The Global Poverty Act is just the beginning of the “Change” he is referring to on his campaign and I am so happy that someone else is referring to the GPA, thank you Christine O'Donnell for writing that article. But, there is more and it’s important that everyone becomes aware of these Bills, Acts and Treaties that he supports. I’ve wondered in the beginning of this campaign for Presidency, why Senator Obama didn’t elaborate as to what he referred to as “change” and the lack of that elaboration really concerned me.

Obviously, the mainstream media has no intention of telling us because its pretty clear they want these things to happen and want to surprise the citizens of the US, whom many of the elitists views us as ignorant, xenophobic, unintelligent and that we can be easily bamboozle by their intellectual brilliance. God, certainly didn’t give them brains but why did He make them so full of themselves, arrogant, oversexed, money-grubbing and egotistical elitist. It’s annoying. They say they are doing it for us to make the United States, once again a great Country (pre-Reagan). Let’s get real here, they aren’t doing for us, they are doing it for themselves. And, they don’t care if we object because we are just a bunch of unintelligent, religious zealots, who love our guns and wife’s, baby-loving/pro-lifers and God loving buffoons. I beg to differed, ever hear Cameron Diaz try to tell you elucidate her political ideologies. If you have, my sympathies, I feel your pain. It’s an eye opening experience that no one should have to listen too. She tries really hard to find the big words and cannot because she’s an empty bottle, an egotistical intellectual light weight and self-centered, self-involved Hollywood nymphet. I tend to think that in that brain of hers, I think you’ll hear crickets chirping. But, she considers herself one of the Hollywood enlightened elitists stars. She could share her military deployment ideas with Paris Hilton while eating lunch at the Ivy or Mr. Chows and wearing her Dolce Gabbana’s latest $3,000.00 jeans and t-shirt combination and the new $5.000.00 Jimmy Choo boots (now who’s the idiot).

Anyway, I started doing a great deal of research on Senator Obama and found it interesting when others questioned what were the “changes” he wants to make, he got angry and said, don’t worry, you’ll like it. So knowing liberals, I knew immediately it was going to be something good for him and the liberals but bad for conservative Americans. He is obviously hiding something he doesn’t want us to know about him. So, I hit the Library and internet websites to find out his background, his voting record in the Illinois State Senate and his voting record in the US Senate (if that’s what they call a voting record). I got assistance from others like me, who wanted to find information that the media didn’t want us to know.

This is just the start of what Senator Obama wants to do with American’s and their “tax” money. You need to look up information on the Law of the Sea Treaty as well, which also involves the United Nations. The idiotic Liberal Democrats are for this Treaty, since the Clinton Administrations and Bill Clinton were the ones who signed the Treaty. Congress has yet to agree, ratify and/or endorse the Treaty, just yet. Give them time, they will not only destroy our Navy, but United Nations wants to take it over and control it. Based on the sanctions they like to hand out to those who go against their wishes, the likelihood is there for them to destroy our military. Senator Obama is on the Foreign Relations Committee, which voted on this treaty,  17-4 for ratifying the treaty, which could come up for vote in the Senate when they return. Unfortunately, John McCain appears to be for it as well. It’s a little unclear, since one day he is for the ratification by a written testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee in 2003. McCain tells conservative bloggers on October 25, 2007, that he would “probably” vote against it because it negatively affects U.S. sovereignty. Then, as few weeks later, McCain sends a letter to a constituent on November 14, 2007, declaring that the treaty is beneficial to the U.S. but that he will keep in mind their objections to it. These leaders are failing their constituents and the United States citizens. I believe we can let our voices be heard by the Senate who want to ratify this treaty. I’ve done it before with the Amnesty Bill of 2007, we can do it again.

UN has tried to do this since President Reagan was in office and he said absolutely not. They tried again when Clinton was in office and of course he said yes. Gee, we can always count on Bill Clinton, can’t we. Believe it or not the United Nations has tried to do this since 1930 when it was referred to back then as the League of Nations, which was based on a 17^th Centuries Freedom of the Seas. Using customary international law principles of a Nation to protect is ocean and natural resources. During President Truman’s administration he extended the control over our natural resources of the continental shelf. Other Nations quickly followed. Nations in South America, which included Argentina, Chili, Peru and Ecuador extended their boundaries to 200 Nautical miles to cover their fishing grounds.

The Treaty involves international waters, continental shelf and the territorial waters zones. The LOS convention provides for a regime relating to minerals on the seabed outside any Country’s territorial waters or EEZ (exclusive economic zones). It establishes an International Seabed Authority (ISA) to authorize seabed exploration and mining and collect and distribute the seabed mining royalty. (The Russians have been doing this lately by underwater exploration. They have placed the Russian flag and declared it their territory which was shown on the news a few weeks ago regarding offshore oil exploration).

The United States has strongly disapproved the provisions of Part XI (revisions based on the original treaty) of the Convention on several grounds, saying that the treaty is hostile to America's economy and security. The US felt that the provisions of the treaty were not free-market friendly and were designed to favored economic systems in Communist states. The US also felt that the provisions might result in the ISA becoming inflated and expensive bureaucracy due to a combination of large revenues and insufficient control over those revenues and how and where they would be spent.

Due to Part XI, the US refused to ratify the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), although it expressed agreement with the remaining provisions of the Convention. Even though the United States is not a party to the treaty, it’s considers many of the remaining provisions as compulsory as customary international laws.

In the United States there is vigorous debate over the ratification of the treaty in Congress, with criticism coming mainly from political conservatives who consider involvement in some international organizations and see the treaty as detrimental to US national interests. A group of Republican senators, led by Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, has blocked American ratification of the Convention, claiming that it would encroach on US sovereignty. President Bush would like to sign the Treaty but is getting flack from the majority of Republicans and a handful of democrats in Congress. Where are Nancy Pelosi ideals now?

Every Nation is expected to sign this treaty and most have, 60 countries have ratified the treaty; and, 24 countries have signed but have not ratified it. 17 have not signed or ratified the treaty. Those that haven’t are enemies of the United States. What the United Nations wants is to allow third world countries who currently don’t have access to the oceans and seas to have mineral and fishing rights. That might be wonderful in a perfect world, but we don’t live in a perfect world. Those Countries that don’t have access to an ocean or seas will be allowed to travel to the ocean by crossing another country under the disguise of “innocent passage”. Let’s see, African nations are at war with each other now, same in the middle east and Russia. What makes the United Nations think that this will go smoothly? And, just because they signed a piece of paper, what makes them think that they will honor what they sign. Come on, the middle east signs peace treaties all the time and they don’t honor them. We should not sign this because of enemies in the world will not honor it. What the UN wants to do is place the United States in a straight jacket.

Now, based on geologist, there is oil in them there seas. At the current prices in the oil market, this could become a war on who’s entitled to the oil that is found in the international seas. One of the treaties main selling points is the legally recognized nautical navigation rights on over and under straits. The strait of Hormuz is in the Gulf of Oman, which Iran has recently threatened the United States regarding oil shipment and the use of the strait but, there is no indication that Iran would honor an agreement that they have yet to sign and ratify. Or, the claim that the oil found in the Gulf of Mexico belongs to the Mexican government. I, personally don’t see how any of this is supposed to benefit the United States. 

Also noted, the UN ratifying this treaty would also cause harm to our military operations by requiring all unmanned ocean vessels, which includes submarines to be used for mine detection to protect ships exercising the right of innocuous passage, to navigate on the surface in territorial waters to be entitled to the right of innocent passage. The effective language is identical to that contained in the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone to which the U.S. is already a party. The idea of “innocent passage” wouldn’t that include the taking of 15 hostages from UK’s Royal naval personal by Iranian Revolutionary guards off the coast of Iran-Iraq that happened in 2007. Somehow, I don’t see any point in signing an agreement that the Islamic radicals in Iran, Iraq and elsewhere would honor.(Although, the United Kingdom has signed the treaty, Iran and Iraq have not.)

The environmental issues of the treaty’s provisions would provide new avenues for non-US environmental groups and organizations to affect our domestic US environmental policies by pursuing legal avenues in both US and international courts. In addition, these requirements those other nations either harvest their total allowable catch in certain areas or give the surplus to other nations which could result in unauthorized over fishing.

Next issue is the treaty utilizes eminent domain to take United States intellectual properties and giving the control over to UN to have the power to seize technology and share it with potentially enemy states. BIG ISSUE. Taking out technology and sharing it with the rest of the world without our say that can be used on us. No… absolutely not. The very idea of handing over US technology that our enemies are dying to get their hands on and use it against us.

And last, the United States already honors almost all the provisions of the treaty. For practical purposes, there is no pressing reason to ratify something that outweighs the negatives of the remaining provisions. The likelihood that this will be received as an improvement  in the United States worldwide image is just another liberal illusion.

I cannot not imagine that any of this would help us, when the likelihood of our enemy nations would follow the treaty if the actually did sign it nor would it help our image to the rest of the world. This is right up Senator Obama and the democratic party’s intentions to improve our image. Who cares about safety so long as we’re liked by others. It’s just ludicrous. Unfortunately, the tyrants of the world don’t go after the idiots in control, but after those who are innocent and don’t have power or control. I guess we would be considered collateral damage to the democrats.

The majority of Republicans in Congress objections regarding the ratification are about national security, the environment, taxation (without representation). It’s not economical for the US businesses that can already develop the resources from the international areas; ratifying the treaty would force them to buy licenses for that right and pay taxes on the proceeds. Which as previously stated means it would be taxation without representation? Also, no Control over funding. There are so many reasons why we should NOT ratify the treaty. I suggest people read more about this on their own. If interested go to http://www.eagleforum.org and/or http://www.heritage.org. Read up and see for yourself.