that mr lugar is at it again,,,,

Status
Not open for further replies.

cooter

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
21
:cuss: first this dirt ball votes,antigun big time this week,,,now he is in bed with the UN dirt balls,,,:banghead: ,,,,why do hoosiers keep reelecting this turkey,,,,

from worldnetdaily,,,

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. :banghead:





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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=37455
 
Last edited:
I think the little wuss just hides behind the republican name and his long tenure as a senator.

As a resident of Indiana, I can't believe that his record has it not more public than it is. I listening to Garrison on WIBC thursday or friday and they were talking about how they kept trying to get Lugar on the show but that he would not play. I reckon Lugar knows if he has to defend his policies on WIBC he would lose many many votes.

Personally, I can't wait to get rid of both Lugar and Bayh. Especially after seeing them both vote for the ban, and Bayh voting against "AP" centerfire rifle ammo.

Thank Goodness most of reps. are great. Except mine, Julia Carson.....:cuss: :mad:
 
Thank Goodness most of reps. are great. Except mine, Julia Carson.....

Believe me, I'm grateful that my Congressman is John Hostettler. :)
I may not agree with him on every issue (labor issues mostly, as I'm a union man), but he doesn't lie about where he stands (unlike my previous Congresscritter, Frank McCloskey) and is a reliable pro-2A voice.

Personally I'd love to see him replace that swine Lugar in the Senate.
 
Lugar has been a "moderate"* republican for his entire political life. Now with that slimey arrogant little weasel b*****d Bayh, Hoosiers are being made to look like Hosers.

*moderate = 1. n; adj. poli-speak for NON-flaming leftist liberal. 2. qualifies as RINO, LINO or DINO depending upon claimed party affiliation.

Chipper
 
I think the little wuss just hides behind the republican name and his long tenure as a senator.

Matt_S you are so right on this one. He is a R.I.N.O. by all standards, but has been there so long that he can win re-election by name recognition only.

The Indiana Republican party likely won't run anyone against an incumbent, so he is safe until he retires and he knows it. That only leaves us the option of electing another Democrat like Bayh. I don't know what we are going to do, but we need to get the word out.
 
I really think that a strong message to the Indiana Republican Party headquarters that running Lugar again will mean no contributions or votes for OTHER Republican candidates may very well be what we need to drive the point home. The local party leadership have certainly shown that they just don't give a damn about Lugar's crappy voting record, as long as they have a warm body sitting in the Senate seat who CLAIMS to be a Republican. :barf:

FWIW,

emc
 
I think the little wuss just hides behind the republican name and his long tenure as a senator.

Matt, the difference between you and me is that I don't think the little wuss hides.. I _KNOW_ he does.. (and deep down, you know too!)

Jack at least got some magic beans when he sold everything.. what are we getting for the loss of soverignty? :barf:

He's made of the same stuff I dig out of my nose on sandy windy days :barf:
 
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.

Chiefly because, when things come up for "unanimous consent", it's frequently in an empty chamber. "Unanimous consent" is a way of making sure that no role call is taken, and thus preventing the fact that there wasn't a quorum for conducting business from being officially recorded.

A frightening number of things in the Senate get done with the unanimous consent of "me, myself, and I". :fire:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top