Negroponte believes that the Law of the Sea Convention serves as a foundation for our partnerships in the Proliferation Security Initiative and strengthens our ability to carry out intelligence activities that other countries seek to restrain.

http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/Testimony/negroponte092707.pdf

President Bush said in his May 15 statement that joining the Law of the Sea Convention will serve the national security interests of the United States, secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, promote U.S. interests in the environmental health of the oceans, and give the United States a seat at the tab le when the rights essential to our interests are debated and interpreted.

Admiral Patrick M. Walsh, U.S. Navy Vice Chief of Naval Operations, made a statement before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations last month, saying that accession to the Convention is an “important priority for the Administration.” Adm. Walsh stated that he supports the accession because it “helps our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, and Coast Guardsmen to their job.”

HTTP://WWW.JAG.NAVY.MIL/DOCUMENTS/TESTWALSHTESTIMONY070927.PDF

I think you Shepherd's Chapel students ought to write letters to these distinguished experts and tell them that because of your interpretation of the Bible and your expectations of an evil One World Order run by Kenites that they should reconsider their views on the matter. It will help them, they need a good laugh.

[aviyah]

Hey Smyrna,

"How does this tie in with the teachings of the SC?" (Smyrna, 10/24/07)

Yes this treaty is definitely a push toward one worldism. In fact, Borgese the brain child of the treaty declared in a speech in 1999, "The world ocean has been, and is, so to speak, our laboratory for the making of a new world order." Borgese, by the way, was openly supportive of Karl Marx ideology and communism.

I believe this convention and its treaty are to the U.S., what the European Union and its constitution are to Britain.

The terms of the L.O.S.T. treaty would supercede our own constitution. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this treaty would not be good for America (Dodge).

But this specifically is related to SC teachings because we can plainly see that the stage is being set for the fulfillment of prophesy in Ezekiel 38. Pastor Murray has stated many times that he believes this will come to pass when Meshech invades through Alaska.

1) "And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
2) Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him,
3) And say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal:
4) And I will turn thee back, and put hooks in thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, and all thy army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of armour, even a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords:
5) Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet:
6) Gomer, and all his bands; the house of Togarmah of the north quarters, and all his bands: and many people with thee........
11) And thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates, 12) To take a spoil, and to take a prey; to turn thine hand upon the desolate places thatare now inhabited, and upon the People that are gathered out of the nations, which have gotten cattle and goods, that dwell in the midst of the land.....
14) Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say unto Gog, Thus saith the Lord God; In that day when My People of Israel dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it?
15) And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou, and many people with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a greaat company, and a mighty army:
16) And thou shalt come up against My People of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land: it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against My land, that the heathen may know Me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before their eyes."

It is in process RIGHT NOW! August 2nd, 2007 Meshech planted their standard in out territorial waters. Traditionally this act has been viewed as a declaration of war. Russia is claiming our territory for Pete's sake! Conspiracy theory my eye! What more warning does one need! Vlad wants the oil and diamonds that are thought to be there. They are not flying bomber jets over our navy bases for sport! Vlad and company are planning their next move.

Russia wants this treaty because they believe it will entitle them to the continental shelf beneath the Arctic Ocean that they are already claiming.

God Bless, AviYAH

[aviyah]

Dodge,

Do you agree that this treaty would nullify much of our own constitution? Do you really believe it would be in America's best interest to be obligated to the terms of this treaty? This is Socialism/Communism at its finest.

So which is it Dodge? I don't understand your position? Are you a Socialist or a Communist? Are you suggesting that the policies of the Bush Administration and the United States Government are infallible?

Does it not strike you as odd or alarming that a few Senators are trying to sneak this in without the American people having a say so on the matter? Does it not bother you that this convention has been nipping at our sovereignty since 1982 and just will not take no for an answer?

The battle of Haman Gog is nothing to fear Dodge. Armageddon will be happening simultaneously with Judah in Israel. It is written that God will destroy Meshech and his bands Himself. When this comes to pass, we will all know that He is our Creator and we are His People.

Reap what you sow, AviYAH

[smyrna]

Aviyah,

I agree with you and boy, what will the SC critics do if indeed there is skirmishes or even all out war in our state of Alaska?

And in the Middle East,I see that Israel pulled a bombing raid on Syria, in what is speculated to be a construction site for nuclear weapons. Drudge Report)

Interesting and fascinating times.

[dodge]

Hi Aviyah – could you explain to me how the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea “nullifies much of our constitution?” I don’t understand how you come to that conclusion. Have you actually read the text of the Convention?

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm

If what you say is true, why do these people support ratification:

President Bush, Secretary of State Rice, Commandant of the Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, Republican Senator Richard Lugar, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, Chief of Naval Operations Vice Admiral Vern Clark, Bill Clinton, Colin Powell, all living State Department Legal Advisors, the American Bar Association, Oceana, World Wildlife Fund, among others. (are they all Kenites, working for the New World Order?)

Did you know that the treaty, as altered by the 1994 agreement, requires no transfer of sovereignty. Instead, it strengthens and extends U.S. sovereignty over vast amounts of ocean territory and resources.

“The opposition to the Law of the Sea is based entirely on a visceral hatred for multilateral cooperation. Its champions detest all forms of international organization and believe the purpose of international law is to constrain U.S. behavior. They believe the U.S. should rely on the threat of force to advance its goals and should not be constrained by any rules.”

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002402.php

This Law of the Sea agreement is supported by environmental groups, petroleum trade associations, peace groups, the Coast Guard, Navy, departments of State, Commerce, and the Interior (just to name a few).

Write your representatives and urge them to support the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention. This is one battle that smart progressives need to take up right now.

[bluewater2]

"Yes this treaty is definitely a push toward one worldism." Logic dictates that as the world becomes a smaller place and people become more and more dependant upon each other the worlds resources will have to be managed as a whole to be managed more effectively. There is nothing conspiritorial or deceptive about that. It just makes sense.

[smyrna]

Yes, it does make sense,especially since it was predicted thousands of years ago,before anything imaginable like it could even be conceived by mere mortal men.

You'll learn one day, whether you are dead or alive I cannot tell you, as I do not know. But one day you will know.

[aviyah]

L.O.S.T. is the most wide ranging push for one worldism since the original UN system was established after World War II. It is meant to govern activities on, over, and beneath the ocean's surface, which covers 70 percent of the planet. "He who controls the sea, controls the land." Though its primary focus is supposedly navigational and transit issues, with proponents claiming it is merely codifying traditional practices, L.O.S.T. also contains provisions on the regulation of deep-sea mining and the redistribution of ocean wealth to underdeveloped countries. Though the U. S. would be largely responsible for much of the "fees", the U.S. would have only one vote out of 140 with no veto power as it has on the U. N. Security Council. It also has sections regarding marine trade, pollution (including land-based pollution that can affect the ocean), maritime research, and, of course, its own dispute resolution system – complete with foreign judges – that usurps national sovereignty.

The Heritage Foundation warns "the treaty would have unintended consequences for U.S. interests-including a threat to sovereignty."

Ronald Reagan was adamantly opposed to this idea and actually lost sleep worrying over the implications of this treaty and the direction the world was going with this.

Perhaps you Dodge, can name one beneficial thing the corrupt bureaucracy, that is the United Nations, has brought to man kind since its inception. The U.N. cannot stop mass genocides in Africa. The U.N. does nothing to prevent terrorist attacks anywhere in the world. The U.N. is powerless to prevent wars between nations. The U.N. is utterly inept at preventing radical extremists from developing nuclear bombs. These bureaucrats don't really seem to accomplish anything, aside from wasting perfectly good oxygen.

Yeah lets sign a treaty, without the consent of the American people, that obligates us to abide by U.N. laws rather than our own sovereign God given constitution! Yeah lets sign a treaty, without allowing Americans to vote for or against it, which obligates us to fall in line with Communist Russia!! Yeah lets sit idly by while a few sneaky Senators hand over control of 70% of the surface of the planet (as well as the seabed below it and sky and space above it) to the U.N.!!! I have to say you are a colossal idiot Dodge!!!

Is this a conspiracy? No, I think rather it is a blatantly obvious attempt to remove America from its position as the world's lone super power.

Reap what you sow, AviYAH

[dodge]

The United Nations Law of the Sea Convention provides our military the rights of navigation, by water and by air, to take our forces wherever they must go, whenever it is necessary to do so. Our ships — including vessels that carry more than 90 percent of the logistic and other support for our troops overseas — are given the right of innocent passage through the territorial seas of other states. In addition, the treaty permits American warships to board stateless vessels on the high seas.

The treaty also provides an absolute right of passage through, over and under international straits and through archipelagoes like Indonesia. These rights — the crown jewels of the treaty — did not exist before 1982, when the Convention was concluded. Our security and economic interests are tied directly to these rights.

Another provision in the treaty establishes the breadth of the territorial sea — the area within which a state may exercise sovereignty — at 12 miles. This allows the United States to extend its territorial sea from three miles to 12 miles, while making several other nations reduce their excessive claims.

Our national security interests alone should be sufficient to persuade the Senate to act now. But the Convention also advances the economic interests of our country. It gives us an exclusive economic zone out to 200 miles, with sovereign rights for exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing the living and non-living natural resources of the zone. Coastal states are given sovereign rights over the continental shelf beyond 200 miles if the shelf meets specific geological and other scientific criteria. Under the Convention, our Arctic continental shelf could extend out to 600 miles.

Our nation will be in a much stronger position to advance its military and economic interests if we ratify the treaty. We can guide and influence the interpretation of rules, protecting our interests and deflecting inconsistent interpretations. The agreement is being interpreted, applied and developed right now and we need to be part of it to protect our vital interests in the area of security and beyond.

(continued)

[dodge]

The treaty is more favorable to our security interests now than we could achieve if we started all over again today. Yet as the debate over ratification takes place, you will see and hear arguments against it that are confected of half-truths and imagination.

The treaty does not authorize a “United Nations navy” or “United Nations taxes.” We are not giving away American sovereignty by ratifying it, nor would joining it hinder our intelligence activities. An international institution would not control the world’s oceans.

The Reagan administration objected to certain treaty provisions related to seabed mining. But a 1994 agreement fixed all flaws in the original Convention. The treaty now guarantees appropriate American influence with a permanent seat on the decision-making body. It eliminates earlier provisions that would have required countries to share technology. And it generally facilitates access to mining on reasonable commercial terms. With the modifications enacted in 1994, the treaty now meets all the criteria established by President Reagan in 1982 to make the treaty in the interest of the United States.

Twelve years ago we missed the opportunity to ratify the treaty in its present form. Our national security, if anything, is more reliant on worldwide access to the sea and the air on an open and undisputed basis than it was then.

The Convention of the Law of the Sea is by all lights in our national interest and has earned bipartisan support. President Bush and his administration have spoken out favorably. The Clinton administration also fully supported ratification.

We need to convert this important consensus into that simple action of advice and consent in the Senate, thereby preserving and protecting our national security and other interests embodied in this important treaty.

(New York Times op ed piece by retired Admiral Vern Clark, chief of Naval Operations from 2000 to 2005, and Thomas R. Pickering, Chief U.S. delagate to the U.N. from 1989 to 1992)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/opinion/14pickering.html

[godchild]

Can I try and clear up a misconception here? The U.S.S.R. (Union of Soviet <u>Socialist</u> Republics) voted itself out of existence in 1991. Since then, it has been working towards democracy. Its no longer considered a "communist" country. I have no doubt there are still a lot of communists living there, but I have even less doubt there are a lot of communists in the U.S..

I think the Heritage Foundation does some good, but I am uncomfortable with it taking money from the moonies, Korea and the Coors (beer) Co. It is ultra-conservative. That also makes me leery. Ultra anything usually leads to control issues, which is ironic, because that is just what conservatives say they are against. Doesn't "trickery" come to mind?

I often wonder if conservatives think the rich got rich by sharing all they have with the poor.

[david_munson]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
LOST will give the UN (united nothing) the rights of incursion into the inland waters of the United States and will in effect remove our sovereignty over our own waters.

The UN is against everything the United States stands for.

Dodge,
let me educate you about the UN.
---</font>}
How they vote in the United Nations

Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:

Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.

U S Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.

Jordan votes 71% against the United States and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

Pakistan votes 75% against the United States receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually.

Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes (and gasoline) .

[watchman_2]

dodge wrote:
*****
The treaty now guarantees appropriate American influence with a permanent seat on the decision-making body.
*****

We already have a "decision-making body" that is bound [supposedly] by the Constitution of the United States. We don't need to subvert the Constitution through LOST, the United Nations, the World Court, or any other of these one-world-order organizations.

[dodge]

Thank you, godchild, for that reasonable comment. Aviyah seems to think that if one is in support of the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention then that one must be a communist or a socialist. Yes, of course the Heritage Foundation is a right-wing Conservative organization, and one must read what they say with that in mind.

I listen to professionals who know what they're talking about, like Captain Pat Neher, a U.S. Navy JAG officer specializing in International and Operational Law, who writes that “Any past or present Navy judge advocate with salt on him or her will tell you – the navigation and overflight rights and freedoms reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention are absolutely critical to current and future Fleet operations. Specifically, our Navy depends upon the principles contained in the Convention in moving forces on, over, and under the world’s oceans, whenever and wherever needed.”

"The U.N. Law of the Sea Convention recognizes and preserves for our ships and aircraft the freedom to conduct innocent passage in territorial waters, transit passage through international straits (surface, air, and subsurface), unrestricted military activities in the high seas, military surveys, and approach and visit of suspected stateless vessels."

"Economically, the Convention supports our national interests by giving the U.S. sovereign rights over the resources of one of the largest continental shelves in the world. Further, it is the Law of the Sea Convention that creates and recognizes a country’s Exclusive Economic Zone out to 200 nautical miles, and the rights to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage the natural resources therein."

"Arguments that were used in the past to keep the U.S. outside the Convention were addressed and corrected in 1994 amendments to the Convention. There are important reasons for us to join without further delay, and the President’s statement in support of the Convention is a major step forward towards the goal of joining the Convention."

(by Captain Pat Neher, International and Operational Law, Practice of Navy Knowledge Online)

http://www.jag.navy.mil/JAGMAG/May-Junlawofthesea.pdf

We must take into consideration what Captain Neher says along with President Bush, President Clinton, senior cabinet officials, the Joint Cheifs of Staff, the Commandant of the Coast Gurad, legal advisors for the Department of State, current and former Secretaries of the Navy, former Chiefs of Naval Operations, the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Military Department Secretaries, all of the Combatant Commanders...all in favor of U.S. Accession to the Law of the Sea Convention and ratification.

Then weigh in what Students of Arnold Murray say, who believe that there is a mythic race called Kenites behind a conspiratorial New World Order, the descendants of a sexual relationship between Satan and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

No contest.

[watchman_2]

One can easily see why this treaty should not be ratified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Sea#Arguments

From this site, we have the arguments against ratification -

<font color="119911">National sovereignty: The treaty creates a new UN agency with its own dispute resolution tribunal. However, should the US stop its current compliance with the US-negotiated laws of the Convention, the U.S. could not be taken to the Law of the Sea Tribunal since the U.S. has indicated that it would choose binding arbitration rather than availing itself of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea.

The Environment: Some of the Convention's conservation provisions would provide new avenues for non-US environmental organizations to affect domestic US environmental policies by pursuing legal action in both US and international courts.[3] In addition, requirements that nations either harvest their entire allowable catch in certain areas or give the surplus to other nations could result in mandated overfishing.[4]

Taxation: The license fees and taxes levied on economic activities in the deep seabed Area by the ISA would be, in effect, a form of 'taxation without representation'. Citizens would be indirectly taxed through business and governmental activities in the Area.

Economics: Businesses can already exploit resources from the international area; ratifying the treaty would force them to buy licenses for that right and pay taxes on the proceeds.

Navigation rights not threatened: One of the treaty's main selling points, legally recognized navigation rights on, over, and under straits, is unnecessary because these rights are not currently threatened by law or by any military capable of opposing the US.

Harm to de-militarizing operations: The treaty would for the first time require all unmanned ocean vessels, including submarines used for mine detection to protect ships exercising the right of innocent passage, to navigate on the surface in territorial waters - effectively eliminating their value for such purposes.[5]
No control over funding: The treaty gives a blank check to the UN, funded by the US. The US would have no control over how the money is used.

Eminent domain: The treaty applies eminent domain to intellectual property giving the UN the power to seize technology and share it with potentially enemy states.

Lack of need: The U.S. already honors almost all the provisions of the treaty. For practical purposes, there is no pressing need to ratify it that outweighs the negatives of the remaining provisions. Any perceived benefit of an improved U.S. image world-wide is likely to be illusory.
</font>

[dodge]

And then there are the pro-ratification arguments from the same site:

THE ENVIRONMENT: Oceans cover over 70 percent of the Earth. In the US, there are laws to keep marine resources available for future generations. UNCLOS sets a global standard so that all countries are legally bound to protect the marine environment, protect fish stocks, and prevent pollution.

NATIONAL SECURITY: The US military, which relies heavily on its ability to freely navigate on and fly over the sea, has been a strong advocate of UNCLOS. In the absence of treaty law, the US relies on customary law that can change as states' practices change. Also, under this customary law, the Pentagon claims that countries often make unreasonable and irresponsible claims on marine territory that frustrates US military action. The US has tried to work around these claims, but without a legal framework to support them, the Pentagon believes it risks compromising its intelligence and military operations at sea.

INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY AND PEACEFUL DISPUTE RESOLUTION: The Convention offers a peaceful way to resolve territorial and natural resource disputes through the ISA or the Law of the Sea Tribunal, based on agreements which signatory parties have already committed to. In contrast, without ratification, the US has no peaceful recourse if another non-signatory party decides to close its straits to navigation.

IT HELPS AMERICAN BUSINESS: Each country has exclusive rights to manage the resources in areas near its coast. Under the terms of UNCLOS, which maps out the boundaries of these areas, the American zone is larger than that of any other country in the world. The size of this zone is 3.36 million square miles - bigger than the lower 48 states combined. In addition, under UNCLOS, coastal states can exercise sovereign rights over natural resources within the extended continental shelf area beyond this territory. It would also give US companies an opportunity to apply for licenses with the ISA, which manages claims to resources in the deep seabed, an area over which no country has sovereign rights.

Watchman and Aviyah, why do you think that President Bush, President Clinton, senior cabinet officials, the Joint Cheifs of Staff, the Commandant of the Coast Gurad, legal advisors for the Department of State, current and former Secretaries of the Navy, former Chiefs of Naval Operations, the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Military Department Secretaries are all in favor of ratification of the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention? Do you think that you in a position where you know more about it then these respected experts and leaders, that they are wrong and you are right?

[godchild]

dodge, I'd like to hear the scer's answer to that also. On one hand, they are pro republican and pro military (just listen to their praise of am for being in the military and how proud am is of that). How does am balance that with his conservative, military stance? How many years ago was am in the military? Korean War? But he knows more than those military experts dodge listed? Is am now anti-military?

[angie0401]

www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-029es.html (http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-029es.html)

(Doug Bandow is a senior fellow of the Cato Institute. While he was a special assistant to President Reagan, he served as deputy representative to the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea.)


-------------------------------------------------

Executive Summary

The Clinton administration is showing new interest in the Law of the Sea Treaty, which the United States rejected in 1982 when it was approved at the United Nations. The LOST gives the United Nations vast control over the use and exploitation of the seas' resources. Although in November 1993 the treaty gained the number of ratifications needed to take effect on November 16, 1994, the United States should still refrain from signing on.

The LOST establishes rules for such matters as resource jurisdiction, navigation, and seabed mining. Although proponents of the treaty say that an internationally recognized system of rules is important, commerce and transportation have proceeded unhampered without the treaty, and other mechanisms exist for resolving international disputes. Moreover, the treaty's objectionable provisions on seabed mining, if they become effective, will harm both the West and the developing world. The LOST's mandates will increase costs and depress productivity.

It is senseless to embrace a treaty that embodies the most odious features of centralized planning. The United States should continue to reject the LOST and promote a market-oriented system that would truly benefit both the developed and the developing world.


*********************************************** **
www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm470.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm470.cfm)

The Bush Administration has expressed interest in joining the International Seabed Authority and has urged the U.S. Senate to ratify the Treaty. However, many of former President Ronald Reagan's original objections to the Treaty--while modified--still hold true today, and many of the possible national security advantages are already in place.

cont..

[angie0401]

*********************************************** **
www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200402261356.asp (http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200402261356.asp)

U.S. adherence to this treaty would entail history's biggest and most unwarranted voluntary transfer of wealth and surrender of sovereignty. A product of the Left/Soviet-Non-Aligned Movement-agenda of the 1960s and '70s, LOST creates the International Seabed Authority (ISA) — a supranational organization with unprecedented powers.

These include the power to: regulate seven-tenths of the world's surface area, levy international taxes, impose production quotas (for deep-sea mining, oil production, etc.), govern ocean research and exploration, and create a multinational court to render and enforce its judgments. Some even aspire to giving the U.N. some of our warships so it can have "blue hulls" — to go along with its "blue helmets" — to ensure that the ISA's edicts are obeyed.

LOST was drafted before — and without regard to — the war on terror, and what the U.S. must do to wage it successfully. As a result, U.S. national-security interests will be severely undermined by several of the treaty's provisions. For example, the sorts of at-sea interdiction efforts central to President Bush's new Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) would be prohibited. Communist China has already taken to citing the treaty to object to PSI maritime interdiction and the boarding of suspect vessels.

The treaty effectively prohibits two functions vital to American security: collecting intelligence in, and submerged transit of, territorial waters. Mandatory information sharing will afford U.S. enemies data that could be used to facilitate attacks on this country (e.g., detailed imagery of underwater access routes and offshore hiding places). Obligatory technology transfers will equip actual or potential adversaries with sensitive and militarily useful equipment and know-how (such as anti-submarine warfare technology).

Communist China is using its own unique interpretation of the treaty to justify its inexorably increasing control over the strategic South China Sea. The PRC creates and fortifies man-made islands near that sea's rich oil and mineral deposits, then asserts that LOST entitles it to exclusive economic control of the waters within a 200 nautical-mile radius — including waters transited by the vast majority of Japanese and American oil tankers en route to and from the Persian Gulf.

The truth of the matter is that the Law of the Sea Treaty is so defective, so contrary to U.S. interests that the only way it could possibly be ratified is for it to be blown through the Senate when no one is looking.

(Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is the president of the Center for Security Policy and an NRO contributing editor.)

[lutheratx]

Dodge finding information from the same site as Watchman to support his argument: And then there are the pro-ratification arguments from the same site

Notice what Watchman pulled up from this sight:
Lack of need: The U.S. already honors almost all the provisions of the treaty. For practical purposes, there is no pressing need to ratify it that outweighs the negatives of the remaining provisions. Any perceived benefit of an improved U.S. image world-wide is likely to be illusory.

Me again: We continually are being pulled into these one world efforts look what it benefits according to Dodge's post

IT HELPS AMERICAN BUSINESS

"George W. Bush claimed through two presidential campaigns that America has become the "ownership society." I couldn't agree more. America has become a society owned by corporations and a political system dominated by corporate and special interests, directed by elites who are hostile -- or at best indifferent to -- the interests of working men and women of the middle class and their families." Lou Dobbs

That is of no concern with me. GChild do you think that we are opposed to one world power? If the answer is yes you are silly. Arnold Murray isn't against end time prophecy he supports it, really anti-military that's absurd. For the record Murray is always putting the troops in his prayers on television. He has said that he puts the blame on the terrorist attacks on Al Qaeda, because on the day of the attacks on 9/11 they were set to put on trial a high ranking member across the street. They rescheduled this trial, Murray said that he wished they didn't so they could have gotten an old rope, not a new one but an old rope, and went out to one of those beams after the attack and just strung him up. Everyone applauded, I'm sure he is in favour of our efforts in Iraq. I know he is in favour of the One World Power, why because he is in favour of bible prophecy. Hey I want to give every bit of our land and oceans to the world, every bit. I want to have to rely on God to survive. I will still be conservative I will still stand for the big business to grow, because the CEO s that took the blessings of God and robbed it from the people that it was given to, one day will have to stand before God too. Out sourcing, and things of this nature go right along with this topic today. If it wasn't for wealthy people robbing from us we would not be suffering.

Murray will stand for the American efforts all the way up until they are stopping Christians from learning the truth. As long as teachers can teach the word here it is worth dying for.

[dodge]

Hi Godchild. It looks like these ShepChaps don't want to answer that question. So, I'll ask it again.

Watchman and Aviyah, why do you think that President Bush, President Clinton, senior cabinet officials, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, legal advisors for the Department of State, current and former Secretaries of the Navy, former Chiefs of Naval Operations, the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Military Department Secretaries are all in favor of ratification of the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention?

[dobman53]

Dodge: I'm assuming you have left us all hanging, in as much as if, one were to say such and such, why then you would have your remark, and say not so!! I'll take a stab at it by only saying, which ever way it comes out God will be behind the scene making history happen before us. Many will say I'm a republican, or I'm a democrate. Then go on to state how the other is incorrect. The fallicey here is that one day we will find all governments are of man, and like satan their all doomed to fail. God didn't give us the power to direct ourselves, only his kingdom will last forever!

[dobman53]

Dodge: I'm assuming you have left us all hanging, in as much as if, one were to say such and such, why then you would have your remark, and say not so!! I'll take a stab at it by only saying, which ever way it comes out God will be behind the scene making history happen before us. Many will say I'm a republican, or I'm a democrate. Then go on to state how the other is incorrect. The fallicey here is that one day we will find all governments are of man, and like satan their all doomed to fail. God didn't give us the power to direct ourselves, only his kingdom will last forever!

[dodge]

Dobmant53, did you know that the White House supports the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention? The Navy, the Coast Guard, the Department of Defense, the State Department and the National Security Advisor support the Convention. Leading Republicans like Richard Lugar, John Warner, Ted Stevens and John McCain are in favor of ratification of the Convention. Business groups such as the National Ocean Industries Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the International Association of Drilling Contractors and the National Marine Manufacturers Association are supporters of the Convention. Environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund, the Oceans Conser®°µØíE the Natural Resources Defense Council, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the National Environmental Trusts and the Nature Conservancy are all behind the Law of the Sea Convention. Religious and spiritual groups such as the United Methodists, the Quakers and the Unitarian Universalists are on board. Why do you think this is so?

http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=FAQ&amp;id_cat=9

Businesses that support the Law of the Sea Convention:
American Chemistry Council
American Geological Institute
American Geophysical Institute
American Geophysical Union
American Petroleum Institute
American Sportfishing Association
AT&amp;T
Boat US
Chamber of Shipping of America
International Association of Drilling Contractors
National Fisheries Institute
National Marine Manufacturers Association
National Oceans Industries Association
U.S. Tuna Foundation
Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council

Environmental and Public Interest Groups that support the Convention:
Better World Campaign
Center for International Environmental Law
Defenders of Wildlife
Environmental Defense
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Garden Club of America
Humane Society of the United States
IUCN/World Conservation Union
League of Conservation Voters
National Environmental Trust
Natural Resources Defense Council
The Nature Conservancy
Ocean Conservancy
Oceana
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Scenic America
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
World Wildlife Fund
United Nations Association of the United States of America
http://www.globalsolutions.org/in_the_beltway/united_states_and_law_sea_time_join

Do you think you have more information and are better equipped mentally to make a decision concerning the Law of the Sea Convention than all those mentioned above who are in favor of it? Stick to Kenites and New World Order conspiracy and stay out of things that you know nothing about.

[dobman53]

Dodge: Am I too assume by your own stated self qualifications that let's just say Baptists, or maybe Catholics, are not capable to make such judgements. Or are these religous disqualification's only in force to ban snake talkers? I have an old friend I've known since high school. This poor soul now suffers from a serois case of schizophrenia. One day years ago I went to pay him a visit. He was a bachelor so it wasn't uncommon for me to just open his door and walk right in. Anyways I went to his house and opened the door, and he blasted me for taking up his time. He then went on to tell me he was writing the President, because he was the only person capable of informing the President on how to save the planet!!

[dodge]

You still have not answered my question, "Dobman53." Why do you think that the White House supports the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention? Why is it that the Navy, the Coast Guard, the Department of Defense, the State Department and the National Security Advisor support the Convention? Why is it that leading Republicans like Richard Lugar, John Warner, Ted Stevens and John McCain are in favor of ratification of the Convention? Why do business groups such as the National Ocean Industries Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the International Association of Drilling Contractors and the National Marine Manufacturers Association support the Convention? Why do environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the National Environmental Trusts and the Nature Conservancy stand behind the Law of the Sea Convention? Why do religious and spiritual groups such as the United Methodists, the Quakers and the Unitarian Universalists back the Law of the Sea Convention?

Do you, a Shepherd's Chapel student who believes that there is a mythic race of hybrids called Kenites behind the U.N. attempting to create a New World Order in preparation for Biblical prophecy, have the qualifications to advise the President and members of Congress how to vote on this issue? I think not.

[aviyah]

"Thank you, godchild, for that reasonable comment." (Dodge, 10/25/07)

Hah! Which comment? Are you referring to this nonsense?...

"The U.S.S.R. (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) voted itself out of existence in 1991. Since then, it has been working towards democracy. Its no longer considered a "communist" country." (godchild, 10/25/07)

or this foolishness?...

"I often wonder if conservatives think the rich got rich by sharing all they have with the poor." (godchild, 10/25/07)

Here are some comments for you and prepare yourselves because this is fact...not more of godchild's unbridled idiocy:

Vladimir Putin, the current President of the Russian Federation, was recruited into the KGB in the early 70s. Furthermore, Putin also was a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and has never formally resigned from it!

Just ask Alexander Litvinenko if Putin and the Russian Federation are Communist. Oh that's right...we can't because he's dead, allegedly poisoned by the KGB. Well then ask Paul Joyal, the Russian expert who spoke out on Dateline about KGB involvement in the poisoning. Alas, we can't ask him either because he was gunned down after his little stint on Dateline.

A rose by any other name is still a rose...likewise a Communist by any other name is still a Communist folks.

In regards to the conservatives view on sharing with the poor, it is a cold hard fact that 1% of this nation's wealthy bare nearly 40% of the income tax burden for this entire country. (That is up 10% from the liberal folly of the previous Clinton Administration). The top 10% of wealthy citizens in this nation bare 50% of the total income tax burden for the whole country. Remember, this 10% are, in large part, small business owners that are also paying the wages of the other 90% of our "poor" population. What more do you feel you are entitled to godchild?...someone to carry your load entirely so that you can sit on your keister all day in front of the computer subjecting poor souls to your misguided views!!!

Reap what you sow, AviYAH

[dodge]

I see that you are doing your best to avoid the question too, Aviyah.

Why do you think that the White House supports the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention? Why is it that the Navy, the Coast Guard, the Department of Defense, the State Department and the National Security Advisor support the Convention? Why is it that leading Republicans like Richard Lugar, John Warner, Ted Stevens and John McCain are in favor of ratification of the Convention? Why do business groups such as the National Ocean Industries Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the International Association of Drilling Contractors and the National Marine Manufacturers Association support the Convention? Why do environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the National Environmental Trusts and the Nature Conservancy stand behind the Law of the Sea Convention? Why do religious and spiritual groups such as the United Methodists, the Quakers and the Unitarian Universalists back the Law of the Sea Convention?

[godchild]

aviyah, You are being rude and antagonistic. That is no longer allowed at factnet, remember?

Not that its any of your business, but nobody carries my load. Sorry to disappoint you. If you can find nothing to say without lies or inuendos, I suggest you close that hole in the front of your face before you catch a fly too big to swallow. Now that's an interesting thought, ha-ha.
---------------end
In August 1991, communist hardliners tried a death-or-glory tactic to save the Soviet Union - seizing power by force. Their coup failed and the Soviet Union was dead within months.

But the chain of events leading to the collapse was set in motion six years earlier, when Politburo member Mikhail Gorbachev became Soviet leader. He was only the sixth leader since the USSR's birth in 1922 - but his actions were to make him the last.

Click on the dates above to follow the key developments, and to see and hear what was happening, as BBC News Online charts the fall of an empire.
etc., etc., etc..}

[godchild]

Ethnicity and power in the contemporary world
Edited by
Kumar Rupesinghe and Valery A. Tishkov

United Nations University Press
TOKYO - NEW YORK - PARIS
© The United Nations University, 1996

exerpts:
The failure of the August 1991 coup in the USSR can be regarded as the landmark of the fourth stage of socio-political transition in Moldova. Two events of major significance mark this period: Moldova's declaration of complete independence in August 1991, and worldwide recognition of the new republic after the definitive disintegration of the Soviet empire and the resignation of Gorbachev in late December 1991.

Together with the Baltic states, Moldova was among those few Union republics to condemn the organizers of the Communist putsch in Moscow from the outset. On 21 August, an extraordinary session of the Moldovan Parliament called for active resistance against the Union structures and against the putschists. After the failure of the Moscow coup, on 23 August, the Moldovan Parliament banned all activities of the Communist Party in Moldova (ST, 28 August 1991).
etc., etc., etc..

[godchild]

Whoops! I didn't check with arnie, did I? Would he have told me these evil scholars and historians just sit around all day dreaming up these enormous lies to humour themselves?

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/smile.gif

[godchild]

Try reading a news magazine with integrity for a change:

From Times Magazine (in conjunction with CNN)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973554-4,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C973554-4%2C00.html)

I get it. Aviyah was still in diapers in 1991. Right?

[godchild]

By the way. Meshech are people descended from Japheth; you and me. Unless yaakov is reading, of course.

[dobman53]

Dodge: The answer must be their all Repubicans or at least Republican supporters, and in their lust for money they'll sell their souls to the devil. Now!! let me ask you a Question!! Do you think they should make a law to force people to take there medicine. Or do YOU think nobody should force You! to take medicine?

[dobman53]

Godchild : I have a question for you, what type of detenation cord did president Bush use when he blew up building number 7 on 9/11. I think we should find out so the people that suffered, can then sue the heck out of him. Anotherthing about that Mr. Bush, how does he get off so easy, and that rediculous story about fine young Arab boys flying airplanes. Can you believe that!! why everbody knows Arabs can't fly planes. I don't even think they can even drive cars for crying out loud. Too I might add I've seen some pictures some where or another where it plainly shows Arabs only ride camels. I'm an exspert on things like this cause I read National Geographic, Time magazine, and as a matter of fact I have a life time subscription to Mad magazine. Have any of you by chance recieved your Mad magazines here lately, seems to me I should have recieved mine by now!!

[dodge]

Bill Clinton? A Replublican? What about Leon E. Panetta, Chair of the Pew Oceans Commissions and Co-Chair of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative? He was Bill Clinton's White House Chief of Staff and a Democrat since 1971. He is in favor of the Convention. Bruce Edward Babbit supports the initiative, a Democrat who served as the Secretary of the Interior and Governor of Arizona. He supports the Convention. John Elias Baldacci, the Governor of Maine, a Democrat, is behind the Law of the Sea Convention. Walter Cronkite was an advocate of the Convention. Christine O'Grady Gregoire, the Democratic governor of Washington, is behind the initiative. Anthony Carroll Knowles, former Democratic governor of Alaska is on board. Ruth Ann Minner, a Democrat who served in the Delaware General Assembly and two terms as Lieutenant Governer of Delware and the incumbent Governor of Delaware, advocates ratification of the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention. Eliot Laurence Spitzer, a member of the Democratic Party, elected governor of New York in the 2006 election, is for the Convention.

http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&amp;file=article&amp;sid=50&amp;theme=Prin ter

You are wrong that it is only Republicans or Republican supporters who are in favor of the Convention. You are wrong about a lot of things. Please educate yourself so that you can post intelligently.

[aviyah]

*********************************************** ***
"If what you say is true, why do these people support ratification:

President Bush, Secretary of State Rice, Commandant of the Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, Republican Senator Richard Lugar, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, Chief of Naval Operations Vice Admiral Vern Clark, Bill Clinton, Colin Powell, all living State Department Legal Advisors, the American Bar Association, Oceana, World Wildlife Fund, among others. (are they all Kenites, working for the New World Order?)" (Dodge, 10,24/07)
*********************************************** ***

This question has already been answered Dodge. You just missed it in your fervour to be disagreeable at all costs. I will reiterate for you though and even expand on the answer.

Ezekiel 4) And I will turn thee back, and put hooks in thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, and all thy army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of armour, even a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords:

Father is in control. He is setting the stage. Just as Father has put events into motion that have caused Meshech and his bands to muster the gall to attempt to unseat His People ("put hooks in thy jaws"), Father is also guiding the action of George W. and all other principality leaders.

This is a no-brainer Dodge. There is no other "logical" explanation for a Conservative Republican to be engaging in and enabling this world wide shift toward Socialism/Communism/One Worldism/New World Order. Helloooooo Dodge!!! Is anyone awake in there? Or are you enraptured in a Jung state? It wasn't very long ago that America was leading the world away from the proven failures of Socialism/Communism.

Father's plan was spelled out for you thousands of years ago Dodge. It is now happening before your eyes. Still you are scoffing at it in denial. My stars!!!! You are like a woman that was hospitalized with an oozing abscess on her breast, still adamantly refusing to acknowledge the presence of malignancy in her own breast. It is astonishing what lengths people will go to in order to deny reality!

Now, hopefully you will address the question regarding the usefulness of the United Nations Dodge?

www.somaliawatch.org/archivefeb01/010227102.htm (http://www.somaliawatch.org/archivefeb01/010227102.htm)

www.rushonline.com/visitors/un-corruption.htm (http://www.rushonline.com/visitors/un-corruption.htm)

www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=5368 (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=5368)

The U.N. is corrupt to the core, virtually useless in aiding humanity in any way, and sapping tax dollars from our blessed nation in order to fund nations that abhor our existence. Becoming a member of the L.O.S.T. Convention would just be more of the same. It's a very stupid idea.


Reap what you sow, AviYAH

[dodge]

Aviyah, I have already proved that it is not only "Conservative Republicans" who advocate ratification of the Law of the Sea initiative, in the post just above yours. I guess you didn't see it. You are talking out of you arse.

[aviyah]

*********************************************** ***
"dodge, I'd like to hear the scer's answer to that also. On one hand, they are pro republican and pro military (just listen to their praise of am for being in the military and how proud am is of that). How does am balance that with his conservative, military stance? How many years ago was am in the military? Korean War? But he knows more than those military experts dodge listed? Is am now anti-military?" (godchild, 10/25/07)
*********************************************** ***

As a student of Shepherd's Chapel, I would be happy to answer this question if it made any bit of sense!

Reap what you sow, AviYAH

[dodge]

Aviyah, dodging the issue again. How do you explain all those Democrats that I listed as backing the Law of the Sea initiative? You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

[dobman53]

Dodge: I'll be the first to admit my temper does get me into saying things I latter find offensive. I do want to say I'm sorry, cause I know that it's not good to rant as such.. Just the same you've posed your question and we've failed to provide what you feel is the correct answer. I'm curious just the same what is your take on the situation. God child I apologise to you as well. I'll back out and wait for Dodges take on the matter!!!

[dodge]

"dobman53" -- you ask me what my "take on the situation" is. Could you be more specific? I don't know what you mean.

[aviyah]

Dodge,

Sorry but no matter how many times you rephrase the question, the answer will still be the same. Our Creator is running this show. World events and world leaders (Republican, Democrat, whatever)will and are acting out that which is written.

Yes I'm afraid I did miss your "proven" opinions. Frankly, I did skim over much of your narrative as I have already read these opinions of others which you have copied and pasted.

Where have I or anyone else ever suggested that it's only "Conservative Republicans that favor ratification of L.O.S.T.? Am I to believe that YOU know what you're talking about?

Nevertheless, fortunately for now, the majority of the United States Senate has managed to supercede the will of silly minded people like yourself that don't understand why "WE THE PEOPLE" should be taking a vote on this issue rather than giving all the decision making power of our Democracy to a few Senators.

Reap what you sow, AviYAH

[dodge]

So the answer to the question as to why the White House supports the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention; why the Navy, the Coast Guard, the Department of Defense, the State Department and the National Security Advisor support the Convention; why leading Republicans like Richard Lugar, John Warner, Ted Stevens and John McCain are in favor of ratification of the Convention; why business groups such as the National Ocean Industries Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the International Association of Drilling Contractors and the National Marine Manufacturers Association support the Convention; why environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the National Environmental Trusts and the Nature Conservancy stand behind the Law of the Sea Convention; why religious and spiritual groups such as the United Methodists, the Quakers and the Unitarian Universalists back the Law of the Sea Convention is:

"Our creator is running the show."

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif

[aviyah]

*********************************************** ***
"I suggest you close that hole in the front of your face before you catch a fly too big to swallow."(godchild, 10/25/07)
*********************************************** ***

godchild,

When will it become clear to you that your suggestions fall on deaf ears? We have all heard from you, loud and clear, that you do not feel anyone should have a voice here besides your own yapping trap.

Whether it be in regards to religious faith, world views, or the sanctity of our Constitution you want everyone to shut up and listen to your endless, tiresome, voice of lunacy.

I do not take orders from you godchild. I will discuss whatever I like, whenever I choose godchild. I will not stop stating my views merely because you keep telling me to. You can like it or lump it. I do not care.

The fact that yourself and Dodge would foolishly spend your time here arguing that the American people should have no say in the ratification of this treaty that would obviously effect the sovereignty of our nation clearly demonstrates that you are just being argumentative for the sake of arguing.

What American in their right mind would object to the American people having a say in foreign policy? If someone from SC said "the sky is blue" You and Dodge would pour a bizarre amount of energy into "proving" that it is not. This is how you appear as flakes...idiots...fools.

Furthermore godchild, your disgusting commentary here at Factnet disqualified you a long time ago from dictating morality to others.


*********************************************** ***
"aviyah, You are being rude and antagonistic. That is no longer allowed at factnet, remember?" (godchild, 10/25/07)
*********************************************** ***


YOU may have been reprimanded for your obnoxious behavior but most of us manage to control ourselves here and have never had to be "warned" for bringing forth filth here.

I guess this explains why you have refrained from using profanity as of late while discussing Christian topics huh?

Reap what you sow, AviYAH

[dobman53]

Dodge: scroll up to 6:33 PM: I first answered your post with ( WHICH EVER WAY IT COMES OUT GOD WILL BE BEHIND THE SCENE MAKING HISTORY HAPPEN BEFORE US) You then layed out the big long list and posed the question again, of course me starting to get riled I jump in and say so and so! OH WELL I guess when you call me a stupid mindless AMer what should you exspect.

[dobman53]

Dodge: 6:33, That was my first post today on this subject. I scrolled up at that point to see where every one was coming from before I joined in. You instantly picked me off as a AM student, and told me I wasn't qualified to even so much as cast a vote. Its funny how things sometimes happen. Of course Godchild chimed right in with her mastery of everything cause she reads Time magazine. WHAT A PAIR, WHAT A PAIR

[dobman53]

Dodge: 6:33, That was my first post today on this subject. I scrolled up at that point to see where every one was coming from before I joined in. You instantly picked me off as a AM student, and told me I wasn't qualified to even so much as cast a vote. Its funny how things sometimes happen. Of course Godchild chimed right in with her mastery of everything cause she reads Time magazine. WHAT A PAIR, WHAT A PAIR

[dodge]

Come on, dobman, I never called you a "stupid mindless AMer." Of course, I am of the opinion that those who believe that supernatural beings such as Satan and Angels exist are somewhat less intelligent than others, naive and gullable (i.e. easily duped). To be convinced that Satan disguised as a serpent had sex with Eve in the mythical Garden of Eden that propogated a race of Kenites who are behind the scenes creating a New World Order fulfilling Biblical prophecy is, in my mind, evidence of some sort of pathological emotional or mental illness. Perhaps some day you will come out of your delusional state, through crisis intervention combined with therapy. I hope so; but even if you continue to look at the world around you with ShepChap filters on, I don't feel threatened by you and your cult. In fact, I'm glad you guys are here, providing us with so much entertainment. As one who has been involved in the mental health profession for many years, retired now, I enjoy the show, because I've always been interested in the psychology of belief. It's truely amazing what people believe!

[godchild]

dobman, You have no reason to apologise to me.

aviyah, You came here with information not everyone agrees with. Was that unexpected, really?

When do you plan on calling Americans together to vote on this? http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

Everyone is supposed to get all freaked out, then the people who bring on the paranoid baloney turn around and say Father is in control. Go figure. I could have told you that in the first place. Some people just thrive on spreading propoganda. Do you feel better now? I sure hope so.

[watchman_2]

dodge,

You wrote:
*****
Do you think you have more information and are better equipped mentally to make a decision concerning the Law of the Sea Convention than all those mentioned above who are in favor of it? Stick to Kenites and New World Order conspiracy and stay out of things that you know nothing about.
*****

The answer, of course, is YES! Any law, referendum, and treaty that results in any of 1) more taxation; 2) subverting the U.S. Constitution; 3) subordinating U.S. citizens to international jurisdiction; and 4)further empowering the corrupt UN, should be rejected.

In the case of LOST, all of these no-no's apply.

It is the Kenites and one-world-order proponents that favor this treaty. So, in advising the SCer to stick to this message, we are doing so by advocating the defeat of the LOST.

BTW, you can throw out all the names of organizations you like -- it is really meaningless to do so. If it was not profitable for such groups to have LOST ratified, they would not be advocating it. Their profits are at the American taxpayers expense.

In addition, the White House may be a Republican administration; but, it is not a Conservative administration. Bush senior was a huge one-world-order advocate. Bush junior has followed in his father's footsteps -- not in the footsteps of the beloved Ronald Reagan.

[david_munson]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Watchman:"In addition, the White House may be a Republican administration; but, it is not a Conservative administration. Bush senior was a huge one-world-order advocate. Bush junior has followed in his father's footsteps -- not in the footsteps of the beloved Ronald Reagan."
---
Ahh my friend we have found common ground.
I have to agree with you here.

</font>}

[watchman_2]

David,

I knew there had to be a few things we could agree upon. Glad to hear we found one.

[david_munson]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
I don't think there is any one who disagrees on everything.LOL.

</font>}

[dodge]

There is no doubt in my mind that your mythical Kenites are figments of your imagination, Watchman. They represent your dark side that you refuse to acknowledge, and therefore project onto a group of people so that you can scapegoat all the problems of the world. The same goes for your “New World Order” conspiracy theory, where you believe that a secret cabal of Kenites are behind the United Nations attempting to rule the world preparing for the coming of the “anti-Christ.” This is “Old Right” paranoia.

Pat Robertson believes that Freemasons, a secret Order of the Illuminati, a group combining Masons and Jewish Bankers, have been conspiring for world domination (in his book, “The New World Order”), and are attempting to dismantle the United States through the media and human sexuality movements. In this book, Roberson predicted April 29, 2007 as the start date for the events of the Second Coming of Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_World_Order_%28Robertson%29

Psychologically speaking, all of this fear of the United Nations and a New World Order has to do with nationalism and isolationism and a rejection of globalization to the point of paranoid thinking. It’s understandable, but in the course of history, a United Earth under one banner is inevitable. One planet, one people…the only hope for mankind.

[watchman_2]

Dodge,

You are free to challenge the Truth of the Bible as you see fit and, of course, the lineage of all the various races of people in existence today. Certainly, I cannot personally prove the existence of the Kenites, except through scripture. To that end, I have certainly been successful.

However, in due fairness, while it may be humorous to you to label those people mentioned in the Bible as 'mythical', the viewer should also be able to <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> the credibility of your opinion based upon your beliefs.

So, in fairness, we should bring to the viewers attention that you believe the progenitor of all the races of people is a BACTERIA -- created by a bolt of lightning that struck the primordial soup of chemicals -- that strictly consumed chemicals -- that after some time, decided it would be more beneficial to be multi-celled instead of single-celled -- with some deciding to become plants instead of animals -- with those that decided to remain as animals deciding to consume other animals and plants instead of chemicals -- with some deciding that it would be better to grow appendages to consume food in a different matter -- with some deciding to leave the water while not knowing there is any way to survive out there -- with some deciding to grow a penis without knowing there is an opposite sex to mate with -- with some deciding to change genus not knowing that the change will be successful for survival -- with some deciding to change into man while having infants so helpless they cannot possibly survive without parental care.

So, you should be examining your own beliefs for the mythical basis thereof before you start assessing a Christian's beliefs. After all, everything in the Bible has been demonstrated and proven to be true. Your beliefs are in serious want of proof.

[david_munson]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Dodge:"One planet, one people…the only hope for mankind."
--
Sounds nice exept that people will have to loose their individuality to the system.
A one world religion will have to be "imposed" upon all peoples to keep from having division.
This requires that people compromise their beliefs and this is not healthy to ones life since not conforming will result in arrests and persecution as well as eventual death sentences.
Like it says in scripture.

It is man's nature to war with other men who hold to views that are different.

The answer is not in man but in the Christ.

</font>}

[dodge]

Watchman, proving the existence of an imaginary race of people called Kenites by quoting scripture is like proving the existence of monsters by telling us your dreams. They exist only within your mind, and have no objective reality. Now if you were to point out one of those Kenites to me, instead of relegating them to a shadowy existence, secretly working behind the scenes, then I might consider what you say as rational. God, Satan, Eve, the Garden of Eden, devils and angels, giants and witches, are all mythic figures because they have no objective reality. They are archetypes that you have given form to through your system of belief, a way of understanding the processes that are going on in your unconscious. In order for you to become whole, to heal yourself, you must withdraw these projections back into yourself and integrate them into your totality. The archetype of wholeness is indistinguishable from what you think of as “god.” It is, in reality, who you really are, the sum total of your conscious and unconscious parts. Christ is an archetype of wholeness, as is Krishna, Buddha, and all other symbols that are numinous.

As far as your contention that “everything in the Bible has been demonstrated and proven to be true…” this is utter nonsense. I can’t believe you would even make such a statement. Have angels and devils been proven to have objective existence? Oh, I forgot, Arnold Murray has a plaster casting of an angel’s footprint. If you believe that, you are as gullible and cultically indoctrinated as they come.

You cannot prove that Satan has any objective existence outside of the Bible and your own mind. You cannot prove that a mythical being that you call Satan disguised himself as a “serpent” in the mythical Garden of Eden and had sex with a mythical woman you call Eve. These are regional and cultural tales handed down through thousands of years and exist only in your mind and in the pages of the Bible…in my considered opinion.

(continued)

[dodge]

You assign beliefs to me that I don’t have, Watchman. I don’t know what the cause of life on earth was. I do believe that organisms evolved through time, from simpler to more complex forms; and that HAS been proven. As far as the very beginning, when the spark of “life” ignited on this planet, I will never know how that happened; nor do I care. I am consciousness existing within this body here and now. There is nothing else that is real. Everything you say about the Bible, Kenites, Satan, One World Order, God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost…are things that you cannot prove and remain speculations based on your faith, not knowledge. You can’t point to a being you know of as Jesus and say, “Look, Dodge, over there. It’s Jesus!”, because it’s all inside your mind and nowhere else.

We disagree on many things, Watchman; and I know that for anything I say you will detract and argue against. What’s the point? You will never change my mind and I will never change yours. You will come here morning, afternoon, evening and night, week after week, year after year, defending your beliefs to the end of your life. Why? I think you like to debate and that you have a very large ego that needs to claim victory over others. You are competitive and arrogant and are on a mission to prove that you are right and that others are wrong. I find this to be true with all of the Shepherd’s Chapel students who post on these threads, and their hatred of others shines through their disrespectful name-calling, flaming and ad hominem attacks. But that’s refreshing, because it’s real. More genuine than all that Christian bull about treating others the way that you want to be treated, or loving you neighbor the way you love yourself. All this venting that goes on in these threads may be therapeutic. The truth, whatever that means to you, will never be found here on this forum. We are just a bunch of people with opinions who disagree with one another. That's all.

Don't let the Kenites bite.

[dobman53]

Dodge: I've posted this before, I'm going to post it once again. Sometime back a number of learned men decided to crunch the numbers on the possibilitys of life happening by chance. Their are 2000 amino acids in a single cell organism. in the DNA helix their are 1000s of conections each conection being represented in a, b, c, ect. When they started to do the crunch they soon relised no single computer was capable to handle these numbers. They then had to network multiple computers to complete their work. With all the veriables they came up with a number of 10 to the 40,000th power. Thats a 10 with 40,000 zero's. Being they had these computers all networked they then ran the numbers on how many adams there are in the universe. They came up with 10 to the 178th power thats a 10 with 178 zero's. Lets just assume for a minute that for life to just magically appear we use the numbers concerning the universe. Now by chance alone, you yourself, or for that matter anybody, reach out and snatch the sole adam from the universe. We all have our faiths in which we believe. I have my faith and you likewise have yours. Here I have to be honest with you. Your faith in your beliefs, far far excedes my faith in my beliefs.

[bluewater2]

"Sounds nice exept that people will have to loose their individuality to the system." That is often the fear. The reality is, however, as people become more economically and informationally connected, systems are created out of need to manage these assets. Like you, I do have some fear that might be some grand conspiracy, and some sadness at the possibility that cultures might be lost or diluted, but that is certainly nothing new, as difficult as it is to see.

"A one world religion will have to be "imposed" upon all peoples to keep from having division." Not really. If religion would just take it's place "behind closed doors", out of government and the public school system, people would always be free to practice their religions. It is only when religious beliefs become part of the political processes that are involved in "world management" that these division based on beliefs would be likely.

"This requires that people compromise their beliefs and this is not healthy to ones life since not conforming will result in arrests and persecution as well as eventual death sentences.
Like it says in scripture." I don't see how this is true as long as others don't try to impose their religious beliefs on others. Certainly, saying that "Christ is the only answer" is the same thing as saying "only christianity works." That belief will never lead to a co-operative existance on earth.

"It is man's nature to war with other men who hold to views that are different." The decision to escalate discussions about a difference of opinion from words to war are often made by those that claim to be godly men. Why is that? I think the ability to discuss differences of opinion is a gift. The idea that war machinery needs to be used is the ignorant way and rarely the last resort.

"The answer is not in man but in the Christ." I see no verifiable or substantiated results or studies that show this is true. I think that the answer lies in mankind taking responsibility for his place in this world, working with others, and developing a strategy to deal with the problems and challenges that face this ever growing population and it's dwindling resources. Not some mythical character that is merely a central character in one of many religous philosphies. Stating that christ is the answer, first and formost, puts up barriers between those that believe that and those that have and hold a different religious belief close to their hearts.

[aviyah]

*********************************************** ***
"I do believe that organisms evolved through time, from simpler to more complex forms; and that HAS been proven." (Dodge,10/26/07)
*********************************************** ***

It has NOT been proven. That is why it is known as a theory. Evolution is statistically impossible. You know, Darwin himself was not convinced of this theory when he died. Why, because he was a scientist and knew that there wasn't enough scientific evidence to support the theory.

Sir Isaac Newton, quite possibly the most brilliant man to walk the earth in the past 500 years or more, and by the way, the father of modern science, believed passionately in the existence of God. In fact he wrote more papers on theology and alchemy than science and math combined.

Newton argued that God had to be present. He believed the system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the council of an intelligent and powerful being and that God couldn't possibly be written out of the universe. Isaac owned more than 30 Bibles which he studied as rigorously as he did the natural world.

Correlating Biblical passages with astronomical information, Sir Isaac re-dated ancient history drawing up elaborate charts and chronologies that show civilization starting around 980 B.C. Keep in mind this was the civilization of a man named Isaac. He was dating the beginning of civilization as that of his forefather Ha-Adam, as recorded in the Bible.

Interestingly, Newton calculated and re-calculated hundreds of times over a period of about 30 years trying to determine the end of this earth age. He determined it would happen before 2060. Was Newton a flake for accepting Biblical prophesy as truth or for deciphering it? I think not!

Newton gave us calculus, theories of light refractions, the universal law of gravitation and the reflecting telescopes that NASA still uses today. Now tell me how Isaac Newton was a nut job for believing above all else that God was at the helm Dodge.

There are documents at the national library in Jerusalem that Isaac Newton wrote regarding the inseparable nature of religion and science. Newton himself believed that God was absolutely present and absolutely powerful in the universe. Newton's paper predicting the approximate timing of Armageddon has recently become available to the public in Jerusalem.

When you come up with something as substantial as the Principia then maybe you can sit back and scoff at people of faith for their beliefs without coming across as a bone head Dodge. From what I have read, you have not copied and pasted anything here for Factnet readers that holds any kind of a candle to the astonishing brilliance of Sir Isaac Newton. Without question he was a complete genius and he was convinced of God's existence, supreme power, and the truth in Father's Word.

Reap what you sow, AviYAH

[watchman_2]

dodge,

You wrote:
*****
We disagree on many things, Watchman; and I know that for anything I say you will detract and argue against. What’s the point?
*****

The point is that you try to discredit the SCers' position taken on LOST because the SCer believes the Bible, which declares the existence of the offspring of Satan, which you have labeled as 'mythical'.

Hence, the viewer is entitled to know the truth regarding your theology that the progenitor of the human race is a bacteria. Accordingly, people can discern your credibility in defining the beliefs of others as 'mythical'.

The fact is that efforts to link one's points in the debate regarding LOST [a political issue] to one's theological basis -- Christian or Evolutionist, is totally uncalled for and off-point.

Your argument regarding LOST is not furthered by any such silly efforts.

[lutheratx]

"Not really. If religion would just take it's place "behind closed doors", out of government and the public school system, people would always be free to practice their religions. " Blue water

Mat 5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Mat 5:15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Mat 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

"The decision to escalate discussions about a difference of opinion from words to war are often made by those that claim to be godly men. Why is that? " Blue Water

You know nothing about ancient History, people set them selfs up as gods, and fought for territory. You only have to look at the Aztecs, Romans, Greeks, and Persians to see there interest was growing there already growing empire. As AviYah has been pointing out, if the Russians are planning war and interested in our assets it is not for religion, it is for the expantion of the empire. Dont be silly leaders may hide there attacks behind a god, but the truth of what they are doing is easy to see. In the ancients there were gods involved, but no ruler ever had his land within an empire. This means even if he would have been willing to convert they didn't care they wanted the power.

Atheist are normally blaiming religion for wars, but I believe it was on New Jack city were an actor said,"you get the money then the power." Men are also interested in power, that has never changed. Why does a man sell a crack rock nowing it has the ability to kill, for money. Why does a man look for oil outside of U.S. territorial waters, for money. It has nothing to do with God. They may say this is the reason, but only those that are attacking religion believe it to be the reason.

Blue water is supposedly for our right to worship, however it offends him when we have a theology class at a Junior High level, and so on. He wants you to practise your beliefs behind closed doors when it goes against the teaching of Christ to hide your belief. So there it is we cant do what this atheist wants, so he wants a verbal war that is what he gets. He is getting his shot now with Nancy Pelosi, and this is going to be what hurts democrats. However even they will never go to far because democrats will never get reelected.

"Stating that christ is the answer, first and formost, puts up barriers between those that believe that and those that have and hold a different religious belief close to their hearts." Blue water

Oh well, you see I am not going to change my core of existance for you or any man. I served for this country during a time of war, I just happened to get a branch of Military not used for anything other than troop transport, however I do have the right to debate issues concerning the existance of man as do you. Do you want your scientist to have to hide there research? Well I deffinately don't want my educators to hide theres. Do you want evolution to be taught in schools seeing how you consider it a building block of science? Well do I need to go on?

[lutheratx]

A while back I said this while talking about Murray, "I know he is in favour of the One World Power, why because he is in favour of bible prophecy."

What I was saying he wants all prophecy to be fulfilled, not that he in anyway wants to support the abomination, he will be against it. I will warn of the upcoming dangers, but for one to write any Senator like AviYah said would be just to warn the public, not to change the public. We can because it can only help more people to see the light. AviYah may protest ultimately it is for a warning to those that will listen, she deffinately wants the abomination to take place, how else will we separate the tares? the ones that hear AviYah's protest and listen, I am more than certain that some of them will take notice.

This topic of the thread is giving control to the UN, I do think that it is great to show the reasons your beliefs says it will fail if your belief in deed does say that, because if someone told you something before the event took place, and it comes full circle like the person has said. Well now this person has now been given a large amount of credibility with some that heard this teaching of future events. However some will be poor losers, and notice that instead of saying it is alright we will continue to warn about other practices. Take for instance King Ahab 2kings 22:8 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may enquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so

However we will tell you that the beast takes a fatal wound.

you cant say that if it wasn't for the SC or Christian's belief in some mythical being that there would not be opponents of this or any plan. Each man has a mind of his own, we do not think exactly the same, other wise you wife or girlfriend would have to put up with billions of men persueing her. Well think of this new plan like your girlfriend not every man wants her.

You see the bible warns of future events and these events took place. The bible doesn't warn of future events for the reader to try to change them, for the most part, we are to spread the warnings to change the way the future events affect the student of the lesson, you see that is how it changes the future it is for the individual. If you keep shrugging off the truth because satan has made it politically incorrect, you are luke warm and Father will spit you out. However You really have nothing to fear if God is on your side, if God be for you who can be against you? So God will provide exactly what you need to protest this abomination, and you will be rewarded for it.

Deut 20:1 When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 20:2 And it shall be, when ye are come nigh unto the battle, that the priest shall approach and speak unto the people, 20:3 And shall say unto them, Hear, O Israel, ye approach this day unto battle against your enemies: let not your hearts faint, fear not, and do not tremble, neither be ye terrified because of them; 20:4 For the LORD your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.

[lutheratx]

So in conclusion to my last post this plan the Law of the Sea treaty will seem as though it is going to work even if it takes a fall. You supporters of the new world that is set in place to bring peace and prosperity have the victory for a while. I dont know if it is a very short period of no war or if it is as long as almost four years. However it is such a victory that Daniel even says ......

Daniel 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them.

That you win.

[lutheratx]

Bluewater the way you propose to have what I believe to be truth not to be taught by educators, because your idea of truth is superior in your mind, is the same way a dictator reigns over his nation. This is a democracy. The fore fathers didn't want a Church running the nation, but I'm sure they would be fine with an elective class for Muslims, Christians, Jews, and so on. It would have to come down to numbers though how many people could you get to fill the classrooms.(remember the majority chooses) I'm sure that there would not be enough kids that volunteered to even fill the Christian class rooms, so every year it would be eliminated as an elective. However if there was a community with strong Christian families this class would take off and be a success. If an atheist lives in one of these communities and is offended by it, he is in since offended by his neighbors. You dont move into a community and change the way the grass is cut, or the garbage is handled most of the time just because it goes against your life style.

However why an elective because I believe like the forefathers in the fact you should have the right to chose Christianity or whatever belief you wanted.

[lutheratx]

post # 608 was not for blue water it was more on topic with this thread. The other 2 of the four was directed at bluewaters post #3443 (wow that is a lot of God hating)

[david_munson]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Dodge,
you have made my point whether you're aware of it or not.

Christians will not compromise with their beliefs and that would cause a dictatorial type of action to reign them in in order to have compliance with a one world order.

Christians would of necessity not be "tolerated".

</font>}

[aviyah]

*********************************************** ***
"I served for this country during a time of war, I just happened to get a branch of Military not used for anything other than troop transport, however I do have the right to debate issues concerning the existance of man as do you." (Luther, 10/27/07)
*********************************************** ***

Please don't diminish your military service to our nation Luther. I can see that you're a humble guy but I thank you for defending our rights and our sovereignty, regardless of your assignment.

God Bless, AviYAH

[aviyah]

www.senate.gov (http://www.senate.gov)

If you haven't already, contact your State Senators and remind them that they work for us.

Ours is supposed to be a government "for the people, by the people". A treaty with such far reaching consequences should not be ratified without the national as a whole deciding on it.

Look again at the U.N.s track record...


www.somaliawatch.org/archivefeb01/010227102.htm (http://www.somaliawatch.org/archivefeb01/010227102.htm)

www.rushonline.com/visitors/un-corruption.htm (http://www.rushonline.com/visitors/un-corruption.htm)

www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=5368 (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=5368)

We already have access to our own territorial waters. Why should we pay the U.N. more tax dollars than we already do for something we currently have access to for free?

Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.

U S Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.

Jordan votes 71% against the United States and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

Pakistan votes 75% against the United States receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually. (Thanks David Munson)

Think about it...If the U.N.s I.S.A. had control of the seas and the air above them, this could potentially restrict people from travelling abroad.

Regardless of your position on this issue, remind our elected Senators that this decision should be up to the American people.

[dodge]

One of the compelling reasons for ratification of the United Nations Law of the Sea convention has to do with a country’s right to expand control of seabed resources beyond the continental shelves bordering their coasts if they can find such sloping extensions. For example, a new survey by American oceanographers of the seafloor north of Alaska resulted in evidence of important deposits of oil, gas and minerals. The U.N. Law of the Sea would allow the U.S. to extend it’s territory, because of “sloping extensions,” 200 miles beyond previous estimates.

This right would be guaranteed by the Law of the Sea treaty, supported by President Bush; but requires approval by two-thirds of the Senate.

(taken from an article in the New York Times by Matthew L. Wald and Andrew C. Revkin, 19 OCT 2007)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00E4D7133EF93AA25753C1A9619C8B 63&amp;n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/R/Revkin,%20Andrew%20C (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00E4D7133EF93AA25753C1A9619C8B 63&amp;n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/R/Revkin%2C%20Andrew%20C).

Passage of this treaty is especially important now that warmer climate conditions have opened the Arctic sea route that might lead to commercial ships and tankers traveling from Scandinavia to Asia through the Bering Strait. This would cut 5,000 miles or more from a journey that would otherwise entail passage through the Panama Canal or the Suez.

I urge you to write your representatives and let them know how important ratification of the United Nations Law of the Sea treaty is.

[bluewater2]

"Regardless of your position on this issue, remind our elected Senators that this decision should be up to the American people." Are our senators not elected by the people to represent them?

Why is it you feel that these other countries vote against us so often?

What do you feel are the real reasons that the US contributes so much "foreign aid" to these countries?

[dodge]

To those who say that President Reagan opposed the United Nations Law of the Sea treaty, the fact is that he expressed concerns only about Part XI’s deep seabed mining regime. Reagan identified the elements in Part XI that needed revision. Since then, the regime has been fixed in a legally binding manner that addresses each of the U.S. objections. Each objection has been addressed in the 1994 Agreement. The rest of the treaty was considered so favorable to U.S. interests that, in his 1983 Ocean Policy Statement, President Reagan ordered the Government to abide by the non-deep seabed provisions of the Convention.

http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rm/2004/30723.htm

“It is totally inaccurate to state that the Convention subjects U.S. military or economic activities to the control of a UN bureaucracy. This is not true with respect to either military or economic or any other activities. Under the Convention all activities at sea, with the exception of deep seabed mining, are controlled by either the flag state or the coastal nation.”

(Statement of Rear Admiral William L. Schachte, Jr., Judge Advocate General’s Corps, U.S. Navy Department of Defense Representative. Found at: http://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/lostestimony/Schachte-ArmedServices.pdf)

In a statement by John D. Negroponte, Deputy Secretary of State and Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, in a written testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 27 SEP 2007, he said that the “flaws President Reagan had correctly identified” were corrected in the 1994 Agreement overhauling the deep seabed mining regime.

The first Bush Administration agreed to participate in negotiations that modified Part XI, overcoming each of the objections that President Reagan had identified. The United States signed the Agreement in 1994 and the Convention came into force that same year, and has since been joined by industrialized countries that also shared the U.S. objections to the initial deep seabed mining chapter (XI).

http://www.state.gov/s/d/2007/92921.htm

[aviyah]

"The Law of the Sea Treaty ("Treaty") was conceived in 1982 by the United Nations (U.N.) as a method for governing activities on, over, and beneath the ocean's surface. It focuses primarily on navigational and transit issues. The Treaty also contains provisions on the regulation of deep-sea mining and the redistribution of wealth to underdeveloped countries--as well as sections regarding marine trade, pollution, research, and dispute resolution. The Bush Administration has expressed interest in joining the International Seabed Authority and has urged the U.S. Senate to ratify the Treaty. However, many of former President Ronald Reagan's original objections to the Treaty--while modified--still hold true today, and many of the possible national security advantages are already in place." (Carrie Donovan of the Heritage Foundation)

[aviyah]

Reagan's Objections to L.O.S.T.

1. Former President Reagan's first objection to the Treaty was the Principle of the "Common Heritage of Mankind," which dictates that oceanic resources should be shared among all mankind and cannot be claimed by any one nation or people. In order to achieve this goal, 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.

2. Secondly, former President Reagan believed that the Treaty would restrict the world's supply of minerals. The Treaty was originally designed to limit the exploitation of heavy minerals in order to protect the mineral sales of land-locked, developing nations. This is no longer a severe limitation, because production limits to preserve land-based mining have been