What is Digg?22 Comments
- gunjam, on 11/03/2007, -0/+17Once again GWB is carrying the water for the globalists (and their Democrat water-carriers), Bush's base that elected him be damned. I guess that Skull and Crossbones fraternity is pretty tight. Not only does the President want to give us open borders, but he also wants to defenestrate our control of the open seas. Amazingly, our politically correct Navy "leaders" are lobbying FOR passage of this UN, Islamist, Communist, globalist wet-dream of a treaty.
- inactive, on 11/03/2007, -0/+10Bush is working feverishly to give all of America's power to the Beast. His concept of destiny, is lost in his ignorance. The one World Government will never be anything but Satan's attempt at world control, Mr Bush is fully committed to that goal.
- sbernie, on 11/03/2007, -0/+10The trouble is Mr. Bush has always been a globalist and is part of the elite trying to bring about world government, with regional government supplanting national governments, state and local governments. He wants to see the citizens of the U.S. be enslaved by the elites that he is part of.
- inactive, on 11/03/2007, -0/+9How many times do I have to say it: "This guy (Bush) ain't on our side".
- DrReaper, on 11/03/2007, -0/+9I emailed my senator Barbara Boxer (D) in CA two months ago saying we should not enter into the Law of the Sea treaty. Her office mail out a letter saying they didn't know what it is but if it came up for a vote they would look into it. Hogwash! They know what the Law of the sea treaty is global government. I bet she is aboard with this nightmare.
- allahbigbutts, on 11/03/2007, -0/+7All, do your research on who is "guiding" scenarios that happen is this world. I do agree Skull and Bones is an organization that has been put in place with Globalist agenda, but it's much deeper than that. Start with the Rothchilds and begin and interesting read through history(make sure you read both sides of the equation). Then tell me you don't think that a US national election can't be fixed. Then ask yourself who is in the current election run that was guided by the principles set forth from your earlier read (assuming you looked into my earlier suggestion). Lot's of people mention Skull n Bones, look at Rhodes Scholars, CFR, Bildebergers, UN Constitution, How Karl Marx got started, how the banking conglomerates started (Morgan Stanley, Goldman etc.), check out the wars of the world and who finances them, our Federal Reserve, how Stalin came to power...I know...I am a wacko...just read for yourself and read both sides of the equation and make up your own mind. See if this very story I am digging plays into what you supposedly have read. In the end, I agree...we have been played masterfully by Bush jr. who is plunging ahead with what Bush sr. had started...The new world order.
- Ruler4you, on 11/03/2007, -0/+5Bush is a globalist, that was known before he was elected the first time. Now that he is in his second and LAST term he is going to use a full nelson if necessary to not wind up like Klinton... a worthless pig of a president focused on internationalism... Tax paying Americans have financed the largest portion of the cost associated with the transition to globalism while being told patriotic need and defense the resons for the confiscation of your money.
I wonder what they are going to tell us when the United States is just another POS third world country like mexico? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Well if you are a wacko, then I must be one too! I have be screaming about this for years and people can not seem to comprehend this is happening! They will be be crying later in the civilian labor camps that are already set up in the USA that the US Army has openly announced to having in place.And the worst part is they have trained Foreign nationals to take over and put us in those camps.
People take your blinders off. Allabigbutts (love the name) knows what he is talking about. Remember Allabigbutts, I got your back. We are on the same page. We are not being deceived.
The next stage in the game is war with Iran, all for CFR and Israeli. When the hell are people going to realize that Iran is of NO THREAT TO THE USA. The media's lies and propaganda about possible WMD's that Iran might have and that they are supplying weapons in Iraq to the militia groups - that is a big fat lie! The same damn lie CFR owned media said Saddam had! And again Americans are falling for it hook line and sinker! WAKE UP and get your heads out your butts. All for what? Israeli - the chosen ones. In the last days - deception is rampant.
But you can't tell a lot of people that because then you are labeled anti-Semitic! What the rotten foreign policy that America and Israeli have can't be criticized or questioned without being called a anti-Semitic. Those rotten polices are leading to the NWO. They all can Kiss my BIG WHITE DIXIE BUTT!
However, Allbigbutts knows what I am talking about and understands fully the issues. One thing is for sure Bush and his accomplices are all going to the lake of fire when its all over with. There will be justice in the end. I just hope I can witness it! And one more thing - for Americans that really think there is a difference between the Democrats and the Republication Presidential Candidates - your BLIND. There is NO DIFFERENCE. It will not matter if Rudy (the cross dresser) or Hiltery (the murder, lire and thief) get elected - they are on the same page people. - rossnixon, on 11/03/2007, -0/+4Yes, though GWB is (was) supported by conservatives, he secretly laughs at them.
Here is a page on conspirational history for you http://threeworldwars.com - aerostar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Amen, ABB & USNB... and Bravo! Thanks for saying it... "same over here!"
- aerostar, on 11/03/2007, -0/+4George-vicentefox-Bush is a traitor... What single thing has he done to put America First??? Just WHAT???
- deeside, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"One World Government isn't a bad thing"? Have you read the bible? Have you seen what happened to Rome? To Alexander? To Ghengis Khan? God's word and history both show, a One World Government is NOT a good thing. Let me guess, your version of One World Government will have 10 kingdoms, right? Oh, it will happen ... do not doubt that. But the fact it will happen is not a sign of good things to come. (and in case you hadn't notices ... the EU is not the 'paradise' some would have you think. Several former nations that are now just the EU are railing against their bondage.)
- aerostar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Hitler's NWO killed 6 - 13 Million.
Stalin's NWO killed 50 - 70 million.
The escalation of these numbers is frightening, especially when you realize how unconcionable "The Shrub" has been thus far, while he is presumably wearing his mask. When The Phantom removes his mask, WATCH OUT! - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Me, four.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"One world government always falls apart rapidly"! Oh yes, and when it falls apart multiplied millions die. Hitler's New World Order killed millions, Stalins New World order killed millions. This New World Order will be by far the most deadly.
- inactive, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2A "One World Government" isn't a bad thing, as long as it acknowledge LIFE, LIBERTY, and PROPERTY, and does not infringe on this. The origins of the One World Government in the modern style is the original US Constitution, where an independent republic can join into an alliance for common goals of a total nation. The US Constitution also limits governments and gives all Rights and administration to the people. However, the powers of people like the CFR and Free Masons saw that Fascist Marxism and Islam advance their program faster with quicker results without a powerbase to answer to, so the original, slow-going, free-loving Federal Republic idea be damned. Anyways, this has already happened before. Macedonia, Rome, the Roman Catholic Church, Spain, England, France, Germany. One World Government? Always falls apart rapidly, sans Rome and the Church, which collapsed under their own weight.
- InformedLawyer3, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2One of the most blaring omissions in the statements coming forth from the US military in support of the UN Law of the Sea Convention is a thorough analysis of the treaty's more than 45 environmental articles, regulations and protocols, and numerous other standards that could be used to diminish the military's right to freedom of navigation/ innocent passage.
In addition, recently released reports have described how the US military will be increasing its reliance on private contractors more than 50% during the next 5-10 years. The myriad activities of private contractors designing, formulating, producing, testing, delivering and deploying technologies for military application are highly unlikely to qualify for exemption as 'military activities’ under the UNCLOS. The military brass is quite confident, at least publicly, about how they could unilaterally determine what is or is not a 'military activity' for purposes of qualifying for the treaty exemption. And, they believe that they could fit all such activities neatly under one ‘military activity’ tent. They are unlikely, however, to succeed in exempting their supply chains.
Furthermore, the environmentally-obsessed EU member states have 27 votes for every 1 vote cast by the US at the UNCLOS Secretariat meetings, which the administration has been less than forthcoming in explaining.
Lastly, there remains a quaint notion within US constitutional law which is commonly referred to as 'due process'. In the context of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings that are now underway, this means transparency and a thorough publicly aired review. Unfortunately, this has not yet occurred considering that a number of house and senate committees possess oversight jurisdiction which they have yet to exercise to review the various dimensions of the UNCLOS that have not been considered in light of new international environmental law developments since the previous UNCLOS hearings. The American people are entitled to know from their elected representatives how this expansive treaty which will reach into US sovereign territory (land, internal waterways and air above) and into the US regulatory and free enterprise systems, will affect Americans' pocketbooks, small businesses and daily lives.
***************************************************************************
The ‘LOST 45’ UN Environmental Restrictions on US Sovereignty
By J. William Middendorf II* and Lawrence A. Kogan**
During the past six months, a number of former and current administration officials have declared their support for the UN Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), the largest environmental regulatory treaty in the history of the world. Based on their recommendations, President Bush, as did his predecessor, former President Clinton, agreed to resubmit the LOST to the US Senate once again for ratification.
These officials, many of whom are giants in the conservative movement, have argued that LOST ratification would ensure America’s national security, economic and technological vitality and positive standing within the international community. Regrettably, these claims are very much overstated.
Granted, US LOST ratification would signal our acceptance of long-established customary international freedom of navigation principles, as the US Navy and Coast Guard have asserted. However, the general rule of “freedom of navigation/innocent passage” which the administration relies upon as the chief justification for binding America to this treaty has, over time, been eroded and diminished in scope by the LOST’s more numerous environmental regulatory exceptions.
While the LOST contains only two articles (38 and 87) that refer expressly to the right of “freedom of navigation” and ten articles (17, 19, 21-25, 45, 52 and 211) that refer expressly to the related right of “innocent passage”, there are at least 45 environmental articles in LOST Part XII, plus countless others in Parts V, VII, IX, XI, XII, and XIII and Annexes I and VIII that effectively limit those rights. In addition to these ‘LOST 45 plus’, there are also two recent International Seabed Authority environmental regulations and at least one entire environmental protocol related to the LOST (the LOST UN Migratory Fish Stocks Agreement) which European nations have already employed to create ‘marine protected areas’ that even further burden such rights. Collectively, these overwhelming environmental restrictions on American sovereignty obligate the US government and private US citizens to preserve and protect the ‘marine environment’ and its ‘living resources’ against all kinds of possible human-induced ‘pollution’. This includes pollution generated from water, land and air-based sources (e.g., carbon dioxide), even those located within US sovereign territory, that could directly or indirectly impact the global marine environment. In other words, US courts would be compelled to interpret these LOST 45 plus over our own environmental laws should the US ratify the LOST. Tragically, very few US lawmakers are familiar with these LOST provisions or their relationship to numerous other UN environmental treaties.
Hence, following LOST ratification, US military and commercial shippers would no longer be able to rely on the right to freedom of navigation/innocent passage as an absolute right. Indeed, a growing number of foreign governments and commentators hostile to US interests have argued that, under LOST “the right of unlimited freedom of navigation” is subject to “the obligation to protect the [marine] environment”. This LOST reality was previously corroborated by the Clinton administration’s Oceans Report Task Force organized by former Vice President Al Gore. In light of the LOST’s failure to define exempt ‘military activities’, the 1999 report then warned that the domestic and international environmental obligations imposed by the LOST were being manipulated by foreign governments and environmental activists so as to “conflict [with] the US military’s ability to test, train, exercise, and operate in the marine environment”.
These findings should come as no surprise to this administration. Thirty years prior, the “father of the [first] Law of the Sea Conference”, Malta’s former UN Ambassador Arvid Pardo, declared that, “the new law of the sea must be based no longer on the notion of ‘freedom of the seas’ but on a new concept, the Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM).” Thereafter, Tommy Koh, Singapore’s former UN Ambassador and President of the third Law of the Sea Conference, described the LOST as “a global constitution for [the world’s] oceans” drafted in the image of the UN charter.
This administration, presumably, is also aware that CHM was originally a central planning (socialism)-based wealth redistribution mechanism rooted in the Cold War era. And, with a little homework, it should have discovered that, since 1994 (when former President Clinton submitted to the US Senate LOST amendments that allegedly addressed former President Reagan’s objections), CHM has evolved into a prominent instrument of ‘soft’ socialism within the European-dominated UN environment and sustainable development (UNEP/SD) programs. CHM now encompasses the legal obligation erges omnes – ‘of all to all’, which serves as the primary UNEP/SD rationale for the global governance of the earth’s biosphere. In the context of the LOST, CHM mandates the establishment of a UN-sanctioned global environmental conservation trust that would protect and preserve, through strict non-science and non-economics-based international and national regulations, all human use and exploitation of the oceans and its living and nonliving organisms.
Consequently, following LOST ratification, US commercial businesses including the US military’s industrial and technology suppliers could no longer undertake design, manufacturing, processing, disposal and delivery activities within the US in reliance upon current US federal laws. This is especially true, now that President Bush has forwarded, once again, for Senate ratification four other related UN environmental treaties that would require yet further amendments to existing US federal chemicals legislation.
More importantly, each of these other UN treaties contain the same non-science and non-economics-based European environmental legal principle embedded within the LOST 45 plus, which this president and his predecessor only barely succeeded in defeating at the World Trade Organization (WTO). That legal nostrum is the ‘standard-of-proof diminishing, burden of proof-reversing’, ‘guilty-until-proven-innocent’, ‘I fear, therefore I shall ban’ ‘hazard (not risk)-based’ Precautionary Principle (PP). Unfortunately, the LOST dispute settlement mechanism, with its emphasis on adjudicating environmental rather than trade issues, is unlikely to yield the same positive results as those the US secured at the WTO.
In fact, US LOST ratification would provide other LOST treaty parties (especially those in Europe) with a greater ability to employ their unscientific PP to gradually undermine US military, economic and technological superiority. Such nations, for example, could more easily preclude the US military’s civilian technology and industrial supply chain from designing, producing and delivering effective technologies, products and processes that maintain US military preparedness. They also could disrupt US military logistics by relying upon environmental hazard rather than risk assessments to restrict the otherwise “innocent passage” of vessels operated by the US military’s many private shipping contractors. This is extremely likely to occur where US cargoes passing through navigational straits and territorial waters of other LOST parties include alleged ‘hazardous waste’ and/or ‘dangerous’ substances such as liquefied natural gas, oil, coal, chemicals, computers, electrical and electronic hardware, and perhaps, even genetically modified foods, feed and seed. And, such LOST parties could also cite the existence of hypothetical environmental hazards to limit, on PP grounds, the innocent passage of US nuclear-powered military vessels.
The lack of truth and public transparency surrounding the LOST are hard to ignore. By ratifying the LOST, the US would unleash Europe’s PP and subject US military and economic sovereignty to eventual UN dominance and control. Therefore, the US Senate must publicly review the LOST’s largely hidden environmental regulatory agenda BEFORE it renders its advice and consent. Only by exposing the LOST’s deep dark caverns to the light of day in public hearings convened by the various congressional committees possessing oversight jurisdiction, as had recently occurred in connection with the illegal immigration bill, would the US be able to avoid such a disastrous outcome. Anything less would shortchange Americans and violate their cherished US constitutional right to due process.
* Ambassador J. William Middendorf II previously served as US ambassador to the Netherlands, the European Union and the Organization of American States and as Secretary of the US Navy.
** Lawrence Kogan is president and chief executive officer of the Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD), a nonpartisan, nonprofit, international legal research and educational organization, and has advised the Bush administration concerning Europe’s use of the precautionary principle to dominate international economic affairs. - Jereome209, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Best start taking some responsibility and stop making excuses. Be the salt and light you were called to be.
- FiatLux88, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1
“When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon” Thomas Paine
Dear Senator,
I have this crazy idea that the Constitution actually means something!
I believe that our Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution with us in mind, hundreds of years after they passed from the earth. The Founding Fathers made it clear that anything, or anyone that tries to interfere with Constitutional Law, is very dangerous to our Liberty.
By definition and by the intention of the Founding Fathers, the Constitution TRUMPS all other laws. It is not “quant” it is powerful. It is not outdated, it is based on eternal and timeless principles. It’s reason for being was not to be occasionally looked to when all else fails, it is the instruction manual our ancestors gifted to us, for us to read and heed and hold sacred; an un-alienable Liberty and the due process of Justice for We The People of our nation, and they created it for us now, to lead us wisely.
“In Questions of Power, then, Let No More be Heard of Confidence in Man, but Bind him Down from Mischief with the Chains of the Constitution” Thomas Jefferson
“Government without a Constitution is power without a right.” Thomas Paine
“An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot.” Thomas Paine
I know that we have much in the way of “beams” to pull out or our own eyes, but I know that to surrender self rule would be a big mistake, and that is what this bill would do. It would place us in Maritime Law, where our system of DUE PROCESS would be wiped away, and place us at risk of being subjected to tyranny in the form of a totalitarian authority. This does not set well with me. What most concerns me are multinational corporations that could, and I feel would place us under their thumbs.
Don’t believe me, watch “The Corporation.” http://www.kickthemallout.com/staticpages/index.ph ...
And The “Money Masters” http://www.kickthemallout.com/staticpages/index.ph ...
The Law of the Sea Treaty 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.
“Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49” Thomas Jefferson
I invite you to remember Senator, that America is NOT a democracy, but a REPUBLIC with a balance of Executive, Legislative and Judiciary and ALL are SWORN to UPHOLD and DEFEND the CONSTITUTION.
“There was never a Democracy yet that did not Commit Suicide” John Quincy Adams
Let us LISTEN to what Benjamin Franklin had to say about the difference between a democracy and a Republic:
“Democracy is Two Wolves and a Lamb Voting on what to have for Lunch. The Liberty and Justice of a Republic is a Well-Armed Lamb Contesting the Vote” Benjamin Franklin
Subjugating the United States of America under the UN would subject us to “mob rule” of a corrupt majority against our sovereign nation and would leave us unarmed and unable to defend ourselves against corrupt globalist entities.
The previous paragraph brings to mind, the 2nd Amendment. We must protect and preserve the 2nd Amendment. Here is why, because mass killers and tyrants like Hitler and Stalin all agree, gun control works. That is why they confiscated them before killing their people and putting them in concentration camps.
“Spirit of Resistance to Government is So Valuable on Certain Occasions, that I Wish it to be Always Kept Alive.” Thomas Jefferson
“The Strongest Reason for the People to Retain Their Right to Keep and Bear Arms is as a Last Resort to Protect Themselves Against Tyranny in Government,” Thomas Jefferson
“All Men Having Power Ought to be Mistrusted” James Madison
“America is the Well-Wisher to the Freedom and Independence of All. She is the Champion and Vindicator Only of Her Own.” John Quincy Adams
The treaty has already been ratified by 155 countries. Most of them no doubt expect corrupt U.N. bureaucrats to divvy up the riches at the bottom of the sea, which will be brought to the surface by U.S. 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 those who believe in American sovereignty have to keep fighting the same battles over and over again? President Ronald Reagan rejected the Law of the Sea Treaty in 1982, not because of picky details in the text, but because the treaty 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 more than 100 countries, and 25 countries have not agreed to the 1994 changes anyway.
“I smell a rat.” Patrick Henry
Furthermore, changing a few details of the treaty does nothing to address the massive loss of U.S. sovereignty, which Reagan and other Americans found impudent and obnoxious.
The treaty has already created the International Seabed Authority and given it total jurisdiction over all the oceans and everything in them, including "solid, liquid or gaseous mineral resources." The treaty even gives the authority something U.N. bureaucrats have lusted after for years: the authority to impose international taxes (disguised by euphemisms such as fees and royalties).
The treaty 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 until you try your case before this U.N. tribunal, whose decisions cannot be appealed.
Because several U.S. Supreme Court justices are on record as using, and urging others to use, foreign law in deciding U.S. cases, the treaty would be an open invitation to activist judges in the U.S. to interpret the treaty's purposely vague provisions. Some U.S. judges might even develop the theory that the treaty is "evolving" (like notions about the U.S. Constitution), so that social and, especially, environmental biases could be written into U.S. laws.
All Law of the Sea Treaty agencies are U.N. organizations, and the U.N. secretary general plays an important role in administering the treaty. With the U.N.'s shocking track record of corruption, it makes no sense to give it a new infusion of power and money.
One of the silliest arguments is that the U.S. needs the treaty to guard against Russian claims to the North Pole and its oil riches. If the United States ratifies the treaty, America would have to accept the treaty 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 treaty bureaucrats ruling for the United States against Russia are about 1 in 155.
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 International Seabed Authority or rulings of the International Court of Justice. 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 U.N. bureaucracy financed by a global tax.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/law_of_the_dea_tr ...
http://www.infowars.net/articles/august2007/020807 ...
“Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.” George Washington
“It is our True Policy to Steer Clear of Permanent Alliances with Any Portion of the Foreign World” George Washington
“Peace, Commerce and Honest Friendship with All Nations, Entangling Alliances with None” Thomas Jefferson
“When the Legislature is Corrupted, the People are Undone” John Adams
Please VOTE NO on the Law of the Sea Treaty Senator.
Your vote of “NO” on this Bill will be for The People, and some day our descendants will place flowers at your grave.
Those who vote against The People, and vote for this globalist’s agenda will be disrespected by our descendents.
Please vote “NO” on The Law of the Sea Treaty.
Sincerely, - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not one single thing that I can think of.
- Buchanan4Prez, on 02/21/2008, -0/+0Draft Pat Buchanan for President 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLlW309V_mw you want change then let's join in to get Pat Buchanan to run for president Give him the funds to run and get him into debates he will have the platform to expose all these animals that want to usurp the republic spread this video around make it get a million views contact Pat through his website http://www.buchanan.org/blog/ to run promise to financially support him even if he doesn't win Ron Paul got some of the message out there Pat can finish the job it's worth the money and think how fun it will be supporting Pat and meating like minded Americans
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is