Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Global nightmare: Saving the LOST
World Net Daily ^ | March 4, 2004 | Jane Chastain

Posted on 03/04/2004 8:04:55 AM PST by hedgetrimmer

When I first heard of the LOST (Law Of the Sea Treaty), it sounded like a bad plot for a science-fiction movie.

In the '60s and '70s, when the United Nations organized and led a series of conferences on the Law of the Sea, most considered the idea too weird to be taken seriously.

However, this maritime nightmare is about to become a reality.

The LOST was hatched by a group of internationalists who want to give the United Nations control of seven-tenths of the earth's surface area. It creates an International Seabed Authority to regulate the vast oceans and everything that happens beneath these waters, as well as everything that travels above or below their surfaces.

In addition, it would – for the very first time – create a revenue stream for the United Nations and give this onerous international bureaucracy true independence from its member nations.

Under the LOST, the United Nations would have the power to tax any and every type of sea-going vessel, as well as any type of ocean research and exploration. In fact, it would give the United Nations absolute control of these activities.

How would the United Nations exercise this control? It could persuade member nations to provide "seakeepers" to do its bidding. However, if that should fail, with its own revenue stream, the United Nations would be free to recruit and maintain its own standing army of paid international enforcers. Many believe that if you can control the great seas and oceans of the world, you control the world!

President Ronald Reagan was not about to give away the ability we now have to conduct activities in international waters. When Reagan refused to support the LOST, it slipped quietly beneath the waves until 1994, when President Bill Clinton dredged it up and signed it.

However, when the LOST went over to the Senate for ratification, Foreign Relations Chairman Jesse Helms told Clinton to get lost. Clinton was followed by George W. Bush, a president cut from the mold of Ronald Reagan, who was willing to work with the United Nations, but unwilling to be controlled by it. The LOST was gone forever, or so it seemed.

It has recently come to light that some members of the Bush administration have been working behind the scenes with a group of international businessmen who want to resurrect this many-tentacled ocean monster. It likely has something to do with the black gold hidden under the sea

It now appears that its ratification is being pushed by Vice President Dick Cheney, the man who ran Halliburton before being pressed back into public service by President Bush.

Mr. Cheney, say it isn't so!

Many of Cheney's buddies in the oil industry see the LOST as a way to recoup the millions they have been denied by our capitulation to the radical environmentalists, who keep us from drilling in our territorial waters. Understandably, they would like to see some protection for the millions they would like to sink into undersea oil exploration in international waters. They mistakenly see the United Nations as that protection.

Since when has the United Nations – largely is controlled by a pack of socialists or outright dictators and thugs – protected our interests?

Even more troubling, the U.S. Navy is quietly pushing for LOST ratification. The Center for Security Policy correctly states that the treaty effectively prohibits two functions vital to American security: intelligence collection in – and submerged transit of – territorial waters.

Why would the Navy sink under pressure for the LOST?

In the 1990s, following the Tailhook incident, the Navy allowed itself to be bullied by a bunch of finger-wagging, radical feminists. Should we be surprised that the Navy now has allowed itself to be torpedoed by a bunch of over-the-hill guys in business suits?

Unfortunately, the threat from the LOST is real and immediate!

Dick Lugar, the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, dutifully carried the water for the administration on the LOST, only allowing proponents to testify at a brief hearing. He is hoping to bring it to the floor for a surprise vote before any opposition can be organized.

Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club sued Mr. Cheney to get the records of what went on behind the closed doors of his Energy Task Force. It must be pretty embarrassing, because Mr. Cheney refused to comply with two lower-court rulings and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court in order to keep those records away from the American people.

Perhaps, just perhaps, it was this battle plan for the LOST.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: conspiracy; environment; govwatch; lost; maritime; mining; oil; propertyrights; sovereignty; sovereigntylist; un; unlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last
LOST is indeed alive and well.

We need to find bill numbers and start a letter campaign ASAP.

1 posted on 03/04/2004 8:04:55 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RickofEssex; bulldogs; Vigilanteman; ServesURight; NonValueAdded; knighthawk; DakotaGator; ...
LOST PING
2 posted on 03/04/2004 8:09:06 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
It doesn't matter who we put in office. They are all UN loving, globalist, socialist scumbags.
3 posted on 03/04/2004 8:12:47 AM PST by Bikers4Bush (Flood waters rising, heading for more conservative ground. Write in Tancredo in 04'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush
Then we need to get decent patriotic Americans to run.. and stop supporting the internationalists.
4 posted on 03/04/2004 8:15:15 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer; abbi_normal_2; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; amom; AndreaZingg; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
5 posted on 03/04/2004 8:18:44 AM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
I could not agree more.
6 posted on 03/04/2004 8:19:49 AM PST by Bikers4Bush (Flood waters rising, heading for more conservative ground. Write in Tancredo in 04'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
BTTT!!!!!!
7 posted on 03/04/2004 8:26:41 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
INTREP - LOST
8 posted on 03/04/2004 8:29:59 AM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush
You speak the truth.

Both parties are globalist, elitest pukes with an agenda that does NOT include the absolute sovereignty of the U.S. or the protection of the rights and welfare of it's citizens.

They don't even try to hide it.

9 posted on 03/04/2004 9:02:00 AM PST by Ribeye (Protective head wear courtesy of Reynolds Aluminum Products)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer; .30Carbine; *Sovereignty_list; *UN_List; *gov_watch; *Conspiracy
Good find. Thanks for the ping.

Previous thread here.

10 posted on 03/04/2004 9:29:07 AM PST by TigersEye (Carrying a gun is a social obligation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
FYI

Parties to the Law of the Sea treaty yesterday adopted the 2004 budget for the convention's tribunal and discussed the changing role of the 21-year-old pact.

Meeting participants agreed to allocate $8 million for the tribunal next year, less than the $8.6 million originally proposed at the meeting's opening session. The reduction was made possible by eliminating some communication and equipment spending and by modifying some budget procedures.

Delegates also discussed whether the meeting should expand its role to address issues other than budgetary and administrative matters. Chile, supported by several other nations, proposed that the meeting should consider questions relating to the implementation of the law of the sea, while Norway, Japan and the United Kingdom, as well as the United States as an observer, argued that there was no legal basis for expanding the meeting's agenda.

Sierra Leone said the convention should be expanded to address problems of safety and human rights of international seafarers and illegal smuggling, even if other international bodies also address them (U.N. release, June 12).

http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20030613/449_5022.asp
11 posted on 03/04/2004 9:33:00 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch; GraniteStateConservative; MeekOneGOP; Tailgunner Joe; ntnychik; syriacus; Carry_Okie; ...
The Center for Security Policy correctly states that the treaty effectively prohibits two functions vital to American security: intelligence collection in – and submerged transit of – territorial waters.
12 posted on 03/04/2004 9:35:10 AM PST by TigersEye (Carrying a gun is a social obligation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
FYI: Here is a 1998 bulletin on LOST from the American Geological Association:

The American Geophysical Union has sent out the following message to its membership in an effort to encourage Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-NC) to allow the Law of the Sea treaty to complete the ratification process. Ratification has virtually universal support from all interested parties, including environmental groups, the American Petroleum Institute, the oceanographic research community, and the U.S. Navy. Ratification must take place by November 15th or the US loses its place on key governing bodies for treaty implementation. The treaty affects a great number of geoscientists, especially those involved in offshore petroleum exploration, marine minerals development, and marine research. A number of prominent geoscientists were involved in the treaty's development over many years, foremost among them the late Hollis Hedberg, many of whose ideas were incorporated into the final pact, signed in 1982.

http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=%22law+of+the+sea+treaty%22+2004&u=www.agiweb.org/legis105/seaalert.html&w=%22law+of+the+sea+treaty%22+2004&d=968F0BC03C&c=482&yc=22103&icp=1
13 posted on 03/04/2004 9:40:46 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
This is important, mainly because it is related to the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty. While the sea, the continental shelf, the deep sea are interesting because of oil/gas, outer space is interesting because of unlimited potential. Outer space law is developing along the same lines as the law of the sea, mainly because the thoughts and ideas of our governors are limited to a handful of pragmatic possibilities. When it comes to deep sea development and outer space development, a monarchy with a strong navy is the way to go. The touchy-feely modern constitutional republics around the world will never achieve a pace of astounding development and insane profit from either the sea or outer space.
14 posted on 03/04/2004 9:40:51 AM PST by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
I'm sorry, but this seems a little kooky. Jane says all of these people and organizations (the US Navy?!) secretly support this goofy treaty, but she provides no evidince.

Take a gander at this particular little jem. It confirms, IMHO, that this article is a bunch of silly hyperventilating:

"It has recently come to light that some members of the Bush administration have been working behind the scenes with a group of international businessmen who want to resurrect this many-tentacled ocean monster. It likely has something to do with the black gold hidden under the sea

It now appears that its ratification is being pushed by Vice President Dick Cheney, the man who ran Halliburton before being pressed back into public service by President Bush."

It APPEARS that international businessmen conspiring against "us" and Cheney SEEMS to be selling his soul for oil. Where have we heard this before? Pu-leeze!

Moreover, does the fact that Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club sued the VP for info that may or may not exist really mean anything? Since when have they ever known their elbows from their, uh, ears?

I could be wrong, but this is seriously setting of my baloney meter.


15 posted on 03/04/2004 9:45:13 AM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer; TigersEye; Carry_Okie
I found this on Thomas.

Treaty Doc. 103-39
October 7, 1994 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, With Annexes, Done at Montego Bay, December 10, 1982 (the "Convention"), and the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, with Annex, Adopted at New York, July 28, 1994 (the "Agreement"), and signed by the United States, Subject to Ratification, on July 29, 1994. August 11, 1994 -- Public hearing. (S. Hrg. 103-737.) October 14 and 21, 2003 B Public hearings.

16 posted on 03/04/2004 9:45:25 AM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; RightWhale
Research for you. Here is testimony on the LOST treaty from last year. As far as I can tell from a quick glance, nobody opposing the treaty was allowed to testify.

Read these and you will understand how this treaty is going to get railroaded through Congress.
The UN Convention
on the
Law of the Sea (T. Doc.103-39)



HEARING
before the

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION



Tuesday, October 21, 2003



Time: 9:30 AM
Place: 216 Hart Senate Office Building
Presiding: Senator Lugar

Witnesses:
Panel 1
Rear Admiral John E. Crowley
Chief Counsel & Judge Advocate General
United States Coast Guard
Washington, DC
Admiral Michael G. Mullen
Vice Chief of Naval Operations
United States Navy
Washington, DC
The Honorable William H. Taft, IV
The Legal Adviser
Department of State
Washington, DC
The Honorable John F. Turner
Assistant Secretary
Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs
Department of State
Washington, DC
Mr. Mark T. Esper
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Negotiations Policy
Department of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, DC
Panel 2
Mr. David G. Burney
Executive Director
U.S. Tuna Foundation
San Diego, CA
Ms. Randi Thomas
National Representative
U.S. Tuna Foundation
Washington, DC
Mr. Joseph J. Cox
President
Chamber of Shipping of America
Washington, DC
Mr. Paul L. Kelly
Senior Vice President
Rowan Companies, Inc.
Houston, TX
Vice Admiral Roger T. Rufe, Jr., USCG (Ret.)
President
The Ocean Conservancy
Washington, DC
Additional Witnesses May Be Added...



http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2003/hrg031021a.html
17 posted on 03/04/2004 9:50:10 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer; TigersEye; Carry_Okie
An article CATO's web site.

Faulty Repairs: The Law of the Sea Treaty is Still Unacceptable

18 posted on 03/04/2004 9:50:45 AM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ribeye
What makes me sick is how many people don't see what's happening in both parties.
19 posted on 03/04/2004 9:57:39 AM PST by Bikers4Bush (Flood waters rising, heading for more conservative ground. Write in Tancredo in 04'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; RightWhale
There is a draft of the treaty.

http://ioc.unesco.org/oceansciences/unclos/ABE-LOS%20I%20-engl/ABE-LOSI-11%20Roach%20.doc

Here is a document on the Senate's role on treaties.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/treaties_senate_role.htm
20 posted on 03/04/2004 9:58:26 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
103d CONGRESS

2d Session

H. CON. RES. 268
To express the sense of the Congress that the United States should refrain from signing the seabed mining agreement relating to the Law of the Sea Treaty.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 19, 1994
Mr. FIELDS of Texas submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs







CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
To express the sense of the Congress that the United States should refrain from signing the seabed mining agreement relating to the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Whereas many of the minerals underlying the seabed have strategic and military importance to the United States;

Whereas the Law of the Sea Treaty will come into force on November 16, 1994, having been ratified to date by sixty-one countries, none of which is industrialized;

Whereas a new seabed mining agreement amending the Law of the Sea Treaty will be open for signature on July 29, 1994, and the United States will sign the agreement;

Whereas the Law of the Sea Treaty, even as amended, continues to discriminate against the United States and our industrialized allies, is antithetical to business interests and will discourage United States investment in seabed mining;

Whereas signature of the agreement will bind the United States provisionally to the seabed mining agreement and portions of the Law of the Sea Treaty for up to four years, even absent Senate ratification of the agreement and the Law of the Sea Treaty;

Whereas this provisional application will force the United States to finance 25 percent of the operations of the large bureaucracy created by the Treaty, including the International Seabed Authority, which will eventually support a direct competitor to United States' and private mining interests, and distribute revenues from seabed mining to developing countries and groups of national liberation;

Whereas provisional application will coerce United States seabed miners to participate in the regime by filing mining claims and paying quarter million dollar exploration and exploitation application fees to the International Seabed Authority;

Whereas the plain language of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 prohibits the participation by the United States in an international organization and other international activities for which provision has not been made by any treaty for longer than one year without approval of Congress; and

Whereas possible ultimate failure by the United States to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty will cause chaos for the United States seabed mining industry: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should refrain from signing the seabed mining agreement relating to the Law of the Sea Treaty.
***
H.CON.RES.268 : To express the sense of the Congress that the United States should refrain from signing the seabed mining agreement relating to the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Sponsor: Rep Fields, Jack [TX-8] (introduced 7/19/1994) Cosponsors: 12
Committees: House Foreign Affairs
Latest Major Action: 7/19/1994 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

21 posted on 03/04/2004 9:59:43 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
It's a lot to digest. Entire legal careers are dedicated to Law of the Sea, and a couple are already dedicated to Space Law. As Law of the Sea goes, Space Law will follow by simple extension.

The problem for those who wish to exploit either the sea or space is that a private individual or corporation is excluded from such activity without sponsorship of his home country and the home country is severely constrained by treaty. Thus, there can be no moon mining, no asteroid mining until the signatories come to some agreement on the specific plan for the specific asteroid, and such mining would be highly regulated and taxed at least. The chance of profit under those conditions is near zero. Therefore, space will not be developed. However it is only a treaty and can be withdrawn from. There would be repercussions in the diplomatic arena and howls from the postmodernists. The postmodernists would give in immediately since they consider they have already lost everything; the diplomats would smooth everything out so the withdrawal shouldn't have any real negative effect. Anyway, Space Law is in its infancy and shouldn't necessarily be developed in an evolutionary way from Law of the Sea.

22 posted on 03/04/2004 10:45:28 AM PST by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer; farmfriend; Travis McGee; GeronL; Tailgunner Joe
From Henry Lamb's email on the topic: Among the treaty’s many flaws, it authorizes the U.N. to impose a tax, and to extract royalties on activities in and on the international seabed. It requires the transfer of technology - including information that may have security implications. For more detailed information about this terrible treaty, see these two great articles by Frank Gaffney, Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=04-D_08

http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200402261356.asp

We must take two actions - NOW!

First, call Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - 202-224-3344 - and ask him to not allow this treaty to by placed on the “unanimous consent” calendar.

Next, call your Senator, and ask him/her to file an objection to force a floor debate and vote. Then ask the Senator to vote against the treaty.


23 posted on 03/04/2004 11:00:17 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
A CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2aa8747413.htm
24 posted on 03/04/2004 11:43:58 AM PST by RickofEssex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Senator Richard G. Lugar
Chairman Senator Joseph R Biden Jr.
Ranking Minority Member

Message from the Chairman:
Welcome to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee website.
Our Committee is responsible for the foreign policy activities
of the U.S. Senate. We evaluate all treaties with foreign governments;
approve all diplomatic nominations; and write legislation pertaining
to U.S. foreign policy, the State Department, Foreign Assistance
programs, and many associated topics. During 2003, the Committee
has maintained an extremely busy schedule of hearings and
legislative work. I hope that you find this website to be a valuable
resource in following our activities and understanding the role of the
Senate in foreign policy.

Sincerely,

http://foreign.senate.gov/
25 posted on 03/04/2004 11:46:59 AM PST by RickofEssex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a325b3f5d31.htm
26 posted on 03/04/2004 11:49:01 AM PST by RickofEssex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush
NEW WORLD ORDER

QUOTES
http://www.weirdvideos.com/nwo.html
27 posted on 03/04/2004 11:57:39 AM PST by RickofEssex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Who created the United Nations? UNITED NATIONS, COMMUNIST AGENTS, WORLD GOVERNMENT, KARL MARX, SOCIALISM
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a00f5fb38b0.htm
28 posted on 03/04/2004 12:02:55 PM PST by RickofEssex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
New World Order Rising? - Thoughts on the UN World Summit on Sustainable Developmenthttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/743512/posts?page=10
29 posted on 03/04/2004 12:10:56 PM PST by RickofEssex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Thanks for the very constructive suggestions.
30 posted on 03/04/2004 1:42:02 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RickofEssex
We are deeply enmeshed in in Agenda 21 here in Santa Cruz county.

So much so that there is even a website here locallythat monitors and explains Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is what happens when you elect communists and socialists to a republican government. Suddenly the Republic isn't free anymore, but becomes the twisted vision of the communist utopianists:

http://freedom21santacruz.net

It used to be against the law for a communist to run for or hold office. But since no one claims to be a member of the communist party, and there are plenty of communist political parties without the word communist in their name, its an end run around the rules.


31 posted on 03/04/2004 1:47:10 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ribeye
Old man Bush was always nattering on about "the new world order." Unfortunately, people just let him natter on about it and never questioned what he was talking about.

32 posted on 03/04/2004 1:50:32 PM PST by ladylib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Right up until the this glob of horse hockey fell upon Cheney I was in sync. Now I realize that it is nothing but spin from the loonie liberal democrats. It is they who are joined at the hip with the UN, not Cheney or any other Republican.
33 posted on 03/04/2004 2:57:31 PM PST by F.J. Mitchell (With only one John left there will now be a lot of democrats standing cross legged.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F.J. Mitchell; Constantine XIII
Now I realize that it is nothing but spin from the loonie liberal democrats.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. President & CEO, The Center for Security Policy

Your credibility is really sucking hind teat, F.J., when you pass off someone like this as a liberal spinmeister.

34 posted on 03/04/2004 5:42:37 PM PST by TigersEye (Carrying a gun is a social obligation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
you are so Right
35 posted on 03/04/2004 8:49:12 PM PST by RickofEssex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: F.J. Mitchell
If anyone has an ear, let him hear.

It is the God of the Bible who first warned of one-world government, economy, and religion. If you do not see (especially after reading the very appropriate and relevant links provided on this thread) every conceivable stone of this tower of man being put into place you simply don't have eyes to see.

I've been watching the rise of the one-world government, economy, and religion for years now. It is absolutely undeniable, not only because it is biblical, but because I can not deny what my eyes see and what my ears hear. The LOST legislation is simply one more brick in its building.

I believe men of God will fight every step of the way, and rightly so, but in the end prophesy will be fulfilled.
To deny it is to deny the God who spoke it.

"See," Jesus said, "I have warned you ahead of time."

36 posted on 03/05/2004 2:59:50 AM PST by .30Carbine (watch and pray)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Thank you so much for all the research you did and posted here.
37 posted on 03/05/2004 3:29:36 AM PST by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constantine XIII
Some "baloney meters" are in need of calibration.
38 posted on 03/05/2004 3:32:15 AM PST by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
I'd just like her to back up what she's saying a bit. W's administration has gone out of its way to make fools of the UN, one of the reasons why he is an awesome president. We could talk all day about how he's stuck his finger in their eye by killing off the Tobin Tax in Mexico city during his first few months in office, stopping Kyoto and the ICC, cutting out UN "family planning" funding, stomping Saddam, and so on.

In light of this, to claim that W's vice president and the US freakin Navy are part of the UN's plan to become a global government seem pretty far fetched. Extraordinary claims require extraordiany evidince, and she provides none. Her argument consists of mostly "it appears that", "it seems", and nameless nameless, nebulous clues.

Yeah, the UN sucks, I've made plenty of people upset over the years saying so, too, but they don't have spies in my rice crispies, and they certainly haven't bought off the VP and the Navy. :)
39 posted on 03/05/2004 6:30:13 AM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
Mind you, I don't doubt Kofi would like to be King of the World. It's just that they really don't have the means to pull this off in the near term. Now, if people stay home and elect Dems for president and congress, that could be a whole different kettle of fish.

This thought should provide some encouragement to "dance with who brought you" for those who want to "send the R's a message" by getting J F'n K elected.

JMHO, o'course!
40 posted on 03/05/2004 6:34:28 AM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Constantine XIII
I'd just like her to back up what she's saying a bit.

You could bother to take some of the links heretofore provided and find out where she got her information.

John Kerry’s Treaty - Outsourcing sovereignty

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. President & CEO, The Center for Security Policy

W's administration has gone out of its way to make fools of the UN, ...

He sure made a monkey out of them with this:

Bush Close to Backing $1 Billion Loan to U.N.

White House seeks to loan U.N. funds for renovations

The U.S. Loan to the U.N.: An Investment in Ingratitude

41 posted on 03/05/2004 8:15:27 AM PST by TigersEye (Carrying a gun is a social obligation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
I emailed my senators to see if they would responed with any info on this thing...
42 posted on 03/05/2004 8:40:32 AM PST by kt56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kt56
Let us know if they write you back. We need a little more transparency in our government, don't you think?
43 posted on 03/05/2004 8:49:17 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
The UN has a crappy building that needs to be brought up to code and we're being polite by helping fix it. He's just throwing them a bone, not that I agree with it. What about the stuff I sited that is solid, well-known history? Doesn't that more than outweigh fixing the ugliest building in the country?

And yes, Mr. Gaffney might have good credentials with President Reagan (along with an art degree and foreign service studies), but he doesn't provide any more evidence than Ms. Chastain does. I don't buy "argument from authority" unless it's from the Bible.

Sure, there are dipsticks who want to instal a global government, but they seem to at best be ineffective, and at worst completely incompetent. Believe me, if it ever gets to be all that serious a possibility, the fecal matter will hit the rotary impeller with respect to folks like you and me.

To claim without any sort of proof that the VP and the Navy are involved along with the eeeeevil business men and oil companies tends to really turn me off.
44 posted on 03/05/2004 9:16:01 AM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Will do. Probably won't hear anything until Monday. I have this bookmarked and will post when I get a reply
45 posted on 03/05/2004 9:56:29 AM PST by kt56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush
Well if that is the case, when do we start the shooting?
46 posted on 03/05/2004 9:59:09 AM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Constantine XIII
The UN has a crappy building that needs to be brought up to code and we're being polite by helping fix it. He's just throwing them a bone, ...

$1.2 billion dollars. Nice bone.

Mr. Gaffney might have good credentials with President Reagan ...

Really good credentials:

In April 1987, Mr. Gaffney was nominated by President Reagan to become the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, the senior position in the Defense Department with responsibility for policies involving nuclear forces, arms control and U.S.-European defense relations. He acted in that capacity for seven months during which time, he was the Chairman of the prestigious High Level Group, NATO's senior politico-military committee. He also represented the Secretary of Defense in key U.S.-Soviet negotiations and ministerial meetings.

From August 1983 until November 1987, Mr. Gaffney was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy under Assistant Secretary Richard Perle. From February 1981 to August 1983, Mr. Gaffney was a Professional Staff Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Senator John Tower (R-Texas). In the latter 1970's, Mr. Gaffney served as an aide to the late Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson (D-Washington) in the areas of defense and foreign policy.

He's a pretty staunch defender of Pres. Bush as well:

Mr. Bush Goes to Baghdad

I guess he just couldn't stand being so credible and knowledgable anymore and decided to start some "black helicopter" stories for kicks and giggles.

To claim without any sort of proof that the VP and the Navy are involved along with the eeeeevil business men and oil companies tends to really turn me off.

Alas, in addition to the wealth redistributors, one-worlders, environmentalists, international lawyers, and the other usual suspects on the Left, the U.S. Navy, the American oil industry and Vice President Cheney currently support LOST.

That is a pretty straight forward statement. If this committee weren't being kept so low-profile it would be easy enough to verify from testimony in their hearings. And if he lied about it just as easy to deny.

Such support appears to be motivated by narrow, parochial, and shortsighted reasons (e.g., the belief that having internationally agreed "rules of the road" for the world's oceans will be good for the respective businesses of the Navy and the deep-sea "oil patch.")

Such myopic support is even more grievously misplaced and foolish than that given in 1997 by a powerful trade association — the Chemical Manufacturers Association — to another defective treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention.

There is the not-at-all sinister motivation that he gives for their support and an example of a previous, similar, situation where self-interest led a corporation to shoot itself in the foot by endorsing a treaty.

You are the one suggesting duplicity not Frank Gaffney.

47 posted on 03/05/2004 10:19:42 AM PST by TigersEye (Carrying a gun is a social obligation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Here is another article I found.

Law Of The Sea By Dark Of Night By Paul M. Weyrich March 3, 2004

Posted here: Law of The Sea By Dark of Night Posted by kattracks

48 posted on 03/05/2004 10:35:58 AM PST by TigersEye (Carrying a gun is a social obligation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Hey, don't get mad at me, let's keep it friendly, eh? :)

All I'm saying is that those are some pretty big charges. Yeah, that's a reason Cheney and the Navy might support it, but that doesn't equate to actually doing the deed. It is far from conclusive evidence.

LOST is against everything the Administration has done with respect to the UN. We and W's administration ought to work as hard as possible to see to it that these Liliputians can't tie us down, and so far both we and they have done just that. These charges are totally out of character of the accused, and outside of some shadowy suggestions, niether Chastain nor Gaffney have anything to back it up.

So I'm still a skeptic.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)
49 posted on 03/05/2004 2:36:22 PM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Constantine XIII
Hey, don't get mad at me, let's keep it friendly, eh? :)

You should see what I write when I actually am mad. ; )

I'm just challenging your assertions just as you are challenging mine and those of these authors. That's the best a forum can be. Read my postings with the most dispassionate imagined voice you can think of, short of an android, and they will read truer. Really.

These charges are totally out of character of the accused, and outside of some shadowy suggestions, niether Chastain nor Gaffney have anything to back it up.

You see, you are reading these articles as making charges and accusations, I don't see that. I don't see 'shadowy suggestions' I see questions of concern and puzzlement. If this had been written by Maureen Dowd or Bill O'Reilly, verbatim, I would have sh#t canned it as just so much hog slop.

You are right that it needs clarification; somewhere Gaffney has learned that Lugar has rejected opposition testimony so it follows that he learned who testified for this treaty. It would really be nice to know who testified to what and why.

He didn't claim or even hint that he knew what they said. We have a FReeper right here who called Lugar's office and was told "we aren't allowed to comment on that." They could have as easily said "we don't know about that" or "we have no comment on that" but it was the much more intriguing "we aren't allowed ..."

The treaty has passed Senate approval in secret, that is a fact, and no one here, as yet, can find out boo about it. Does that sit well with you? I agree about impeller blades and flying dung, in fact my best guess is that that is inevitable, but I'd sure like to try and stop it.

50 posted on 03/05/2004 3:51:41 PM PST by TigersEye (Carrying a gun is a social obligation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson