US House puts oceans, coasts and states under UN control: Senate vote will seal the deal

I know, I know.... It is coming from info wars, but believe it or not he is onto something here!!

“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.

Link to Article

It is not only the coasts that are in trouble! See below from the UN

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

Article124

Use of terms

1. For the purposes of this Convention:

(a) "land-locked State" means a State which has no sea-coast;

(b) "transit State" means a State, with or without a sea-coast, situated between a land-locked State and the sea, through whose territory traffic in transit passes;

(c) "traffic in transit" means transit of persons, baggage, goods and means of transport across the territory of one or more transit States, when the passage across such territory, with or without trans-shipment, warehousing, breaking bulk or change in the mode of transport, is only a portion of a complete journey which begins or terminates within the territory of the land-locked State;

(d) "means of transport" means:

(i) railway rolling stock, sea, lake and river craft and road vehicles;

(ii) where local conditions so require, porters and pack animals.

2. Land-locked States and transit States may, by agreement between them, include as means of transport pipelines and gas lines and means of transport other than those included in paragraph 1.

Did anyone here about this on the news?

The plans are coming together nicely for them!!!

-Kdial

for reference purposes: H.R.3534

Would you like to explain your concerns. All I see are definitions, much like the definitions in Loan Agreements I work with every day. The US is not a landlocked state. The countries to our north and south, Canada and Mexico, are not landlocked states. None of them would even be transit states. I don't understand your problem with the UN Convention on the Sea. And the House Bill that you mention has no references in it to either the United Nations or the Convention on the Sea. It's about commerce in the US.

reply to post by kdial1


You do realize that "State", to the United Nations, means "Nation", right?

And you do realize that the UN Law of the Sea has been around for almost 40 years, right? And that the US has yet to sign the last one (1994).

See en.wikipedia.org...

This Alex Jones guy sounds like the biggest doorknob on the planet. Why would anyone take anything he says seriously without spending five minutes reading up on the subject?

reply to post by kdial1


Just as I expected from Prison Planet and Jones. What is in the article is not in the Bill. Jones has no shame. He knows most are too dumb to actually read the Bill.

Mr. Jones,
If you read here, you should be ashamed.

Originally posted by adjensen

This Alex Jones guy sounds like the biggest doorknob on the planet. Why would anyone take anything he says seriously without spending five minutes reading up on the subject?

You have him pegged correctly. Prison Planet is always running articles like this that turn out to be rubbish. Why anyone reads his stuff or listens to him is beyond understanding. I guess they want his fantasies to be real. He is clearly betting his audience is illiterate and won't read or understand what they are reading.

Originally posted by LibertyLover
Would you like to explain your concerns. All I see are definitions, much like the definitions in Loan Agreements I work with every day. The US is not a landlocked state. The countries to our north and south, Canada and Mexico, are not landlocked states. None of them would even be transit states. I don't understand your problem with the UN Convention on the Sea. And the House Bill that you mention has no references in it to either the United Nations or the Convention on the Sea. It's about commerce in the US.

Apparently you have not read everything and are not understanding the full complexity of this step they are taking. Ever heard of the NAU, Global Agenda 12, Private Super corridors having pipelines? What has happened to ATS? Anyone research this stuff anymore?
Water
Public-Private Partnerships
Agenda 21

Upper Mississippi of International Importance
LOL!!!



Here is the executive order:

Executive Order

-Kdial1

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by kdial1

 

You do realize that "State", to the United Nations, means "Nation", right?

No I did not know that... /sarcasm
Errm... Another board is disussing this already as well


-Kdial1

Originally posted by kdial1

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by kdial1

 

You do realize that "State", to the United Nations, means "Nation", right?

No I did not know that...

/sarcasm

In that case, you might wish to correct either the title of this thread, or the text of the treaty that you have quoted, as they make it fairly obvious that you did NOT realize that, lol. The US House is not putting oceans, coasts and states under UN control. If they are finally getting around to ratifying the 1994 version of the treaty, it has nothing to do with that -- the Law of the Sea is for codifying things like territorial waters, and the laws that apply outside of said waters (also known as "international waters".)

In matters of international concern, it makes sense for these sorts of things to be administered through the UN. Articles like the one you've linked are fear mongering at best, abject stupidity at worst.