LOST treaty

[TwistedCopper]

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/glenn.beck

But first, welcome to "The Real Story." And trust me, this one, do not delete from your TiVo, and share this with all of your friends. Today`s story has everything in it. It has money, it has power, it has socialism, it has national security, world government, oil. It even has global warming. And yet no one in the media is talking about it.

It all revolves around an international agreement called the Law of the Sea or the LOST treaty. And even though we`ve been fighting it off since the days of Ronald Reagan, we are now closer to it than ever before, and the Senate is about to ratify it. The politicians who want to rubber stamp this through Congress tell people that it is harmless. Pay no attention to it. The media is going right along with it.

It just formalizes international laws that we`ve been following anyway. Well, great. Then why do we need a treaty? The "Real Story" is that the only thing that will be lost if this treaty is ratified will be more of our sovereignty. This is a big one.

Now, I realize it`s not exactly a ratings bonanza to have me talk about the fine print in international treaties, but, please, let me -- if you`ll just give me a second to explain why any of this actually matters to you.

International treaties are being used by the rest of the world as something called law-fare. This basically means that our adversaries use all of these treaties and accords and conventions that we sign as a way to reduce our power in the world without ever putting a boot down on the ground. This is as much of a weapon as any gun or missile, and it is basically a natural gas war. It will kill you, but you never see it coming.

The Kyoto treaty, thankfully neither Clinton nor Bush ever ratified this thing. This is one example of it. But so is something called the Vienna Convention that we told you about last week. Right now, the U.S. Supreme Court is trying to decide if that convention supersedes our own laws and Constitution on due process for foreign nationals, otherwise known as illegal aliens.

In essence, while these treaties may seem harmless, and we all love to play nicey-nice with the rest of the world, they can actually have more power than our own Constitution, which brings me back to the LOST treaty. Those pesky, little, boring details that nobody wants to pay attention to, here`s just a few of them.

First, it would give the U.N. related body control over 70 percent of the world`s surface. Second, the agency would have the power to tax -- no, sorry, the word tax isn`t actually in there. They get to -- they have the power to, oh, I remember, levy fees and royalties on us and create a great new revenue stream for the socialist, anti-American U.N.

They also get the power to settle disputes, which, if I may translate, means the power to set up a world court run by, most likely, anti-American foreign judges, which kind of sounds like the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, but, trust me, it is even worse.

This is really about socialism, the systematic redistribution of wealth by the United Nations and the usurping of your rights as a citizen of this country, the taking away of the Constitution. One of the original creators of this treaty was a public supporter of one world government. She was a woman who saw LOST as a trial balloon for developing a, quote, "common global constitution."

America, please, this is not a joke. You must look into the LOST treaty. It is in the Senate now. We must wake up. The killers are inside the house! Our country and our sovereignty is being lost to socialists, globalists, elitists, and corporations, and it`s happening right in front of our eyes. We must stand up and say, "Enough!"

Now we go now to Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe. Senator, good to have you on the program again.

SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R), OKLAHOMA: Hey, Glenn. Good to be with you again.

BECK: Let`s start here. This is the first time now the U.N. will be able to actually levy a tax. Is that true?

INHOFE: What it is, is the Law of the Sea Treaty, I think, is the greatest single raid on our sovereignty, in my lifetime, anyway. And, yeah, they would be able to do it. This new group that`s called the International Seabed Authority would have the authority to level taxes on everybody, us and other countries.

Now, I`ll tell you what I think. And you know my bias against the United Nations. I think that every time the United Nations does something that we don`t like, we pass a resolution to say, "We`re going to withhold so much of your funds." They don`t like to be accountable to anyone, Glenn. And so what they`re going to do is try to pass a global tax, and they can do it with this authority.

BECK: It`s taxes, fees, and levies actually in this.

INHOFE: Yes, it`s there.

BECK: And what America doesn`t understand is, once the Senate approves something -- correct me if I`m wrong, Senator, but it`s only been a couple of weeks since I`ve read this part of the Constitution -- but once you approve it and ratify it, it becomes part of our Constitution.

INHOFE: And it allows the United Nations to regulate 70 percent of the Earth`s surface and the air above it, I might add.

BECK: OK. Now, we can`t stop ships except for three reasons, and terrorism is not one of them.

INHOFE: No, that`s true. If we have knowledge that a terrorist was on a ship in the high seas or they had weapons of mass destruction, we wouldn`t be able to do it, because you can only do it for three specific reasons, which are really kind of stupid to start with anyway.

BECK: OK.

INHOFE: So that`s the problem that we`re having with this thing right now.

BECK: We`re going to put up on the bottom of the screen here a Web address. And it is -- do you have it handy real quick? Do you want to say it real quick?

INHOFE: Yes, it`s EPW.Senate.gov.

BECK: OK, go there, because it has all of this information and so much more that you`ve put together. Just click on the Glenn Beck viewers and listeners.

How close do you believe we are, Senator, to losing America as we know it? We have the Supreme Court answering to an international court last week. We have this LOST treaty, possibly, most likely, would you say, being ratified by...

INHOFE: No, I think most likely. Look, Glenn, we stopped it in `04 only because no one knew what it was. It passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 16-0. So it would have been ratified, but we stopped it by having hearings. But that`s when Republicans controlled the Senate. We don`t control it anymore, so we may not be able to get hearings.

BECK: Real quick, Senator, how close are we to losing our sovereignty in this nation?

INHOFE: Way too close. I`ve got 20 kids and grandkids, and I`m really worried about it.

BECK: OK, thank you very much.

INHOFE: Thank you, Glenn.

[TwistedCopper]

continues

BECK: Now, the LOST supporters love to say that Ronald Reagan was only opposed to this piece of garbage treaty because of one specific clause about seabed mining. Unfortunately for them, Mr. Reagan kept a diary.

June 29th, 1982, this is what he wrote in his diary, quote, "Decided in National Security Council meeting -- will not sign Law of the Sea treaty even without the seabed mining provisions." I can see how you might misinterpret that one.

Frank Gaffney, he was a former assistant secretary in the Reagan administration, now the president of the Center for Security Policy. Frank, I don`t even know where to begin on this one. Please tell me that I`m overstating this, that this is not the taking of our sovereignty.

FRANK GAFFNEY, JR., FOUNDER, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: I don`t think you`re overstating it at all. Unfortunately, it will happen incrementally, Glenn, so it may not seem as painful. Over time it will be, but immediately it may not be as bad as you say. But I think there`s no question, what you`ve described is where this thing will take us. And it`s not good for America.

BECK: Frank, I have to tell you. And maybe this is what Reagan saw. I mean, you were there. They never take it -- they never say, "I`m going to take all of it," because they know they`ll never get it through. They take it piece by piece by piece. And that`s exactly what they`re doing. Give me just the highlights of the worst things about this.

GAFFNEY: Well, as you said, President Reagan rejected this treaty, because I think he did anticipate the kind of threat that it would represent to our sovereignty as a global constitution of the oceans inevitably migrated to the land.

In fact, one of the architects of it, as you spoke of, talked about this as the implementation of the old adage, "He who rules the oceans rules the land." And what we see about this treaty is an opportunity for -- in much the same way as this may be in case demonstrated, the Bush administration or perhaps its successor compelling us to submit our constitutional representative form of government to these faceless, unaccountable, unresponsive, international bureaucrats.

Taxes is one thing. Law-fare, as you put it, is another very serious problem for the United States Navy and our security interests. And I think it`s -- bottom line, it`s putting the U.N. on steroids. And given its performance to date, I can`t imagine why we`d want to do that.

BECK: OK, they even have the right under this treaty to boss around our military on the seas, do they not?

GAFFNEY: They do. Now, the Navy, interestingly enough, is one of the principle champions of this treaty. I think it`s mostly the lawyers in the Navy, frankly, but they, nonetheless, as a corporate position, embrace this treaty and want it desperately.

BECK: Why?

GAFFNEY: And, ironically, they`re going to be the first to suffer as these mandatory dispute resolution mechanisms, which they think they`re going to be exempted from, are, in fact, used against them. You know, remember the case...

BECK: Why do they want it, Frank?

GAFFNEY: Well, there are really two treaties here, in a way, Glenn. There`s a treaty that just governs international navigation through places like archipelagos and straits that the Navy has for decades thought was really important, and I can understand that.

Unfortunately, there`s this whole other treaty. And when they go out and shill for the treaty they like, they are completely ignoring, I`m afraid -- worse, they are misleading people about the consequences even for the Navy itself, let alone for the rest of the country, associated with this other part of the treaty that has to do with control of the international waters of the world and, as I say, the opportunity that the bodies that would be given that control have to extend their power ashore.

BECK: Frank, I`ve got five seconds. Pass or not pass?

GAFFNEY: If the American people don`t know about this treaty, it will pass. It must not. We need their help, and thanks for yours.

BECK: You got it. That`s "The Real Story."

Another link http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=55671

Our reaction to this will determine our country's destiny.

[soberbyker]

continues


Another link http://http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55671

Our reaction to this will determine our country's destiny.

TC your second post the link was wrong, an extra http in there, here it is corrected:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=55671

[TwistedCopper]

This really puts into perspective how badly Bush has become a tyrant and a liberal. I can't believe he is re-introducing that anti-American piece of crap.

[KeithPA]

I saw his episode friday that talked about this one.

This is the same crap; just like the UN trying to impose it's will on us.

Beck also had Huckabee on too. He sounded pretty damn good in my opinion. Almost like Ron Paul, but with a bit more common sense / less conspiracyness.