“Not true. The President signs treaties, then the Senate votes on them. They’re not sitting in the Senate waiting for action. Bush obviously hasn’t signed those handcuff treaties” – Indythinker

Hi Indythinker,

Actually the treaties ARE in the Senate waiting for action, and since it takes a 2/3 vote in order to ratify a treaty, the Democrats simply haven’t had the votes to bring the Law of the Sea Treaty to the floor for a vote. And Bush does not need to sign the treaty, because Clinton already signed the amended form in 1994.

“In 1994, however, President Clinton signed a revised version of the treaty and forwarded it to the Senate. The record shows the Senate was not convinced the 1994 changes corrected the problems, and it has deferred action on the treaty ever since.” World Net Daily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57903

The primary reason the treaty was not originally brought to the floor for a vote after Clinton signed it was due to the Republican’s control of the Congress in 1994. With that control now totally evaporated, the Democrats stand a real chance of passing it. As with the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty, aka the “Convention on Biological Diversity” which Clinton signed on June 4, 1993, the treaties were sent to the Congress only to be held up by the Republican gatekeepers.
Now the gatekeepers are gone, and the gate is wide open. Here is an excerpt from an article written in 1995 about the initial defeat of the Biodiversiy Treaty.

“On June 29, 1994, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodiversity Treaty) by a vote of 16 to 3. Only Senators Helms, Pressler, and Coverdell voted no. Three months later, on September 30, Senate Majority Leader, George Mitchell, for the second and final time, withdrew the Convention from the Senate calendar. The Treaty was never voted on, and now languishes in the bowels of government awaiting the arrival of a more friendly Senate. The defeat of the Treaty in the 103rd Congress came as a stunning victory for the private property rights and natural resource providers community, and was an astonishing defeat for the administration and its army of environmental organizations which had carefully orchestrated what it thought was certain ratification.”
http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/biotreatystop.htm

So it appears that all the Democrats need now is a super-majority in the Senate, in order to pass the UN’s trojan horse treaties, and should that happen the UN will assume de jure authority over much of our own country’s forests, wildernesses, rivers and wetlands, not to mention the oceans which surround us Since these treaties already have Clinton’s Presidential signature, it is possible they can pass even without Obama in the Whitehouse, except perhaps the Kyoto Protocol, which has yet to be signed by the President. Nevertheless, being shackled to these treaties and their attendant heavy taxes and stringent regulations, it is hard to imagine the US economy prospering, especially with the UN siphoning off much of the US’s wealth for its own redistributive agenda. If anything the Democrats plan of “wealth redistribution” will be realized in spades, as the wealth of the US will be transferred throughout the rest of the world. This is change you won’t want to believe in, but seeing is believing, and it ain’t a pretty sight.

In Christ,

Ariel

ps. Google these subjects for further study:

Agenda 21, Sustainable Development

Convention on Biological Diversity

Law of the Sea Treaty

Kyoto Protocol

Bali Accord

UN Millenium Goals (see Global Poverty Act)

The Earth Charter

Like or Dislike: 0  0

What GNP? The CIA (worldfactbook that’s online) has the GNP at $13.84 trillion for the U.S. in 2007. .7% of that is $968.8 billion for just one year.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Not true. The President signs treaties, then the Senate votes on them. They’re not sitting in the Senate waiting for action. Bush obviously hasn’t signed those handcuff treaties.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Great, a match made in hell. Democrats and the UN. Identical in their corruption and hate for America. LET’S GIVE THEM MORE MONEY AND POWER!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

McCain should have made this a campaign issue. Looks like a real winner for most Americans, who generally distrust the UN. He is running the weakest campaign I have seen in 63 years.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Yeah Good Job Ariel;

Absolutely Obama would sign the Global Poverty Act to do more redistribution of our wealth. As you can see here, he was one of the Senate bill’s authors and Biden has already endorsed it:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2433

The bill itself does not establish how much America will give away in this socialist bill. As ariel states; The Senate panel has already agreed to 0.7% of all US Gross National Product, AKA a 0.7% tax on all goods and services.

The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) started some 25 years ago. Reagan was absolutely against it. It has already passed the CFR committee, of which Biden was a party, and is languishing in senate awaiting a 2/3rds majority to pass. Another reason to vote to block the 60% Majority the Dems are hoping for this election. Tracking down a copy of the L.O.S.T. document for review is an extremely difficult process. It has an AKA of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and is referenced as Senate Treaty Document 103-39 & Senate Executive Report 108-10 (Both of which I’m also having trouble locating a copy of. Do you think there is information in it they don’t want us to know?). It can be found here:
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/final_act_eng.pdf

It’s Primary proponent is Richard Lugar (R-Ind), who Obama cites as a Republican he has crossed the aisle with. Lugar is one of those rare animals, a liberal Republican. Ariel is correct. There is a lot of hidden power given over to the U.N. to hand out to whoever they wish, including our country’s enemies. Who gets liscenses for international water fishing. It includes language giving th U.N. control over any actions that might disturb international water seabeds. This include not only Deep Sea Mining, but could be used to block America from establishing oil drill rigs off it’s own shores and award that right to another country. Californians may loose your ability to protest. (See: The Law of the Sea Treaty: A Bad Deal for America – The Law of the Sea Treaty: A Bad Deal for America)

Not only that but do you have any idea how large of an invasion force could be housed in an empty tanker and brought within 13 miles of our shore?

Bush and Cheney did not support the Kyoto Treaty as stated in this Senate Hearing:
http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/107s/83718.txt

The Kyoto Treaty, AKA Kyoto Protocol and is referenced in Senate Treaty document 102-5 (Which I’m also having trouble locating a copy of). More information and the U.N. document is available here:
http://unfccc.int/2860.php
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf

The Basil Accord, AKA Basel convention can be found here:
http://www.basel.int/text/con-e-rev.pdf

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Ariel, I just sent your post out in my e-mail, I hope you don’t mind. I did include “Ariel” at the end, hope it makes the rounds and shows up in your e-mail someday soon, it’s just so important.

I appreciate you posting this, these issues have slipped my mind for awhile, am thankful for the jolt.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

BTW, Ariel… forgive me for not saying so in the above post. Superb subject and post by you. And a repercussion of the election overlooked by far too many.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Colin, I’ve been archiving “LOST” for years. Then again, LOST has been around for decades. It was originally blown out of the water by the Reagan admin, only to resurface after years of kicking around by Lugar when Bush tried to resurrect it… with some ratification. What those changes were, dunno. Frist killed it back in 2004.

A good recap from my “LOST” archives, so to speak, is from WND back in May of 2007. While giving the UN such control over the oceans is not insidious enough, the “int’l” permits from the UN’s ISA… International Seabed Authority… are subject to the UN authority itself, who may opt to be competition for the profitable business INRE the permit. In other words, a world government UN who owns anything from fishing to oil …refineries sorry, meant rigs… in int’l waters.

One of the original authors of the LOST treaty is Elisabeth Mann Borgese… one of the founding members (and, for a while one of the few female..) members of the Club of Rome. Let’s just say it was a club of environmentalists/world government types that was ahead of the “trendy environmentalist” curve back in the early 70s, I believe. At the foundation is the belief that the oceans belong to the world, and therefore should be regulated by a “world body”, like the UN.

Perhaps easier to swallow if the UN weren’t… well… the UN.

Search LOST or Borgese and her sundry connections, and you can learn much about this long embattled issue. So far there has been enough US resistence to throw that much regulatory and development power to the UN.

Under a President Obama, with a Congress where the more conservative GOP – leery of world government – has no voice? Who knows….

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Colin Nelson

Was not aware of the LOST item – beyond belief!

Just what process was followed in order for this treaty to reach the stage where
it is evidently just waiting for the new President to sign?

If you did not hear much about this, it is probably due to the fact that they did not want you to hear about it. Like the fine print at the bottom of the contract, they had hoped no one would notice. But some did and the Treaty was put on hold, until such time as resistence to it would be futile, like under the unified regime of a Democratic Administration and a Democratic Congress. As the Borg, which were introduced in the Star Trek: Next Generation series, were wont to declare, “Resistence is futile”.

Is it not curious that the collective hive of the Borg in which each individual functioned only as part of a larger unified consciousness, seems to echo Marx’s view of the individual only having worth in so far as he or she benefits the state? So even as the individual has no intrinsic self worth in the state, nor does any country have any intrinsically superior worth in the global community. In the UN’s economy of nations, “All nations are created equal, only some nations are more equal that others”. As the greatest impediment to the UN’s power grab has been the US, it is not surprising they have been so very quiet during this election season. Even Achmadinajad made nicey nice when he came to visit. All sugar plums and lollipops until Obama is safely ensconced in the Oval Office and the treaties are signed. Then come the storm troopers!

.http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39900

Committee Ratifies Law of the Sea Treaty
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Nov 2 (IPS) – In a major defeat for far-right Republicans, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday voted 17-4 to ratify the 25-year-old Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), the international accord that sets rules governing most areas of ocean policy, including navigation, over-flights, exploitation of the seabed, conservation and research…

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/5440
The Law of the Sea Treaty = LOST sovereignty
Posted November 2nd, 2007 by mattdz
Last Wednesday, October 31, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 to back The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), also called the Law of the Sea Convention and the Law of the Sea Treaty (or LOST), sending it to the full Senate where it needs a two-thirds vote to win final approval.

I think this is highly relevant to our national sovereignty and needs to be publicized. Here’s Sen. Jim DeMint (one of those few who bravely opposed it) talking about it:
http://www.youtube.com/wa…

The LOST is so wrong for so many reasons…

Like or Dislike: 0  0