Thread: We must STOP Law of Seas Treaty NOW. Vote in Senate schedule

While I realize our main focus is on illegal immigration, do NOT overlook the shell games that are being played while our attention is diverted elsewhere! THIS IS CRITICAL!!!!!!!!!!!! FLOOD THOSE PHONE PEOPLE!!!
Do you want to UN to control another source of our food!? I DON'T!



We must STOP Law of Seas Treaty NOW. Vote in Senate scheduled for Wednesday, Oct. 17th!
LOST is a huge power grab by the United Nations' madhouse. Robert Morrow 512-306-1510

Dear American Patriots,
The Law of the Seas Treaty is nothing but a huge power grab by the United Nation's madhouse. It would put the unelected, anti-American United Nations bureaucrats in charge of the world's oceans. The UN would control fishing, drilling and mining rights. LOST (Law of Seas Treaty) is a backdoor way for the UN to tax the world. It is a dagger aimed straight at US national sovereignty and a vote for LOST is a vote to get unelected one world government going. All we need a 34 "NO" votes in the Senate to STOP LOST.
Right now, we are losing because many Senators have no idea how incredibly bad this treaty is. the globalists are pulling a fast one and want a vote in the Senate on Oct. 17th on this one. You must make your phone calls NOW so that we can get 34 Senators to stop this disgusted power grab by the United Nations. Call as many Senators as you can and please tell them to vote NO on LOST!!
Especially call leaders Sen. Mitch McConnell at 202-224-2541 and Sen. Trent Lott at 202-224-6253. These guys are very key and can give LOST if they want to.
Robert Morrow 512-306-1510

WE NEED JUST 34 SENATORS TO KILL THE LAW OF SEAS TREATY - CALL THEM NOW!

AK Ted Stevens R 202-224-3004
AK Lisa Murkowski R 202-224-6665
CALL AL Richard Shelby R 202-224-5744
CALL AL Jeff Sessions R 202-224-4124
AR Blanche Lincoln D 202-224-4843
AR Mark Pryor D 202-224-2353
CALL AZ John McCain R 202-224-2235
CALL AZ Jon Kyl R 202-224-4521
CO Wayne Allard R 202-224-5941
CO Ken Salazar R 202-224-5852
CT Christopher Dodd D 202-224-2823
CT Joseph Lieberman D 202-224-4041
CALL FL Bill Nelson D 202-224-5274
CALL FL Mel Martinez R 202-224-3041
CALL GA Saxby Chambliss R 202-224-3521
CALL GA Johnny Isakson R 202-224-3643
IA Chuck Grassley R 202-224-3744
CALL ID Larry Craig R 202-224-2752
ID Mike Crapo R 202-224-6142
IL Barack Obama D 202-224-2854
IN Evan Bayh D 202-224-5623
KS Sam Brownback R 202-224-6521
KS Pat Roberts R 202-224-4774
CALL!! KY Mitch McConnell R 202-224-2541
KY Jim Bunning R 202-224-4343
LA Mary Landrieu D 202-224-5824
CALL LA David Vitter R 202-224-4623
CALL ME Olympia Snowe R 202-224-5344
CALL ME Susan Collins R 202-224-2523
MI Carl Levin D 202-224-6221
MI Debbie Stabenow D 202-224-4822
CALL MN Norm Coleman R 202-224-5641
MN Amy Klobuchar D 202-224-3244
MO Christopher Bond R 202-224-5721
MO Claire McCaskill D 202-224-6154
MS Thad Cochran R 202-224-5054
CALL!! MS Trent Lott R 202-224-6253
MT Max Baucus D 202-224-2651
MT Jon Tester D 202-224-2644
CALL NC Elizabeth Dole R 202-224-6342
CALL NC Richard Burr R 202-224-3154
ND Kent Conrad D 202-224-2043
ND Byron Dorgan D 202-224-2551
NE Benjamine Nelson D 202-224-6551
NH Judd Gregg R 202-224-3324
NH John Sununu R 202-224-2841
NM Pete Domenici R 202-224-6621
NM Jeff Bingaman D 202-224-5521
CALL NV Harry Reid D 202-224-3542
NV John Ensign R 202-224-6244
NY Charles Schumer D 202-224-6542
CALL NY Hillary Clinton D 202-224-4451
OH George Voinovich R 202-224-3353
OK Jim Inhofe R 202-224-4721
OK Tom Coburn R 202-224-5754
OR Gordon Smith R 202-224-3753
PA Arlen Specter R 202-224-4254
RI Jack Reed D 202-224-4642
RI Sheldon Whitehouse D 202-224-2921
CALL SC Lindsey Graham R 202-224-5972
SC Jim DeMint R 202-224-6121
SD Tim Johnson D 202-224-5842
SD John Thune R 202-224-2321
TN Lamar Alexander R 202-224-4944
CALL TN Bob Corker R 202-224-3344
CALL TX Kay Hutchison R 202-224-5922
CALL TX John Cornyn R 202-224-2934
CALL UT Orrin Hatch R 202-224-5251
UT Robert Bennett R 202-224-5444
CALL VA John Warner R 202-224-2023
CALL VA James Webb D 202-224-4024
CALL VT Sanders Bernard I 202-224-5141
CALL WV Robert Byrd D 202-224-3954
WY Craig Thomas R 202-224-6441

Vote NO on Law of Seas Treaty (LOST)

The Law of the Seas Treaty (LOST) is another United Nationsb scam to grab power and tax the world. LOST would put the UN madhouse/cesspool in control of the global seas. LOST is opposed by the American Conservative Union, Free Congress Foundation, Freedom Alliance, National Taxpayers Union, Eagle Forum, Liberty Committee, Concerned Women for America, American Policy Center, Right March,
American Policy Center, Patrick Buchanan, Grover Norquist, Frank Gaffney, Doug Bandow, Paul Weyrich, Tom DeWeese, Steve Forbes, Henry Lamb, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Ron Paul. Senators James Inhofe (R-OK) and Jefferson Sessions (R-AL) are battling against LOST. In order for the LOST treaty to pass, it must win by a 2/3 vote in the Senate. Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee also oppose LOST.
LOST is being pushed hard by Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), who has the support of the White House. LOST is receiving stiff opposition from grassroots conservatives and it is critical that this pressure continues.
Sink The Law Of The Sea Again

by Phyllis Schlafly, September 26, 2007

With all the critical problems facing America today, it's hard to see why President Bush is wasting whatever is left of his presidential clout to partner with Democratic presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden (DE) to try to get the Senate to ratify the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). As Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden is scheduled to hold a hearing loaded with pro-LOST witnesses and then try to sneak through ratification while the public is focused on other globalism and giveaway mischief.
LOST is the globalists' dream bill. It would put the United States in a de facto world government that rules all the world's oceans under the pretense that they belong to "the common heritage of mankind." That's global-speak for allowing the United Nations and its affiliated organizations to carry out a massive, unprecedented redistribution of wealth from the United States to other countries.
LOST has already been ratified by 155 countries. Most of them no doubt expect corrupt UN bureaucrats to divvy up the riches at the bottom of the sea, which will be brought to the surface by American investment and technology, and parcel them out to Third World dictators to support themselves in the lavish style to which they would like to become accustomed.
Why must we who believe in American sovereignty have to keep fighting the same battles over and over again? President Ronald Reagan rejected LOST back in 1982, not because of picky details in the text, but because LOST would put the United States in the clutches of a supranational ruling clique.
The argument is being made that Reagan's objections were "fixed" in 1994. That's a sham because no one country can legally change the terms of a treaty that has already been signed and ratified by over a hundred countries, and 25 countries have not agreed to the 1994 changes anyway.
Furthermore, changing a few details of the treaty does nothing to address the massive loss of U.S. sovereignty which Reagan and grassroots Americans found impudent and obnoxious.
LOST has already created the International Seabed Authority (ISA) and given it total jurisdiction over all the oceans and everything in them, including "solid, liquid or gaseous mineral resources." LOST even gives the ISA something the UN bureaucrats have lusted after for years: the authority to impose international taxes (disguised by euphemisms such as fees and royalties).
LOST would subject our governmental, military and business operations to mandatory dispute resolution by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg, Germany. If you think activist judges in the United States are out of control, wait till you try your case before this UN tribunal, whose decisions cannot be appealed.
Since several U.S. Supreme Court justices are on record as using, and urging others to use, foreign law in deciding U.S. cases, LOST would be an open invitation to our activist judges to interpret LOST's purposely vague provisions. Liberal U.S. judges might even develop the theory that LOST is "evolving" (like liberal notions about the U.S. Constitution), so that liberal social and especially environmental biases could be written into our laws.
All LOST agencies are United Nations organizations, and the UN Secretary General plays an important role in administering the treaty. With the UN's shocking track record of corruption, it makes no sense to give it a new infusion of power and money.
The Bush Administration argues that we need LOST to protect our interests in the world's oceans and to assure that our Navy can go where it needs to go. The problem with that argument is that if we join LOST, we will be bound to abide by its decisions.
Based on our experience in other international organizations such as the World Trade Organization, decisions will usually be contrary to U.S. security and economic interests. The U.S. Navy can already go wherever it needs to go, and we need to keep it that way.
One of the silliest arguments is that we need LOST to protect us against Russia's claim to the North Pole and its oil riches. If we ratify LOST, we would have to accept the LOST tribunal's decision. Even though the United States already has valid claims to the North Pole region under the Doctrine of Discovery, the chances of the LOST bureaucrats ruling for us against Russia are about 1 in 155.
Incidentally, a 13-year-old boy in Finland who had been a repeat watcher of the movie "Titanic" exposed the fraud that the pictures shown on Russian television of a Russia submarine on a North Pole seabed were just clips taken from the movie.
The best protection for U.S. interests in the world's oceans is the U.S. Navy, which should not and must not be subject to orders or regulations made by paper pushers in the ISA or rulings of the International Tribunal. U.S. access to the high seas, as well as freedom of the seas for all countries, is best protected by a great U.S. Navy, not a UN bureaucracy financed by a global tax.
http://www.aim.org/aim_column/5791_0_3_0_C/
Brainy Republicans Support Law of Sea Treaty
A link to Frank Gaffney's page of articles:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/ ... goryid=108
Eagle Forum's link to all its articles on LOST
http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/LOST/
STOP LOST. ALL WE NEED ARE 34 "NO" VOTES IN THE SENATE. MAKE THOSE CALLS.

We must realize the implications of this treaty. We have gotten into trouble with treaties and put our fates in the hands of others outside of the United States. This should be apparent from our own United States President siding with the Hague last week on the side of the illegal alien murderer. He sided against his own government and leadership in reality. In essence we are under the dictatorship of others in many things that we do now because of these anti American treaties.

This treaty cannot be ignored by Americans because it will sell our nations sovereignty even more to others and allow others to dictate to citizens in the United States on important matters.

When I first became aware of this I found it frightening. Now, I know it is. Please make calls, send emails and notify everyone on your contact list.

The talk radio should be made aware. We are going to wake up and realize that we reside in the physical area of a place called or once called the United States and that our leadership and judicial system is located somewhere much farther away without a care for our constitution or laws.

We must intervene with action today. It is Wednesday and our Senators and Representatives must know we cannot be under foreign or international rule.

Psalm 91

bttt

I just got an email about this today SOS has started a think tank.

This is an article by Ed Meese and William Clark



Another U.N. Power Grab
What would Reagan do? On the Law of the Sea Treaty, we know the answer.

BY WILLIAM P. CLARK AND EDWIN MEESE
Monday, October 8, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

It is an impressive testament to the abiding affection and political influence of former President Ronald Reagan that the fate of a controversial treaty now before the U.S. Senate may ultimately turn on a single question: What would Reagan do?

As we had the privilege of working closely with President Reagan in connection with the foreign policy, national security and domestic implications of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty or LOST), there is no question about how our 40th president felt about this accord. He so strongly opposed it that he formally refused to sign the treaty. He even sent Donald Rumsfeld as a personal emissary to our key allies around the world to explain his opposition and encourage them to follow suit. All of them did so at the time.

Proponents of LOST, however, have lately taken--on these pages and elsewhere--to portray President Reagan's concerns as relatively circumscribed. They contend that those objections were subsequently and satisfactorily addressed in a multilateral accord known as the Agreement of 1994. To the extent that such assertions may induce senators who would otherwise oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty to vote for it, perhaps within a matter of weeks and after only the most cursory of reviews, we feel compelled to set the record straight.

Ronald Reagan actually opposed LOST even before he came to office. He was troubled by a treaty that had, in the course of its protracted negotiations, mutated beyond recognition from an effort to codify certain navigation rights strongly supported by our Navy into a dramatic step toward world government. This supranational agenda was most closely identified with, but not limited to, the Treaty's Part XI, which created a variety of executive, legislative and judicial mechanisms to control the resources of the world's oceans.

In a radio address titled "Ocean Mining" on Oct. 10, 1978, Mr. Reagan applauded the idea that "no nat[ional] interest of ours could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the earth's surface over to the Third World." He added, "No one has ruled out the idea of a [Law of the Sea] treaty--one which makes sense--but after long years of fruitless negotiating, it became apparent that the underdeveloped nations who now control the General Assembly were looking for a free ride at our expense--again."





The so-called seabed mining provisions were simply one manifestation of the problems Ronald Reagan had with LOST. That was made clear by an entry in his diary dated June 29, 1982, after months of efforts to negotiate extensive changes in the draft treaty text came to naught. On that evening, President Reagan wrote: "Decided in [National Security Council] meeting--will not sign 'Law of the Sea' treaty even without seabed mining provisions."
The man selected by President Reagan to undertake those renegotiations was the remarkable James Malone. In 1984, Ambassador Malone explained why the Law of the Sea Treaty was unacceptable: "The Treaty's provisions were intentionally designed to promote a new world order--a form of global collectivism known as the New International Economic Order (NIEO)--that seeks ultimately the redistribution of the world's wealth through a complex system of manipulative central economic planning and bureaucratic coercion. The Treaty's provisions are predicated on a distorted interpretation of the noble concept of the Earth's vast oceans as the 'common heritage of mankind.'"

Interestingly, Ambassador Malone declared in 1995, "This remains the case today." That statement is particularly relevant insofar as LOST's supporters, including some of our colleagues from the Reagan administration, insist that the 1994 Agreement "fixed" the previously unacceptable Part XI provisions. As James Malone explained to a conference on the Law of the Sea Treaty before his untimely death more than a decade ago:

"All the provisions from the past that make such a [new world order] outcome possible, indeed likely, still stand. It is not true, as argued by some, and frequently mentioned, that the U.S. rejected the Convention in 1982 solely because of technical difficulties with Part XI. The collectivist and redistributionist provisions of the treaty were at the core of the U.S. refusal to sign."

He added, "The regime's structural arrangements place central planning ahead of free market interests in determining influence over world resources; and yet, the collapse of socialist central planning throughout the world makes this a step in the wrong direction."

In a comment that is, if anything, even more true at present, Ambassador Malone observed that: "Today, not only are the seabed mining provisions inadequately corrected, and the collectivist ideologies of a now repudiated system of global central planning still imbedded in the treaty, new and potentially serious concerns have arisen."

Currently, these include: the increasingly brazen hostility of the United Nations and other multilateral institutions to the United States and its interests; the organization's ambition to impose international taxes, which would allow it to become still less transparent and accountable to member nations; the determination of European and other environmentalists to impose the "precautionary principle" (a Luddite, "better safe than sorry" approach that requires proof no harm can come from any initiative before it can be undertaken); the increasing practice of U.S. courts to allow "universal jurisprudence" to trump American constitutional rights and laws; and the use of "lawfare" (multilateral treaties, tribunal rulings and convention declarations) by adversaries of the U.S. military as asymmetric weapons to curtail or impede American power and operations.





Such developments only serve to reinforce the concerns President Reagan rightly had about the central, and abiding, defect of the Law of the Sea Treaty: its effort to promote global government at the expense of sovereign nation states--and most especially the United States. One of the prime movers behind LOST, the late Elisabeth Mann Borgese of the World Federalist Association (which now calls itself Citizens for Global Solutions), captured what is at stake when she cited an ancient aphorism: "He who rules the sea, rules the land." A U.N. publication lauding her work noted that Borgese saw LOST as a "possible test-bed for ideas she had developed concerning a common global constitution."
While we would not presume to speak for President Reagan, his own words and those of the man who worked most closely with him and us on Law of the Sea matters, Jim Malone, make one thing clear: Even if the 1994 Agreement actually amended LOST (and there are multiple reasons why it did not actually alter so much as a single word of the treaty), Ronald Reagan's belief in the U.S. as an exceptional "shining city on a hill" and his enmity towards threats to our sovereignty in general, and global governance schemes in particular, were such that he would likely encourage the Senate to do today what he did in 1982: Reject LOST.

Judge Clark and Mr. Meese served in several capacities in President Reagan's administration including, respectively, as national security adviser and attorney general.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110010705
_________________

All you who know your Bible and prophecy what does this sound like to you?

"The Treaty's provisions were intentionally designed to promote a new world order--a form of global collectivism known as the New International Economic Order (NIEO)

International Economic Order. Hummmm?

Don't forget to call your Senators to say NO to LOST.

Psalm 139:14