The Oil Spill Bill, H.R. 3534

[Snowbird]

This is not a conspiracy. This is a real bill that has passed the House and currently, there may exist a companion bill that is flowing toward the Senate. From what I have read in the articles below, there is much contention associated with this bill and, if what some are stating is true, there is a possibility that Obama is considering attaching or including a treaty, the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) that gives the U.N. jurisdiction over the coastlines of America. And, if ratified, we will have to pay for it, if we aren't already.

The majority of information below, stems from conservative sites. Being a Progressive myself, I always like to read what the other side has to say. There are certain aspects of this/these bills, council and treaty that have a degree of appeal. However, this LOST treaty appears to be unconstitutional because of its foreign basis. How can the U.S. legally and constitutionally become ingrained with the U.N. in a treaty that gives the U.N. control over our shores and waters, including the Great Lakes? And why would we have to pay the U.N. $900 million per year for this for the next 30 years? I have an inquiring mind.

I'm still studying this, so whatever anyone knows about this, please add your thoughts.

The Oil Spill Bill, H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Restoration Act of 2009 allegedly, gives away ownership of America's oceans to the United Nations.


Global Governance Washes Ashore with H.R.3534.IH-The LOST Treaty

Thirty states will be encroached upon by Obama’s Executive Order establishing the National Ocean Council for control over America’s oceans, coastlines and the Great Lakes. Under this new council, states’ coastal jurisdictions will be subject to the United Nations’ Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST) in this UN Agenda 21 program. America’a oceans and coastlines will be broken into 9 regions that include the North East, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, the Gulf Coast, West Coast, the Great Lakes, Alaska, the Pacific Islands (including Hawaii) and the Caribbean.

Because of the decades of difficulty that the collectivists have had trying to ratify the Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST), Obama is sneaking it in through the back door, by way of this Executive Order establishing the Council. Because LOST is a treaty, Obama’s Executive Order is not Constitutional as a treaty ratification requires 2/3 approval from the Senate. Michael Shaw said that the Agenda 21 Convention on Biodiversity treaty of 1992 failed to pass Congress so it was executed through soft law and administratively on local levels, and Obama’s Executive Order is a similar soft law tactic to enact the LOST treaty.

In fact, our Constitutional form of government is being completely destroyed because buried in the CLEAR Act (HR 3534) there is a provision for a new council to oversee the outer continental shelf- it appears that this Regional Outer Shelf Council will be part of the National Ocean Council. This means that if Congress makes the CLEAR Act into law, then the implementation of the UN Law Of Sea Treaty, as part of the National Ocean Council’s agenda, will be “ratified” in a convoluted and stealth manner, in full opposition to the Constitution and its intent.

The excuse for this extreme action is because of the emergency in the Gulf of Mexico.

http://notalemming.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/global-governance-washes-ashore-with-h-r-3534-ih-the-lost-treaty/


A very short video.

WAKE UP House just passed bill to HAND OVER control of Great Lakes and all coastlines of USA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JPB9LW6s04


It is interesting that this Examiner article does not mention anything whatever about the U.N. This article appears business-as-usual.

H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act; a.k.a. the Oil Spill Bill


http://www.examiner.com/energy-in-national/h-r-3534-the-consolidated-land-energy-and-aquatic-resources-act-a-k-a-the-oil-spill-bill


When you open this InfoWars article, notice the time line and how this bill has re-emerged....in the nick of time, or so it appears.

US House puts oceans, coasts under UN: Senate Vote will seal the deal

“It’s too late; it’ll just have to be stopped in the Senate,” Tom, the young male answering the phone in U.S. Rep. John Boehner’s (R-Ohio)Washington D.C. office, said about HR 3534 (CLEAR Act). This is the globalist bill designed to give away our land, oceans, adjacent land masses and Great Lakes to an international body, and makes us pay $900 million per year until 2040.

The House passed the CLEAR Act (HR 3534) 209-193, July 30, 2010. This bill was originally introduced July 8, 2009, but was resurrected by the recent Deep Water Horizon oil spill crisis. According to www.govtrack.us, a debate may be taking place on a companion bill in the Senate, rather than on this particular bill. This bill was read for the second time Aug. 4, 2010, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, Calendar No. 510. No official Senate Bill number exists as of yet. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3534

http://www.infowars.com/us-house-puts-oceans-coasts-under-un-senate-vote-will-seal-the-deal/

[MorningSong]

I was reading about this 4-5 days ago here:

http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2010/09/breaking-us-house-puts-oceans-coasts.html

More and more areas of our planet are being placed into the custody of the UN every day...even here in Italy.

Getting ready for global gov't et al, I guess... -sigh-grrrrr-barf-sad face-

IF only it could be truely something good... am I wrong?

[Snowbird]

I was reading about this 4-5 days ago here:

http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2010/09/breaking-us-house-puts-oceans-coasts.html

More and more areas of our planet are being placed into the custody of the UN every day...even here in Italy.

Getting ready for global gov't et al, I guess... -sigh-grrrrr-barf-sad face-

IF only it could be truely something good... am I wrong?

MorningSong, I'm curious to know how the people of Italy deal with the prospect of global governance. Is this same type of encroachment being forced onto the people of your country? Your post almost sounds as though you have resigned yourself to this global takeover.

I also wonder if this U.N. LOST treaty had anything to do with the tens of millions of fish and sea creatures that have been washing up on America's shores.

[MorningSong]

Hi Snowbird!

I do not know exactly what is truely going on in ALL of Italy, but just the other day, listening to the local news, a politician was talking about the "benefits" of declaring the whole province I live in as adhering to the "patrimony of the world" campaigne - (UNESCO) and that the UN would give "us" 30% of the financial support necessary to continue with established "projects", whatever that means. I have tried to find out more about this but have found nothing in the local sources. I do know that once an area is declared a part of UNESCO, the land cannot be sold nor designated for particular commercial/private activities other than the ones set by the treaty itself, and the activities present at the time of signing (for example, viticulture) MUST be continued by all means. So these areas become "world parks" (WWF has already claimed many local areas, too) owned/dictated by the UN.

The fact is, is that people don't KNOW what this may mean (loss of national and local sovreignty- it isn't your land, choice, decision, etc), and they seem to not CARE as long as their daily tram-tram isn't interupted by it... by the time it does start interupting their lives, it will be too late to turn things around.

I understand that times are hard, the economy is bad and there is no money flow, so the big carrot from the UN in the face of big dreamers is very tempting.

Here's an article I ran across some time ago:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/09/08/years-setbacks-looks-world-leader/


EXCLUSIVE: After a Year of Setbacks, U.N. Looks to Take Charge of World's Agenda
By George Russell
Published September 08, 2010
| FoxNews.com

After a year of humiliating setbacks, United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon and about 60 of his top lieutenants — the top brass of the entire U.N. system — spent their Labor Day weekend at a remote Austrian Alpine retreat, discussing ways to put their sprawling organization in charge of the world’s agenda.

Details concerning the two-day, closed-door sessions in the comfortable village of Alpbach were closely guarded. Nonetheless, position papers for the meeting obtained by Fox News indicate that the topics included:

-- how to restore “climate change” as a top global priority after the fiasco of last year’s Copenhagen summit;

-- how to continue to try to make global redistribution of wealth the real basis of that climate agenda, and widen the discussion further to encompass the idea of “global public goods”;

-- how to keep growing U.N. peacekeeping efforts into missions involved in the police, courts, legal systems and other aspects of strife-torn countries;

- how to capitalize on the global tide of migrants from poor nations to rich ones, to encompass a new “international migration governance framework”;

-- how to make “clever” use of new technologies to deepen direct ties with what the U.N. calls “civil society,” meaning novel ways to bypass its member nation states and deal directly with constituencies that support U.N. agendas.

As one underlying theme of the sessions, the top U.N. bosses seemed to be grappling often with how to cope with the pesky issue of national sovereignty, which — according to the position papers, anyway — continued to thwart many of their most ambitious schemes, especially when it comes to many different kinds of “global governance.”

Not coincidentally, the conclave of bureaucrats also saw in “global governance” a greater role for themselves.

As a position paper intended for their first group session put it, in the customary glutinous prose of the organization’s internal documents: “the U.N. should be able to take the lead in setting the global agenda, engage effectively with other multinational and regional organizations as well as civil society and non-state stakeholders, and transform itself into a tool to help implement the globally agreed objectives.”

And for that to happen, the paper continues, “it will be necessary to deeply reflect on the substance of sovereignty, and accept that changes in our perceptions are a good indication of the direction we are going.”

Hammering away at perceptions that nation-states cannot adequately meet global challenges, but the U.N. can, is a major theme of the position papers, which were assembled by a variety of U.N. think tanks, task forces and institutions, including the United Nations Development Program, and the U.N.’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

National sovereignty — meaning the refusal of major powers like India, China and the United States to go along with sweeping global agendas — was specifically indicted for the failure of the much ballyhooed Copenhagen summit on climate change. “National sovereignty remains supreme,” as one position paper noted.

Nonetheless, the U.N. leaders intend to keep trying to change that, especially when it comes to the climate agenda. “The next 40 years will prove pivotal,” one paper argues, while laying out the basis of a renewed U.N. climate campaign, the “50-50-50 Challenge.”

That refers to a projection that by 2050, the world’s population will reach an estimated 9 billion (50 percent higher than today), at the same time that the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — producer of the scandal-tainted 2007 Global Assessment of global warming — is calling for a 50 percent reduction in world green house gas emissions.

According to the paper prepared by Secretary General Ban’s own climate change team, however, the newly rebranded challenge still depends on the same economic remedy proposed for Copenhagen: a drastic redistribution of global wealth, “nothing less than a fundamental transformation of the global economy.”

Rolling just about every U.N. mantra into one, the paper declares that “nothing is more crucial to preventing run-away climate change than lifting billions out of poverty, protecting our planet and fostering long-term peace and prosperity for all.”

And to do that, the paper suggests, equally dramatic shifts in political power may be needed. “Is the global governance structure, still dominated by national sovereignty, capable of responding with the coherence and speed needed?” it asks. “Or do we need to push the ‘reset’ button and rethink global governance to meet the 50-50-50 Challenge?”

Yet even as the U.N. bosses talk of delivering billions from poverty, their main aim, the papers argue should be much, much larger: to limit and redirect the aspirations for a better life of rising middle classes around the world.

As the opening session paper puts it: “The real challenge comes from the exponential growth of the global consumerist society driven by ever higher aspirations of the upper and middle layers in rich countries as well as the expanding demand of emerging middle-class in developing countries. Our true ambition should be therefore creating incentives for the profound transformation of attitudes and consumption styles.”

The answer to that “real challenge,” as well as many others addressed in the position papers, is that the U.N. and its proliferating array of funds, programs, institutes, and initiatives, should push themselves forward as the great synthesizer of solutions to global problems: “connecting the dots,” as the climate change paper puts it, across a “range of issues,” including "climate, water, food, energy, and health.”

“At the practical level, through the U.N. system we have all kinds of expertise and capacities, even if not adequate resources, to actually do something,” the paper notes.

How to get more of those resources is another major theme of many of the papers. As one of the documents focusing on food security notes, “development assistance funding is less readily available and the donors are ever more focused on demonstrable results.” One suggestion: tap global philanthropies, as well as link together “a broad range of public sector, business and civil society partners.”

The U.N. bosses also need to make sure that the institution sits at top tables where the world’s financial decisions are made. It is “urgent to secure U.N. participation” at regular meetings of the G-20 finance ministers and their deputies,” according to one of the papers, a group that the U.N. Secretariat, based in New York City and Geneva, does not interact with very much.

That observation ties into another Alpbach theme: pushing global financial regulation even further.

“The much paraded reform of financial governance institutions has not gone far enough,” the position paper for the U.N. leadership’s keynote session asserts, and the voting power of emerging players and developing world, in general, which demand a greater say on these matters, remains inadequate.”

The answer? “An enhanced political will is clearly needed to avoid return to status quo, to push forward regulatory mechanisms, and improve financial governance.”

Along with planting a new flag in the field of international financial regulation, the U.N. chiefs also contemplated the further growth of the U.N. as the world’s policeman. As another paper notes, U.N. peacekeeping operations “will soon have almost 17,000 United Nations police officers serving on four continents” — little more than two years after establishing what one papers calls the institutions “Standing Police Capacity.”

The peacekeepers are now also building a “standing justice and corrections element” to go with the semi-permanent police force — a permanent strike force to establish courts and prisons in nations where peacekeepers are stationed.

In essence, as another paper observes, the U.N. peacekeeping effort is transforming into a new kind of supervisory organism in which not only conflicts but also national institutions and cultures must be regulated for longer and longer periods of time.

“Even where a semblance of stability is achieved,” the paper by Ban’s peace-building support office argues, the achievement of peace may involve more than “adopting a constitution or holding elections.” It adds that “more fundamental change may be needed in a country’s institutions and political culture as well as in public perceptions and attitudes.”

(At the same time, as another paper makes clear, “some” U.N. peacekeepers come from countries “where the armed forces and police are seriously implicated in human rights violations,” including sexual crimes. While such actions “cannot be tolerated,” the paper makes clear the U.N. has no clear answers on how to police its own behavior.)

The answer to many if not most of the problems outlined in the U.N. papers is, as the opening session paper puts it: “multilateralism is instrumental to the success of our response to global challenges.”

But not any old multilateralism. The other major theme of the position papers is that the world organization, a haphazard array of at least 37 major funds, programs, and institutions, and a proliferating number of regulatory and other authorities, should be knitting itself into a much more close-knit global system, with greater control over its own finances, along with a stronger role in setting the international agenda.

How successful Ban and his chieftains will be at pushing that agenda may soon be seen, as the secretary general hosts the lead-off event of the fall diplomatic season, a two-day summit starting September 20 on the so-called Millennium Development Goals.

That refers to the U.N.-sponsored compact among nations to halve the number of the world’s poorest people, achieve global primary schooling, reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS and enhance the standing of women, among other goals, by 2015.

The position papers from Ban’s conclave make clear that Ban and his team are deeply concerned that momentum toward the MDGs, as they are known, is faltering, although one paper notes that “with the right policies, adequate investment and reliable international support, the MDGs remain achievable.”

In that sense, the secretive session in Alpbach was not only a planning session, but also the equivalent of a half-time locker room huddle.

What is at stake, the papers make clear, is not only the alleged betterment of the world, but the U.N.’s soaring ambitions for itself — no matter what roadblocks national sovereignty may throw in its way.

George Russell is executive editor of Fox News

Politics in Italy are in such a caotic state that all you hear about on the national news are the fusses and fighting, the fingerpointing and blackmailing going on. Even today, the Parlament had to vote, one more time, trust to the instated government, which passed by just a few votes...one more time!

The plans and goings on of the "elite" don't even get noticed.