THERE IS NO SECOND PLACE

Liberalism exposed, the meaning of conservatism and a new political party to save America.

OK this is the way I see it right now.  A change has started.  The institutional liberals in the N.E.A., dominant liberal mass media, higher education, Non Profit Organizations, judiciary, unions, the CIA that tries to bring down a President in the time of War, The state department going against the Administrations will, governmental bureaucracies, EPA, transportation, they are all being exposed for what they are by the truth.  There is no escape and the internet is the great truth detector.  By exposing the left we have made a big step forward in raising that inner consciousness that is in side all human beings.

Everything in the universe has a purpose.  The invisible intelligence that flows through everything in a purposeful fashion is in all of us.  It is with our thought that we create our reality.  The place where your thought comes from is some universal intelligence out there, let's call it God.

Somehow our priorities are turned inside out.  We have lost our ability to be intuitive.  Think of your intuitive self as God talking privately to you, just as you talk privately to God and call it prayer.  You can hear an answer if you believe that there is some universal intelligence out there that you are addressing.  What is important is knowing that the intelligence is there and that it is part of you and all life.

This blog is about finding the truth.  I intend to find the truth. Intention is the energy of your soul coming into contact with your physical reality.  Everything about the physical you, is a result of your intention, or how your thoughts become energized into action. This concept of intention, of applying action to your inner pleadings, will allow you to activate what needs to be done in order to complete the thought and make it a physical reality.  You create your thoughts, your thoughts create your intentions, your intentions create your reality.

Right now we need to create a third party to implement true change.  Newt Gingrich has it right we need to elect a government that believes in the same thing.(from school boards and city councils to Senators to President)  That there is invisible intelligence that flows through everything. That we create our reality from some universal intelligence.  That we can solve our problems.  I've identified 11, I'm sure there are more.  But we need to contact like minded souls that are ready for a change in everything or we will loss this war and America.  The old way of thinking is at an end.  Tell a friend, contribute to the ideas.  This change will be fast it's not for the politically aware crowd so much as it's for the 50% of you that don't vote.  That are searching for ideals that you can live up to, that you can follow.

My brand of conservatism believes in limited government, free markets, individual freedom, individual rights and responsibilities, a strong national defense, an aggressive self interested foreign policy, the fair tax, nationalism, peace thru strength, traditional American values, a dedication to private property rights, equality of opportunity as opposed to equality of outcome and  less control of business. 

But in life style situations I'm more liberal.  I'm for legalizing prostitution. legalizing drugs, free choice in education. I want competition and vouchers.   I'm concerned with property right which are the center piece of all rights. Capitalism is the economic dimension of liberty.  Without capitalism and free markets you don't have liberty.

Conservatism does not mean opposed to change.  Today it is the conservatives that are demanding change in a number of institutions and policies.  Specifically public education, it's liberals that want to maintain the status quo at all cost.   Liberals that are in tow to the teachers unions they don't want choose and competition in this monopoly.  When it comes to litigation it's conservatives that passionately want tort reform.  While liberals want to maintain the status quo in large part because they get large donations from trial attorneys.  The welfare state it was conservatives that pushed for welfare reform and liberals wanted to maintain the status quo.  Social Security it's the conservatives proposing privatization and private accounts and liberals who want to maintain the status quo.

I'm against behavior modification. Democrats are all about behavior modification, they want to tell you how to live, how much money you can keep, what school you have to go to, what preferences you will get over somebody else.

I believe party trumps person in politics. Party's are made up of coalitions and agendas that are quit different.  I like the Republican party.  Democrats can always out bid Republicans for desirable outcomes.  Liberals are utopian in there thinking.  Democrats promise joy at somebody else's expense. Democrats base their foreign policy on denial that we are at war.  The 2008 election is going to very divisive and  highly consequential.

The new party will be The I'm OK party made up of either Democrats or Republicans or any other Party that believes in the Constitution as written by the founders, freedom and America.  They will be the "I'm OK Republican" or the "I'm OK Democrate". 

We identify them by simple becoming active and ask who is running that believes in most of the things we've identified.  We each support the OK candidate with a dollar or ten and they know pretty soon know if they have a majority of people behind them because the money really adds up.  It happens this election cycle if the silent majority , that thinks it is disenfranchised , speaks up at one time there can be no mistakes and it will surprise all the experts.  The same ones that are surprised the economy is doing so well.

The movement has started.  I'm just a messenger.  But I know we are in for the ride of our likes to preserve this union and save the world from falling into a hell that I really will not contemplate because we are going to win this War.

Putin is both re-arming Russia and allying with his Communist allies

Putin is the guy we can not take our eye off of.  Here are the reasons why.

Russia Assuming Soviet Characteristics Under Putin
By Paul M. Weyrich
CNSNews.com Commentary
August 29, 2007


Before the Cold War concluded, the late Dr. Robert Krieble and I traveled the length and breadth of what was then the Soviet Union. Dr. Krieble taught how to start a business with very little or no capital. I taught how to win elections. Each of us was accompanied by two or three colleagues. One thing was clear: The Russian people were well educated.

If an old U.S. News and World Report or Time Magazine were left behind they devoured it for months. The content was debated extensively. The people were far more dedicated than we expected. Boris Yeltsen and his associates initially gave the okay for attendance at our seminars.

Once the Cold War ended there was chaos. The word went out that these crazy Americans were coming and anyone who wished to attend could do so. In Siberia, by the way, participants were extremely well informed. They had literally built crystal radio sets to access Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe.

At any rate, when Dr. Krieble and I compared notes after our seminars had concluded, the one issue which came up time and again was shouldn't Russia carry a big stick to make itself relevant at home and abroad. Indeed, that is exactly what is happening now. Yeltsen could barely top 25% at his best when he was in office. Putin manages 70% by being tough at home.

The oil revenues which Putin has accumulated have enabled him to carry the big stick abroad. After the end of the Cold War Yeltsen all but disarmed Russia, maintaining only sufficient armed forces to defend the country. Now flush with oil revenues, Putin is carrying the big stick abroad as well. The Russian public felt that Yeltsin had humiliated the country. Again and again we were asked if President Augusto Pinochet of Chile might be a good role model for Russia.

Now Putin is both re-arming Russia and allying with his Communist allies, gaining domestic applause in the process. He repeatedly has claimed that he would not seek to have the Constitution amended so he could run for a third term. Many Russian observers don't believe that, with 70 percent popularity and a sound economy, Putin could do anything else. After all, he is still a young man; why else would he picture himself bare-chested, while fishing, in Siberia? It surely looks political.

In the late 1940s and 1950s, there was the issue of who lost China. Different State Department figures pointed the finger at each other, as did Members of Congress of both parties If the charge were to be made again, "Who lost Russia?" it would not be President George W. Bush, although if he had avoided such nonsense as he looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul and dealt with this Russian leader for the tough head of state that he is, we all would have been better off.

Putin is a no-nonsense operator. He always has a strategy aimed at boosting his point of view. While probably not a Communist, he certainly is a throwback to the style of Soviet leadership to which we had become accustomed from Stalin onward. He no longer can hope to keep his country ignorant.

Putin will operate wholly in his interest and that of his allies. We can expect little else from him. He is doing his very best to re-create the Soviet state internally and to practice Soviet-style international politics elsewhere. Any other interpretation of events would be a misunderstanding.

There was a time when the United States could have fostered a different outcome. But a total misunderstanding about how to handle things led to the present position. What a tragedy for us, the Russian people and the rest of the world as well.

Arab language and culture school, is set to open in Brooklyn next week for about 60 sixth-grade students.

I don't know if we can afford to give an inch on this.  I'm for vouchers and the belief that parents should be able to send their kids to what ever school they want.  But can we allow a school to try and defeat us at home.  I guess the Dem's do in Congress every day.  I guess we'll have to live with it.  We need to monitor it closely.

Controversial Arab School to Open Next Week
By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
August 29, 2007


(CNSNews.com) - Despite controversies, protests, and the principal's ouster, the Kahlil Gibran International Academy, an Arab language and culture school, is set to open in Brooklyn next week for about 60 sixth-grade students.

Yet opponents of the school, who fear it will promote Islam, are still fighting to keep the academy from opening.

And now a leading Christian legal group, the Thomas More Law Center, is lending a hand to the Stop the Madrassa citizens group in New York City. A madrassa is the name given to a Muslim school - New York City school officials say the Kahlil Gibran International Academy does not fit that category.

But the Academy, a public school, will be an incubator for Islamic radicalization, said Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich. He cited a New York Police Department intelligence report that warned against isolation of the Arab population, because it can lead to terrorism.

"Rather than use the public school system to assimilate Muslims and other immigrants into American culture, New York City is doing everything it can to keep them isolated - a target-rich environment for recruiting potential new homegrown terrorists and a recipe for a future 9/11 disaster, according to my read of the NYPD report," said Thompson.

New York City Schools Chancellor Joe Klein said the school is not a religious school and will be shut down should it try to become one. He and others insist the school - similar to other schools with a culture theme, such as Greek, Russian and Chinese - can keep the teachings of Arab culture separate from the Islamic religion.

However, the school's advisory board is made up of three imams (Islamic leaders), as well as Christian and Jewish clergy. New York City schools spokeswoman Melody Meyer told Cybercast News Service this was not a step to push religion but an opportunity because of board members who were able to successfully reach out to the Brooklyn community. Meyer could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

One of the imams named to the board was Talib Abdul-Rashid, who preaches at the Mosque of Islamic Brotherhood in Harlem. The mosque's Web site proclaims, "Allah is our goal. The prophet Muhammad is our leader. The Quran is our constitution. Jihad is our way. And death in the way of Allah is our promised end."

Abdul-Rashid had defended the ousted principle Debbie Almontaser, who helped found the school. Almontaser was controversial from the time the school was announced because of radical, left-wing comments she made regarding U.S. foreign policy.

She resigned this month after it was discovered she shared office space with an Islamist group that sells T-shirts encouraging New York Muslims to join an "intifada."

The intifada refers to the attacks on Israeli Jews by Islamic radicals between 1987 and 1993, in some of the territories gained by the Israelis after the Six Day War in 1967.

The New York chapter of the Council of Islamic Relations (CAIR) released a statement earlier this month expressing "regret" that Almontaser "was unfairly pressured to resign from her position as principal due to attacks."

The CAIR statement said the academy has "sustained hateful and false attacks by anti-Arab media and extremists. In the post-9/11 world, a school educating our children about Arab history, culture, and language is not only crucial for the next generation to become informed leaders for positive change in our communities; it is also an extraordinary place of hope for people, understanding, and justice for our embattled world."

It was in March, this year, when New York City Department of Education officials announced the establishment of the academy, named for Khalil Gibran, a Lebanese Christian poet.

The school will host grades 6-12, but it will include only a sixth grade class the first year and then expand each year as students are promoted. The academy will enroll 60 students at a cost of more than $12,000 per pupil and have five faculty members - all certified teachers, Meyer said.

The executive summary of the school describes a day in the life of a student as passing through the hallway adorned with portraits of Arab philosophers, inventors and poets. In the cafeteria, a retired, Arab-speaking community member will come daily to converse with students to strengthen their Arab fluency, according to the summary.

Among those cafeteria speakers will be attorneys from the American Muslim Association of Lawyers, said Sara Springer, a member of Stop the Madrassa. The Muslim lawyers group is the organization representing the six imams who are suing passengers of a U.S. Air flight for allegedly discriminating against them after the passengers reported suspicious behavior by the imams.

"They have a specific ideology," Springer told Cybercast News Service . "A public school is not a venue for that. If we raise a generation of indoctrinated children, it's scary to think about the future in this country."

Springer said she isn't comforted by Almontaser's departure, because the faculty was hired by Almontaser.

"Even though the principal is gone, she created it," said Springer. "It's her vision."

New York school officials said every school has a rigid monitoring process. Still, Brian J. Rooney, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center, told Cybercast News Service the group will monitor the school with help from the Stop the Madrassa coalition. If they find a religious violation, Rooney said they will bring a federal lawsuit against the school.

Monitoring by the city's department of education could create a constitutional issue in itself, Rooney said.

"The problem with the Department of Education coming in to determine if there are religious violations is that CAIR could view that as discriminatory on it's face," Rooney said. "CAIR will threaten litigation, and Klein will be hamstrung. We'll be in a much better position to monitor."

Liberal Media Bias

When are these guys going to figure it out.  We are watching you.
 You can not get away with your propaganda any longer.  We may 
be small but we have the truth on our side and that will win in 
the end.  Hang in there the change will come like a tidal wave
 and it is coming soon.

***Media Research Center CyberAlert Special***
             3:05pm EDT, Wednesday August 29, 2007

MRC Study: "Rise and Shine on Democrats; How the ABC, CBS and 
NBC Morning Shows Are Promoting Democrats On the Road to the 
White House"

    Below is the text of the Executive Summary for a study 
coordinated and written by MRC Research Director Rich Noyes, 
with research assistance from MRC news analysts Geoffrey Dickens, 
Scott Whitlock and Justin McCarthy, which was posted today.
	
    
    Now, the text of the Executive Summary for the August 29 
Special 
Report study:

Rise and Shine on Democrats
How the ABC, CBS and NBC Morning Shows Are Promoting Democrats 
On the Road to the White House

As the 2008 presidential campaign season gets underway, 
wide-open primary races in both the Republican and Democratic
parties are competing for the media's attention. So are the 
broadcast networks covering both sides equally, or are they 
tilting the campaign playing field in favor of liberal 
Democratic candidates?

To find out, Media Research Center analysts reviewed all 517 
campaign segments on ABC's Good Morning America, CBS's The 
Early Show and NBC's Today from January 1 through July 31. 
Those three broadcast morning shows draw nine times the 
audience of their cable news competitors, and are geared 
toward everyday voters, not political junkies. These programs 
are therefore a prime battleground in each campaign's quest
for positive media attention.

The results are astonishing: Not only are the network morning 
shows overwhelmingly focused on Democrats, they are actively 
promoting the Democrats' liberal agenda.

Among the major findings:

# The networks offered nearly twice as much coverage of the 
Democrats. More than half of all campaign segments
(284, or 55%) focused on the Democratic contest, compared with 
just 152 (29%) devoted to the Republicans. The remaining 
stories either offered roughly equal discussion of both parties 
or did not focus on the major parties.
       
# All three Democratic frontrunners received more attention 
than any of the top Republican candidates, with New York 
Senator Hillary Clinton receiving the most coverage of all.
       
# Undeclared liberal candidates such as former Vice President 
Al Gore and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg received 
more network TV attention than many of the declared Republican 
candidates.
       
# The network morning shows doled out nearly three times as 
much airtime (4 hours, 35 minutes) to interviews with the 
various Democratic campaigns. In contrast, the Republicans 
received just 1 hour and 44 minutes of interview airtime.
       
# In their interviews with the candidates, the network hosts 
emphasized a liberal agenda. Of the substantive questions that 
could be categorized as reflecting a political agenda, more 
than two-thirds (69%) of the questions to Democrats reflected
a liberal premise, and more than four-fifths (82%) of the
questions to Republicans came from the same perspective.
       
# The top Democratic candidates received much more favorable
coverage than their GOP counterparts, with Senator Clinton 
cast as "unbeatable" and Illinois Senator Barack Obama tagged
as a "rock star." The most prominent Republican, Arizona 
Senator John McCain, was portrayed as a loser because of his 
support for staying the course in Iraq.
       
# Not once did network reporters describe Senator Clinton and
former North Carolina Senator John Edwards as "liberal," while 
ABC only once labeled Obama as "liberal." Yet the networks 
showed no hesitation in attaching the "liberal" label to 
Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, who was so branded 12 
times.

These early returns suggest that ABC, CBS and NBC are skewing 
their news in ways that will benefit the Democratic candidates 
in 2008. The broadcast networks have a responsibility to cover 
both parties in a fair and even-handed manner -- not for the 
sake of the candidates, but for the voters. That means giving 
viewers a chance to hear from all of the major candidates in 
interviews, asking them similar questions, and balancing the 
day-to-day news coverage to keep both Democratic and Republican 
primary voters equally well-informed.

    END of Executive Summary for the MRC's Special Report	


- Brent Baker

Mexican trucks across the border.

Here we go boys and girls.  The radio heads that I listen to Hugh and Rush put this in the black helicopter group along with Security and Prosperity Partnership.  I think they are the same thing and we had better watch out.  What if Bush gets all this frame work in place.  We (Republicans) loss the Presidency don't get back either the House or Senate and the Dems decide the CFR recommendations don't go far enough and the implement the North American Union into law.  What do we do then?

Mexico Plans To Send Trucks Across Border    

By Sandi Soendker    

Managing Editor - LandlineMag.com    

[email protected]    

8-16-7    

 

Officials from the Mexican government will meet next     week with U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters in Tijuana to "see     the progress of the program" and to "guarantee the start."    

 

http://www.landlinemag.com/Special_Reports/2007/Aug07/0    

81607_Mexico_plans_across_border.htm    

 

A Mexican publication that covers Mexico's transportation     industry reported Wednesday that the Secretariat of Communications and     Transportes said that the cross-border pilot program is coming by the end     of this month.    

 

Despite continued opposition from Mexican trucker group     - CANACAR - the country's transportation secretary claims the plan is on     the move, according to the transportation publication T21.    

 

In a business meeting on Tuesday, Mexican Transportation     Secretary Luis Tellez Kuenzler announced that "necessary conditions"     in Mexico are a reality. He also said he had been informed by the U.S.     Department of Transportation that 37 Mexican carriers have been evaluated     as satisfactory.    

 

T21 also reported that on Wednesday, Tellez stated through     a press release that the necessary conditions existed to develop the project     and declared the Mexican government has decided to stick to the proposed     start date, which is the last week of August.    

 

While the Mexican government is chatting up the subject,     the U.S. DOT is deadly quiet.    

 

Melissa DeLaney, DOT spokesperson, recited the familiar     line for Land Line on Thursday that nothing could happen without the Inspector     General's go-ahead. She said she was not aware of any preliminary report     on the status of the pilot program.    

 

"The IG is an independent entity. We don't have     a hand in the process of them doing this report," she said. "We     are complying with the law and the law clearly states this program cannot     start until that process has been done."    

 

T21 reported officials from the Mexican government will     meet next week with U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters in Tijuana     to "see the progress of the program" and to "guarantee the     start."    

 

Delaney confirmed to Land Line that Peters was, indeed,     going to Mexico next week.    

 

"She is taking congressional staff down there next     week, to highlight border operations, to show them an inspection, show     them a 'PASA' (Pre-Authorization Safety Audit)," she told Land Line.     "(It's) a very standard trip that happens in recess. Not the first     time they've taken staff to the border to look at the operations down there."    

 

 

Ron Bass    

UNITED PATRIOTS OF AMERICA    

PO Box 1038    

Linden  NJ  07036    

http://www.UnitedPatriotsOfAmerica.com    

[email protected]    

800-913-9976    

908-289-1141

HEALTH CHECK ON ALL IMMIGRANTS.

Here is a great example of why we have immigration laws.  To become a citizen you need to be tested for your health.  How many illegal aliens are there that have a contagious disease?  This is just the tip of the ice burg.

TB patient to be deported because of illegal status
    Four family members also tested positive but are not contagious
   
By CRAIG SCHNEIDER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 08/29/07

The Mexican day laborer jailed in Gwinnett County for refusing tuberculosis treatment is an illegal immigrant and officials have begun the deportation process, officials said Wednesday.

Gwinnett Sheriff Butch Conway said Francisco Santos acknowledged to agents of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that he is in this country illegally.

Conway said federal immigration agents placed a "detainer" on the 17-year-old Santos, meaning he will be held and that the deportation process begins. But he said Santos' condition and his status as a minor could complicate a process that can take months.

Because of Santos' age, officials would have to make sure before his return that he has family in Mexico or that the Mexican government would take a role.

Gwinnett County health officials jailed Santos Friday after he refused treatment for an active, contagious case of tuberculosis and threatened to flee to his native Mexico. Santos, who lives in Duluth, has since started taking medicine, but will remain in jail at least until a Sept. 5 hearing in Gwinnett Superior Court on his isolation.

Attempts to reach the ICE agency were unsuccessful Wednesday. Two ICE agents are stationed at the Gwinnett County jail and screen each foreign-born person taken into the jail.

Conway said he does not believe any significant action will be taken to deport Santos until he is "medically clear," meaning that he is no longer contagious. Santos' treatment is expected to last about a year until he is cured, but he is expected to be no longer contagious in about three weeks.

Also on Wednesday, four family members of Santos tested positive for the disease, but they are not showing symptoms, are not contagious and will not be isolated, health officials said.

"They are not actively ill," said Gwinnett health spokesman Vernon Goins. "They've been exposed but they're not contagious."

Health officials have started the four family members on a nine-month regimen of antibiotics, and health workers will be present when every dose of medicine is taken. That will keep them from becoming contagious, Goins said.

One other household relative and three non-household relatives tested negative for exposure to tuberculosis, according to the determinations made Wednesday. Five more came in for testing Wednesday, with results expected Friday. And three more people will be tested Monday, officials said.

Since none of the relatives tested positive for an active, contagious case of tuberculosis, health officials do not plan to expand the testing at this point. In addition, since Santos is responding to the antibiotics, health officials do not plan to test him for the more serious drug resistant type of tuberculosis.

Implement the Fair Tax

The only thing I see wrong with this article is, we have to implement the Fair Tax with this next President.  Every thing has to change.  See my 11 things to save America.

Source:  Washington Times

FairTax efforts popular in GOP

By Stephen Dinan
August 30, 2007

Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, compared the grass-roots popularity of the FairTax issue to opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens.

---

After Rep. Steve King endorsed a national retail sales tax to replace the federal income tax during his first run for Congress, his own campaign coordinator told him his candidacy was finished.

Three elections later, the Iowa Republican still stands in the vanguard of the FairTax, a tax revolution that has taken hold of the 2008 Republican presidential debate and turned from outcast to kingmaker, including aiding presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee's surprise second-place showing in this month's influential Iowa Republican presidential straw poll.

Of the major candidates on the Republican side six, including all-but-announced candidate Fred Thompson, have said they are either active supporters or would at least be willing to sign a FairTax bill if it reached their desks as president. It has popped up in the debates, and in the run-up to the Iowa straw poll it was almost impossible to attend a campaign rally, meet-and-greet or town hall and not find someone wearing a FairTax T-shirt or baseball cap.

"It's almost as popular as being opposed to amnesty," Mr. King said, comparing the tax issue to the immigration issue that has also swept Iowa this year, forcing the Republican presidential candidates to heel to activists' desire for border security.

The FairTax is the survivor from what could be called the great tax-reform debates of Republicans' time in control of Congress, having eclipsed its main rival, the flat income tax, over the past few years.

Supporters say they could abolish the income tax, the Internal Revenue Service and the April 15 paperwork headaches and replace it with a 23 percent tax on all retail sales. There are no exemptions, but the government would pay a monthly rebate to every taxpayer to make up for what is spent on essentials such as food and clothing.

But don't expect to hear a lot of push in Washington for it — supporters have taken a decidedly outside-the-Beltway approach to stirring up support, using activists in places like Iowa and early-primary states such as Florida to try to win attention in the presidential contests.

"We got there by deciding there were a few places in the country that candidates had to talk face to face with people," said Ken Hoagland, the spokesman for Americans for Fair Taxation, the nonprofit group pushing the FairTax. "We knew that people love the FairTax, and we would have very little success lobbying in Washington, so we took our message to people in the primary states and asked them to take the message to the candidates."

That's exactly how they won converts such as Mr. Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor who signed on in March and has become one of its most ardent supporters.

"I kept hearing about it in Iowa, and people asked me if I supported it. I then got ['The FairTax Book'], read it twice, then met with some of the people behind it to ask questions as to how it worked," he said. "The more I learned, the more devoted I became."

Not to say everyone is agreed. In a Republican presidential debate three weeks ago in Des Moines, Sen. Sam Brownback said he still favors an optional flat tax, while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said they favor tax simplification instead of a total overhaul.

"Somebody would have to show me how we're going to make that transition," Mr. Giuliani said of the FairTax. "Also, the thought that there wouldn't be an IRS with the FairTax — well, who is going to administer the sales tax? And who's going to administer the people that are exempt from the sales tax?"

Mr. Giuliani said he's read and even underlined "The FairTax Book," the standard defense of the proposal, and says it looks like a false hope to him.

FairTax supporters say he must not have read that closely because, they said, nothing is exempt under the FairTax.

"That is such a fundamental point. It's hard to understand how he could have read the book and even highlighted it, as he claimed," said Mr. Hoagland, who said Mr. Giuliani's campaign also refused his group's offer of a briefing from their economists on the FairTax.

Support has grown only slowly inside of Congress. Rep. John Linder, the Georgia Republican who leads the congressional movement and sponsors a bill to enact the FairTax, has 63 co-sponsors of the bill this year, up from 54 on his bill from 2003.

For now, it remains mostly a Republican issue, as almost none of the congressional co-sponsors are Democrats. Of the Democratic presidential field, only one candidate, former Sen. Mike Gravel, has indicated his support.

Like the immigration issue, FairTax supporters used a grass-roots strategy to force the issue onto the voters' minds and let them do the work. The Iowa Republican Party has adopted a resolution supporting it, and thousands of supporters turned out for rallies in South Carolina, Florida and Georgia.

But despite $22 million spent on economic research, 700,000 signatures on a petition backing the proposal and an e-mail list of 300,000 supporters, success is still years away, Mr. Hoagland said.

He said they need to have between 5 million and 7 million dedicated, letter-writing supporters to go up against the tax lobbyists that they would have to face in the halls of Congress, and who try to win amendments that would eat away at the FairTax.

"Until we have recruited enough citizens to shut those amendments down, we are not ready to go to the floor," he said. "Having presidential candidates embrace the FairTax is very helpful, and we would hope that someone who arrives at the White House would make this a top priority, [but] even that, we believe, would not be enough."

“Law of the Sea Treaty” (LOST).

             

LOST               at Sea

            by               Rep. Ron Paul,               MD

Back in the                 1970s the United Nations launched its plan for a global program                 of taxation without representation, called the “New International                 Economic Order.” The goal of this new economic order was                 not so new at all, however. It sought the involuntary transfer                 of wealth and technology from the developed world to the third                 world under the direction of the United Nations. A cornerstone                 of this dangerous attempt to loot the prosperous nations was the                 “Law of the Sea Treaty” (LOST).

             

Under the                 Law of the Sea Treaty, an “International Seabed Authority”                 would control the minerals and other resources of the oceans’                 seabed. After taking its own cut, this UN body would transfer                 whatever is left to select third-world governments and non-governmental                 organizations.

             

The Law of                 the Sea Treaty also would give the UN power to tax American citizens                 and businesses, which has been a long-time dream of the anti-sovereignty                 globalists. LOST also would establish an international court system                 to enforce its provisions and rulings. Imagine not being able                 to do business internationally without the approval of the United                 Nations!

             

It all sounds                 like something out of a science-fiction novel, but it is real.

             

Fortunately,                 when the treaty came before President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s,                 he ignored those warning of impending international chaos and                 refused to sign the treaty. It was the right thing to do. It appeared                 that the push toward global governance was – at least temporarily – halted.

             

But that                 was not the end of LOST. Determined proponents of the treaty worked                 to “fix” its most objectionable parts in hopes the United                 States would become a party. The UN and its supporters know that                 without the participation of the United States, their schemes                 are doomed to failure.

             

Satisfied                 with their efforts to alter the treaty in the 1990s, LOST supporters                 sent it to President Bill Clinton, who wasted no time signing                 the treaty and sending it to the Senate for ratification. Fortunately                 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then headed by Senator                 Jesse Helms, concluded that despite cosmetic changes the treaty                 remained hopelessly flawed. He sent it back to the president in                 2000 with no action.

             

It seemed                 as though this treaty would finally die. But it did not. Undeterred,                 LOST supporters in the State Department sent the treaty back to                 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2003. This time the                 Committee voted unanimously, just this February, to send it to                 the full Senate for ratification! LOST currently sits before the                 Senate, available at any time for a full Senate vote on ratification.                 Despite President Reagan’s rejection and Senator Jesse Helms’                 rejection, LOST therefore is still very much alive.

             

Together                 with 13 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, I sent                 a letter last week to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist urging                 him to reject this dangerous and foolish treaty. Should the United                 Nations succeed in its dream of taxing American citizens when                 they do business abroad, how much longer will it be until they                 begin taxing us at home? Just last month, in fact, UN bureaucrats                 gathered in New York to look for ways to revive their dream of                 imposing UN control and a global tax on the internet. Imagine                 a global policy on internet content dictated by nations such as                 Saudi Arabia and China – and paid for by Americans! Let us hope                 that the Senate does the sensible thing and rejects LOST and any                 further UN encroachments on our sovereignty.

             

April                 7, 2004

             

                                                                                                                                              

             

Dr. Ron                 Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.             

LOST Law of the Sea Treaty

Source: Council on Foreign Relations

Is the United States Ready to Approve the Law of the Sea Treaty?                     

       

Author:	Maggie Goodlander

                               

July 19, 2007

Introduction

               

The Bush administration is urging the U.S. Senate to ratify the Convention of the Law of the Sea. The treaty provides universal legal standards for shipping, fishing, and mining and codifies customary navigation and transit principles already followed by most states. Proponents of the convention, including President Bush, say it will enhance U.S. security on the high seas. But a number of conservative lawmakers remain concerned the treaty may harm U.S. industry and hinder counterterrorism efforts.

               

What are the treaty’s origins?

               

Historically, nations have had claims to a very narrow belt of three miles from their coastlines, leaving the rest of the high seas generally without legal checks. By 1967, international rivalries, technological advances, and new maritime uses pushed states to clarify sea boundaries and use of resources with stricter legal parameters. The 1982 Law of the Seas Convention was the result of these efforts and won ratification from more than 150 nations. President Reagan refused to endorse the treaty because of its provisions related to seabed mining, most of which were amended in 1994.

               

What does the Law of the Sea Treaty cover?

               

As John Temple Swing wrote in a 1976 Foreign Affairs article, the treaty signifies a “constitution for the sea” that governs activities on, over, and beneath the ocean’s surface. Among the main legal areas it codifies:

• Territorial Limitations and Navigation Rights.The treaty establishes a twelve-mile territorial sea limit from shorelines that allows foreign ships to pass inside freely with a right of “innocent passage” unless they carry out hostile behavior—i.e. spying, unwarranted fishing, or polluting—as outlined by the treaty. Later reforms of the treaty provide that nations may temporarily suspend innocent-passage rights within their territorial jurisdiction in the interest of national security. The treaty also provides a mandatory system for resolving conflicts over navigational rights. Disputing parties are offered a number of options for settling a conflict including the International Court of Justice, a tribunal in Hamburg established for the Law of the Sea, and a special tribunal for settling disputes about fisheries and protection of the marine environment.
• Exclusive Economic Zones. The treaty establishes exclusive economic zones (EEZs) that grant coastal nations the right to manage all resources found in the waters and on continental shelves up to two hundred nautical miles from shore. In addition to exclusive rights, the EEZ provision provides that states observe their responsibilities to reduce pollution and promote scientific research. While the zones permit cultivation of continental shelves, the deep seabed remains out of a coastal nation’s jurisdiction under the convention.
• Continental shelves. The treaty establishes the right of a state to harvest mineral material in the subsoil of its continental shelf, up to 350 nautical miles from shore. Therefore, some coastal states wish to extend the outer limits of their continental shelves. The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), which regulates and makes recommendations for the final limits on a nation’s continental shelf, recently rejected Russia ’s territorial claims on the North Pole, in addition to an eighteen-thousand-square-mile piece of the Bering Sea that separates Alaska from Russia . Responsibility for regulating the ocean’s depths lies with a body called the International Seabed Authority (ISA).
• Protection of marine life. Part of the EEZ provision in the treaty requires that coastal states cultivate fish stocks while remaining mindful of overfishing. Ninety percent of the world’s fisheries lie within EEZs and therefore fall under the care and responsibility of coastal nations. The convention also places the burden of preventing pollution on coastal states, including preventing oil spills, ocean dumping, and runoff that produces pollutants like sewage and radioactive waste.

               

What is the International Seabed Authority?

               

The Law of the Sea treaty created the International Seabed Authority, or ISA, to administer mining rights and seabed resources in the areas outside exclusive economic zones. The Law of the Sea Treaty operates under the “Common Heritage of Mankind” principle, which provides that maritime resources cannot be claimed or controlled by any one individual or nation. While the treaty offers individual nations fixed areas of national jurisdiction, the rest of the ocean is left under the control of the ISA. The organization is based in Kingston, Jamaica, where an eleven-member chamber deals with any disputes that may arise over seabed activities within the ISA’s jurisdiction.

               

What are the main U.S. objections to the treaty?

               

• It may endanger U.S. sovereignty. The ISA’s membership consists of a disproportionate number of developing countries, raising fears the United States will hold no stake in the organization’s decision-making process. As former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Jeanne Kirkpatrick told the U.S. Senate in April 2004: “The formula for representation guaranteed that the industrialized ‘producer’ countries would be a permanent minority (PDF).” Frank J. Gaffney Jr. of the Center for Security Policy, writing in National Review, argues that granting this unprecedented authority to an international body like the ISA would stand as the “most egregious transfer of American sovereignty, wealth and power to the UN.”
• It may harm U.S. economic interests. Opponents argue that for a company to win mining rights to mineral resources, a fee of over one million dollars is required, in addition to other requirements and restrictions, including the responsibility to provide a “bonus site” for the ISA to carry out its own mining efforts. Gaffney argues that taxes the ISA raises on companies essentially allow the body to implement “what amount to taxes on commercial activities”—an act that he argues would deter U.S. maritime trade and industry.
• It would weaken U.S. national security. In a recent Washington Post piece, former assistant attorney general and Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith and George Mason University law professor Jeremy Rabkin raise concerns the treaty might hinder the U.S. Navy’s ability to make seizures of weapons-related material on the high seas. “In every case,” they argue, “a majority of non-American judges would decide whether the U.S. Navy can seize a ship that it believes is carrying terrorist operatives or supplies for terrorists.” Opponents say it would undermine counterterrorism efforts like the Proliferation Security Initiative.

               

How do proponents of the treaty respond?

               

Ken Adelman, who opposed the treaty during his years in the Reagan administration as the president’s special envoy, has changed his views. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, he dismisses criticisms it would undermine U.S. industry or American sovereignty because “there's no bar to private firms mining the minerals. No mandatory technology transfer. No decision-making without U.S. participation.” He also points out Washington is guaranteed veto power over the treaty’s decision-making body. Military officials share Adelman’s views. The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, has repeatedly told Congress of the importance of the treaty to national security (PDF).

The treaty would now provide U.S. ships a right of passage through international straits (i.e. Indonesia). Such provisions are “the crown jewels of the treaty,” write Vern Clark, former chief of naval operations, and Thomas R. Pickering, former U.S. ambassador to the UN, in the New York Times, and did not exist before 1982. “Our security and economic interests are tied directly to these rights,” they add.

               

What are the chances of the treaty winning U.S. ratification?

               

Daniel Drezner, who teaches international politics at Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, predicts most Republican senators will oppose the treaty but it may still receive enough support to be ratified. Both the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee support the treaty. Still, Don Kraus of Citizens for Global Solutions, a U.S.-based advocacy group, says “ratification is not a sure thing,” adding that “if the Senate doesn’t act on ratification before the summer recess [in August], it may miss the golden opportunity to address the increasing fragility of the oceans.”

               

What explains the White House’s support for the treaty?

               

Some experts are surprised by the Bush administration’s backing of the Law of the Sea Treaty, given the president’s previous lack of support for international covenants like the International Criminal Court. President Bush has said that by ratifying the treaty, it will “give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted.” Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte and Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, writing in the Washington Times, also say supporting the convention would “powerfully and publicly” demonstrate to the international community the United States’ commitment to the rule of law in foreign affairs. Finally, administration officials argue that the treaty will reinforce, not diminish, nonproliferation efforts like the Proliferation Security Initiative.

Law of the Sea Convention (LOST) would undercut U.S. sovereignty.

As Arctic Opens Up, Unlikely Alliance
Helps to Persuade Senate Skeptics

By NEIL KING JR.
August 22, 2007; Page A6

WASHINGTON -- What do the Nature Conservancy, Exxon Mobil Corp., offshore oil drillers, the fishing, shipping and diamond industries, President Bush and the U.S. Navy have in common?

Answer: They all support a little-known but highly contentious international treaty -- set to come before the U.S. Senate next month for ratification -- that governs nearly every aspect of ocean law, from underwater mineral rights to access to shipping lanes.

The 208-page Law of the Sea Convention, debated since the 1930s and sealed in 1982, has stirred passions for decades in Washington. Critics in the Senate have repeatedly blocked its ratification, saying the pact would undercut U.S. sovereignty. Supporters tout the treaty as a pillar of international law and key to long-term U.S. security. The U.S. is now one of fewer than 40 countries, and the only significant power, not to have joined.

That is now almost certain to change, for three reasons: scarce energy sources, the thawing Arctic ice cap and the U.S. Navy's desire for unfettered access to the world's seaways. These motivations have helped galvanize an odd coalition of environmentalists, oil interests and military brass to persuade enough senators to back the treaty.

The renewed interest has grown more intense amid a scramble to claim undersea territories in the resource-rich Arctic.

Looking to buttress its legal case for ownership of a massive undersea ridge, Russia planted its flag earlier this month on a seabed more than 15,000 feet below the North Pole. Canada, asserting its disputed rights, plans a new fleet of ice-breaking ships and a deepwater Arctic port; yesterday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper asserted his country's claim to the so-called Northwest Passage along its northern coast during a meeting with Mr. Bush in Quebec. And Denmark is sending a research team to push its own claim to undersea holdings that extend far from Greenland.

All this has put the U.S. in a jam. The Law of the Sea Treaty allows countries -- even nonsignatories -- exclusive rights to the seabed extending 200 nautical miles from their shores. Countries can then present evidence to claim rights to any of their continental shelf beyond that. Claims and disputes fall to one of several arbitration bodies established by the treaty. Without being a party to the treaty, the U.S. has no clear way -- short of threatening force -- to assert its claims.

U.S. officials said the stakes are literally vast. In the Arctic alone, the U.S. could lay claim to more than 200,000 square miles of additional undersea territories. The U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy is in the region to continue mapping the ocean floor to help strengthen the U.S. case. By some estimates, the country's total additional undersea holdings, including extensions off the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico, could exceed 300,000 square miles, or roughly twice the size of California.

Recent estimates have found the Arctic could contain the equivalent of more than 400 billion barrels of oil and gas and massive amounts of another potential energy source, crystallized methane. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated the amount of carbon found in hydrate form world-wide is "conservatively" twice the amount found in all the world's fossil fuels.

Increased thawing of the Arctic ice cap is also beginning to open up seaways, such as the long-heralded Northwest Passage that is expected to revolutionize shipping. Still blocked by ice much of the year, the polar pathway linking China to Northern Europe and the Northwest U.S. is about 5,000 miles shorter than routes through the Suez or Panama canals. Canada for years has asserted its sovereignty over the passage, a claim the U.S. and other countries dispute.

Environmentalists back the Law of the Sea Treaty because of its provisions for controlling pollution, from ships and underwater exploration.

Policy makers in Washington have generally been slow to champion the treaty. President Reagan opposed the original pact's undersea-mining rules as biased against U.S. interests, a position that still carries much weight with many conservatives. President Clinton signed the treaty after those rules were amended, but the Republican-controlled Senate refused to go along. In 2004, the measure withered again on Capitol Hill.

Under pressure from oil groups and diplomats in his administration, Mr. Bush in May endorsed the pact's ratification for the first time. The heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines followed suit with an unusual joint letter urging Senate passage.

The pact still has some vocal critics in Washington. Former Reagan adviser Frank Gaffney calls it "a socialist manifesto for the redistribution of wealth." Now the head of the Center for Security Policy, a conservative think tank in Washington, Mr. Gaffney says "no senator who has actually read this treaty would vote for it."

Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, one of at least a dozen conservatives who oppose the treaty, calls it "a disaster" and vows to work to block it from a full Senate vote. Other critics say the treaty will weaken U.S. efforts to interdict illicit shipments of nuclear materials and entangle the armed forces in a web of international regulations. As for the Arctic's resource potential, they say the U.S. could work out an accommodation with the half-dozen other nations with a stake there.

The Navy, the pact's most ardent supporter, dismisses such claims. "This for us is global mobility. That's what it's all about," says Rear Adm. Bruce MacDonald, the Navy's judge advocate general.

The treaty is now the world's primary legal blueprint for what constitutes international waters and airspace. It grants all navies the right to "innocent passage" through the world's seaways. Yet dozens of countries, from Ecuador and Somalia to China, South Korea and Vietnam, continue to try to limit the rights of warships to pass through their waters.

Joining the pact, Adm. MacDonald said, would give the U.S. a forum to contest such claims. "We need this treaty to lock in the rights we already have."

Administration officials also argue that Washington's failure to sign on to the treaty has, in fact, undercut the Proliferation Security Initiative, a U.S. effort to enlist international help to cut off shipments of nuclear and missile technology to countries such as Iran or North Korea.

Two countries that have declined to join PSI, Malaysia and Indonesia, recently cited Washington's spurning of the Law of the Sea Treaty as their main reason.

Others argue that the U.S. is already losing out in what promises to be a multibillion-dollar opportunity: the undersea mining of copper, zinc, cobalt and even diamonds. John Norton Moore, a top legal expert on the law of the sea at the University of Virginia, said Russian and Chinese firms have already laid claim to some of the biggest undersea mines in the world. Without joining the treaty, the U.S. has no forum in which to stake a claim.

"Our sitting on the sidelines all these years has already cost us," he said.