are we LOST or just blind, deaf & stupid?

can someone please explain to me why the united states of america is even considering ratification of the "law of the sea treaty" (lost)?  this just makes no sense to me.  none.

gabrielle reilly does a great job of presenting both sides of the article and it's a great place to start.  but there is (as always) so much more to know. 

in his 2004 state of the union address president bush said "america will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."  but that is precisely the position the united states will be in if we ratify lost.

i honestly wonder if the president, or any proponent of the treaty in congress, has even read all 202 pages of this thing.  my guess is not - if they had, surely they would no longer be a "for" this thing.

currently, the dems are in nearly unanimous agreement with the president that they should vote in favor of ratification.  in fact, there are only a handful of republicans opposing it.  we need to make certain that they stand determinedly against this or it will get the 2/3 vote it needs in the upper house to pass.  and based on the behavior of some senators this just isn't a priority for them.

according to cliff kincaid in an article for the national ledger there were two republicans, john sununu (r-n.h.) and norm coleman (r-mn) who were just too busy to attend the senate foreign relations meeting on this treaty.  however, both of them did find time to attend a photo op with bono (of u2 fame) the next day.  now how's that for priorities?!?

in speaking of richard lugar (rino-in) - who managed to make the photo op and both meetings of the committee, mr. kincaid had this to say: "Lugar is a globalist who has been pushing UNCLOS [lost] for many years. He not only believes in more foreign aid; he favors getting the U.S. entangled in more international treaties."

back in 2004 the senate, led by senate foreign relations chairman richard lugar, attempted to ram the treaty approval through before opposition could be garnered against it.  however, americans rose up in protest against this treaty and (much like with the  illegal alien amnesty) its proponents in the senate were shocked.

once again, this is happening.  the president is pushing for acceptance within the next three weeks.  the hope is that it will be a done deal before anyone (read "the american public") knows that something is going down.  we simply must stop it.  check out this post from libertypost.org  there's a ton of information on this and we need to get everyone educated.

writing for the patriot post in last week's digest edition, oliver north says " before casting a vote to ratify lost, all 100 senators should read article 314 of this onerous treaty and article ii, section 2 of the u.s. constitution.  the un-crafted document specifies that amendments to the treaty can be adopted - and therefore enforced - without the consent of any signatory.  yet our constitution requires that two-thirds of our senate concur in any treaty.  do 67 members of this senate now want to surrender that authority?"

don from over at american power suggests that we all take a look at this article from the wall street journal.  it ties in quite nicely to this post and i encourage all of you to read it as well.

to go along with this lost debacle, dems in the house seem to be working hard to make the american apparatus targeting terrorism both deaf and blind.  this is according to  senator kit bond (r-mo) in an interview with bill kessler of newsmax.  and he's not the only one saying this.

in opposition to the "restore act" (responsible electronic surveillance that is overseen, reviewed and respected) deputy whip eric cantor (r-va) stated on his website that he planned on introducing an amendment to the bill "to clarify that nothing in the bill shall be construed to prohibit the intelligence community from conducting surveillance needed to prevent Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or any other foreign terrorist organization…from attacking the United States or any United States person.”  i believe it was an attempt to force the dems into casting a vote for or against the defense of america and americans.

thankfully, for the time being at least, this bastardization of fisa has been pulled.  are they that opposed to our intelligence agencies being able to fight the terrorists that they decided to pull the plug on the vote?

i posited over at right truth earlier this week that "the entire dnc is in cahoots with al qaeda to hinder the intelligence gathering" effort.  and, although some think that this is all hyperbole, i stand by my statement.

in 1776 samuel adams said "it does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."  these are sage words and the converse is also true.  enemies of freedom can also prevail by setting brushfires of fear, or political correctness or dhimmitude, or what have in the minds of the masses.

at least that's my way of thinking - what do you think?