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 removed.

3. The third--and still valid--objection is that mandatory dispute resolution restricts autonomy. Either a U.N. court or tribunal must mandate maritime issues involving fisheries, marine environmental protection, and preservation, research, and navigation. A country may opt out if the dispute involves maritime boundaries, military, or limited law enforcement activities. Submitting to external jurisdiction creates an uncomfortable precedent. Furthermore, it weakens the U.S. argument of autonomy when it refuses to submit to the International Criminal Court. Additionally, a country must petition to be excluded from mandatory jurisdiction requirements.
(Carrie Donovan)

Carrie E. Donovan is Production and Operations Coordinator in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Again, can someone please address why it would be a good thing for the U.S. to get in deeper with the United Nations?

[aviyah]

"Former President Reagan refused to sign the Treaty in 1982 due to its innate conflict with basic free-market principles (e.g., private property, free enterprise, and competition). Twelve years later, the Clinton Administration submitted to the U.S. Senate a revised version of the Treaty. This revised version allegedly corrected many of the original objections to the Treaty, but still failed to receive Senate ratification: Therefore, the United States' provisional participation expired in 1998. The Treaty still requires adherence to policies that regulate deep-sea mining, as well as forcing participants to adopt laws and regulations to control and prevent marine pollution. Additionally, under the Treaty, a corporation cannot bring suit, but must rely upon its country of origin to address the corporation's concerns before the U.N. agency." (Carrie Donovan)

[bluewater2]

"Again, can someone please address why it would be a good thing for the U.S. to get in deeper with the United Nations?" Common sense dictates that, as mentioned several times before in this topic, that a system needs to be put into place in an effort to more effectively manage the ever shrinking world and competition for it's resources. The United Nations seems to be the organization that has been called upon to implement these policies, through active involvement by it's members. The fact that, as according to you, many of the member nations do not agree with the US on many issues would cause any reasonable person to ask why this is? Please answer my two questions to you above and comment on the fact that Senators are elected by the people to represent them. If the people do not like them, they can vote them out. That is how the people decide things in this country.

It is only by active involvement with the United Nations that we can effect change in it. It is only by addressing the policies that this nation has that are so objectionable to other nations that we can effectively take part in world affairs.

[dodge]

Consider the source. Heritage Foundation is a right-wing think tank that supports faith-based initiatives, banning abortion and overturning affirmative action programs.

Then consider John D. Negroponte, the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State and former Director of National Intelligence who supports the U.N. Law of the Sea treaty. He served as U.S. ambassador in Honduras, Mexico and the Philippines; U.S. represenative to the U.N. in the Bush administration and ambassadfor to Iraq.

Consider Michael Chertoff, another supporter of the Convention, who is the current U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security. He served as judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals and as the U.S. Attorney General.

And Carlos M. Gutierrez, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce; Harry Reid, the senior Democratic senator from Nevada; Mitch McConnell, Jr., Republican Senator from Kentucky; former Reagan advisors David Robinson and Abraham Sofer, all in favor of the treaty.

Then, there are the Joint Chiefs of Staff: E.P. Giambastiani, Admiral, U.S. Navy;' Peter Pace, General, U.S.M.C.; M.G. Mullen, Admiral, U.S. Navy; T. Michael Moseley, General, USAF; J.T. Conway, General, U.S.M.C.; George W. Casy, General, U.S. Army, who signed a letter in June of this year recommending ratification of the Law of the Sea convention.

http://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/JCSonLOS.pdf

President Bush himself urges the Senate to act favorably on U.S. accession to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Bush noted that the Convention advances the national security interests of the U.S., indicated that the Convention would secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas and the valuable natural resources they contain, and stated that accession would promote U.S. interest in the environmental health of the oceans.

http://www.asil.org/insights/2007/06/insights070611.html

[lutheratx]

"a system needs to be put into place in an effort to more effectively manage the ever shrinking world and competition for it's resources." Blue water

You know the Israelites fought against the Amalekites, the Philistines, the Assyrians, Moabites, Judah was taken away by the babylonians, and during the time of the twelve disciples there was an increasingly hostile environment to the Christians, however with this going on the bible prophecied that there would become a false peace, and a one world empire. The atheist say there is no evidence that the word is alive, yet by there own admission they acknowledge that there world is pushing for globalisation. This in my mind gives the bible a lot of credibility considering these teachings were indeed during hostile times.

[lutheratx]

As for your questions I don't know the answers?

However if you think the UN is going to be the answer with its socialist agenda OK. I know that the beast takes a fatal wound, what that will be I don't know. However I think it comes from reasons that AviYah is providing you. There are so many people that do not want this one world government or any push towards it that you don't have to look very far to find them. For instance look at Republican Ron Paul he is pretty popular right now. I assure you it is not just Christians that like this guy. I don't want him in office because his vision of the war, and I dont trust him.

[bluewater2]

"The atheist say there is no evidence that the word is alive," Could you please explain what you mean by this?

The questions that you admit to being unable to answer are central to this discussion.

Also, this is not a religious issue, it is geo-political. The fact that you claim the bible has made some predictions is nothing new and the predictions are not special.

[lutheratx]

This post is on topic.

It should be of no surprise you have many politicians siding with L.O.S.T. because of the fact that lobby groups are the ones pulling the strings now days. World banking organisations have money hand over fist and who is to say they dont have groups that lobby for this and that under a different guise. Just name one of the topics that you said benefits from it and you double your investment by feeding money into a group that has a reason to support that. How do you double your investment, well this taxation and things of this nature, if you are a world wide banking industry you are recieving a good deal with this considering it is your money that is tied up in every thing and you expect a return. Look around it is not the people that own everything, who do you think loans us the money, we have a national debt. You dont think it is the countries we are sending foreign aid to do you. We are bought and paid for and what the lobby groups want they get. Hey welcome to the one world power, I expect to see Antichrist very soon.

[lutheratx]

The answer to your question Bluewater, it means the bible is the truth, meaning there is nothing fake by its teachings. The word strengthens the spirit, it quickens you, and in order to do that the truth must be alive, because to quiken one means to make that person alive. It means God is alive.

You by your own admission say that one of the prophecies is correct. Any one who studies the bible a good deal knows the probabilty is low for this to have been said at this time by a man who is just writing a story. Anyone who studies Ancient history nows empires going against each other.

Actium
Archidamian War
Argive War
Assyrian Wars
Bactrian-Syrian War
Battle of Carchemish
Carthaginian-Syracusan War
Celtiberian Wars
Chremonidean War
Corinthian War
Corinthian-Corcyrean War
Damascene War
First Dionysius War
First Messenian War
First Mithridatic War
First Parthian War
First Punic War
Lelantine War
Peloponnesian War
Persian Civil War
Persian Wars
Roman-Armenian War
Second Macedonian War
Second Messenian War
Second Punic War
Seleucid War with Rome
Third Macedonian War
Third Punic War
Wars of the Daidochi
Wars of the Second Triumvirate

So the predictions are not special to you however with your admission, you strengthen all that I believe. I got off topic because I know that you are atheist, and one of your premises is that there is no credibility in religion. So I want to show, not to you but others, that even atheist by there own words strengthen your faith.

It is funny you guys always try to disprove and wind up saying things that actually strengthen.

Hey don't take this the wrong way I'm sure you think the same about Christians.

[dodge]

Lutheratx, get your face out of the Bible and look at the world around you. Your conspiracy theories concerning the U.N., the New World Order, the Illuminati and Kenites are delusions that are getting in the way of your understanding what is really going on in the world. Your obsession with Biblical prophecy and the Spawns of Satan and Eve having sex with a snake make you appear mentally ill, suffering from PCT (Paranoid Conspiracy Theory). This form of insanity is characterized by those who think that every government and every aspect of society have been infiltrated by a powerful secret society or group that is responsible for every evil and every unjust act that ever occurs anywhere. The fact that no evidence of their existence can be found only serves to make them stronger and more frightening. They are the demon in the closet, and will probably never disappear from the paranoid fantasy world of right-wing conspiracy theorists.

We are talking about a United Nations treaty, not how evil Kenites are out to take over the world through the U.N. to enslave humanity.

Among the many supporters of the United Nations Law of the Sea convention is James A. Baker III who served as the Chief of Staff in President Reagan’s first administration, Secretary of the Treasury in the second Reagan administration, and Secretary of State in President George H.W. Bush’s administration. Then there is George P. Shultz, who served as the Secretary of the Treasury from ’72 to ’74, and as Secretary of State from ’82 to ’89. Baker and Shultz co-wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal dated 26 SEP 2007 outlining why the U.S. should ratify the Convention.
http://bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/Law%20of%20the%20Sea.pdf

Add to the list of dignitaries in favor of the U.N. Law of the Sea convention is Madeleine Alright, who was the first female U.S. Secretary of State. “We are pleased to join the Department of Defense in urging your support for the revised International Convention on the Law of the Sea,” wrote Albright in a statement before the International Relations Committee.

http://www.fas.org/asmp/resources/govern/fy99albright.html

Then there is Alexander Haig, who achieved the rank of four star general un the U.S. Army and served as Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, and White House Chief of Staff under Nixon and Ford. He supports the Convention.

Next, Bruce Babbitt, a Democrat who served as U.S. Secretary of the Interior and Governor of Arizona.

Robert McFarlane, who was National Security Advisor to President Ronald Reagan.

Brent Snowcroft, who was the U.S. National Security Advisor under Ford and Bush, and a Lieutenant General in the U.S. Air Force. He also served as Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs ion the Nixon and Ford administrations, Chairman of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under George W. Bush, and as Henry Kissinger’s assistant when Kissinger was the National Security Advisor under Nixon.

William Ruckelshaus, who served as the first head of the Environmental Protection Agency, acting director of the FBI, Deputy Attorney General and is a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School.

http://jointoceancommission.com/news-room/news-releases/2007-09-24_101_Prominent_US_leaders_urge_the_US_to_join_th e_Law_of_the_Sea_Convention.pdf

[bluewater2]

No I don't think that at all. You are obviously so much smarter than I am, I have a difficult following your train of thought.

Could you please direct me to the place in the bible where they mention the specific Peloponnesion War that you speak of?

[lutheratx]

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that visualize a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. Wikipedia

One of the main authors of LOST not only admired Karl Marx but was an ardent advocate of the Marxist-oriented New International Economic Order. Elisabeth Mann Borgese, a socialist who ran the World Federalists of Canada, played a critical role in crafting and promoting LOST, as WND reported in 2005.

The U.N. Environment Program, UNEP, has said Borgese recognized the oceans as "a possible test-bed for ideas she had developed concerning a common global constitution."

Her ideas included recognizing the oceans as the "common heritage of mankind"

In an article titled, "The New International Economic Order and the Law of the Sea," she argued that the pact could "reinforce" the goals of the NIEO by giving Third World countries a role in managing access to the oceans.

Borgese replied "there is a strong counter-trend. It's not called socialism, but it's called sustainable development.

The concept of "sustainable development," considered a euphemism for socialism or communism, has been embraced in various pronouncements by the U.N. and even the U.S. government.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57903

The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

The real choice we face is between imperfect capitalism and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available.

http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4014

this is an article that will show why L.O.S.T. will fail

[lutheratx]

Dodge Hey look smart guy money talks a bull chips walk. You seem to not realise that there are lobby groups, well guess what there are lobby groups. You want to mention all these supporters of L.O.S.T. but don't want to acknowledge lobby groups.

George W. Bush claimed through two presidential campaigns that America has become the "ownership society." This is your president saying this, he is telling you business is the voice of the people, so of course he is going to listen to lobby groups that through money they are able to push more and more, they are able to be at the white house, they are able to look for people that will benefit them through research, they are able to get lawyers to advice them how to move in a legal convincing manner. That is why they are lobby groups. So it is no doubt that these people think they are doing the will of the people.

You keep saying it is paranoia however we are in debt to banks. Not paranoia but fact.

There are high powered lobby groups, not paranoia but fact.

Sometimes politicians go against the will of the people, not paranoia but fact.

Elisabeth Mann Borgese, a socialist who ran the World Federalists of Canada, played a critical role in crafting and promoting LOST, not paranoia but fact.


You also keep showing these high ranking military men, trust me when I say they are politicians too. They get there rank by being in the right place, and doing the right things. The basically are running for office too. It is just a different deciding body. So, so what.

[lutheratx]

I wrote this "Anyone who studies Ancient history knows empires going against each other."

Except I didn't put the K in knows so it reads nows. However

then I posted all the wars that took place before Anno Domini showing the world was a hostile place.

You can be a smart asset to evolution all you want. Atheist always insist on how unlearned Christians are, and it chaps your hide that we can debate, because you are the one who wants my beliefs to be behind closed doors. Well guess what that will not happen ever, I will be your adversary until the millennium unless you come around, or you quit on your crusade to debate my issues. Remember I'm the one that wants religion in schools.

Holla

[lutheratx]

Oh and for the record I did mention some of the nations that fought with the Israelites, and of course Judah in post number #614

Lets add on some more

Midianites, the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites

some of these were defeated by God himself, but you don't believe that so .... Holla

[dodge]

Elisabeth Mann-Borgese was a very smart woman who dedicated her life to the protection of the environment, in particular the oceans. She was a recognized expert on maritime law and policy. She won the Order of Canada, an award based on being a “true citizen of the world.” She wrote “The Drama of the Oceans” in 1975 and “The Oceanic Circle: Governing the Seas as a Global Resource” in 1988. She was called “The First Lady of the Oceans,” and created the International Ocean Institute that trains people from developing countries to better use the oceans to benefit those who needed it most rather than most technologically advanced.

Her commitment never waned, her spirit never waivered; and to sum up her life as you did, Lutheratx, with the word “socialist,” demeans the contribution that this great lady made in the world. What have you ever done that could compare with her life of service and dedication?

You get your information from right-wing organizations such as the Foundation for Economic Education, the Heritage Foundation and World Net Daily; which speaks volumes about who you are. The only thing that you have to contribute to the world is a delusional belief in Kenites, a New World Order and the teachings of Arnold Murray. You are not qualified to talk about such a woman as Elizabeth, who accomplished more in one morning than you most likely have in your entire life.

http://www.worldfederalistscanada.org/borgese.htm

[bluewater2]

Her ideas included recognizing the oceans as the "common heritage of mankind I don't see the problem with that kind of thinking.

"Borgese replied "there is a strong counter-trend. It's not called socialism, but it's called sustainable development." That sounds quite intelligent, also. Lutherax, I don't see why you have a problem with that thinking. I also do not see why you fight against something that you claim is predestined by the bible anyway. You should just be saying, "Bring it on."

[watchman_2]

Those damned socialists are all alike -- anyone that speaks the truth about their ungodly works is labeled as delusional.

So, we now know that dodge cannot debate the issue. Without insults, he is nothing!

[lutheratx]

When refering to Elisabeth Mann-Borgese

In her book, "The Oceanic Circle: Governing the Seas as a Global Resource," she approvingly cites Karl Marx, the father of communism, as someone with "amazing foresight" about the problems faced by urban and rural societies

The U.N. Environment Program, UNEP, has said Borgese recognized the oceans as "a possible test-bed for ideas she had developed concerning a common global constitution."

In a January 1999 speech, Borgese declared, "The world ocean has been, and is, so to speak, our great laboratory for the making of a new world order."

Now granted you don't think a globalised society is a bad thing, however notice who one of her mentors was. Notice that she wants a new world constitution, ours would only be a historical document show cased in a museum, if they even allow that.

"Her ideas included recognizing the oceans as the "common heritage of mankind I don't see the problem with that kind of thinking." Bluewater

We as Americans have worked hard to have the resources to do under water mining, fishing, exploration, etc. and other countries do not. So the amount of foriegn aid is not enough we must now also have our businesses give certain amounts of there haul to these underdeveloped countries why, because they own what we are pulling out of the ocean. However they don't have to gather it, no we do that. More and More of the worlds problem are becoming yours. The middle class here is dying if that happens democracy loses. It is as simple as that.

" I don't see why you have a problem with that thinking. I also do not see why you fight against something that you claim is predestined by the bible anyway. You should just be saying, "Bring it on." Blue water

I said exactly this in post number 605

http://www.factnet.org/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=3&amp;post=455163#POST455163

and I clearified myself in 608 which it is continued to the next post which is 610

The link to 608 is
http://www.factnet.org/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=3&amp;post=455412#POST455412

Just keep on 610 is the very next post. I don't want you to think that you are giving me this idea, that is why I show you I wrote things concerning this matter before you said anything.

Yes I support bible prophecy, I dont want to change it for the world, I want to change it for the individual. How do you survive the one world power, simple get in the word, every day in the word is a good day, you know why, Jesus is the living word.

[godchild]

lutheratz, You said you want religion in schools. Whose religion? am's? http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

[lutheratx]

I think just like with atheist it should be taught, because you protect civil liberties of the minorities, however I too would realise that the majority of what is being taught is the politically correct versions, and unless some in the community promotes scholars like bullinger (who I realise believed the rapture), and other works like the rapture delusion or what ever that book is called. I am certain that just like in these discussion boards the students that pick up on the truth would be able to take the others in spirited debate. All sides should be represented if the teacher is bias the books wont be. If someone feels that they arenot being represented well then comes the fact that even minority groups deserve the same amount of coverage. Would it work no, but if the government cared anymore it would.

So yes even the doctrine of planes falling out of the sky, people leaving the hospital with a clean bill of health dying and for no reason that can be found, cars crashing on the highway all over the place because the drivers just up and die, millions of people just up and dying, and no one knows what happened because they all missed that family guy or simpsons episode about the rapture, yes even this doctrine will be taught. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

[lutheratx]

Gchild you know your post was just mean spirited, I am guilty of this too. However let me fill you in on something this is a belief held by many Christians that there should be a class for our children. You are actively slapping in the face spiritually someone that is siding with a good deal of Christians if not the majority by making the comment you made.

You are just mean sometimes. I admit I have my moments but never at the cost of Christian stances against an atheist philosophy. It really should become obvious who here is in pursuit of what is good for the rights of Christians. You will say something like we are racist and I can prove we are not.

the election are of all races

Brother Judah has a good strong chance at redemption

I can provide scripture and even SC teaching that shows both of those statements are true.

You wont even say Judaism is deceiving. So by me saying this I get a label. Muslims to are deceived, both religions are deceived by satan, any religion that doesn't recognise Christ as the son of God is deception.

Remember John 3.

Enjoy the One world power that you call paranoid baloney. Revelations chpt 17:12&amp;13 says it is prophecy, you cant even tell the season. Your own words show your ignorance, your allies Oneway and David both know this is the truth and to you it is paranoid baloney. This should show any of your allies you are lacking on talks on Revelations and are not credible on this discussion, and are just here to slander.

Not very Christian indeed.

[aviyah]

"The U.N.'s law of the Sea Treaty is the biggest giveaway of American sovereignty and resources since the Panama Canal Treaty. It lays the groundwork for another U.N. corruption scandal worse than oil-for-food. This report reveals:

How the treaty creates three new U.N. bureaucracies.
How the treaty sets up a scheme to facilitate bribes and payoffs to U.N. officials and employees with revenue derived from a global tax on America.
How China stands to benefit from U.S. Senate ratification of the pact.
How a U.N. Commission created by the treaty could hand over North Pole riches to Russia.
Why employees of Law of the Sea Treaty institutions have signed up for benefits from the U.N. pension fund.
How the International Seabed Authority of the treaty becomes an instrument of the U.N. Security Council.
Why U.S. Navy officials and big corporations are supporting the treaty.
How China and Third World countries dominate the Law of the Sea Treaty organization.
Those in favor of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty want desperately to avoid any mention of how the treaty was spawned by the corrupt U.N. and how its global tax mechanism will allow employees of the U.N. and member states to get their hands on billions of dollars.

The U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty could make the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal, the largest financial fraud in history, look like peanuts.

In a letter distributed in 2004 by Senator Richard Lugar, a supporter of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), eight former U.S. Department of State Legal Advisers stated that, "The fact that the term ‘United Nations' appears in the title of the LOS [Law of the Sea] Convention is legally meaningless and is an accident of history."

In fact, the preamble to UNCLOS alone has three references to the United Nations. First, it refers to UNCLOS as emerging from a United Nations

conference. Second, it refers to UNCLOS being based on a resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly. Finally, it declares that the treaty shall be implemented "in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations as set forth in the Charter."

[aviyah]

"China is a big winner under UNCLOS. So potentially is Russia.

Two of the institutions created by the treaty, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), have already joined the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund as member organizations. The U.N. pension fund, the best-managed program at the world body, has assets surpassing $36 billion. Such a move enables ISA and ITLOS employees to dip into these lucrative assets. The other body created by the treaty, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), maintains its website through the U.N.'s Division for Oceans Affairs and the Law of the Sea.

The CLCS is the U.N. body that many in the media falsely claim has ownership or jurisdiction over the North Pole and Arctic oil, gas and mineral deposits. Ratification of UNCLOS would turn these resources over to the CLCS for dispersal to the Russians and other countries, despite the fact that American explorers discovered the Pole and U.S. Navy nuclear submarines were the first to travel under it.

Under the "Doctrine of Discovery" legal principle, therefore, the U.S. already has valid claims to the North Pole region, and accession to UNCLOS could sink any chance of America ever cashing in on the black gold. Passing UNCLOS would effectively undercut our historic claims to the region and turn the matter over to the CLCS, with 21 members from various countries.

It's true that the CLCS rejected some Russian claims to the Arctic region in 2002. It did so with information provided by the United States, proving that we didn't need to be a treaty member to play a role. But if the Senate ratifies this treaty and then a decision goes against our interests, the pressure will be enormous for the U.S. Government to comply. Indeed, the U.S. would be accused of violating international law if we rejected an UNCLOS finding. It is significant that on September 22, the Russian Natural Resources Ministry announced it had the "data" to prove that the North Pole is Russia's.

In addition to possibly benefiting Russia, the treaty creates a major funding source for the U.N. bureaucracy.

Senator Mitch McConnell holds the fate of
the Law of the Sea Treaty in his hands.

He can be reached at:
Washington Office
361-A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2541

Watchinging Senators and officials trying to untie the knot between the U.N. and its Law of the Sea Treaty will be equivalent to Senate liberals and members of the Bush Administration trying to tell the American people that the illegal alien amnesty bill was not amnesty.

If the institutions created by the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty are independent of the U.N., why do the ISA and ITLOS maintain formal and written relationship agreements with the U.N.? The ISA's relationship agreement, approved by the U.N. General Assembly on November 26, 1997, declares, "The Authority recognizes the desirability of establishing close budgetary and financial cooperation with the United Nations aimed at benefiting from the experience of the United Nations in this field." [1]

Article 11 of the agreement concerns "personnel arrangements," declaring that, "The United Nations and the Authority agree to apply, in the interests of uniform standards of international employment and to the extent feasible, common personnel standards, methods and arrangements designed to avoid unjustified differences in terms and conditions of employment and to facilitate interchange of personnel in order to obtain the maximum benefit from their services."

Hence, U.N. personnel can move between organizations."

[aviyah]

"Such statements, in light of the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal, should promote the immediate and overwhelming rejection of UNCLOS. Senator Norm Coleman, whose Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations investigated the scandal in 2005, says that, "The Oil-for-Food program (OFF) was instigated in 1996 to provide food, medicine and humanitarian goods for the Iraqi people through the controlled sale of Iraqi oil, but ultimately generated an estimated $21.3 billion in illegal revenue for Saddam Hussein through smuggling, kickbacks, and other schemes in contravention of U.N. sanctions regimes." Coleman's investigations found "bribery, conflicts of interest and mismanagement on an unprecedented scale at virtually every level of the scandal-plagued U.N. program."

The nature of UNCLOS, with its provisions for massive payments from corporations and governments for access to oil, gas and minerals, makes it an inevitable conduit for money transfers that could dwarf the magnitude of the oil-for-food scandal.

Among other things, the "Agreement concerning the Relationship between the United Nations and the International Seabed Authority" declares that:

The United Nations and the Authority recognize the desirability of achieving effective coordination of the activities of the Authority with those of the United Nations and the specialized agencies, and of avoiding unnecessary duplication of activities.
The Authority shall cooperate with the Security Council by providing to it at its request such information and assistance as may be required in the exercise of its responsibility for the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security. In case confidential information is provided, the Security Council shall preserve its confidential character.
The latter provision would appear to authorize, even mandate, the transmission of confidential or even intelligence information to the U.N. Security Council.

However, support for the pact from Navy officials, who are not supposed to talk about the drastically declining number of U.S. Navy ships on the high seas (from 595 under Reagan to 276 today), has already convinced some Senators that UNCLOS somehow helps protect American interests. If the treaty is so beneficial, however, then why is the U.S. insisting on attaching 24 declarations and statements to the treaty?

The treaty has already been violated, in the U.S. view, by Communist China, which downed a U.S. Navy EP-3 reconnaissance plane in 2001 because it was flying over China's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The Chinese view is that foreign ships and planes have to have Chinese permission before moving through its EEZ (established by UNCLOS). The U.S. position is that it does not need such permission. The outcome of this incident, in which the U.S. failed to challenge China militarily, suggests that the China view could and would predominate internationally.

As it is, China is building what could be the largest Navy in the world by 2020.

The Pentagon's 2007 annual report to Congress on Chinese military power notes that:

"PRC military strategists have taken an increasing interest in international law as an instrument to deter adversaries prior to combat. In a Taiwan strait context, China could deploy an information campaign to portray third-party intervention as illegitimate under international law. China is also attempting to shape international opinion in favor of a distorted interpretation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, by moving scholarly opinion and national perspectives away from long-accepted norms of freedom of navigation and toward interpretations of increased sovereign authority over the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone, the airspace above it, and possibly outer space." [2]

[aviyah]

"If the eventual U.S. response to all of this is simply to ratify UNCLOS and hire more international lawyers, then ratification of UNCLOS signals the military decline of America and the rise of China.

It is important to note that U.S. Navy officials once argued against the expansion of territorial waters to 200 miles, realizing that such restrictions could close off large strategic areas of the world to fleet operations. The creation of 200 mile zones by UNCLOS helps explain why China signed and ratified the agreement. Incredibly, U.S. navy officials now acquiesce in this maneuver, thinking the U.S. can rebut China's contention through its own "reservations" to the treaty – reservations that are not even allowed or recognized as valid by the treaty itself.

Meanwhile, without any official U.S. challenge, China has announced that it will begin exploring for oil off Cuba's northwest coast, just 45 miles off Florida.

The U.N. and its bodies are stacked against us. The so-called Group of 77, which includes China, is now the largest intergovernmental organization of developing states in the U.N. Despite its name, it has increased to 130 countries. It not only dominates the U.N., it dominates the membership of UNCLOS. So China's "distorted" interpretation of the treaty will become international law through the sheer weight of the countries aligned against us.

The Navy's USS Nautilus was under the North Pole in 1958, long before the Russians, claiming it for America. By embracing UNCLOS, Navy officials are saying that they are willing to forget this important part of U.S. Navy and military history.

What happens when a country like China violates the treaty again? It is clear, based on the EP-3 incident, that the U.S. doesn't have the political will or military capability to confront China. If the U.S. takes the case before ITLOS and it rules for China and against us, we will be in further trouble. It can only mean further surrender by the U.S. in the face of Chinese military power.

Rear Admiral Clarence A. (Mark) Hill (USN Ret.), who consistently opposed the development of UNCLOS, told us that the official U.S. position used to be freedom of navigation for U.S. flag vessels outside the three mile territorial limit recognized by us for all states. Now, Navy officials are arguing that a 200 mile EEZ can accommodate our interests. This view has already blown up in our faces in light of the ability of the Chinese to militarily enforce their interpretation of that provision. Ratification of UNCLOS can only make the problem worse. It just doesn't make sense for a country like the U.S. that is so dependent upon sea power to ratify UNCLOS.

If the Navy position falls apart on military grounds, it is even more suspect on economic grounds.

At a June 22, 2007, Heritage Foundation symposium on the Law of the Sea Treaty, one of the proponents was Rear Admiral William D. Baumgartner, the Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Coast Guard. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy noted that U.S. corporations would be required to pay taxes to an International Seabed Authority for the right to exploit ocean resources, including developing sources of energy for the American people. However, Baumgartner said this view "just doesn't make any sense at all" and was not "rooted in reality." Baumgartner insisted that the new global bureaucracy was set up "to protect commercial property rights."

[aviyah]

"Our Admirals may know how to command ships but they seem to have no understanding of how to dodge the minefields of the sovereignty-sapping and morally bankrupt U.N.

U.S. officials supporting UNCLOS were not always as disingenuous as those making the case for the treaty today. A 1995 speech delivered by David A. Colson, then the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Ocean Affairs, promoted the treaty in the context of noting "opposition in our country to new United Nations institutions." There was no attempt on his part to claim that the ISA, ITLOS and the CLCS were not part of the U.N. system.

Speaking in the wake of the conservative Republican takeover of Congress, Colson said, "We are keenly aware of the move toward less regulation, smaller institutions and limited government that is sweeping our nation. The election of November 8th confirmed this trend." He insisted that, "The same winds have been blowing within the United Nations."

Rear Admiral William D. Baumgartner, the Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Coast Guard, claims that a U.N. bureaucracy will protect private property rights.

This is why he said that while there will be "costs associated with these institutions," they would be "relatively small." We now know, according to a report by analyst Michael C. Wood, that the budget of the ISA "increased substantially, doubling between 1996 and 1999" and that a "large proportion of the budget goes on conference services and on administrative matters, and relatively little on the substantive work of the Authority…" [3]

So the "winds" of small government didn't affect the ISA.

Is this really any surprise? The ISA is headquartered in beautiful Jamaica, an island paradise perfectly suited for the "work" of U.N. bureaucrats.

Even then, according to Wood's report, "many" of the states belonging to the ISA were failing to pay their contributions "in full and on time." These deadbeats were probably waiting for the treaty's global tax mechanism to kick in, creating what the United Nations Association refers to as ISA's ability "to directly collect international revenues to finance its activities." Treaty proponents don't like to call this a global tax, but that is exactly what it is. The treaty refers to this money euphemistically as application "fees" for access to the "Area," where the ISA decides who gets oil, gas and minerals.

The stakes are enormous. The Arctic alone could hold super-giant oil deposits that could last America for 200 years. If the U.N. gets its hands on these resources, the world body would get the financial resources to become at least a limited world government. And that is exactly what the World Federalists said in 1995, when one of their publications talked about the comprehensive nature and scope of UNCLOS. Another of the controversial provisions of UNCLOS, Article 93, refers to "Ships flying the flag of the United Nations" having complete freedom on the high seas.

Admiral Mike Mullen wants an international Navy to protect America.

As noted by Robert Stephens Staley II [4] in his paper, The Wave of the Future: The United Nations and Naval Peacekeeping, "naval forces were an important component of the UN forces envisioned by the [U.N.'s] Military staff Committee in its original deliberations in 1946 and 1947." Staley notes that liberal Democratic Senator Claiborne Pell, one of the most prominent proponents of UNCLOS, "envisioned an International Sea Patrol in the 1960s." [5]

[aviyah]

"How much different is this from U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Mike Mullen's call for an "interconnected community of maritime nations working together" in a 1,000-ship Navy under "hundreds of flags?" His proposal earned the following headline in Defense News: "New U.S. Navy Chief Wants ‘1,000-Ship' International Navy."

Mullen is taking over as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The U.N. already has some ships, but UNCLOS seems to necessitate the creation of a global maritime force. And that can only be financed by the treaty's global tax mechanism.

Annex III of the treaty relating to "Basic Conditions of Prospecting, Exploration and Exploitation" is the key to understanding the global taxation concept. Article 13 explains the "financial terms" of contracts and how the ISA reaps a profit from this activity. It is quite detailed.

Some big U.S. firms, which are scheduled to testify in favor of the treaty, have decided they have no alternative but to pay these "fees." They realize, should they decide to explore for and exploit ocean resources on their own, that they cannot count on the U.S. Navy to protect them. So they are seeking comfort in the bowels of a new U.N. bureaucracy. All of these "fees" will, of course, be passed on to U.S. taxpayers and consumers, making it a global tax on America.

Not surprisingly, the ISA Council is now contemplating new regulations raising the application fees, on the grounds that "inflation" and "increased costs" to the ISA have taken their toll. It is shaping up as a typical U.N. bureaucracy.

Peter Sterling, the president of United Oil and Gas Consortium Management Corp., doesn't want to go through a U.N. bureaucracy to gain access to ocean resources. His firm has already staked claims to oil and gas resources in the Arctic Ocean and minerals in the Pacific Ocean. In a letter to Senator Joe Biden, requesting the opportunity to testify against the treaty, [6] he points out the following:

"[The ISA] officially came into existence in 1994 but its first Secretary-General, Satya Nandan of Fiji, wasn't elected until March 1996. The Authority didn't become fully operational until June 1996. It wasn't until 2000 that the Assembly of the Authority issued regulations on prospecting and exploration for polymetallic nodules.It was in 2001 that the Authority entered into the first 15-year contracts for exploration for them. This is the only ‘legislative' accomplishment to date of the Authority. No rules are available for actually mining polymetallic nodules and none are being recovered commercially nor are they ever likely to be under the ill-conceived ISA regime.

"The world has been waiting for ISA regulations for years on such matters as prospecting and exploration of seabed sulfides. The Authority has been working very slowly on these regulations for five years now. Regulations on prospecting and exploration for oil-gas and methyl-hydrates are still to come. But nobody knows how long those will take…

"It just doesn't make any practical sense to subject U.S. companies to the proposed onerous imports, taxes, dictates and bureaucratic inertia of the International Seabed Authority."
Another controversial provision, Article 82, provides for payments or contributions made by coastal states (such as the U.S.) to the ISA to be passed along to developing states. This is another form of foreign aid. But who knows how much money we are talking about? Has there been any Senate analysis of what this means?"

[aviyah]

"Parts of the 202-page treaty read like a Soviet industrial plan, which is not a great surprise since it was inspired by demands by the then-Soviet Union and the Third World for a "New International Economic Order" to fleece the U.S. and other Western nations of their resources. Elaborate provisions in Article 161 authorize the ISA to initiate "production policies" and "production authorizations" giving certain countries and firms access to mineral deposits. One section envisions the "transfer of technology" from U.S. and other firms to the rest of the world.
The U.N. Pension Fund's assets surpass $36 billion. It's no wonder employees of the ISA and ITLOS have signed up.

Currently, the ISA is financed by "assessed" contributions. This is the same scheme that the U.N. uses to finance itself. Certain countries are "assessed" or told they have to pay a certain amount. In fiscal year 2005, the U.S. "contributed" $5.3 billion to the United Nations System. In terms of UNCLOS, as the "richest" country in the world, we will be ordered to pay the most. Who knows how much this will be? Have any studies been done?

In addition to the three major U.N. institutions, the treaty also creates various commissions for the ISA, including an "Economic Planning Commission" and a "Legal and Technical Commission." Article 163 declares that members should have "appropriate qualifications," be competent, and "have no financial interest in any activity relating to exploration and exploitation in the in the Area." It also declares that the members of the commissions should not disclose "any industrial secret" or "proprietary data" which are "transferred" to the ISA.

Where are the mechanisms to make certain that members of these commissions act ethically? We searched in vain for any provision for members of these commissions to file financial disclosure forms. So how do we know they're not getting behind-the-scenes bribes and payments? You may recall that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself received a $500,000 personal gift from the government of Dubai. And that was NOT considered a violation of U.N. rules.

Even after the oil-for-food scandal, the U.N. has still failed to police its own employees. The world body had announced that employees would be filing financial-disclosure forms. But then it said that the forms would only be filed by some senior employees and they would not be made public.

The new U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has filed a financial disclosure form which has been made public. But it is so vague as to be meaningless. It says such things as that he maintains checking and savings accounts and owns an apartment but only gives a general estimate of the worth of these items. Certain personal information was removed, we are told, for "security purposes." The U.N. says that the form was provided to PricewaterhouseCoopers, the financial firm, which "determined that no further action is required of him with respect to his compliance with the requirements of the financial disclosure program." This is "trust me" from a bureaucracy that violated our trust.

An October 2006 report from the Government Accountability Office tells the story. "United Nations: Management Reforms Progressing Slowly with Many Awaiting General Assembly Review." [7]

It is even worse with the new U.N. institutions established by the Law of the Sea Treaty."

[aviyah]

[1] http://www.un.org/ga/documents/gares52/res5227.htm

[2] http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/070523-China-Military-Power-final.pdf Page 13.

[3] http://www.mpil.de/shared/data/pdf/pdfmpunyb/wood_3.pdf

[4] Staley served as a professor of strategy and policy at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. He also served on the faculty of the U.S. Air Force Academy.

[5] Pell served on the staff of the San Francisco Convention that prepared the U.N. Charter. In a speech about the Law of the Sea Treaty, he said, "The Convention then became the interest of many people. I remember particularly the `Pacem in Maribus'--Peace on the Seas--meetings organized by Elisabeth Mann Borgese. Her book, The Ocean Regime, published in 1968, gave written expression to the ideas that were to gain a wider audience through Pacem in Maribus, on their way to being embodied in the negotiated texts of the Law of the Sea Convention." Borgese was a socialist who admired Karl Marx.

[6] Sterling has not been invited to testify before Biden's committee.

[7] http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0714.pdf

Questions for the U.S. Senate:
*If the treaty is so good, why is the U.S. attaching 24 declarations and understandings to it?
*These declarations and understandings will give rise to legal disputes with other nations, including China. What happens then?
*China says foreign ships and planes have to obtain permission before entering its 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone under the treaty. The U.S. disagrees. How will the treaty resolve this?
*If the U.S. ratifies the treaty and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf rules that Arctic riches belong to Russia, what does the U.S. do then?
*Where are the ethical guidelines and bodies to make sure that application "fees" provided to the International Seabed Authority (ISA) are not stolen?
*Who or what monitors ISA bureaucrats and employees to make sure bribes are not paid to them?
*Is there any limit on the amount of "fees" that can be charged?
*How much will these "fees" ultimately cost the American people?
*Why is there no provision for oversight of and financial disclosure by ISA bureaucrats?
*Why did the budget of the ISA double in just three years?
*Why did it take 6 years for the ISA to issue contracts for mineral exploration?
*Why hasn't the ISA yet issued regulations on exploring for oil and gas?
*Article 82 of the treaty provides for the U.S. and other coastal states to make payments to the ISA for Third World countries. How much will this cost us?
*The ISA and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea have formal relationship agreements with the U.N. What is the exact nature of this relationship?
*How much will the ISA cost theU.S. in "assessed" contributions?
*Why are so many members of the ISA not paying their "dues" to the organization?

Send these questions to YOUR Senator: www.usasurvival.org (http://www.usasurvival.org)

[dobman53]

Dear Friends: I thought I should put in my two cents worth. Does it not seem odd that both sides of the issue, and even those in between find themselves in favor on this treaty. One side favors the UN for it and it alone would favor their views in equal division of world assets, and see to it being done in a green fashion. The other side favors their right to invest and protect their assets. Even if it costs them a percentage they'll feel protected, and be willing to invest. Others will be in favor, if for know other reason than to simply sit back and let the checks come in. One thing that sticks in my craw is Bush giving up things concerning military issues. That leads me to bring up this thought. Back when Eisenhower assumed office he asked his team to bring him up on the then known facts of the USSR in order to set his polices. He was told of all the things they then new, but was warned he had to take them with a grain of salt. They went on to tell him they new of many things but were unable to verify most. Eisenhower still had fresh in his mind of Hitlers secret military projects, that all were shocked to later find out about. In order for him to verify then percieved things concerning the USSR they concieved of the U-2 spy plane. Here's the Kicker I'm leading up to!! they wanting to keep things so secret just as Germany had done they came up with the Need To Know Doctrine. This was to be a group so secret that not even future Presidents, Congess, or the Senate. be advised unless there was a need to know! The U-2 is of this group. The SU-71 blackbird the F-117 the B-2 all fall with in this secret program. Were not we all taken back when in 1982 the F-117s took out Panama? These were programs conceived in the 60s built on 70s technologys. If Bush had a need to know, and learned of certain things. He might not feel the least bit threatened by giving away millitary technologies and the like that are know to the public. Dear ELECT:: There is nothing wrong with loving one another, and to feel blessed by a Government that has kept our right to freedom of religion. Satan said let us choose whats right or wrong (will vote on it) I can't hold up Democracy as the answer to all problems.

[bluewater2]

Bottom line, it is gonna happen because it is right, the best way to go, and there is nothing that can be done about it and no better way to handle the ever shrinking world. And again, Aviyah, the cut and paste queen, aren't the senators elected by the people to represent them, so you call to have the people decide is a bit nieve and simplistic?

[dodge]

Aviyah, consider the source. The organization that you are getting your information from, America's Survival, Inc., is run by Cliff Kincaid, a right-wing critic of the United Nations and other multinational organizations. It is funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, a billionaire, newpaper publisher, who funds not only America's Survival, Inc., but other right-wing causes through the Scaife Foundations, which he controls. Kincaid and his organization represent an extreme point of view, and this should be taken into consideration when reading what they have to say. Educate yourselves, and listen to supporters of the United Nations Law of the Sea treaty also, in order to get a balanced perspective; like Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who says that comspiracy theories about the United Nations have hampered congressional progress on this issue.

I have told you in previous posts in this thread who the supporters are, too numerous to list again. Consider who they are, what they say; and then give the matter serious thought. Make an informed decision based on what you learn. After much research and thought, I consider myself a supporter.

I think the matter of the United Nations Law of the Sea convention has been discussed to its conclusion. We will just have to wait and see how Congress acts on it in the weeks to come. As for myself, I have written emails to my representatives urging them to vote in favor of this Convention. I hope you will do the same.

[aviyah]

Dodge,

I have read many of the articles in favor of the treaty as well as those opposed to it. I still think this is madness. Besides the fact that it is such a blatant sway towards socialism, how on God's green earth can anyone even suggest getting in deeper with the U.N.?

How can you possibly consider extending our obligations with the United Nations a good idea?

Neither you nor anyone else has yet to mention one beneficial function of the U.N.

Considering the oil-for-food fiasco, how can anyone in their right mind be in favor of ratification of this treaty?

Haven't you written before that you served this country in Vietnam? If so, how can you now be suggesting that all of those lives lost were in vain, as well as the lives lost in the Korean war? Were you even telling the truth about Vietnam?

AviYAH

[dodge]

Aviyah, I know that you and your fellow ShepChaps are on a campaign to demonize the United Nations, and all efforts at so-called “globalization,” as being some sort of satanic plot to take over the world in preparation for the anti-Christ and the Battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming. That’s fine, you have a right to believe Biblical prophecies, to believe that Satan and Eve had sex and gave birth to a demon seed race out to destroy Christians and enslave humanity. You have the right to believe that a secretive group is conspiring behind the scenes to create a “New World Order,” with the Masons and the Illuminati and reptilian extra-terrestrials, the Trilateral Commission, the Bildeberg Group, the CIA using black helicopters and MK-Ultra combined with UN troops and the National Guard to round up all Christians and them kill them for their beliefs. If that’s what you want to believe, it’s OK with me.

Meanwhile, in the real world of objective existance, I’ve said all I care to about the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention, and it’s up to individuals to make up their own minds. The vote in Congress for ratification is today, the 31st of October, I believe. Let’s just see what happens.

As far as my military service is concerned, I don’t see the connection. How does my support for the Law of the Sea Convention suggest that, as you say, all the lives lost in the Vietnam and Korean wars were for nothing? There is no logic, as far as I can see, in that statement. But, taking into consideration your illogical beliefs, that’s no surprise.

[aviyah]

*********************************************** ***
"Bottom line, it is gonna happen because it is right, the best way to go, and there is nothing that can be done about it and no better way to handle the ever shrinking world. And again, Aviyah, the cut and paste queen, aren't the senators elected by the people to represent them, so you call to have the people decide is a bit nieve and simplistic?" (Bluewater, 10/28/07)
*********************************************** ***

Don't make me cut and paste our Constitution Bluewater. You apparently are oblivious to the fact that all of our elected officials are supposed to be representing our wishes, not their own interests.

Those Senators in favor of ratification need to be asked to address these questions:

Questions for the U.S. Senate:
*If the treaty is so good, why is the U.S. attaching 24 declarations and understandings to it?
*These declarations and understandings will give rise to legal disputes with other nations, including China. What happens then?
*China says foreign ships and planes have to obtain permission before entering its 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone under the treaty. The U.S. disagrees. How will the treaty resolve this?
*If the U.S. ratifies the treaty and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf rules that Arctic riches belong to Russia, what does the U.S. do then?
*Where are the ethical guidelines and bodies to make sure that application "fees" provided to the International Seabed Authority (ISA) are not stolen?
*Who or what monitors ISA bureaucrats and employees to make sure bribes are not paid to them?
*Is there any limit on the amount of "fees" that can be charged?
*How much will these "fees" ultimately cost the American people?
*Why is there no provision for oversight of and financial disclosure by ISA bureaucrats?
*Why did the budget of the ISA double in just three years?
*Why did it take 6 years for the ISA to issue contracts for mineral exploration?
*Why hasn't the ISA yet issued regulations on exploring for oil and gas?
*Article 82 of the treaty provides for the U.S. and other coastal states to make payments to the ISA for Third World countries. How much will this cost us?
*The ISA and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea have formal relationship agreements with the U.N. What is the exact nature of this relationship?
*How much will the ISA cost theU.S. in "assessed" contributions?
*Why are so many members of the ISA not paying their "dues" to the organization?

Send these questions to YOUR Senator: www.senators.gov (http://www.senators.gov)

Thankfully the GOP is on top of this and it is NOT going to happen for now. I just think few Americans are even aware of this threat to our sovereignty. It's not exactly headline news. I am confident that more Americans would be opposed to giving more tax dollars to the United Nations for the purpose of funding nations that despise us, if only Americans were given the opportunity to know about it.

AviYAH

[dodge]

The Senate Foreign Ralations Committee voted today on the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty, and passed it by a vote of 17 to 4. The accord will now go to the full senate where it needs a two-thirds vote to win final approval.

The four dissenting votes were cast by: Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota); Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina); Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia); and Sen. David Vitter (R-Louisiana). They were outvoted by six committee Republicans and all eleven Democrats.

The Reagan-era objections were modified in 1994, and then President Clinton signed the Treaty. It has been signed or ratified by 155 nations, including the our closest allies and trading partners. It has been supported enthusiastically by Navy and Coast Guard leaders, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all previous secretaries of State and Defense, who argue that it would protect the nation's freedom of movement on the seas.

[stage_director]

QUOTE
*China says foreign ships and planes have to obtain permission before entering its 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone under the treaty. The U.S. disagrees. How will the treaty resolve this?
END QUOTE

Where exactly is the zone, Abi? Do you know?

[dodge]

Part V, Article 59, of the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention: "Basis for the resolution of conflicts regarding the attribution of rights and jurtisdiction in the exlusive economic zone:"

"In cases where this Convention does not attribute rights or jurisdiction to the coastal State or to other States within the exclusive economic zone, and a conflict arises between the interests of the coastal State and any other State or States, the conflict should be resolved on the basis of equity and in the light of all relevant circumstances, taking into account the respective importance of the interests involved to the parties as well as to the international community as as whole."

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm

[stage_director]

Thanks, Dodge. I haven't followed this thread very closely. Is what China calls it's "Exclusive Economic Zone" it's coastal waters, some area around Taiwan, for instance ... or something else?

[dodge]

According to the U.N., China's "exclusive economic zone" is "an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea of the People's Republic of China extending to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured." This economic zone includes the water, the seabed and the subsoil. I know very little about how this relates to Taiwan, though I know that China considers Taiwan as part of their territory. With a recent report that the East China Sea may contain up to 100 billion barrels of oil, ownership of this area is contested between China, Japan and Taiwan. It is much too complex for me to comment on. All of this will be handled by the United Nations within the Law of the Sea Treaty, where the international community will decide.

[dobman53]

When I think about a progressive UN international community deciding how the division of world assets will be desided. Lord help us! Now true enough I do see things from a biblical stand point. With that said, pushing all aside just from a intellectual stand point. I can't help but think, we in the US are going to be pointed at as the, money hungry, power grabbing scourge of the world. Any proposals we bring forth will be dealt a heavy blow. If for no other reason than they might feel we owe them, because from there point of view we've been stealing THEIR!! world assets all along. They will all to soon forget when ever a world disaster has ever struck, they have all, each and every one of them, cried for the US to save them. With the thoughts of unearned power, and free money to boot this power will never be relinquished. We might later decide to have no part of this treaty, but it will be to late. We against this one world system is something we shall never overcome. Something similar is now happening with Google and Scientology. Namely concerning big time lawsuits againts all who disagree!! Can you sort of feel the ground begin to shake? It's only just begun, and when they all feel the shaking and begin to trimble. That one person makes his appearance. It's to bad for they will all be exalting OH SUSANNA!!

[dobman53]

When I think about a progressive UN international community deciding how the division of world assets will be desided. Lord help us! Now true enough I do see things from a biblical stand point. With that said, pushing all aside just from a intellectual stand point. I can't help but think, we in the US are going to be pointed at as the, money hungry, power grabbing scourge of the world. Any proposals we bring forth will be dealt a heavy blow. If for no other reason than they might feel we owe them, because from there point of view we've been stealing THEIR!! world assets all along. They will all to soon forget when ever a world disaster has ever struck, they have all, each and every one of them, cried for the US to save them. With the thoughts of unearned power, and free money to boot this power will never be relinquished. We might later decide to have no part of this treaty, but it will be to late. We against this one world system is something we shall never overcome. Something similar is now happening with Google and Scientology. Namely concerning big time lawsuits againts all who disagree!! Can you sort of feel the ground begin to shake? It's only just begun, and when they all feel the shaking and begin to trimble. That one person makes his appearance. It's to bad for they will all be exalting OH SUSANNA!!

[bluewater2]

Aviyah, the senators were elected by the people and if the people don't like the fact that they are ratifying this treaty, the people can wise up and vote them out. Period.

Your conspiracy paranoia rings hollow. There needs to be an international agreement to manage the worlds assets and it will happen. I suggest you get used to it and get involved in the details of how it is constructed, not speak out against the concept.

With America needing so many assets that are in the territories of other countries, and these other countries are starting to realize the power that this has over us, we are at their mercy. America has been such a colonizing force on the planet for all too long and payback will suck, but that is the way it is. America needs to get used to the idea that the international community really doesn't like us that much, and for good reason.

We need to do a little more leading by example before we try to tell the rest of the world what they can and cannot do.

Isn't there something in your bible about taking the log out of your own eye before that of another?

[dodge]

New York Times editorial, 31 OCT 07:

On one side of the issue lies a coalition of odd but powerful political bedfellows: President Bush, the environmental community, the military, the oil, shipping and fishing industries and the top Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. On the other side lies a handful of cranky right-wingers. Yet the issue — Senate ratification of the Law of the Sea — remains unsettled, just as it has been for a quarter of a century.

The United Nations approved the Law of the Sea in 1982. It governs uses of the world’s oceans, establishing ground rules for everything from navigation to deep seabed mining. It is all fairly common-sensical stuff, but for years opponents have charged that the treaty threatens American sovereignty. And for years, Senate leaders have decided that it is not worth the fight.

Now it most certainly is. The steady retreat of the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean — caused largely by global warming — has opened up an inaccessible part of the world to shipping and potentially vast deposits of oil, natural gas and mineral resources. This, in turn, has touched off a scramble among nations to determine who owns what on the ocean floor. Unless the United States ratifies the treaty, it will not have a seat at the table when it comes time to sort out competing claims.

There are many other reasons besides oil and gas to ratify this worthy document, not least the fact that it would allow the United States to play a leadership role on a whole range of global ocean issues, including overfishing and pollution. But the possibility of losing out on some major underseas discoveries at a time when oil is approaching $100 a barrel should make even the most reluctant senators take notice.

[aviyah]

LOST at Sea
The Law of the Sea Treaty threatens American sovereignty.

By John Fonte

"Will Americans rule themselves or be ruled by others — this is to be a great question of the 21st century. An opening scene is currently being played out in the U.S. Senate concerning international courts and supranational institutions.

The Bush administration and the leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are pushing ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS or LOST). The U.N. convention established a transnational institution, the International Seabed Authority, to regulate maritime activities for over 70 percent of the earth’s surface.

Supporters contend that it is in America’s interests to join. The core argument is that we need “a seat at the table” to influence the rules. Thus, Sen. Richard Lugar (R., Ind.) declares, “we are allowing decisions that will affect our Navy, our ship operators, our off-shore industries . . . to be made without U.S. representation.” Most important, the supporters insist, is that sovereignty and security decisions remain in American hands.

Let us examine the details. Under UNCLOS, disputes between the United States and other parties are settled by “mandatory” (i.e., forced) arbitration. The final decisions are made either by a permanent International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg or by an ad-hoc court. The Hamburg tribunal consists of 21 judges chosen by member nations, many of them unfriendly to the United States. An ad-hoc court would consist of five judges, two chosen by the U.S., two chosen by the other party. The crucial fifth judge is chosen either by the secretary general of the United Nations or the Hamburg tribunal. The decisions are “final” and “binding” with no appeal.

International-law professor Jeremy Rabkin points out that when the Cambodian communists seized the USS Mayaguez in Cambodian waters in 1975, President Ford responded with military force to rescue American sailors and free the ship. He notes this type of action would be problematic under UNCLOS. For example, if a treaty signatory (e.g., China, Burma) seized a U.S. ship in its home waters, under the terms of Law of the Sea Treaty, the U.S. could not free her sailors by force, but would have to submit to mandatory arbitration by the Hamburg tribunal or an ad-hoc court, where the U.S. could very likely lose the case. In any event, vital decisions over American security and American lives would not be made by Americans, but by foreign judges, many of them unsympathetic to American interests (coming as they often do from third-world regimes or EU legal elites)."

CONTINUED...

[aviyah]

"Supporters argue that member states can claim an exemption from binding arbitration for “military activities.” In addition, they point out that the U.S. will attach a special “understandings” to the treaty stating that any interpretation of what constitutes “military activities” will be “defined by the United States.”

However, the treaty explicitly forbids any “reservations” by a ratifying member state on substantive issues, and the special “understandings” that the Bush administration plans to add with our ratification will not fly. Under UNCLOS, the Hamburg judges will ultimately decide what is and is not a “military activity.”

For example, the U.S. could issue an “understanding” that intelligence-gathering against China is a legitimate “military activity,” but the transnational judges would have the last word. What is going to happen when an international tribunal rules against the U.S. and in favor of China in a naval dispute? Is a American administration going to suddenly withdraw from UNCLOS and alienate the so-called “international community”? Unlikely.

A phalanx of serious defenders of American sovereignty have risen to oppose LOST. Many are former Reagnauts including Edwin Meese, William Clark, John Lehman, John Bolton, and the indefatigable organizer, Frank Gaffney, Political opposition is growing. Senators Vitter (La.), Inhofe (Ok.), DeMint (S.C.), Kyl (Ariz.), Sessions (Ala.), Ensign (Nev.), Lott (Miss.), Cornyn (Tex.) and McConnell (Ky.) and Presidential candidates Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter have denounced the Treaty. John McCain said he “would probably vote against it.” Mitt Romney says that he “has concerns” about the treaty “giving unaccountable international institutions more power.”

Retired (and therefore free to speak his mind) admiral James “Ace” Lyons (former Pacific Fleet commander) declared that it is was “inconceivable” why the “Senate would willingly want to forfeit its responsibility for America’s freedom of the seas to . . . [an] unaccountable international agency.” At the philosophical level, Admiral Lyons speaks for the “warrior ethic” that is currently battling with the “lawyer ethic” for the soul of Navy (and the other armed services).

Indeed, the essential arguments of treaty supporters are pure international lawyerese —we are told that UNCLOS will somehow “guarantee” our maritime rights. Meanwhile the State Department would have a seat at the table with 155 other nations in a “one nation–one vote” situation at the International Seabed Authority. We would have as much influence as we do in the U.N. General Assembly, where we are constantly outvoted.

The ultimate question of democratic politics is who “decides.” If LOST is ratified, the “deciders” will be foreign courts, not American elected leaders. At the deeper level, the battle over the Law of the Sea Treaty is another round in what promises to be a century-long conflict over the meaning of democratic decision-making between the forces of American self-government and the supporters of “global governance,” the so-called “transnational progressives.”

— John Fonte is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

[aviyah]

Dodge,

*********************************************** ***
"Aviyah, I know that you and your fellow ShepChaps are on a campaign to demonize the United Nations, and all efforts at so-called “globalization,” as being some sort of satanic plot to take over the world in preparation for the anti-Christ and the Battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming." (Dodge, 10/31/07)
*********************************************** ***

I fail to see what opposition to this treaty or a disdain for the U.N. has to do with Shepherd's Chapel! This comment from you just confirms what I thought before. If an SC student said the sky was blue, someone like yourself would spend a bizarre amount of time trying to prove that it is not.

Pastor Murray does not preach about the U.N. and, as far as I know, has never commented publicly on this treaty.

As an American, I feel the American public should be aware of this. It's kind of a big deal! It will have far reaching consequences for this whole nation. Sadly CNN is far too busy reporting on celebrity custody battles and our "Planet in Peril". Yes we're in peril all right. But I think our Constitution is in more immediate danger than the polar bears right now!

The Korean and Vietnam wars took the wind out of Communism's sails. It is pitiful that a veteran cannot understand the value in that.

I notice you have nothing to say in regards to the oil-for-food scandal, orchestrated by the U.N. I'm not surprised. There is no defending it is there?

AviYAH

[aviyah]

*********************************************** ***
"Your conspiracy paranoia rings hollow." (Bluewater, 10/31/07)
*********************************************** ***


News flash Bluewater...In case you are unaware paranoia is characterized as, having delusions. This is neither a paranoia or a conspiracy theory. I know it's hard to believe but it really is happening.


*********************************************** ***
"America has been such a colonizing force on the planet for all too long and payback will suck, but that is the way it is. America needs to get used to the idea that the international community really doesn't like us that much, and for good reason." (Bluewater, 10/31/07)
*********************************************** ***


A colonizing force??? Whatever Bluewater. Where exactly are all of these colonies we rotten Americans are oppressing? What a stupid comment! America has liberated more human being than any other nation in the history of the world!!! Why do you think we are having this illegal alien crisis? Everybody wants in dork!!!


*********************************************** ***
"America has been such a colonizing force on the planet for all too long and payback will suck, but that is the way it is. America needs to get used to the idea that the international community really doesn't like us that much, and for good reason. (Bluewater, 10/31/07)
*********************************************** ***

You sir are a traitor. You should be arrested for treason. But you won't because of that U.S. Constitution which you have no regard for. I'll tell you what Bluewater, since America is sooooo horrible, why don't you move to Cuba, or Russia, or China.

I have an even better idea! You should grace Iran with your all knowing arrogant presence. Then join a public internet forum and declare that Allah is a figment of the imagination and humanity evolved from bacteria. Please do this Bluewater. Please! Put yourself and this great nation out of our misery!!!

Reap what you sow, AviYAH

[stage_director]

QUOTE
However, the treaty explicitly forbids any “reservations” by a ratifying member state on substantive issues, and the special “understandings” that the Bush administration plans to add with our ratification will not fly. Under UNCLOS, the Hamburg judges will ultimately decide what is and is not a “military activity.”

For example, the U.S. could issue an “understanding” that intelligence-gathering against China is a legitimate “military activity,” but the transnational judges would have the last word. What is going to happen when an international tribunal rules against the U.S. and in favor of China in a naval dispute? Is a American administration going to suddenly withdraw from UNCLOS and alienate the so-called “international community”? Unlikely
END QUOTE

Hummmmm ... While I believe the US should take some lessons in world diplomacy, and I don't subscribe to most of the so called conspiracy plots by supposed unseen powers ... I don't support global governance or the US giving up it's sovereignty to world courts or outside governing bodies. I think the UN's role should be more one of mediation and cooperative peace keeping efforts, and that, yes ... we who have more should be helping those nations who can't help themselves. Personally, I think trying to absorb America (or China or Russia or Brazil or ...) with a huge one world sponge is in itself a type of genocide. I believe the thought behind our original relationship to the world was the best one ... "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses (your oppressed, your religiously/politically persecuted) yearning to breathe free."

[stage_director]

QUOTE
*************************************************A merica has been such a colonizing force on the planet for all too long and payback will suck, but that is the way it is. America needs to get used to the idea that the international community really doesn't like us that much, and for good reason. (Bluewater, 10/31/07)
*********************************************** *

You sir are a traitor. You should be arrested for treason. But you won't because of that U.S. Constitution which you have no regard for. I'll tell you what Bluewater, since America is sooooo horrible, why don't you move to Cuba, or Russia, or China.
END QUOTE

How is he a traitor for sharing his assessment? We were a colonizing force. How do you think we acquired this nation? Somebody else was here first. He's also right, imo, that the international community has many valid reasons for hating us. However ... I don't believe "payback" is ever the answer, although it often tends to be the end result. Knowing that your country has made mistakes is not being a traitor. What's the quote? "Those who do not learn the lessons of History are doomed to repeat it."

[aviyah]

I don't care what you think Rage Director. You are a mamby pamby.

Bluewater is saying its about time that we Americans suffer, as if our anscestors didn't sweat blood to get us here!

Sure Bluebell has a right to speak his mind, as do I. I think he is an idiot and a traitor. I think Bluewater should run to one of these United Nations third world cursed nations that despise our existance yet who's own people are banging down the doors to get in here.

And no America does not have colonies either. Europeans established colonies here and people from all over the globe flocked here in droves for a very good reason-Democracy!

Reap what you sow dissenters,

AviYAH

[dodge]

Aviyah, you said that “The Korean and Vietnam wars took the wind out of Communism’s sails.” First of all, what does Communism have to do with the United Nation’s Law of the Sea Treaty? Where is the connection? Secondly, the Vietnam War took the sails out of the United States military, not Communism. Let me give you a history lesson. The United States sent troops to prevent the South Vietnamese government from collapsing. After ten years, the death of more than 58,000 Americans, another 304,000 wounded, 3 to 4 million Vietnamese on both sides killed, and ten years of combat, the U.S. failed to achieve its goal, and in 1975 Vietnam was reunified under Communist control, becoming the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. How did that, as you say, “Take the wind out of Communism?”

[dobman53]

Dodge: this wind that Aviyah speaks of is their thinking they can freely do as they please!(that being comunism) Not so easy after all! We did in both instances, that being Korea, and Vietnam not completely finish the job! In Korea had we listened to McCarther there would now be no worry about Korean Nukes. In Vietnam we were chased out by liberal protesters, where then liberal Congressmen beat up on their own, as well as conservatives to get us out. We left and millions soon perished! This Liberal progressive thought structure divides and conquers. The weak, the strong, the uninformed. Liberal progressives think they are so intellectual, and know so much, they simply have to do as they do, in order to save us all from our own ignorance! So on they go with such heady thoughts, for ever believing they are correct, and no matter what the evidence brought before them they look at it with suspicion, thinking well if I didn't think of it, it has to be wrong. One thing will all be a wittness to is that God did not give us the ability to rule ourselves. Through out the ages all forms of self governance have ben tried, and failed. This last attempt at a truly world government will like the rest fail, and Messiah will then come. AMEN!

[dodge]

Dobman, could you define what "liberal progressive thought structure" is? What group of people are you thinking of when you use this term?

[dobman53]

Dodge; Basically the far left in general, I have democrat friends. We may argue once in awhile, but not much. I find most in general have the same goals, just different ways to achieve them! The far left is a dangerous thing, and I find more and more of my liberal friends being smitten by such tatics. Thinking to just over look the rotten tatics is okay! And then except the end results as being Democratic.

[dodge]

Thanks, Dobman, but that still doesn't clear it up for me. What are some of these "rotten tactics" that you speak of; and who, among current Washington politicians, are part of this "far left?"

[dobman53]

Dodge: these tactic of which I speak are, oh! lets pick one. How about presenting as fact and subposedly backed by scientist that building number 7 imploded on 9/11. Ring a bell by chance. Or how about global worming sayed now to be 100% backed up by all scientist as man caused. Dodge Astronomy is one of my hobies. Thats what Dobman is about. Dobs are the largest telescopes available to the general public. In my observing from years ago I noticed the polar caps on Mars were shrinking!!! The latest theory that never gets heard on T-V. Is that sun spots on the sun have increased. Sunspots you may ask what has that to do with anything? Well the deal is these sunspot as they are refured to are actually deep holes in the suns surface. The suns surface temperature is about 12000 degrees. these holes in the surface let out heat from below the surface where temperatures are in the millions of degrees. Thusly Mars's polar caps are melting as well as Earths. Bet you didn't know that now did ya! But alas I know the tatic I'm a stupid God fearing man who just made that up to impress someone! I tell you in all honesty thats this progressives tatic to critisize all they know nothing about!!!!!!!!!

[dodge]

Dobman, what does all this have to do with an "intellectual liberal progressive thought structure" that you spoke of, and the "far left?" The examples that you gave me have more to do with the lunatic fringe, those who are involved in conspiracy theories.

Who is it that says that all scientists back up the claim that global warming is caused by man? What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

Sunspots? The polar caps on Mars are melting? What are you talking about? I was attempting to understand what you meant by a "liberal progressive thought structure" that you say "divides and conquors." You sound a bit unfocused there, Dobman. Been hittin' the bong?

[stage_director]

QUOTE
I don't care what you think Rage Director. You are a mamby pamby.
END QUOTE

You're such an immature individual, and it shows by the way you hysterically go off the deep end anytime someone disagrees with you. You need to seriously grow up if you're going to "try" to debate those of other opinions, or else confine yourself to those who share all the same views as yourself.

[dobman53]

Dodge: No bongs here my friend. Granted my sentence structure is flawed, but my words are true. What I Was saying concerned many different matters true enough, yet all relate to the same nature. Have not some of the political concern on this treaty revolved around the unquestioned truths of global warming. What I was saying about the ice caps melting on both the Earth as well as Mars is that not all truths lead to man being the sole factor. AL GORE says it's undeniably 100% scientifically proven hydocarbons are the cause. (GAS POWERED SUV's) rings a common bell! This progressive thought patern is, believe as I say or else! Dodge let me tell you a little story. I once new a man who often said if you give him any trouble he would sick his wife on you. She was represented to us, that she was a big time lawyer. What he was saying was give me trouble and I'll see you in court. Often as not this tactic worked. Some time later he said his wife had retired and she would be drawing her full salary as retirement. That in it's self seemed strange to me for lawyers are seldom involved with such retirements. Later we found out she was only the secretary to a lawyer. Some represent themselves far above their credentials. Dodge if I'm still not giving you the answer which you desire, Take a pill, and give your arguement. I'm a one fingered typer and for me to try and answer the same question over and over again untill I fall into your trap goes old!

[dodge]

I think YOU should retire, Dobman. You are ill-equipped to argue your point...whatever that is. Your vague generalities about some imagined "far left" conspiracy involving "liberal progressive thought structure" using "rotten tactics" are sinking rapidly beneath the sea of ineptitude. Perhaps you best file a claim uner the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty and see if they can ressurect your sunken thought structure.

[dobman53]

Dodge I Know you can't help but feel so superior. It's in the bones of all those who are progressive. I know you just want to save me from my stupitity, but I'll manage, I promise!

[dodge]

Alrighty then.

[dobman53]

Dodge: I'm shuting down for the evening until later my friend.

[stage_director]

QUOTE
I think YOU should retire, Dobman. You are ill-equipped to argue your point...whatever that is.
END QUOTE

Hummmmm, I dunno about that, Dodge. I agree some of his comments are a bit enigmatic, but I think Dob manages to maintain a pretty decent attitude ... so what he has to say doesn't get unnecessarily lost in distractions and nastiness. That makes someone like me more willing to listen to his point, and being heard is half the debate. Anyway, I think he does alright for himself. Besides, in this arena there's a lot to be said for, uhh, not "sounding as brass" ... IMO :-)

[aviyah]

The Maritime Sentry
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever." Thomas Jefferson

Monday, October 22, 2007
AIM Blows Lid Off U.N. Corruption Case - Law of Sea Treaty at Center of Scandal

October 18, 2007

WASHINGTON, October 18, 2007 -- Through an exclusive interview with a United Nations whistleblower, Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid has uncovered shocking allegations of corruption at the highest levels of the International Seabed Authority, one of the main institutions created by the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty. The treaty is up for Senate ratification and could be voted on next week. Ratification would authorize the payment of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to the controversial U.N. bureaucracy.

Nithi Sam-Thambiah, a former senior staffer in the International Seabed Authority (ISA), tells Kincaid that he was fired for uncovering improper financial payments to top officials, including ISA Secretary-General Satya Nandan. Sam-Thambiah also tells Kincaid that he is willing to testify before the Senate about this corruption and will provide documentary evidence proving his charges.

He explains that, "…because of my capacity as chief of finance and administration, I had a better idea of what was going on and the payments that were being made. I was in an advantageous position because I saw the money coming in and where the money was going. And when I started looking into it, management got very uncomfortable."

Kincaid is urging the media to cover the allegations of corruption before the treaty is voted on and the U.S. finds itself subsidizing another U.N. bureaucracy mired in another financial scandal. He is also urging the American people to contact the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and their individual Senators as soon as possible so that a hearing can be held into the charges of fraud and mismanagement at the ISA.

Further details of Kincaid's interview with Sam-Thambiah are available in his report, "Blowing the Whistle on U.N. Corruption."

[dodge]

US SENATE MOVES ON UNCLOS RATIFICATION

THE US Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the UN Law of Sea Convention , sending it to the full Senate for ratification. A statement issued by Foreign Relations Committee Republican leader Dick Lugar said he encouraged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to schedule floor consideration as quickly as possible. Senator Lugar told the committee: “The United States faces intensifying national security and economic costs if we continue to absent ourselves from the Law of the Sea. If we fail to ratify this treaty, we are allowing decisions that will affect our Navy, our ship operators, our off-shore industries, and other maritime interests to be made without U.S. representation. Our ability to claim exclusive right to the vast extended continental shelf will be seriously impeded. We will also be forced to rely on other nations to oppose excessive claims to Arctic territory by Russia and perhaps others.” He went on to detail how the US would continue to lose out if it did not sign up tot he now 25-year old treaty. He dismissed worries about the binding arbitration provisions of UNLCOS.

He said: “Opponents of the treaty have bemoaned the binding arbitration involved in this Convention as if it were the first time they have ever encountered it. Yet, binding dispute resolution mechanisms are a common feature of many of our international agreements, and virtually every sitting Senator has voted for or acceded to the passage of treaties and agreements that have included it.”

(Maritime Global Net, 2 NOV 07)

http://www.mgn.com/news/dailystorydetails.cfm?storyid=8238

[dodge]

Richard Lugar,senior U.S. Senator from Indiana, went on to say,

"In an era when our growing energy vulnerability exposes us to the machinations of oil-rich states, we will be constraining the opportunities of our own energy companies to explore beyond the 200-mile limit,"
"Further, In time of war, we will be dismissing more than a decade of impassioned advocacy from fleet commanders, CNOs, and the Joint Chiefs who have told us that U.S. participation in the Treaty will help them operate on the oceans and maintain navigational rights more effectively and with less risk to the men and women they command," Lugar said.

"Deliberately imposing a posture of U.S. impotence relative to our rivals in ocean affairs would be an extraordinary choice for the Senate to make, particularly when there is no credible alternative to the Law of the Sea," he added. "Unlike some treaties, such as the Kyoto Agreement and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, where U.S. non-participation renders the treaty virtually irrelevant or inoperable, the Law of the Sea will continue to form the basis of maritime law regardless of whether the U.S. is a party. International decisions related to resource exploitation, navigation rights, and other matters will be made in the context of the treaty whether we join or not."

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009026688

[dodge]

Credit the Arctic meltdown for the recent thawing of resistance to the Law of the Sea Convention in the U.S. Senate.

The prospect that the global ice cap could disappear in a few decades has triggered a land rush by Russia, Canada, Denmark and the United States. In recent months, all of these Arctic-bordering nations have launched various initiatives aimed at staking claim to the thousands of square miles of Arctic seabed and the immense deposits of oil, gas and other resources that lie beneath it.

But the United States is at a disadvantage in this international competition. Unlike 155 other nations, the United States is not party to the Law of the Sea Convention, which sets rules and resolves disputes over navigation, fishing, deep seabed mining and other economic development.

Among its many vital functions, the convention establishes 12-mile boundaries for national jurisdictions over coastal waters and 200-mile economic zones. The United Nations approved the treaty in 1982, but the U.S. Senate refused to ratify it because of objections to provisions governing deep-sea drilling.

(continued)

[dodge]

Those provisions subsequently were rewritten to address U.S. concerns. But opponents, led at first by former Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and, more recently, Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., have blocked ratification. They have alleged, without justification, that the treaty would impair American sovereignty by subjecting U.S. military and economic interests to a hostile international bureaucracy.

The critics are still busy dropping depth charges, but they’re outnumbered by treaty supporters, including President Bush, the environmental community, fishing interests, the oil and gas industry, the shipping industry, the state Department and the U.S. military.
The Law of the Sea convention will provide the forum for determining which claims prevail in the Arctic. Nations can claim territory and mineral deposits outside their 200-mile economic zone, provided they can prove the seabed is an extension of the same continental shelf. Nations also must agree to rules governing drilling, mining, fishing, navigation and protection of the marine environment.

The United States should ratify the treaty and set an example by protecting the region and not rushing to exploit its vast oil resources. It’s hard to miss the irony of the recent mad scramble for fossil fuels in the Arctic at a time the ice cap is melting because of global warming.

The Arctic’s reserves, estimated to hold 25 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil, should be left underground for now so it’s there in the not-so-distant future when existing reserves start to run dry. By the time that happens, new technologies should enable the oil to be drilled and transported from frigid depths with a reduced risk of spills.
The Law of the Sea has provided an effective framework for resolving claims over ocean territory and mineral resources — and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recognized its importance by voting 17-4 Wednesday to approve the treaty.

Now, the full Senate should ratify this treaty and make certain the United States has a seat at the table when it comes time to carve up that rapidly liquefying region known as the Arctic.

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=15302&amp;sid=1&amp;layou t=Default

[watchman_2]

This LOST is more mumble-jumble from the socialist left [including President Bush -- whom is no conservative]. It is all about gutting the American taxpayer and reducing American influence over the oceans.

There is nothing that our resident socialist, dodge, has presented that would indicate that American interests over the oceans will be preserved ahead of all other nations. It is clear that the U.S. will only have one vote out of many instead of a 51% minimum majority interest/vote in all matters associated with LOST. Yet, like all other UN actions, Americans bear a brunt of the costs.

The fact is that free-market interests, along with a strong military, resolve all of the issues associated with the oceans. Those free-market enterprises that have the ability to extract the resources under the oceans, and have the gov't military support to protect such interests, rule the ocean.

Currently, the US has the technology and ability to best extract such resources. It is in all American's best interests that we not share such wealth with other nations -- nor with any corrupt UN organization.

[dodge]

Watchman, you invoke the phrase “socialist left” and “mumble-jumble” to describe supporters of the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (Treaty Doc. 103-39), including President Bush. What about Admiral Thad Allen, the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard, who holds a Masters Degree from George Washington University and another Masters Degree from MIT? He stated that "The convention greatly enhances our ability to protect the American public as well as our efforts to protect and manage fishery resources and to protect the marine environment. From the Coast Guard's perspective, we can best maintain a public order of the oceans through a universally accepted law of the sea treaty that preserves and promotes critical U.S. national interests." Is Admiral Allen a member of your so-called “socialist left” who speaks “mumble-jumble?”

Then there is Admiral Vernon E. Clark, who was the Chief of Naval Operations in the U.S. Navy, a highly decorated officer with the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Navy Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, and so many others that it would take up too much space to list. He states that “The Convention supports U.S. efforts in the war on terrorism…while leaving unaffected intelligence collection activities. Further threats will likely emerge in places and ways that are not yet known. For these and other as yet unknown operational challenges, we must be able to take maximum advantage of the established navigational rights codified in the Law of the Sea Convention to get us to the fight rapidly.”

Is Sen. Joe Biden (D-Delaware) a socialist, Watchman, for saying “Do we join a treaty that establishes a framework to advance the rule of law ... or do we remain on the outside, to the detriment of our national interests.”

Is Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) speaking “mumble-jumble,” Watchman, when he said “If we fail to ratify this treaty, we are allowing decisions that will affect our Navy, our ship operators, our offshore industries and other maritime interests to be made without U.S. representation,:” and “We will also be forced to rely on other nations to oppose excessive claims to Arctic territory by Russia and perhaps others?”

The White House urges the Senate to approve the treaty along with senior Pentagon officials endorsing it, saying it would give legal clarity to U.S. naval operations. The oil and gas industry says failure to ratify could put it at a disadvantage in sovereignty disputers over Arctic continental shelf areas that may hold one quarter of the world’s undiscovered oil and natural gas.

As Vice-Admiral John G. Morgan Jr., deputy Chief of Naval Operations, said, ratifying the treaty would “give us treaty-based rights to restore order in the maritime realm.”

Forget all this anti-UN conspiracy mumble-jumble and wake up to the realities of today’s world. Support the Law of the Sea Convention and get your representatives to ratify this treaty whose time has come.

[watchman_2]

dodge,

When I refer to the 'socialist left', I am not restricting such to only those affilitated with the Democratic Party. The term includes many Republicans -- including President Bush. A perfect example of his socialist tendencies was his position on the so-called immigration bill that was shot down by the American people.

All Democrats, either wittingly or unwittingly, are socialists. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for Satan. Many Republicans, especially neo-cons, are socialists as well -- they believe that government knows best on certain issues. The neo-cons' socialist view is just not as intrusive as the Democrats' socialist view.

So, you can parade out any number of names you like -- it does not change the fact that LOST is a socialist collaboration. It is designed to curtail American interests over the oceans and to gut the American taxpayer [again]. [Why else do you think that the great President Reagan was against it?]

For those of you that pay income tax, you should be alarmed at this treaty. By voicing approval for this treaty, you are authorizing the U.N. to tax you without limits and without direct representation.

For those of you that believe the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, you should be alarmed at this treaty. Ratification of this treaty would subordinate the U.S., and all citizens thereof, to U.N. authority over essential resources that maintain the American way of life. Those resources, undoubtedly, will become more expensive, not cheaper, to obtain.

Our national interests are best maintained by a strong military -- not the U.N. and its corruption.

[aviyah]

Dodge,

If we sign this treaty and join the Convention, here is how I understand it would effect the U.S. when mining the seabed:

If an American company, say like Exxon, wanted to drill at a particular site, Exxon would have to pay the "Enterprise" (one of the 3 new U.N. bureacracies) 250,000.00 for the privilege of being able to mine in the seabed.

Exxon would then have to come up with two sites where it would be profitable to drill. Exxon would present this info to "the Enterprise" and they would determine which of the 2 sites Exxon would be permitted to drill at.

Exxon would have to hand over a certain percentage of all of their profits from that site to the Enterprise.

In addition to that, Exxon would have to pay for all the equipment, research, and all other expenses in order for the second site to be drilled. The Enterprise would keep ALL the profits from that second site and distribute the wealth "to less fortunate 3rd world nations" (code words for do whatever they choose with it).

Now do you understand why I think of this as a Communist way to go? This is a way of redistributing wealth, taking it from those that can and will go get it and (in theory) handing it over to the poorer 3rd world nations, that for what ever reasons, would never have been able to amass this wealth on their own.

We could argue for an eternity as to why these 3rd world nations would never amass the wealth on their own. Maybe it's just because they're poor and couldn't afford the equipment or couldn't afford to pay a labor force to do it. Then on the other hand, maybe the nation is poor because their leaders are corrupt and bleed the general population dry of any and all their wealth.

The point is, none of this matters because the funds first have to pass through the hands of U.N. bureaucrats and from that point we can kiss the funds good-bye anyway.

What is stopping Exxon now from drilling anywhere within our own territory? Nothing. Do you see how this cuts the American company's profit by more than 50%? And of coarse the Enterprise is going to keep the site which looks to be more profitable for their own. Then to add insult to injury, Exxon has to foot the bill for that site to be mined as well and sees none of that profit.

This is Communism to the nth degree. Borgese, the woman that originally dreamed up this convention and treaty spoke openly and unashamedly of her admiration for Karl Marx and a Communist society.

I cannot understand how anyone could possibly be in favor of this idea no matter which angle you look at it from. How exactly would this give us greater security either? Keep in mind that the U.N. has been around for 50 years or so and was well established, with headquarters LOCATED in New York City when 9/11 occurred!!! It is preposterous to think that an association with the U.N. would some how make our Navy safer.

[stage_director]

lol I don't know that Exxon is the best example considering it's outrageous profit margin, but if your case scenario is potentially correct ... then it does sound like it's based upon the tenets of Socialism, even Communism to a degree.

The United Nations cannot offer any more security to the world than the sum of the number of soldiers "donated" to it by the nations that support it. Right now there are around 100,000 UN Peacekeepers, Military Police and other Uniformed Personnel ... with the United States already contributing over 25% of the entire operating budget for the operations, including training and deployment of soldiers. If the UN did assist the US with security measures it would be at our own expense.

I don't see what the UN can do for us that we can't do for ourselves ... Well, except in the areas of mediation and arbitration. We're really not very good at that ...

[watchman_2]

Exxon's profit margin is irrelevant -- it will be maintained even after LOST. The added costs of operation if LOST is ratified will be passed thru to American consumer.

[stage_director]

Sweetie ... the profit any company makes on a product we can't do without is always relevant.

[aviyah]

Law of the Sea Treaty on Fast Track to Ratification
By Lt. Col. Oliver North

Washington, D.C. — In his 2004 State of the Union Address, President Bush said, “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.”

Members of both parties and Houses of Congress applauded. But if the U.S. Senate votes to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea — known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or its appropriate acronym, LOST — he and his successors are going to need lots of permission slips.

In 1982, Ronald Reagan, concerned about the treaty’s implications for our sovereignty and national security, formally rejected LOST because it did “not satisfy the objectives sought by the United States.” In 1994, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, anxious to appease One World Government advocates in his own party and at the United Nations, negotiated a parallel “Agreement” that purported to address Mr. Reagan’s concerns — and urged ratification. Since then, LOST has gathered dust in the bowels of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. All that may be about to change. The deeply flawed, Soviet-era agreement giving unelected, unaccountable international bureaucrats control over 71 percent of the Earth’s surface is now on a fast track to ratification.

Advocates for LOST — among them Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden (D-Del.) — claim that the Clinton-negotiated parallel “Agreement” eliminates concerns about empowering international organizations to collect heavy fees or interfere with U.S. military or intelligence collection. Yet, a careful reading of LOST’s 202 pages — and the so-called “Agreement” — proves that’s not true.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has already created a Byzantine array of international organizations to administer the provisions of LOST. Everything from compliance with global environmental agreements, to the collection of “User Fees” from private companies, to disputes over military operations above, on or under international waters are subject to mandatory dispute resolution by one or more of these international bodies.

According to the U.N., the purpose of LOST is to preserve international waters for “peaceful purposes.” But Articles 19 and 20 of the treaty would proscribe the U.S. Navy from training with weapons, collecting intelligence or interfering with enemy communications in the territorial waters of other states without their expressed permission. Military aircraft are specifically prohibited from taking off and landing in these waters, and severe limitations would be imposed on loading and unloading “any commodity, currency or person” including military equipment. Submarines are required to travel on the surface and “show their flag in territorial waters.” Article 30 states that warships not complying with the laws of a coastal nation can be forced to leave. Disputes over these issues would be adjudicated by international lawyers. Right.

CONTINUED...

[aviyah]

LOST’s proponents discount these concerns by claiming the U.S. will simply exempt “military activities” from the treaty’s compulsory dispute resolution requirements. However, the “opt out” clause in Article 298 fails to define such operations. In our own Congress, intelligence functions are not considered to be military activities, so there is far from certainty that the U.N. would accept the U.S. position that intelligence operations over, on or under the seas are indeed military activities. If there is a dispute as to what is or isn’t a military activity, LOST requires the matter to be resolved by international arbitration.

In 2003, Navy Admiral Michael Mullen, now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that rulings from these arbitration panels “could have an impact on operational planning and activities, and our security.” Last week, in response to questions from Senator David Vitter (R-La.) during a Committee hearing, Professor Bernard Oxman, a witness supporting LOST, admitted that if the parties to a dispute can’t agree on the arbitration panel, the U.N. Secretary General will chose the arbitrators. Lawyers in Pyongyang, Havana and Tehran: call Turtle Bay.

LOST also opens the door to a long-sought U.N. goal: the redistribution of wealth by taxing Americans. The International Seabed Authority (ISA), a bloated, multi-national bureaucracy headquartered in Jamaica, has the mandate to distribute revenues and “other economic benefits” on the basis of “equitable sharing criteria, taking into account the interests and needs of developing States.” In addition to acting as a global IRS, the ISA also decides which companies from what nations will develop mineral resources on the seabed.

In urging ratification, former President Bill Clinton described LOST as “a far reaching environmental accord” that would “harmonize” U.S. laws to “prevent, reduce and control pollution” in the “best practical means.” But Article 213 requires nations to adopt “laws and regulations … to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources.” Thus, LOST could become a means of enforcing another agreement we never ratified: the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Al Gore — call your office.

Before casting a vote to ratify LOST, all 100 U.S. senators should read Article 314 of this onerous treaty and Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The U.N.-crafted document specifies that amendments to the treaty can be adopted — and therefore enforced — without the consent of any signatory. Yet our Constitution requires that two thirds of our Senate concur in any treaty. Do 67 members of this Senate now want to surrender that authority to foreign governments?

[aviyah]

*********************************************** ***
"Aviyah, you said that “The Korean and Vietnam wars took the wind out of Communism’s sails.” First of all, what does Communism have to do with the United Nation’s Law of the Sea Treaty? Where is the connection? Secondly, the Vietnam War took the sails out of the United States military, not Communism." (Dodge, 11/01/07)
*********************************************** ***

This treaty was crafted by Borgese, an ardent supporter of Karl Marx and Communism. I read your rave reviews of her accomplishments, but the fact remains that she openly and frequently sang the praises of Socialism and Communism and obviously incorporated the ideas which were dearest to her heart into this treaty/convention (her life's work).

Parts of this treaty read like a Soviet industrial plan, which should come as no surprise since it was crafted by Borgese during a time when the then Soviet Union and the Third World were calling for a "New International Economical Order" to fleece the U.S. and other Western nations of their resources.

I feel that "Communism", as we knew it, died a slow death after the American effort in Vietnam. If you look at the forest rather than the trees Vietnam can be viewed as the straw that broke the back of Communism. Unfortunately now, Communism seems to be rearing its ugly head again, under a new less conspicuous name.

How foolish, forgetful, and inattentive mankind is. There are people that actually believe Russia and China are no longer Communist simply because these nations have declared it so. Russia and China only changed their official titles. They haven't really changed their methods of operation.

[watchman_2]

stage director wrote:
*****
Sweetie ... the profit any company makes on a product we can't do without is always relevant.
*****

LOL...dodge is not the only socialist here!

The concept of competitition, which keeps profits in check, escapes her mind [of mush].

[david_munson]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
A sea of fools on a L.O.S.T. ship sailing endlessly through troubled waters.

L. Lousy
O. Old
S. Sovereignty
T. Thieves

Any one thinking that this is not an attempt to dissolve the sovereignty of America is just not paying attention to what's going on.

You can argue the merits of such a "treaty" but you cannot show that this is a good faith agreement which will provide any benefit to Americans.
It is quite the opposite actually.

I can see the kibbies nibbling away already.
Or are we being nibbled to death by ducks?

It would seem that dialectics is gone and now it's just straight forward attacks on freedom loving peoples.

Dialectics is the method of two steps forward and one step back ,when the complaints come in.
This way the complainant gets to think that the one step back has stopped the progress of the dialectic tactics when in effect they have made a step forward.

Americans are clueless about this tactic.

Most Americans are clueless to what this war really entails because they can't seem to look beyond the visible to see the modus operandi operating in the Spiritual relm.(Spiritual war)


Someone here said that we as christians know about the "one world government" and should be trying to usher it in since it will result in the Lord's soon return.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

I ask,"why do the devil's work?"
Are we not supposed to resist evil?

</font>}

[dobman53]

Guess what! Our new friend DODGE! is none other than our old friend who loves Louis Farrakhan. Father of a king. FOAK no need to hide! I do like how you introduced yourself as a retired phycologist. Thats quite the soap box to position yourself from. Old Louis incourages his followers to learn of such things in order to win debates. I figured this out on my own, but the checked the treads. FOAK's last post Oct. 25th. DODGES first post Oct.25th seems a little odd???? MY OH MY !!!!!

[stage_director]

Dob, I don't think Dodge and FOAK are the same person at all, and the posting date is sheer coincidence. Have you gotten to know either one a little bit through their writing? They are very different people.

[dodge]

Tom Casey, a Department of State spokesperson, commented on the Law of the Sea Convention today (November 5):

"We are pleased that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted out the Law of the Sea Convention. This is an important step forward in the Administration's efforts to join this treaty, which the President has urged the Senate to approve during this session of Congress. This Convention has the strong support of United States Federal Agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce, and the Interior."

"This treaty was a victory for U.S. diplomacy -- the one chapter that President Reagan disliked was modified in 1994 to overcome all his objections. It would serve both our national security interests, as countless current and former U.S. military officials have stated, by assuring navigational rights of our vessels worldwide, as well as our economic and energy interests, as a wide array of U.S. industries have stated. The treaty would secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive offshore natural resources, including substantial oil and gas resources in the Arctic. The extended continental shelf areas we stand to gain under the treaty are at least twice the size of California."

"Joining the Convention is the only viable means of protecting and maximizing our ocean-related interests and the Senate should approve U.S. accession without delay."

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/nov/94622.htm

[dobman53]

Let The Games Begin!!!!!!!! I figured this out before checking the posts. I would tell you how I did it, but then again perhaps I won't. None the less its true. While FOAK poseing as Dodge, he reached to you SD in need of support for he was left at that point alone.In saying he was but a mere Catholic. You were snatched to his side. I have nothing against any who post just be carefull one and all.

[dobman53]

This law of the sea is our biggest step yet to global domination. Those who have called us liers and serpent seed freaks. You will remember all we have said. Oneday you'll realise !!!

[dodge]

LAW OF THE SEA TREATY IS CRUCIAL TO THE U.S.
By Sen. Lisa Murkowski, November 8, 2007
Published in the Anchorage Daily News

http://www.adn.com/opinion/compass/story/9438470p-9350314c.html

It's ironic that an international treaty that can do much good for the nation, especially Alaska, is only now moving closer to Senate approval because of actions by Russia, Denmark and Canada. Steps taken by those three nations to strengthen or establish claims in the Arctic Ocean have highlighted for many Americans -- and many of my colleagues -- the need of the Senate to approve the Law of the Sea Treaty. Otherwise, we could be left standing on the shore, watching as other nations divvy up the wealth and scientific riches of the valuable Arctic seabed.

Without ratification, the U.S. will have no permanent seat on the decision-making body that would settle disputed claims.

Without ratification, the United States, with 1,000 miles of Arctic coast along Alaska, would be the only Arctic nation not party to the treaty. Currently, 155 nations have ratified the treaty, including all of our allies and the world's maritime powers.
International negotiators first approved the Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982. President Ronald Reagan wisely saw a serious shortcoming in how the new treaty would deal with deep-seabed mining. Negotiators went back to work and, in 1994, presented an improved treaty.

U.S. Senate approval is required of all international treaties, and a Senate committee held hearings in 1994 but the full Senate never voted on the measure. Committee hearings resumed in 2003 and 2004, but still no vote.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am a member, again took up the treaty last month. I hope this is the year for final passage.

Several events of the past few months have pushed the treaty to the front of the agenda, including Russia's decision to send two small submarines into Arctic waters in August to plant their nation's flag under the North Pole. Russia believes its continental shelf extends that far into the Arctic. Like-minded Denmark has sent scientists to determine if a mountain ridge beneath the Arctic Ocean is connected to its territory of Greenland. And Canada, getting nervous at the thought of underwater flags and ice-free shipping lanes through the Northwest Passage, is talking about setting up military bases and expanding its fleet to patrol the waters.

[dodge]

(continued)

The United States cannot sit by and watch as other nations draw their own maps.

Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, member nations can claim an exclusive economic zone out to 200 miles, with sovereign rights to explore, develop and manage the resources within that zone. Nations' claims can extend even farther if they can prove a real connection to their continental shelf. The U.S. Arctic Research Commission believes the United States could lay claim, beyond our 200 mile exclusive economic zone, to the northern seabed around Alaska equal in size to the state of California.

This isn't just about the oil, gas and mineral resources in the Arctic. It's also about managing the critical scientific research that is so important to Alaskans' way of life. It's about the United States defining and defending its rights on uses of the sea, rules of navigation, economic development and environmental standards. This is about our future, for without Senate ratification of the treaty, the future of miles of ocean north of Alaska is in someone else's hands.

"We have more to gain from legal certainty and public order in the world's oceans than any other country," Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte said in Senate committee hearings last month. Negroponte, who also has served as director of national intelligence and U.N. ambassador, said the treaty would not interfere with U.S. intelligence-gathering efforts or our Navy's navigational freedom.

Support for Senate ratification is coming from all sides of the political world, including the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, and the Democratic chairman of the committee, Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden.

I urge Alaskans to join me in supporting the Law of the Sea Treaty. It's time the United States signed on the bottom line to protect our rights.

(Lisa Murkowski is a junior Republican U.S. Senator from Alaska, her father was governor of Alaska)

[watchman_2]

dodge,

The U.S. currently has the ability to extend our jurisdiction as far as we want over the seas. It is called the Navy.

LOST is nothing more then a socialist ploy to plunder America. The proof is overwhelming. Those that support it are surely traitors.

[dodge]

According to Watchman, the following respected and honorable people are "socialist traitors" because they all support the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention:

Richard Lugar, senior republican U.S. Senator from Indiana

Gordon England, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense

Robert Gates, U.S. Secretary of Defense

John Negroponte, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State

Admiral Patrick Walsh, Vice Chief of Naval Operations

Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Secretary of State

Admiral Thad Allen, Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard

Senator Ted Stevens, U.S. Republican Senator from Alaska

General Richard Myers, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Admiral Vern Clark, former Chief of Naval Operations

Bill Clinton

Colin Powell

John Warner, former Secretary of the Navy, Republican Senator from Virginia and WWII Veteran

John McCain, Republican Senator from Arizona

Leon E. Panetta, Chair of the Pew Oceans Commissions and Co-Chair of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative.

Bruce Babbit, Democratic Governor of Arizona and former U.S. Secretary of the Interior

There are many others that I could put on this list, people who have served the United States honorably and with distinction...who Watchman calls "traitors" because they are in favor of UNCLOS. Outrageous!!!

[watchman_2]

dodge,

You got it! The greatest President of our generation, Ronald Reagan, certainly knew this was a sell-out to our enemies -- the socialists.

BTW, you failed to explain how being directly taxed by the U.N. is 1) constitutional, 2) controllable by U.S. citizens, and 3) a real good thing for the average American.

You have also failed to explain how it is a great deal for average Americans to pay more for all the goods and services that are produced overseas and travel across the world's oceans or are now extracted from the ocean without licensing fees or taxes.

So, it seems that you must reap profit yourself from such socialist ventures. The average American gets screwed by ratification of LOST.

[smyrna]

I'd really like to know how this all relates to the Shepherd's Chapel.

[stage_director]

QUOTE
You have also failed to explain how it is a great deal for average Americans to pay more for all the goods and services that are produced overseas and travel across the world's oceans or are now extracted from the ocean without licensing fees or taxes.
END QUOTE

There's an approximate 22 cents per dollar embedded tax to Americans in the price of almost all American made products. This stiffens American companies ability to compete with foreign goods, and yet our government is collecting less and less of it as tax revenue because so many businesses are moving their corporate offices or official locations offshore. Combine this with the fact that the rate of exchange between American and foreign goods is totally set up to our disadvantage, while they avoid the embedded tax or as high an import fee as US companies fork over in those countries. We're already at a disadvantage in trading issues in spite of the fact it hasn't blatantly shown up in the American way of life, as yet, in the eyes of the world.

Let's say I have a million dollars worth of bicycles and you have two hundred thousand dollars worth of the same type product ... It costs me $150 in materials, labor, taxes, export fees and what you charge me in the form of import and other taxes, whereby I end up with a profit of $50 per bike if I sell it for $200. On the other hand, you sell your like product on my shelves for $180 ... it costs you $60 to produce it, I waive many of the fees and taxes whereby your profit on each item is $110, and I allow you to import as many as you like (you sell me 50,000 of your product each year) while you put a strict quota on what I can export to you (you buy 10,000). And don't forget you've deliberately under inflated your dollars so that we're not at an even exchange rate! Even though it may not be apparent for awhile, how long before I'm in the hole and you are the one with my wealth?

My point is that America is fastly becoming unable to afford the concessions it's being asked to make in the name of leveling the playing field. We can't afford too many more deals and supposed alliances that put us at a disadvantage while the world underpays us (by comparison) for our goods, or won't let us collect what we're due.

(Message edited by stage_director on November 09, 2007)

[david_munson]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Dodge:"There are many others that I could put on this list, people who have served the United States honorably and with distinction...who Watchman calls "traitors" because they are in favor of UNCLOS. Outrageous!!!"

I call them traitors because they are in favor of violating and abolishing our Constitution.
They are "outrageous!"

</font>}

[dodge]

David, tell me -- just how does UNCLOS "abolish our Constitution?"

[stage_director]

I'm a person who pretty much favors the Constitution as it is, but I don't think all those who believe certain laws should be added or amended are necessarily traitors ... After all, the Constitution was amended as far back as the late 1700s, the first ten successful amendments being our Bill of Rights. They met with opposition back then, too. There are different schools of thought on what would be beneficial to this country ... I just don't think we can label someone an enemy of the nation because they have a different opinion on what would be right for it.

[aviyah]

10 Reasons for Rejecting the Law of the Sea Treaty

1.Ronald Reagan rejected this treaty – not just because of certain details associated with seabed mining, but because of the threat he rightly saw LOST represented to our sovereignty and national interests in its empowerment of supranational government. Representations that his concerns have been “fixed” by a 1994 agreement Bill Clinton’s administration negotiated are false. Key Reagan lieutenants like former National Security Advisor Bill Clark, former Counselor to the President and Attorney General Ed Meese and the late former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick have agreed that LOST remains unacceptably defective.

2.LOST empowers the United Nations. LOST is also known as the “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.” All LOST agencies are U.N. organizations, and the U.N. Secretary General plays an important role in administering the treaty. The U.N. has a track record of corruption and hostility to American and its allies, most recently evident in its entrusting to Libya and Iran decisions about an anti-Israel conference on “racism.” The UN’s multilateral agencies and bureaucrats cannot be trusted to oversee or administer 70% of the world’s surface covered by its oceans.

3. LOST threatens American sovereignty by subjecting our governmental, military and business operations to mandatory dispute resolution – to be decided by international bodies that are stacked against us. LOST’s broad jurisdiction – involving virtually anything affecting the world’s oceans – is an invitation to UN interference in our affairs on an unprecedented scale. Worse yet, decisions by LOST’s dispute resolution mechanisms are final and without appeal, obliging us to submit to the dictates of others perhaps motivated by anti-American agendas.

4. The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is inconsistent with American security. As a party, the United States would be obliged to uphold myriad commitments at odds with our military practices and national interests, including one reserving the oceans exclusively for “peaceful purposes.” Proponents claim that military activities are exempt, but obligations such as those barring the use of territorial waters for intelligence collection or their transit by submerged submarines clearly set the stage for disputes that may well be decided against us. The treaty also requires the transfer of sensitive, militarily useful technologies to other nations and international organizations hostile to American interests. So-called “fixes” in the 1994 agreement do not alter this reality.

[aviyah]

5. President Clinton called LOST “the greatest environmental treaty in history.” It will be used by America’s economic competitors and strategic adversaries to interfere with our sovereign decisions concerning actions they deem to have unacceptable environmental impacts – probably with little regard to the costs to Americans and their businesses. LOST is a back-door way to impose U.S. compliance with the Kyoto accord.

6. LOST would establish a precedent for international taxation. LOST empowers a multilateral International Seabed Authority (ISA) to administer deep seabed mining operations. This supranational ISA would impose fees, royalty requirements and other payments on American companies in order that they may exercise exploration and production rights they already enjoy. These forced arrangements would take money out of the American business revenue stream for an international government’s use – and would amount to a tax on Americans without representation.

7. LOST imposes requirements of other treaties and international standards that the U.S. has not accepted. LOST international bodies to hear disputes related to the purposes of LOST. This means that if the U.S. joins LOST, it could be brought before a LOST tribunal for violating a totally different treaty – including a treaty that it has not even joined – as long as it relates, for example, to protecting the marine environment.

8. If the U.S. is a party to LOST, it could be subjected to decisions enforced by activist American judges, importing foreign or perhaps even “international” law into the courtroom, or perhaps even a UN Navy.

9. LOST creates precedents for replacing accountable, representative government under our Constitution with supranational bureaucratic arrangements that are non-transparent and wholly unaccountable.

10. Unfortunately, the U.S. State Department cannot be counted on to truly represent American interests on LOST. It reflexively embraces treaties and other international agreements at the expense of U.S. sovereignty, seemingly favoring harmonious relations with other countries over U.S. national interests.

[aviyah]

In summary, America does not need to join LOST to protect its interests in the world’s oceans. A “seat at the table” in LOST agencies where we can be simply outvoted will not safeguard those interests. It will, however, oblige us to abide by the majority’s dictates. The U.S. already belongs to several multi-country organizations (for example, the Arctic Council) designed to solve regional oceans disputes, and can always exercise diplomacy with another country directly. In the final analysis, a navy second-to-none – the large and potent U.S. fleet we need today and for the foreseeable future – is a more certain basis for assuring freedom of the seas and our interests than a defective international treaty like LOST.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/Modules/NewsManager/Center%20publication%20PDFs/CPAS%20Letters/Ten%20Reasons%20to%20Reject%20LOST%20910%20on-line%20version.pdf

[watchman_2]

Through decades of socialist brainwashing in US public schools, most Americans think that their prime patriotic duty is to do what the government directs them to do. Hence, as Constituional rights are stamped out, Americans think that it is their duty to abide by the government's dictates.

However, anyone with proper civic training knows that the prime duty of every American is to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". It has nothing to do with protecting and defending the government of the US.

The American revolution was never intended as a one-time event. The founding fathers fully understood that it government's natural tendency is to control, and not serve, the people. The entire purpose of the Constitution was to grant a federal government only certain powers in order to serve us. Ratification of LOST is certainly not in tune with serving Americans.

Yes, there are enemies of the US within the US. There are communists/socialists among us that favor all things that are intended to control Americans -- not serve us. Dodge is certainly one of those damned socialists. Obviously, he must be in a position of financial gain should the provisions of LOST be implemented.

The Constitution is simply a contract between the people and the government. As long as the government performs in such manner that is consistent with the terms and provisions of the Constitution, then it our duty to support such decisions -- even if we disagree.

However, when the gov't does not act in a manner consistent with the Constitution, no American has an obligation to abide. It also makes those that do perform these acts traitors -- for, they have breached their fundamental duty to "protect and defend the Constitution".

So, in evaluating LOST, it is abundantly clear that it is not consistent with the intent of the Constitution. Furthermore, it is directly violative thereof.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme [mankind's] law of the US. So, eventhough the President, with ratification of the Senate, has the right to enter into treaties with other nations, the President does not have authority to enter into a treaty that subordinates the US Constitutional to any international organization [the UN].

The fact is, as brought forth here in this thread, that LOST subordinates the US Constitution to the UN regarding matters that govern the citizens of the US. Accordingly, President Bush, and those of like mind that support LOST, do fail to "protect and defend the Constitution of the US", which is their prime duty [as well as our duty]. By definition, they are all TRAITORS!

Undoubtedly, the taxing mechanism within LOST is unconstitutional. Surely, it will not take long for the UN to figure out [like state and local gov't] that more revenue can be generated through income taxation then thru per capita or user tax. Per capita tax will be largely ignored and user taxes result in less use. So, the best way to fund the LOST agencies within the UN is through an income tax [of Americans].

So, not only is support of LOST treasonous, the ratification thereof will result in measures directly violative of the US Constitution.

For those of you that pay income tax, you should be firmly against LOST. The same goes for all ordinary Americans that purchase the goods and services from the seas or that traverse the seas.

(Message edited by watchman_2 on November 10, 2007)

[aviyah]

*********************************************** ***
"David, tell me -- just how does UNCLOS "abolish our Constitution?" (Dodge, 11/09/07)
*********************************************** ***


Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.


The LOST treaty would subject Americans to an international tribunal (citizens/subjects of foreign states).

[aviyah]

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

*********************************************** ***

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

*********************************************** ***

American citizens have elected the officials that determine how much tax we pay. If we don't approve of the amount we are being taxed or how our tax dollars are being spent, we have the ability to vote them out of office. Americans would not have this ability with the ISA.

[aviyah]

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

*********************************************** ***

The second paragraph of this section clearly states that "ALL NET PRODUCE" from the taxes that Americans are asked to pay "SHALL BE FOR THE USE OF THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES".

This treaty would ensure that American tax dollars end up in the hands of the United Nations. Existing evidence of waste, mismanagement, and outright fraud coupled with the UN's unwillingness to undergo a thorough audit should be sufficient reason for not ratifying this treaty.

[aviyah]

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

*********************************************** ***

This treaty would take all of these powers from the United States Congress (AGAIN, ELECTED OFFICIALS) and hand them over to the I.S.A.:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations.

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations.

To make rules concerning captures on land and water.

To make rules for the governing and regulation of the land and naval forces.

To provide for calling forth the militia to repel invasions.

[aviyah]

Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

*********************************************** ***

Here is another American right that would be lost in cases that were brought before the "tribunal". These cases would be determined not by a jury of our peers but rather by 5 judges (2 that our nation picked, and 3 that would be chosen by that Third World that despises us). No thanks. Americans would never get justice in this set up.

[david_munson]

Aviyah,
that is some good information you have given.
Let us hope that reasonable and understanding people will see what you have informed them of and begin to understand the ramifications of surrendering any rights to an international body of criminals that hate America and freedom.

The U.N. is a useless organization.

}}

[aviyah]

Hey David,

On Glenn Beck tonight it was stated that the Republicans have "bucked this"...for now. Praise Yah!

Heb 13:5 ...for He hath said, "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."

I do think this is not going away for good though. Most people still are unaware that this is going on. Everyone I have talked to about this has never even heard of it.

I for one pledge to pester my Senators on a weekly basis and tell everyone I know about this issue. I hope you will do the same David.

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

God Bless, AviYAH

[david_munson]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Take into account what this treaty entails and then consider this.
Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up "out of the sea", having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

This is just one point of view I heard from a couple guys on the TV the other night.
They wheren't dogmatic about it but they made some good points about the power base involved.
They went into discussing the ten spheres of power and how this might apply to the rise of the beast.

It is something to think about anyway.

Yes Aviyah,
I am speeking out against this to my Reps. constantly.
They need to get their proverbial heads out of their backsides and realise what's really happening instead of ignoring the laws that govern the U.S and the well being of our peoples.

It's a sad state of affairs to be certain but God's plan will prevail.
Christ will return and take back this fallen world.
Even so Lord Jesus ,come.

</font>}

[aviyah]

I hear you David!!! The beast is a one world system and now with this treaty we can see that this prophesy may be more specific than we imagined. Before hearing about LOST I always considered the Biblical word "sea" to mean sea of people but this is really getting much more specific.

I suppose if this convention is the beast of Revelation, there is little we can do to stop it (nor should we want to). But as American's it is our duty to get involved with this sort of thing and hold on to our God given rights.

I'm keeping in mind that we could be misinterpreting the prophesy too. Although I am more persuaded that we are the generation of the fig tree than not, still I firmly believe that prophesy cannot be fully understood until it has been fulfilled. I think we still should live our lives knowing that Messiah could return tomorrow but plan for the future as if His return may be 1000 years from now.

Anyway, we can see that the whole world is in fact being drawn into one rule just as the good Book said it would. Biblical prophesy says three great nations will leave the system of the beast.

As I understand it, this is the deadly wound that happens to the beast right before antichrist appears. Then antichrist arrives on the scene and wows the masses by saving the world from this woe.

This has got to be 3 major Christian nations. Personally I believe the US will take the lead here in causing the deadly wound. It can't be Great Britain because Ephraim is depicted as a tired aged lion in the end time prophesy of Daniel.

God Bless, AviYAH

[aviyah]

.