There is perhaps one aspect of Agenda 21 that escaped the attention of many who have read it, and that is genetics. Not easily recognized for its potential as a threat, it has taken almost 30 years for understanding what it really meant.
Patrick Wood, editor of Technocracy News & Trends, and by far the most expert in the field of technocracy, recently posted an article that had a video of a presentation he gave on genetic material. Until the Covid-19 event, the issue of genetics had not been fully clear, but looking back, it is now. In Agenda 21, Chapter 16, Management of Biotechnology, 16.1 clearly states, "a set of enabling techniques for bringing about specific man-made changes in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), or genetic material, in plants, animals, and microbial systems, leading to useful products and technologies." As can be seen, at least two areas have already been impacted, agriculture with genetically modified foods, and health with gene therapy vaccines. Here is the video in the article.
0 Comments
In the last and current legislative sessions, the issue of access to certain books by minors continues to be at the forefront, with many in support of or in opposition to several bills.
Current Idaho Statutes address the prohibition of obscene or indecent material, some including towards minors. Idaho Statute 23-614, Idaho Statute 18-4105, Idaho Statute 18-1513 and 18-1515 both added in 1972, and Idaho Statute 18-1507 all cover and describe what is considered indecent and obscene. So here we have existing laws banning obscenity and indecency with descriptions on what it is, and with protections of minors in some cases Today, efforts are being made to include protections for children from obscenity and indecency in library materials, the internet, cell phones, and AI. HB498 allows a civil remedy for parents and protection on the internet; SB1253 would require enabling filters and ability to remove detrimental content on devices; HB382 includes banning sexual exploitation of children via AI; HB384 restricts children's access to obscene material in a library and allow civil action; SB1221 creates a procedural requirements for review, selection, and management of school library materials; and HB710 requires schools and libraries to restrict children access to obscene and harmful material and allows civil action. This bill is being held in the Senate State Affairs committee for further discussion. What the heck happened in 52 years that now all of a sudden what was determined as indecent, obscene, and harmful for children has now become educational, beneficial, or even a free speech or constitutional issue? Surely, every legislator who has been opposing these proposed bills would by contrast be a ardent supporter of each existing statute on obscenity and indecency. They would most likely never support the idea of such ribaldry in a public square, or facility. Would they support the exercise of this type of information in the streets, considering it a "free speech" right, or relabeling it art and of benefit to the masses? One outspoken individual opposing these bills is Lance McGrath, President of the Idaho Library Association (ILA), and who uses this association as representative of his views. In 2023 (McGrath) stated, “The government has a duty to protect its citizens – especially minors. But it cannot do so by infringing on the fundamental rights of free speech and access to constitutionally protected information.” That is an oxymoron. At that time he also stated, "Idaho libraries, whether school or public, do not provide materials that are harmful to minors.” If this were true there would currently not be such a brouhaha about protecting children on this issue. Going further, Mr. McGrath has stated “Librarians believe parents have rights and responsibilities to guide their children’s use of school and public libraries.” By that measure of logic, a parent then does have the responsibility and right to insist that their child is protected from harmful materials at a library. Perhaps libraries should be responsible and take that into account when stocking the shelves and recognizing who holds the authority to decide what a child will read. He reiterated the same this year and expressed concern that "The private right of action creates a bounty system that will place an incredible financial burden on libraries and open them up to serious actions and potential litigation.” The protection of the library is more important than a child? According to Mr. McGrath, "“Freedom of intellectual pursuits is a fundamental American ideal and a human right.” A minor reading sexually explicit material is an intellectual pursuit and a right? As an example of what he would consider an intellectual pursuit, here is an example of a banned book with a strong warning about the explicit graphics contained within it. The Idaho Chapter of the American Library Association (ALA), supports McGrath's stance on the idea that banning this type of material is a "threat to democracy" and likely violates its Library Bill of Rights. Many engaged in this issue might be aware that libraries accepting federal funding may already be utilizing internet filtering systems. The 2000 Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) provides funding for internet filtering mechanisms that can be disabled for adults on request. One focus of the law is safety policies addressing access, safety, and security of minors to inappropriate matter on the internet. Idaho Statute 33-2741 addresses this in Idaho libraries. Heck, if sexually explicit material is allowed on bookshelves, then the internet should be open access to minors as well! It seems illogical that protection from harm can be divided between different forms of information, maybe unless there is money involved. Few studies could be found on what harm is caused to children who are exposed to explicit sexual material, however there are many studies on the effect it has on adolescents, especially related to the internet, and it is all negative. If an adolescent experiences adverse reactions, how can it be expected that a child won't experience the same if not worse? Just as a side note, the ILA is a chapter of the American Library Association (ALA) which is a member of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), a UN listed nongovernmental organization (NGO) that also supports a Public Library Manifesto with UNESCO. It should be of no surprise that ALA and IFLA both support the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Therefore, it should be no surprise that this type of material is very much integrated into the SDGs that filters down to libraries. Okay, going with Mr. McGrath's and reasoning by others who oppose these bills, free speech and access to Constitutionally protected material are both Constitutional rights. If these books were displayed, freely handed out, or even sold to children or adults by someone on the street or at a public venue, would those books violate current state law, especially 18-1507(j) and 18-1515? If yes, then that material should not be made available in a library. If not, then it should be considered perfectly acceptable for these books to be handed out or sold at the next public event and current laws should be changed to remove all penalties for doing so. Perhaps reparations should be given to those who have been penalized under these laws for violation of their rights. Internet access should also be made available and the funding for filtering it should also be refused. As the Senate State Affairs committee continues to discuss this issue, contact them at [email protected] and let them know your thoughts because the opposition is strong right now. What comes to mind when thinking about a civil society? Perhaps where people interact in a civil manner, or the community at large participates with civility, airing differences without harshness towards one another. How did the Founders view a civil society?
Just prior to the Declaration of Independence, Alexander Hamilton declared, "When the first principles of civil society are violated, and the rights of a whole people are invaded, the common forms of municipal law are not to be regarded." James Madison wrote in Federalist #37, "Stability in government, is essential to national character, and to the advantages annexed to it, as well as to that repose and confidence in the minds of the people, which are among the chief blessings of civil society." John Locke, who had influence with the Founders, described civil society, "Those who are united into one body, and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them, and punish offenders, are in civil society one with another." Locke also had a few words on tyranny, "Wherever law ends, tyranny begins...". In Federalist #51, Alexander Hamilton or James Madison spoke to the need for separate branches of government, each assigned with different powers between them, and necessary for a check and balance system that would keep the government itself in line. "Since it shews that in exact proportion as the territory of the union may be formed into more circumscribed confederacies or states, oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated, the best security under the republican form, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished; and consequently, the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionally increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society." Federalist #51 also spoke to the dangers of factions, "In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign, as in a state of nature where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger." Federalist # 10 by James Madison also spoke to the dangers of factions. "Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction." "By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." "There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: The one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects." Removing its causes was not an option as it entailed limiting liberty. In Madison's view, the cure was "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking." The rationale for this, "...you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other." So, having a civil society was based on a Republic, with laws, and protecting rights. Ok, what is the point here? Who cares? Why is this even important? No, no, no, no, no! All of this foundation for a civil society has been scrubbed. Civil society, a term even used by presidents, has a whole new meaning, one that obliterates our Republic as intended. Madison tried to warn us. Back in 1992, the United Nations (UN) devoted a whole chapter in Agenda 21 to Strengthening The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO). Strengthening The Role of Trade Unions and Business were a couple of other chapters. These are factions James Madison warned us about, and his fears have come to fruition. The UN has its own Civil Society Unit, describing its factions as "any non-profit, voluntary citizens’ group which is organized on a local, national or international level." These UN factions include academia, professional, foundation, and environmental organizations across the world. The Organization of American States (OAS) has relations with Civil Society Organizations, interfere with citizen representation, and the U.S. Headquarters lie smack in the middle of Washington D.C.. The World Economic Forum (WEF) also has its own interesting slant on Civil Society, "a diverse community of civil society leaders come together to find solutions...advance multi-stakeholder cooperation with government and business leaders; ...includes the engagement of the most influential organizations representing the interests of citizens...NGOs, non-profits and charities; trade unions and labour organizations; come together to collaborate with government and business leaders on finding and advocating solutions to global challenges." As it is stated in the video, these factions that make up Civil Society are Shaping a Future. According to the World Bank, “Civil society ... refers to a wide array of organizations: community groups, non-governmental organizations [NGOs], labour unions, indigenous groups, charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, and foundations.” Civil Society "has the power to influence the actions of elected policy-makers and businesses" as a “third sector” (after government and commerce)". Klaus Schwab even wrote a paper on Civil Society, just another fascist advancement. A James Madison or John Locke he is not. As seen by history, people never change, especially when it comes to the gluttony of power. James Madison was aware of this and familiar with the development of factions that would be more than happy to usurp control and power over others. It is the Civil Society of factions that now control the government once so feared by Madison, but we have let it happen. On March 1, 2024, the Senate Judiciary & Rules Committee (SJRC) voted to send SCR 114 and SCR 115 to the floor for a vote. SCR 114 addresses Term Limits, and SCR 115 addresses a Balanced Budget amendment (BBA). Both resolutions include the language "call a convention" or "calling of a convention of the states". The bottom line is, many Americans do want something done to get a naughty federal government under control. To watch the meeting it can be found here under Mar. 1, 2024 1:30 P.M. Download Audio/Video.
Much is written about the interpretation of Article V and the language that either Congress proposes amendments, or on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states shall call a convention for proposing amendments. This document states if two-thirds of state legislatures transmit applications favoring a convention Congress must call a convention, which then decides whether to propose amendments, and if so drafts them. The Federalist Society discusses the differences between "plenary" and "aggregated" applications for a convention. Plenary means the application is unlimited or consideration is given for any amendments. Aggregated refers to combining applications with the same subject matter into one common language, or aggregating them together to make them consistent between states which leads to a plenary convention. As the Federalist Society explains it, "all valid applications must be aggregated with all other valid applications to yield a plenary result (pg 53)." In the case of a BBA, aggregating the numerous states resolutions for a balanced budget amendment would result in a plenary or open convention. In another opinion, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) reflects that "states may call on Congress to form a constitutional convention to propose amendments. Congress must act on this call if at least two-thirds of the states (34 states) make the request. The convention would then propose constitutional amendments." There are many other opinions and interpretations, too long to list here. But it is clear that the Convention of States Action (COSA) is calling for a plenary convention, open to many amendment possibilities and not just limited to imposing fiscal restraints, term limits, and scope and jurisdiction restraints on the federal government. Looking specifically at opinions on the proposed BBA, there is consistent agreement that government budgetary issues are far too complex to limit it down to just a simple "balance the budget" theme. SCR 115 states, "the total of all federal outlays made by the Congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenues for that fiscal year, together with any related and appropriate fiscal restraints." The Congressional Research Service (CRS) wrote a report in 2019 about the BBA history, and discusses the extensive impact it would have on fiscal matters in the government. As correctly pointed out during the SJRC meeting, the economic system is based on debt rather than assets, and this can be addressed without a convention. That is just one economic aspect of the problem. Not only is there debt, but as the report outlines there are tax, waiver, non-budgetary, off-budget, and expenditure limitation issues that could possibly be open to revision. Previous attempts to balance the federal budget also exposed fiscal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as possible issues for revision. Just defining the budget as needing to be balanced does not come close to all of the economic details that would be exposed for changes during a convention with this proposed amendment. So far, 26 states have passed resolutions specific to calling for a BBA convention. Heck, even Congress, as reviewed by the CRS report, has historically and has currently proposed legislation for a BBA. Some of the language in both Idaho resolutions came from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Rather than read hundreds of opinions on this subject, perhaps it would be better to determine what the Convention of States Action (COSA) has to say. Surprisingly, Mark Meckler, who leads COSA, opposes a BBA because it would "give the federal government power over the states", whereas a convention of states could impose "fiscal restraints". He includes "restricting taxing and spending" and forcing the government to use "generally accepted accounting principles (2:59 mark)". This appears to lead to the same end, an open door to changing many fiscal matters. Michael Farris, JD, LLM, Co-Founder of Convention of States, states a BBA is "one that COS supports" but a "BBA alone will not cure this problem". He goes on to cite the many fiscal and other issues that would have to be addressed in which the BBA is limited and also speaks to the aggregate issue of different state BBA resolutions. He concludes that both resolutions, calling for a convention and BBA, should proceed post haste. As previously noted, the numerous state BBA resolutions would need to be aggregated for an plenary convention. Further clarification is given by Mr. Meckler to the Pennsylvania House and Senate State Government Committees on October 22, 2019. Along with explaining that term limits could be set on "federal officials", he continues, "... the convention could propose a balanced budget amendment accompanied by limitations on Congress' spending and taxation powers. It could propose limits on executive power, federal agencies, and impose real checks and balances on the Supreme Court (pg 3)." As seen, it isn't just about balancing revenue with spending. While Mr. Meckler denies "Convention of States has a board member that has proposed a new constitution" in response to criticism regarding Robert P. George, it was announced in 2014 that the COS Project formed a "Prestigious Legal Board of Reference" which included Mr. George as a board member. "The conclusions of these prestigious experts are memorialized in The Jefferson Statement". This board crafted The Conservative Constitution. On page 11 it summarizes information related to finance, taxing, and spending. The actual Article I, Sections 9 and 10 can be found on pages 20-21 where more specific details are provided on fiscal policy and outlines how much "fiscal restraint" could, or would be applied. Given this is a COS project it might be considered as a source for consideration of possible proposed amendments that might occur during a convention, which would dramatically alter fiscal policy as various opinions have warned. Mr. George is listed as serving "as a legal advisor to the Project". All of the proposed Articles in this Conservative Constitution dramatically reconstruct our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Mr. George is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and served as the U.S. member of UNESCO’s World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology. In the COSA plenary resolution template, it does include fiscal restraints as one of the "limited" subjects, or rather "to a small range of subjects while still allowing for multiple amendments to be proposed." As for SCR 114, opinions are far more varied with multiple reasons as to why term limits are a bad idea, and why they are a good idea. However, the most frightening aspect is just how far these term limits would go according to COSA. As Mr. Meckler stated, these term limits aren't limited to just Congress, it also includes federal officials, Supreme Court justices, and federal judges. Once again, the People have failed to do their job in ousting officials who don't adhere to the Constitution. With all of the information made available by COSA, it should be clear that a broad restructuring of the Constitution is in play. Presenting such a narrow scope of objectives doesn't come close to how deep the intent is to vastly alter the foundation of the Republic. The original convention that created our Constitution emerged with delegates from each state coming together, it was initiated by them to the Continental Congress and an Act was declared for them to meet. Today, this isn't coming from states, it is coming from a highly organized political campaign that is primarily funded by one individual. The question has to be why, what is the motivation of one person to personally fund so much activity, not only to interfere in state elections, but to also pursue avenues that would potentially cause such profound changes in the Constitution. Should it not be done as was the 1787 convention, brought forward by state leaders, whether by Governors or legislators? Having covered the individuals currently pursuing a Convention of States (COS), the funding behind it, and how those funders are connected, it became clear that at the center of it all was Tim Dunn. He has been a busy boy in Texas when looking into his background, and there is reason for major concern. While this information appears to hold the values of what many Idahoans want, critical thinking is needed to understand the full picture.
Tim Dunn lives in Texas, is a billionaire, and a Christian, making his money from the oil industry. Over the last several years his political activities in Texas are well documented. By some accounts he has been building a "political machine" using his money to create a network of organizations, as have been documented in previous articles. As quoted in Forbes, “I view investing in politics as a philanthropic exercise. I pay dues to lobbyists to prevent bad regulation.” Also according to Forbes, "...in 2010 he cofounded Citizens for Self-Governance, a project to revise the U.S. Constitution", in which Convention of States is its project. In reviewing his many activities, it became clearer that revising the Constitution is exactly what he wants to do beyond balanced budget or term limit amendments. Moreover, as previously discussed, it is the "limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government" language that is the most threatening. The Constitution already defines enumerated powers. His influence has been far reaching in both politics and his ambition to change the Constitution. The Fiscal Responsibility Index, a non-profit chaired by Dunn, is a scoring system, assigning a number to each lawmaker based on how they vote, and is used to determine who should remain in Dunn's favor. The higher the score, the safer it is for the lawmaker with a clear message, "...if you don’t vote the way we tell you, we’re going to score against you,” Is this threat also being laid upon Idaho legislators? Perhaps this scoring system has already been applied in Idaho given the money that was used previously to target one legislator and support others. Buying politicians also buys the policies. This election interference by COS also happened in Montana, Wisconsin, and South Dakota. Along with his friend Farris Wilks from the infamous Wilks brothers associated with Idaho, both have poured money into the election process and influencing policy decisions that are rightfully the responsibility of citizens. In Texas, he used his money towards ousting lawmakers who didn't vote his way. His desire to replace the education system with all Christian schools might be widely accepted by many, but is clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment. However, could this be a hint for his desire to hold a convention for other reasons than what is presented by Convention of States Action? Sitting on the corporate 501(c)(3) America First Inc (America First Policy Institute} board is Mr. Dunn as Director, along with Larry Kudlow and Newt Gingrich as Vice Chairs. Brooke Rollins, playing a former role in the Trump administration, serves as President and CEO. This non-profit was also influential in the previous Trump campaign and appears to be gearing up for a new Trump administration with a set of issues for policy already in place, He has donated to several non-profits with similar causes. Mr. Gingrich describes this non-profit as "taking on the left". But when looking at all of Mr. Dunn's activity it appears more the ideological beliefs of one man who has the money to buy politicians and influence policy. Again, this is a direct violation of the Republic's foundation. None of it follows the Constitution as originally written, this isn't how the process works. Indeed, the Constitution would probably have to be profoundly changed to accommodate his ideals. "Dunn calls himself a proponent of self-governance". Self-governance is different than consent of the governed. All of his activities are the antithesis of what self-governance means. He is a founding board member of Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG) which is led by Mark Meckler. It could safely be said the whole purpose of the Conventions of States project is changing the Constitution to align with the ideals of Mr. Dunn and he has put into place the mechanism to do it. While Mr. Dunn claims that Marxism believes religion and politics don't mix, it was actually our Founders who separated religion out from government in the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"..."forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices." He also states Marxism defines religion as no beliefs other than theirs, when there is strong evidence that is exactly what he is promoting, Christian religion for all. It isn't clear where he obtained his degree in theology. He also believes it is "government's job to execute wrath on evil...something God appointed it to do". Mr. Dunn has views on the criminal justice system, having "spawned a national movement called “Right on Crime.” This organization "is a national campaign of the Texas Public Policy Foundation in which Mr. Dunn is a Vice Chair, and has an Idaho Chapter that influences legislation. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of his talk comes at the end when he talks about loving one another and not exploiting others, when it is clear he assigned himself as judge and jury by using his money and front men to do his dirty work in attacking political candidates. What can only be described as acting like a megalomaniac, Mr. Dunn has used his wealth, influence, and in some cases threats, to spread his wrath across many states, including Idaho, to change our Constitution. This information may stir different emotions in different people. Some may welcome the values Mr. Dunn espouses, others may have concern over the tactics he uses in order to sway our Republican form of government. Mr. Dunn is trying to use the available tool in the Constitution with Article V. However, it is the other ways in which he operates that are the bigger concern and just how much depth there is to his values that could possibly open up our Constitution to harm. His demonstrated ability at influencing politics could just as easily occur should a convention be held. Do Idaho legislators want to be held to the dictates of Tim Dunn under the threat of defeat? Should Mr. Dunn have the privilege of reading this information, he deserves to have a word of caution. His self-driven and sanctimonious ideology is the antithesis of self-governance, and he needs to go back and read every document written by the Founders. Mr. Dunn is distorting the very point on which our Republic was built, that government is only by the consent of the people. He is building it into his own consent. Given the history of this one man, his activities of influence in politics, and his antithetic beliefs to our Republic, it is imperative that Idaho rejects any involvement in the Convention of States Action, and should SCR 112 pass, it can be rescinded. South Dakota did it in spite of the COS threat, "This isn’t the last they’ll hear from us." A warning has already been issued in Idaho. When there are many twists and turns it is sometimes helpful to go back over information one step at a time, and find new information, to understand the picture. Such is the case with the Convention of States Action (COSA) which has more depth to it than just the push for states to approve a Convention of States.
Convention of States Action 501(c)(4) - Set up as a corporate non-profit, Principal Officer Mark Meckler, compensated with $121,264 and wife Patricia Meckler compensated with $114,952 in 2022. Consultant Rick Santorum compensated with $333,405. In 2022 total revenue $8,330,036. Total number of volunteers 145,000. $500 contributed to Idaho Republican Party. $381,666 contributed to Convention of States Political Fund (COSPF), website now removed. Related organizations are Citizens for Self Governance, CSG Action, Defending Liberty. Funded by several foundations and organizations over the years. Initial grant of $500,000 to COSA was provided by the Mercer Family Foundation in 2014, listed on Form 990 as the John Hancock Committee for the States, the former name of Citizens for Self-Governance, of which COSA is a project. America First Works INC, corporate 501(c)(4) in VA, donated $250,000 to COSA in 2020. A separate America First Works INC 501(c)(4) in D.C. Form 990, lists Tim Dunn, COSA board member, as chair with transactions to the related organization America First Works INC in VA in the amount of $2,110,000. The Donors Capital Fund contributed $1,500.000 to the John Hancock Committee for the States, AKA Citizens for Self-Governance, in 2015. Mark Meckler is listed as President of Citizens for Self-Governance, a Corporate 501(c)(3), DBA Convention of States Foundation in 2022, was compensated with $58,737, and his wife Patricia with $64,660, and lists Tim Dunn as Director, The same year this 501(c)(3) gave COSA $1,309,864 and $102,633 in separate listings. Convention of States Political Fund (COSPF) - Registered in Michigan as a Super PAC in 2022 with a mailing address in Washington D.C., dissolved in December, 2023. Contributed $60,000 to Conservative Action for Idaho in 2022. In May, 2022, complaint filed against Convention of States Political Fund in Montana for campaign law violations. Did not register as a political committee or file campaign finance reports with the District of Columbia Office of Campaign Finance. The Commissioner of Political Practices in Montana, upheld by a federal Judge, found COSPF failed to file reports that disclosed spending on advertising, failing to register its D.C. address with the Campaign Finance Office, failed to satisfy Montana's itemized disclosure requirements, and did not include required "paid for by" language on mailers. Convention of States Foundation Corporate 501(c)(3) - Name of Organization is Citizens for Self-Governance, DBA Convention of States Foundation. Principal Officer Mark Meckler, compensated with $91,428, wife Patricia Meckler with $73,819. Total revenue $1,894,565. Total number of volunteers 145,000. $515,00 contributed to Vanguard Charitable Trust, $ 216,300 to 1789 Alliance. Large donations made to the foundation by various organizations. Net assets in 2022, $1,433,813. Conservative Action for Idaho - Idaho PAC in 2021-2022. Large donations to political parties, organizations, and businesses in 2021. In April, 2022, $36,217.00 spent on advertising to oppose one Idaho candidate and support others. Given $51,000 by Conservative Action for America. In May, 2022, spent $69,704 on advertising in opposition to one Idaho candidate and in support of several candidates. Received two separate donations totaling $60,000 from COSPF in May, 2022. Conservative Action For America PAC - FEC registered Super PAC in Virginia, Mark Meckler Treasurer, No activity for 2023. In 2022, received $1 million dollars from Tim Dunn who sits on the COSA board, $51,000 from Conservative Action For America INC, and $39,637 from Congressional Reform Fund. Conservative Action For America INC - Formed in 2022, Corporate 501(c)(4) located in Phoenix, AZ. RJ Johnson, President. Total revenue $2,830,000. Contributed $51,000 to Conservative Action for America PAC and $51,000 to Conservative Action for Idaho. Contributed $51,000 to Conservative Action For America PAC in 2022. Contributed $876,000 to Convention of States Action and $677,000 to Convention of States Political Fund. Richard A. Johnson, AKA as R.J. Johnson, is listed as taking office on 1/19/22 as Director and Officer. Richard "RJ" Johnson owns Johonson Jordahl, which "offer strategic advice and tactical planning" in political campaigns. The Conservative Action for America PAC paid $10,000 to Johnson Jordahl in 2022. He is a direct connection to Mark Meckler and the Convention of States Action. Congressional Reform Fund PAC - FEC registered Super Pac in Virginia as of 2022, Mark Meckler Treasurer. Tim Dunn funded this PAC with $65,ooo. PAC was terminated in 2022. Teresa Molitor is the COSA lobbyist in Idaho (under Legislative Liaison Team). Given the history of these many groups and their activities, there is a strong indication that it is more of an attempt to influence election outcomes and legislative decisions by unknown money sources than what is told by COSA. McKay Cunninigham is correct in his assessment, starting at the 3:39" mark, about the 1787 Convention, that the original intent was to amend the Articles of Confederation but was discarded, and speaks to the potential dangers with the current proposed amendments being the same. It is clear from these documents and many others that were reviewed, that the intention is not only to influence political elections, but to also re-write the Constitution, not just adding some amendments, and there are specific groups of individuals behind the effort. Sometimes it is hard to be courageous and stand up to a threat, but now is the time. SCR112 has passed committee and due to be heard on the Senate Floor. SCR114 is due to be heard in the Senate Judiciary & Rules Committee. SCR115 is due to be heard in the Senate Judiciary & Rules Committee. Contact the Senate Judiciary & Rules Committee at [email protected] and tell them to not pass SCR114 or SCR115. Contact your Senators and the full Senate and tell them to not pass SCR112, and if SCR114 or SCR115 comes to the floor to not pass those. The Convention of States Action (COSA) conducted some ground work prior to its coming into Idaho and promoting its calling for a Convention of States to the legislature. COSA had over $8 million dollars in revenue in 2022.
COSA also had a Convention of States Political Fund (COSPF) in 2022, and a political action committee called Conservative Action for Idaho PAC (CAI)(now removed, but on Internet Archives). When Convention of States Political Fund is searched under the donor box on the Idaho Secretary of State (SOS) site, it shows that all contributions are made to the CAI. When Conservative Action for Idaho is searched under the Candidates & PACs box, it shows how money was spent, a large part going to advertising agencies. On the 01/01/2021 to 12/31/2021 CAI Campaign Financial Disclosure Report Summary it shows contributions were made to the Idaho Republican Party. Much of this money went to Republican committees located throughout the state, but there were also contributions to individual candidates and different organizations. Some of those organizations included $20,000 to Melaleuca Inc; $6,000 to Beco Construction Company; $10,000 to Richard And Peggy Larsen Farms; $10,000 to Transcanada Pipeline U.S.A.; $20,000 to Idaho Land Fund; $5,000 to Idaho Conservative Growth Fund; and $5,000 to Idaho Victory Fund, which has its own nefarious background. Candidates receiving money included $1,000 to Julie Yamamoto; $2,000 to Jim Rice; $1,000 to Mary Souza; $1,000 to Macomber For Idaho Attorney General; $500.00 to Blanksma For Idaho; $500.00 to Mcgrane For Idaho; $1,500.00 to Chuck Winder; $500.00 to Wendy Horman; $250.00 to Laura Lickley; and $250.00 to Dustin Manwaring. In 2022, CAI spent thousands of dollars in opposition to and support of Idaho candidates through advertising agencies, $36,217.00 was spent just in April, 2022, and $69,704.24 in May. Amounts paid to individual advertising agencies can be found here, along with amounts spent to oppose Judy Boyle and support Rep. Syme, Mike Kingsley, James Hotzclaw, Barbara Ehardt, Mike Moyle, and Kelly Anthon. On this April, 2022 CAI Disclosure form, $5,100.00 was paid to "The Political" on the 25th to oppose Judy Boyle (pg 14). This is a firm in Louisiana whose work is to get candidates elected. This CAI Disclosure form shows that COSPF made contributions to the CAI in the amounts of $50,000 and $10,000 on separate dates in May, 2022. No Super Pac called the “Convention of States Political Fund” could be found on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) website. Also, there were two contributions made to CAI by Conservative Action for America (CAA), one on April 20 for $1,000 and another for $50,000 made on April 25, 2022. In 2022, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) alleged that COSPF founder, Richard Johnson, formed CAA "in Arizona to hide the identity of major donors to its super PAC". Conservative Action for America cannot be found as a PAC when searched on the Arizona website from 2020-2024. CMD also alleged that "Conservative Action for America used a fake address to register as a nonprofit there." In Montana, COSPF was found guilty of violating campaign laws by "by failing to adequately disclose its in-state activity with his office." In another 2022 complaint filed against COSPF in Montana, Richard A. Johnson is listed as the treasurer on page 2. Looking at this 2022 CAI Campaign Financial Disclosure Report Summary, Conservative Action for America is listed on page three with the same Arizona address. The reason this is so confusing is there are two separate Conservative Action for America groups, both created by COSA individuals. This 990 tax form lists CAA Inc as a corporate 501(c)(4) non-profit in Arizona with over two million dollars in total revenue and RJ Johnson as president. The only information that could be found on RJ Johnson is here. There is also the CAA PAC, Conservative Action for America PAC in Virginia, that was a FEC registered Super PAC from 7/22 through 2023 with Mark Meckler as treasurer. Donors aren't listed, however CAA "Inc." made contributions: $600,000 to American Principles Project; $30,000 to Citizens Against Expanded Gambling; $51,000 to Conservative Action for America PAC; $51,000 to Conservative Action for Idaho; $876,000 to Convention of States Action; $677,000 to Convention of States Political Fund; $49,000 to Stop Prop 1 in DC; and $160,000 to Wisconsin Alliance for Reform. When looking at CAA "PAC" donations received, a Crownquest individual donated $1 million dollars to the CAA "PAC". Tim Dunn is the Crownquest CEO and is on the Board of Directors for Convention of States. CAA "Inc" in Arizona gave $51,000 to the CAA PAC. The FEC registered Super PAC, Congressional Reform Fund, whose treasurer was Mark Meckler, also gave $39,637 to the CAA "PAC". All documents of the Congressional Reform Fund, which terminated in August, 2022, can be found here, Timothy Dunn contributed a total of $65,000 to the Congressional Reform Fund Super Pac. Under the expenditures tab, the CAA "PAC" paid $500,000 to Secure Our Freedom Action Fund; $10,000 to Johnson Jordahl; and $7,000 to Koch & Hoos. COSA, through its PACs, spent money to have specific Idaho legislators supported, while targeting Rep. Boyle in opposition, and engaging in the same activity in other states. There is also a CAI Campaign Financial Disclosure Report Summary from 6/1/22 to 6/30/22 showing its expenditures. 501(c)(4) groups have very specific limitations on how money can be used and distributed, especially related to campaign finance. While this may be considered "dark money" as was suggested by CMD and others, most information about where the money came from, who is involved, and how that money is shuffled around has been fairly easy to find, with a few exceptions. This all feels more like a slush fund or sloppy shell game. What is striking, all of it was shut down when the campaign law violations were filed against COSPF in June, 2022 in Montana. The flow of money is difficult to follow but basically it is all the work of Mark Meckler and his cohorts, creating organizations, funding them, shuffling the money around, then getting into trouble and shutting the organizations down. They aren't alone, much has been written about how these activities undermine our election process. How did America get to this? Well, it was a Supreme Court case that sanctioned this activity, it isn't even regulated. Corporations have free speech rights? The CMD attacks billionaires for dumping money towards the right, and the right goes after those funders of the left like Soros. Round and round we go. These people are in their own little bubble creating whirlwinds of chaos for the rest of us. Certainly the Founders did not have money thrown at them to support only certain positions, or wealthy organizations using their money to influence the populous in one direction or another. Why has this been allowed? Why even bother voting when there is so much monetary malfeasance behind the political arena? Are potential candidates and incumbents for office cognizant of these monetary games in which they are the pawns? Where do billionaires get off thinking they, through their wealth, have the ability to change the course of a country and how people should live, vote, or even think? Can they not find a better, more positive way in which to spend their riches? Surely, somewhere, there are some kids who need new shoes and clothes. And now, Idaho legislators are being duped into thinking that a Convention of States is a marvelous avenue to pursue. This agenda is not grassroots, or even from Idaho citizens. It originates with a bunch of individuals who have money and because of that, think they can pay their way into states and lead a charge for Lord only knows what reason. Do legislators really want to tangle Idaho up with an organization that has such questionable backgrounds and activities? If legislators were made aware of this and other COSA activity, would they support SCR 112 or the other related bills? It got this far because we as the self-governed have failed to do our job in holding elected officials accountable, scrutinizing every aspect of what they do, and who they are choosing to follow. Let elected officials know this suspicious resolution should not be passed. Sometimes people get caught up in a craze and follow what is presented without giving much thought to the depth of what they are supporting, or the potential ramifications. Such is the case with the current pursuit of an Article V convention, also known as a Con-Con or Convention of States (COS). It may be tedious to read through these documents but it is worthwhile to look at the history behind Article V. Article V of the Constitutions states a convention for amendments to the Constitution can be called when "two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments". In 1777, the Continental Congress created the Articles of Confederation. Altering the Articles is found in XIII. Because of the Revolutionary war, the weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation, especially related to commerce and trade, became apparent. Originally, commissioners from Maryland and Virginia met to discuss fishing rights and regulation of commerce between their states. Virginia then "issued the invitation" to other states to attend a convention on this subject while some states felt it "transgressed the powers of Congress". James Madison even commented that "Many Gentlemen both within & without Congs. wish to make this Meeting subservient to a Plenipotentiary Convention for amending the Confederation." Eventually, nine state legislatures elected delegates to attend the Annapolis Convention, held September 11 to September 14, 1786, to discuss limited trade and commerce under the Articles of Confederation. But the convention was held with only five states, lacking "the requisite quorum of seven states necessary to conduct business". The assigned task for the convention, commercial matters and trade regulations, were never addressed. With representation from just five states and twelve delegates, they changed the assigned task to addressing "defects in the system of the Fœderal Government", and "devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Fœderal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union". It is speculated that failure to wait for the required quorum was deliberate by Hamilton and Madison for their pursuit of systematic, constitutional reform. The attending delegates did acknowledge the lack of representation and defended their alternative pursuits "dictated by an anxiety for the welfare, of the United States". They also knew of the opposition to constitutional reform by those delegates who had not yet arrived. By the end of the Annapolis convention, three rules had already been broken, failure to meet the quorum requirements, failure to address the assigned task by their legislatures, and creation of a completely new direction for constitutional reform which originated from just a few men. A report on the convention was submitted to Congress with a recommendation for a second convention, while recognizing the exceeding of their "strict bounds of their appointment". Calling it a "Resolution", on February 21, 1787, Congress called for a second convention, later known as the Constitutional Convention, “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several [state] Legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union”, held May 25 through September 17, 1787. Declared as an "Act", it was printed in newspapers for publication by the Continental Congress. From this Act, state legislatures provided the instructions to delegates. VA, NJ, PA, NC, DE, GA, NY, MA, SC, CT, MD, and NH, "appointed" delegates, "authorizing" them to attend the convention. Rhode Island refused to appoint delegates. The language to revise the Articles of Confederation and render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union is referenced in each letter. Several states called for certain restrictions for changes during the convention. Out of 70 appointed delegates, only 55 attended the convention. This was the first and only convention called by the states, with the assigned purpose by legislatures of revising the Articles of Confederation. What did happen is these delegates did not revise the Articles or make amendments as instructed by the congress, they created a new government structure, another broken rule. Several delegates wrote about delegates exceeding their powers, James Madison, "it is admitted that the Convention have departed from the tenor of their commission."; William Paterson, ""the articles of the confederation were therefore the proper basis of all the proceedings of the Convention. We ought to keep within its limits, or we should be charged by our constituents with usurpation."; John Lansing and Robert Yates, who both left the convention in July because the powers assigned to them were being exceeded; and Luther Martin, "it being directly in violation of the mode prescribed by the Articles of Confederation for the alteration of our federal government." are just a few. The new Constitution was ratified by 9 out of the 13 states, violating Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, "unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State." This was the final rule broken. This is the basis for concern by those who oppose a convention, often nicknamed a "runaway" convention, because history shows that is what happened. Appointed delegates did not stay within the bounds of their assigned responsibilities by legislatures at Annapolis or by the Constitutional Congress during the Constitutional Convention. Mark Meckler, previous co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, is co-founder and president of Convention of States Action (COS) and Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG) (previously DBA Convention of States Foundation), following several previous dubious entrepreneurial endeavors, a temporary suspension of his law license, felony charge (later reduced to disorderly conduct), and interim Chief Executive of Parler. One might want to give some thought about his activities before proceeding with support of COS. While presenting itself as a grassroots organization, there is information that may indicate otherwise. Listed on the COS 2022 tax form are the board of directors that include billionaire Tim Dunn; author and private investor Eric O'Keefe; CEO and Founder of Desert Royalty Company Kyle Stallings; private real estate investor Michael Ruthenberg; Timothy Murphy; attorney and lobbyist Robert Kelly; and Meckler's wife, Patricia. Former Senator Rick Santorum is listed as an independent contractor, compensated with $333,405.00. The Idaho Republican Party was given $500.00 along with donations to Republican parties in other states, and family members of the board of directors were also compensated as employees. Related tax-exempt organizations include Defending Liberty, Influence Watch reveals the Convention of States Foundation (COSF) received funding from the National Christian Charitable Foundation; Armrod Charitable Foundation, having received over $3 million dollars from 2015 to 2019; Mercer Family Foundation, and Donors Trust, and is supported by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Koch Brothers. There has also been allegations of violating campaign finance laws. (There was a Convention of States Political Fund in Idaho in 2022) It might be worthy to ponder for a moment what these wealthy organizations motives are to fund such a cause. This article written by Publius Huldah references Robbie George who Mr. Meckler states is on the COS Legal Advisory Board. Mr. Meckler denies that Mr. George re-wrote the constitution, however, here is that rewritten document. Rick Santorum is earning his compensation by giving interviews in support of COS. Like Sen. Lakey, both bring up the issue of federal lands, yet the Idaho resolution only addresses a balanced budget, term limits, and limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. COS has a longer list for potential amendments, clarifying "This structure limits the Convention to a small range of subjects while still allowing for multiple amendments to be proposed." There are raised concerns that should be thoughtfully considered. 34 states are needed to call this convention, if Idaho passes this application, the count will raise to 20. Having reviewed documents from both the Annapolis and 1787 convention, below is a COS document that makes attempts to dispel concerns by those who oppose its efforts to hold a convention. Does it hold up to what is in the Founder's documents? Mr. Meckler and his organization certainly present good arguments to proceed with a Convention of States, but the records left behind by our Founders do not support what he is saying.
It is not the current system of government that is the problem, it is the people who are not following it. A good example is the proposed amendment to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. This is already defined in our Constitution Article I Section 8, but elected officials are not following it. There is little reason to believe with an amendment they would act any differently just as the Founders failed to stay within their defined responsibilities. Sen. Lakey sponsored RS31257 / SCR112 which has been reported out of Committee with a Do Pass Recommendation. If you determine that there should be concern over Idaho engaging in this convention, contact all Idaho legislators in the House and Senate and let them know of your opposition. In 2021, the National School Board Association (NSBA) wrote a letter to the president asking that "the classification of these heinous actions (by parents at school board meetings) could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes" and be "reviewed by the U.S. Departments of Justice", later apologizing for that letter. Aided by the White House, the Attorney General did respond.
Along with the January 6, 2021 incident, both events have caused concern that Americans, exercising their right to free speech and peaceful assembly, could possibly fall under the definition as a domestic terrorist, or domestic violent extremist. Of particular concern is the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) terminology of domestic terrorism, "Anti-Government or Anti-Authority Violent Extremism: This threat encompasses the potentially unlawful use or threat of force or violence in furtherance of ideological agendas, derived from anti-government or anti-authority sentiment, including opposition to perceived economic, social, or racial hierarchies, or perceived government overreach, negligence, or illegitimacy (pg 2)." Under the 1992 18 U.S. Code § 2331, the United States defines international and domestic terrorism. The 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, (NDAA) defined domestic terrorism as "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws", "intended to: Intimidate or coerce a civilian population; Influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; and Affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. This similarly follows the Homeland Security Act definitions of terrorism. Both agencies extend definitions to the term "Domestic Violent Extremist (DVE)", an individual who "seeks to further their ideological goals wholly or in part through unlawful acts of force or violence", clarifying that "mere advocacy of ideological positions and/or the use of strong rhetoric does not constitute violent extremism...threats of violence must be present to constitute a violation of federal law". Also, "Both the FBI and DHS use the term “domestic violent extremism” to refer to DT threats (pg 4)", not individuals. Domestic terrorism is differentiated from the law on Foreign Terrorist Organizations, 8 U.S. Code § 1189, a foreign organization that engages in terrorist activity or terrorism, or that is capable of and intends to engage in terrorist activity, and threatens...the national security of the United States. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), "Federal criminal law defines domestic terrorism as acts", "federal law does not have a crime of domestic terrorism", and that "Prosecutors can seek to convict a person for these crimes without having to prove that their motive was to commit domestic terrorism (pg 66-67)". Also, "states may choose to enact statutes providing for a state specific definition and crime of domestic terrorism (pg 69)". There are many Idahoans who are ideologically bound to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. When there is government misconduct should the defense of those ideologies under the First Amendment be construed as terrorism? According to the DHS, only when there is "potentially unlawful use or threat of force", both of which fall under criminal law. Indeed, the Constitution is a major stumbling block for the government to label patriotic groups as extremists, even though that term is abhorrently used by journalists. In reality, there is no federal law that uses the term domestic terrorist. However, the term domestic terrorist is used only in cases of Foreign Domestic Terrorism. If an individual engages in terrorist acts and is connected to a federally identified foreign terrorist organization, then the term domestic terrorist is properly applied. This is reiterated by Micheal McGarrity, FBI Counterterrorism Division Assistant Director. In fact, "The federal government does not designate domestic terrorist organizations. In other words, there is no official open-source roster of domestic groups that the FBI or other federal agencies target as terrorist organizations." As noted, this has led "to confusion among the public as well as policymakers regarding exactly who is a domestic terrorist (pg2)." Even in the Idaho Terrorist Control statute the term domestic terrorist is not used. Both federal law and Idaho law speak to the "acts" that are considered terrorism, whether internationally or domestically. This FBI and DHS report defines more acts that are considered domestic extremism from pages 6 to 10. However, a bill sponsored by Sen. Anthon, SB1220, changes the language in Idaho statute to "prevent an Idahoan from being labeled a domestic terrorist or terrorist in Idaho without constitutionally protected due process." In SB1220, a domestic terrorist is defined as "a person who pleads guilty to or is found guilty of domestic terrorism". It does not negate any individual from being prosecuted for committing unlawful acts that fall under domestic terrorism laws. More Senators than not voted in favor of this bill. Ever the traitor to the Republic, former Attorney General Jim Jones has written an opinion, claiming SB1220 will "neuter" the Terrorist Control Statute. Mr. Jones claims SB1220 "would decriminalize any such criminal acts that were not done in cooperation with a “foreign terrorist organization." It would behoove Mr. Jones to read the bill, which explicitly does not state that. Mr. Jones also purports that the current statute, as written, could not be used to prosecute school patrons, "unless the patrons committed criminal acts that were dangerous to human life and intended to intimidate or coerce the public or school board." He just negated his own argument against SB1220. It is the involvement of defined criminal acts of terrorism that are prosecuted. And although he claims SB1220 would "decriminalize any such criminal acts that were not done in cooperation with a “foreign terrorist organization", he clearly does not understand the bill outlines what criminal acts an individual can be charged with, defined acts of terrorism. SB1220 does define what is considered acts of domestic terrorism that violate the law, including involvement with foreign terrorist organizations. The passage of this bill is even more important as a June, 2021 Executive Order only strengthened the work of the DHS (pg 84) on domestic terrorism. As Mr. Jones stated, the belief is that domestic terrorism in on the rise, and it is very concerning how the White House is responding to these alleged threats. More than ever, it is critical that Idahoans are protected from false, and unlawful accusations of being a domestic terrorist. So, while an individual can commit acts of domestic terrorism, they cannot be charged as a domestic terrorist. SB1220 only reinforces that stance. And, as previously noted, states may choose to enact statutes providing for a state specific definition and crime of domestic terrorism. When confronting the government as a right for redress of grievances on its "perceived government overreach, negligence, or illegitimacy", be alert to what that same government is defining as a terrorist act (pg 2). One note to pretentious journalists, you might want to think twice about sensationally identifying someone you ideologically disagree with as a domestic terrorist or extremist as was done to an Idahoan. That might just be an act of slander on your part. Contact the House of Representatives before February 13th and tell them to vote yes in support of SB1220, the bill safeguards the ability to prosecute any individual for committing criminal acts that fall under the definition of terrorism and protects Idahoans from being labeled a domestic terrorist without due process of the law. The current president has been hell bent on forcing America into a renewable energy waste bin, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is more than happy to participate. But the rush is on because the solar energy plan must be accomplished by 2035.
BLM land has been littered with solar panels since 2012. Because of this current president and his plan to "transition" America to renewable energy, the BLM has been working on updating its 2012 Solar Energy Development plan that involved six states. Now, along with four other states, Idaho is getting sucked into the mix. All of the documents pertaining to this agenda, which BLM has obviously been working on for months, can be found here. Graciously, the BLM has offered the opportunity to go through thousands of pages of information to understand how Idaho will be impacted along with the other four added states. Idahoans have been blessed by the BLM with the opportunity to "Provide input on the 5 action alternatives – including elements from all alternatives to be adopted in a Final Plan" by April 18th. There doesn't appear to be a "no action" alternative. Aside from the gobbledygook in all of the documents, the amount of reading required to go through all of the documents far exceeds what is reasonable. It is insulting how the BLM presents this for input. Cliff notes on the alternatives can be found here, and overall updates here, The Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement can be found here, all 538 pages. For those who really have a desire to go to sleep, there is the agonizing redundancy on Areas of Special Concern with only 760 pages, where one can wade through page after page to find something specific to Idaho. These are the proposed alternative areas to litter with solar panels in Idaho. All of the documents can be found on the National NEPA Register page, Input can be provided via the green Participate Now buttons, or on this page. Be patient, it takes a minute to load. It is bad enough the way in which the BLM abuses its power by tossing this out to Idahoans with no chance of receiving adequate input. Governor Little is no better, his cronies and corporate sponsors at the Western Governors Association (WGA) have supported this endeavor for years. Did he let Idahoans know? It is only going to get worse with the WGA decarbonization agenda. Since the BLM obviously doesn't have the skill set to place solar panels, just only providing the land, which corporation will they choose to cozy up to, and financially benefit from, to get the job done? Perhaps one it is already friends with? As a signatory to the International Solar Alliance (ISA) "to accelerate global adoption of solar energy", the United States receives support from the ISA "by helping to expedite solar deployment." Sounds like a military exercise. Yes, the U.S. is eager to be part of "Green Grids Initiative (GGI) One Sun One World One Grid’ operating in the U.S., thanks to its National Grid Partners. And it will benefit Brandon's friends as well. Returning to the BLM, just understand this expansion of solar panels on public land is being driven by the dark side of the government that everyone now lives under, corporatism. and also achieves the goal of reducing the amount of land that Idahoans will have access to for beneficial use. Idahoans should feel lucky the BLM has chosen to once again use the lawful process to placate the masses. |
Concerned Idahoans:This website is non-partisan and is solely dedicated to removing the harmful controls placed on our state and nation through associated programs of Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the Great Reset. We invite all Idahoans to join us in this fight for freedom! Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
|