Homestead mailing list

[tvoivozhd <tvoivozd AT infionline.net>]

It was dead, Now the SOB's are reviving it. Yup, so no one can travel on 
or under the seas without U.N. consent and economic blackmail. And a 
stealthy plan to make the U.N. economically independent of its 
members---give those wonderful people absolutely unlimited revenue and 
bringing freedom of the seas to an abrupt end.

Thank you Mr. Lugar , thank you Mr. Frist for bypassing debate and vote 
on creating a landlocked United States---something neither Hitler or 
Hirohito could dol




Treaty by stealth – again!
Posted: March 6, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Shielded by the media glare of presidential politics and daily 
explosions in Iraq, two crucial issues are about to be decided by the 
U.S. Senate, without the knowledge of the American people.

Issue 1: Should the United States ratify the Law of the Seas Treaty 
(Treaty Doc. 103-39)?

Issue 2: Should any U.N. treaty be ratified without full, open debate 
and a recorded vote?

The answer to both questions should be a resounding "no." Nevertheless, 
the treaty is very near ratification by unanimous consent, having never 
been debated, and without a recorded vote. This is the same procedure 
used to ratify the U.N. Convention on Desertification, back in 2000.

The Law of the Seas Treaty was rejected by Ronald Reagan in 1982. After 
some polishing around the edges of the treaty language, Bill Clinton 
signed the treaty in 1994 and sent it to the Senate for ratification. 
There it sat, dormant, until Oct. 7, 2003. Mysteriously, the treaty 
appeared on the Foreign Relations Committee hearings calendar on Oct. 14 
and Oct. 21, but no opposing voices were allowed to present testimony. 
This is precisely the same procedure used with the Convention on 
Desertification.

Next, a request for unanimous consent is issued. If no senator files an 
objection within a specified period of time, then the treaty can be 
approved by a voice vote, with no votes recorded.

After the Convention on Desertification was ratified by unanimous 
consent, many senators did not know it had even been considered or that 
they had voted for it.

All the reasons the treaty was rejected by Ronald Reagan 22 years ago 
still exist. The treaty gives a U.N. agency the authority to tax by 
requiring a permit to engage in any activity affecting the seabed, such 
as oil drilling or mining. Originally, the permit fee price began at 
$500,000. Madeleine Albright's renegotiated version reduced the starting 
price to $250,000. The U.N. agency can also require royalty payments for 
any minerals extracted from the seabed. Even more important, the permit 
process can require detailed information about the technology to be 
used, which can then be shared with all member nations without regard 
for intellectual-property rights or security concerns.

The treaty raises serious national-security questions. Currently, any 
ship on the high seas that the U.S. suspects of carrying terrorists or 
supplies in support of terrorists can be boarded and detained under U.S. 
law. If the U.S. ratifies this treaty, the U.N.'s permission will be 
necessary before stopping a ship on the high seas.

This treaty gives the U.N. the first real power to tax and regulate what 
it calls the "global commons." Other U.N. initiatives seek to tax and 
regulate all of the global commons, which the U.N. defines to include 
"outer space, the atmosphere and the environment that supports human 
life." ("Our Global Neighborhood," p. 251)

If Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, 
has his way, this treaty will become the law of the land without ever 
being debated and without a recorded vote. Every senator should recoil 
against this process and insist that if the treaty is to be ratified, 
the American people deserve to know which senators voted for and against 
this surrender of national sovereignty.

The U.S. Senate has become proficient at bypassing constitutional 
direction. Senate Democrats use Senate rules to block judicial 
appointments rather than to comply with the directive of the 
Constitution. Now the Senate Republicans are using Senate rules to avoid 
the two-thirds vote required to ratify any treaty. This behavior, on 
both sides of the political aisle, is nothing short of despicable – 
unworthy of any official who has sworn to uphold the Constitution.

The only power on earth strong enough to bridle the run-away power of 
run-amok senators is people power. The people who put them in office can 
remove them from office, and these senators need to be reminded of that 
power from time to time. This Law of the Seas Treaty is one of the times 
the American people should exercise their power and hold their senators 
accountable. The telephone is a handy tool between elections. Every 
senator should be asked to explain his or her position on the treaty 
itself and on the unanimous consent process.

The future of America is too important to be left in the hands of 
politicians; the people, by their actions, or inaction, will determine 
whether the United States continues as a sovereign nation or succumbs to 
the U.N.'s quest for global governance.


Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental 
Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.


Global nightmare: Saving the LOST
Posted: March 4, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

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.