It is time for everyone to stand up against the corporate world and take steps to hit back at the underlying goal of transforming our economy, and in doing so, it can be crippled, or at least dented. Putting a permanent kink their chain may not happen, but it will hurt. As seen with both Target and Bud Light, the blows have been heavy. Hopefully, Kohl's will be next in line to lose billions. And after all, corporations play the same game.
Through the World Economic Forum (WEF), corporations adopt Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). The "woke" culture is actually SDG and it is those corporations forcing that culture upon us. Corporations have ten options to become a WEF partner, reportedly costing between $62,000–$620,000 a year to join. With its own terms and conditions, the WEF has to be contacted in order to join. Attending the annual party at Davos each year costs $29,000. It takes big money to be part of the elite, but the payoffs through corporatism and monopolies are huge. Strategic Partners and Strategic Foundation Partners are named. Strategic Technology Partners aren't named, but there are over 100 and include the likes of Dell, Cisco, Hitachi, Hewlett Packard, Microsoft, and even Micron. Associate Partners aren't really defined, but Platform Partners refer to various members joining specific platforms for a cause such as the Global Plastic Action Partnership. Its New Champions plan, costing approximately $25,725.60/year, is for "forward-looking companies that are championing new business models, emerging technologies and sustainable growth strategies in the Fourth Industrial Revolution." If one wants to sell their soul they can join as a Unicorn, or as an "invitation-only" Global Innovator. Exclusive membership really flies in the face of inclusion the WEF regurgitates upon us to practice, but it is the heartbeat of enmeshing the corporate world with the government. These same corporations launder money through their foundations, charging consumers for their charity work with higher prices, then taking the tax deduction for it. What is the point of this? These corporations aren't paying for all of these expenses, consumers are. It is time to hit back at them and not fork over money, or at least as little as possible, for their follies. Even though a retailer or corporation is not listed on the WEF partner site, if they practice Environment, Social Governance (ESG), they have been sucked in because access to funding may be limited or denied if ESG is not practiced. For businesses to survive and have access to credit, they are forced into sinister ESG practices. All WEF partner corporations practice ESG, the number of partners are too long to list here. A few familiar ones include Amazon, Bayer, Coca-Cola, L'Oreal, Marriott, Apple, Blackrock, CVS, Google, LinkedIn, Nestle, Proctor & Gamble, UPS, Walmart, PayPal, Tyson, Verizon, and AT&T. Unfortunately for Boise, SUEZ, now called Veolia, is a WEF partner and practices ESG. In return, because practicing ESG is costly, customers can anticipate rate hikes. Forget about donating to associations such as the American Heart Association (AHA) and American Diabetes Association as they too have chosen to be part of this globalist plan. The WEF has some interesting concepts regarding clothing. Ralph Lauren, Levi Strauss & Co, Adidas, Nike, and Gucci tend to be perceived as a higher end of clothing. But the WEF holds the belief that the better market is really in second-hand clothing. In this video, it is outlined that recycling clothes helps with climate change but the truth is, it is a fabricated market for increasing profits to the same global corporations that make the clothing, and that includes tracking clothes. Tommy Hilfiger, Benetton, and Lado Avesso have already started this tracking. The same goes with furniture, it will be recycled just for WEF serfs. One could speculate that the plan involves elites buying the first round of clothing, then selling those hand-me-downs to us serfs for the purposes of extending corporate profits. Changing and controlling consumption patterns is one goal of the WEF. We can put their panties in a wad by taking control and not consuming anything they produce, or participating in anything they promote, which has been successfully demonstrated by Target and Bud Light. It is easy to find out if a business practices ESG, and if it looks like ESG is being practiced, let them know of your opposition. Because of the bullying by lending markets, it may not be a choice for the business. Aside from boycotting these corporations as much as possible there are other actions that can be taken. Leave global banks such as Mastercard, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, or JP Morgan, and instead join a local bank or credit union. Buy your medications from a local, independently run pharmacy. In fact, support all locally run businesses and stay away from big box stores like Walmart, Yum restaurants, and Kroger run stores (Fred Meyer). Don't buy that hamburger from McDonalds, go to the locally owned burger joint. If possible, raise your own chickens for eggs and meat instead of buying from Tyson. Buy all your meat, produce, eggs, and dairy from local farmers, at least you can ask what the animals have been given. Switch from Kellogg's and General Mills products, Campbells, and Mars products to off brand. Make food from scratch and check brands for ingredients. Take your own coffee to work. Maybe consider canning your own food instead of buying it, or making your own clothes. This is also good opportunity to teach children new skills. Use only cash, reject businesses that won't accept cash or checks. Don't pay bills online. And for goodness sake, get those apps and QR codes off your phone. Go to a local computer shop and see if they can build a computer rather than buying an HP, Apple, or Dell. It may not totally get away from buying products associated with the WEF, but it will screw with their plan. Funding these corporations only contributes to their quest for control and wealth. As can be seen, the control is already in place. It is nearly impossible to find products not associated in some way to these globalist corporations. Let's stop feeding them. Give them something to think about at the next board meeting by sending an email to each corporation and inform them of your opposition, and disgust. Macy's and Costco think the downturn in spending is a result of the economy. Imagine their bewilderment if we really socked it to them. Now comes the dilemma. How do you get enough people to participate in all of this in order to make a difference? With all of those who do participate, how many more are left that continue to patronize these businesses, so much so that the effect is barely noticeable. Bottom line is it has to start somewhere and it might as well be now. Corporations could never get this type of stranglehold on our self-sufficient ancestors. Encourage others to consider boycotting and share any other ideas you may have.
0 Comments
If not following or familiar with the World Health Organization (WHO) pandemic treaty negotiations, Children's Health Defense has a good video explaining just how dangerous this is to our sovereignty. Valerie Borek, James Roguski, Aimee Villella McBride, and Meryl Nass talk about what information is being discussed at the negotiations. For a frightening example of what is being discussed go to the 42:23 minute mark.
If not, it has probably seen you. Home Depot (HD) is a global home improvement retail corporation that was founded in 1978, having revenues in the billions. As one of the box stores allowed to stay open during the Covid event, its earnings "rose 27%" during that time. The company also owns several subsidiaries. This non-human corporate thing, has "values". Being non-binary, "it" takes care of employees, gives back, does the "right thing", has "respect for all people", and builds "strong relationships". Seems those are really supposed to be human values. As for its philosophy, HD engages in "Customer Centrism", with "customer satisfaction ingrained deep in the DNA of Home Depot." Good way to try and humanize an inanimate object, or thing, by identifying it as having DNA. HD has chosen to revamp its self-check-out kiosks. What the picture below, and what the other pictures in the article doesn't show you, is that these kiosks are also recording you. At the HD in Idaho Falls, Idaho, as a customer walks up to the screen it shows the customer being videotaped on camera while flashing "recording". Employees explain this new system as only necessary to control problems with theft. When asked where the scanned facial picture goes, the reply is to "corporate headquarters", wherever that is. Inquiries about facial recognition reveal that yes, the recording probably does capture facial recognition. So, with the convenience of checking out one's own items, a person's face has been recorded without permission; the person willingly hands over their name that goes with their face as the kiosk only takes credit cards; a trail of what items are bought is logged; and where all of that information goes and is stored, God only knows. Actually, HD is now being more overt about recording people for facial recognition, maybe because previously they were doing it covertly. In two Illinois class action lawsuits filed in 2019, HD was accused "of secretly using facial recognition to identify customers as soon as they enter their stores". The outcome of these lawsuits wasn't available but the general thought was HD would win because there is no proof of injury to the parties. Wouldn't this fall under identity theft? This illegal collection of facial data is a hot topic in Illinois with Lowe's, Walgreen's, Kroger, Microsoft, Amazon, and Google also being sued. However, facial recognition goes far beyond just these retail stores, include Walmart as a culprit.
As a humanized thing, HD has engaged in several humanitarian causes, having already experienced similar repercussions as the current backlash some corporations are experiencing. It sponsored events as early as 2011 which resulted in boycotts of their activities into 2013. However, like its covert facial recognition activity, behind the scenes the story is quite different, providing funding that opposes its more public display of support for its causes. In the reality of a human world this would be called back stabbing. But, HD is all about human rights through its campaign, adhering to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in its operations. Through its HD Foundation, veterans are served in partnership with United Nations supporter Habitat for Humanity. HD is also committed to sustainability, and includes "10 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals that align with The Home Depot's sphere of influence." It even practices Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards, driven by the United Nations and World Economic Forum, and Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG), created by the World Economic Forum. Target has the same practices, and the maker of Bud Light, Anheuser-Busch, is in on this also. Hmm, seems like all of these corporations with values have public relations issues. Now, HD had a pretty massive data breach in 2014. If this happened again just think of all the facial recognition and personal data that goes with that, and the implication for loss of privacy. As a supporter of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, HD is moving all of its customers towards a cashless society, and many Americans are going along with it. It is stunning how customers move through the HD kiosk without thinking for two seconds what liberties are being forfeited and how their participation only advances the agenda. The line that this is for protection against theft is being bought, hook, line, and sinker. Luckily, there are many who are not drinking the Kool-Aid. Boycott, boycott, boycott. As seen with the tremendous loss of revenue in the Bud Light and Target debacles, doing the same to HD is in order. Not one penny should be given to a corporation that arrogantly videotapes its customers, or engages in humanitarian activities while using its profits to thwart those activities, especially when it claims to have a code of ethics. Hogwash, it is as phony as a three-dollar bill and doesn't deserve anybody's business. Be on the lookout for these kiosks throughout the rest of Idaho. The way HD operates now is a far cry from the founders philosophy of "wide assortment, low prices and great service." Indirectly, boycotting is also an attack on the World Economic Forum. This is good. According to the its Policy Framework for Responsible Limits on Facial Recognition use, "the capturing of the biometric data, the comparison and the identification occur all instantaneously" in “Real-time” systems (pg 27). In the human world this is called spying, and that is exactly what the World Economic Forum wants to achieve control over us. In this video by James Corbett, Thwarting Facial Recognition, he discusses ways in which to disable the cameras ability to capture facial features. However, nothing works as good as boycotting stores that practice this clandestine activity. It is often difficult to explain something that doesn't make sense in a way that it does make sense. Starting with the foundation of the insanity may be the place to start. It was previously revealed that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) adheres to international standards for conservation. Although "fragmentation" and "habitat" are frequently referenced in the Upper Snake East Travel Management Plan Draft Environmental Assessment in relation to multiple different types of species, the word connectivity isn't really prominent. One purpose of moving and decreasing the number of these trails is to repair fragmentation and restore land for connectivity. Habitat connectivity is the insane notion that because of human activity, roads, and development, habitat becomes fragmented. In other words, the land that maintains connectivity, corridors and stepping stones, is disrupted. In the graphic below, it is conceived that there must be a connection between patches in order to maintain connectivity. This habitat includes all ecological elements, including vegetation and wildlife. If damaged, that area must be restored in order to re-establish connectivity. Maintaining connectivity protects biodiversity, or so they say. The 2021 White House America the Beautiful initiative, which outlined its conservation goals, includes its 30x30 agenda, a plan to conserve 30% of land by 2030. Other than declaring more national monuments for banned use, it has taken two years until now to get going on this. However, it now appears the aggressive move is on for placing land into conservation. It is clear that using habitat connectivity is at the core of meeting the 30x30 goal.
In March 2023, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) put out a memo that outlined the new requirement that all public land use planning must include connectivity. Maybe the Chair should have checked with the BLM, as it had already instituted this policy in November, 2022. Somehow, the BLM sees "“wildlife and fish” as one of the resources expressly included in the definition of “multiple use” (Section 103(c)" in the Federal Land Management & Policy Act (FLPMA), and justifying its use for connectivity. BLM land must now be evaluated to determine "if existing land use plan decisions are (or are not) restoring, maintaining, improving, and/or conserving areas of habitat connectivity" and "incorporate areas of habitat connectivity". From that, the land use will be planned around habitat connectivity, which plays into where and why trails are being moved and reduced, as this policy includes "Travel management implementation". The Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) and Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC) are two organizations ready to jump on this as connectivity is their heart. As the name implies, the NLC is a network of environmental groups as well as government agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service. In February, 2023 it held a webinar that discussed "Insights into the new Global Biodiversity Framework" (GBF) that came out of COP 15, held in December, 2022. Also attending COP 15 were officials from the Biden, State, and USAID departments. Even though the U.S. is not a signatory of the Convention on Biological Diversity, it is an "observer" to support the GBF, its outcomes in America, and its 30x30 agenda. The CEQ Chair, the one who can't keep dates straight, was also present, lending her support and commitment to the GBF. The GBF also meets the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Along with CLLC celebrating this framework, both of these two organizations have had direct influence on government policies on integrating habitat and wildlife connectivity into federal planning and decisions. The White House Council on Environmental Quality issued guidelines that "incorporate the objectives in this guidance into agency actions". Travel Management Plans are one area where this connectivity agenda is being used. There are four GBF goals. Goal A focuses on "the integrity, connectivity and resilience of all ecosystems are maintained, enhanced, or restored". Within these 4 goals are 23 targets to be met by 2030. This is the core of 30x30, using biodiversity to take land for conservation as outlined in Target 2. The America the Beautiful 30x30 agenda originates from Target 3 which ensures the conservation of 30% of the land and inland waters. Target 4 calls for "management actions to halt human induced extinction of known threatened species and for the recovery and conservation of species". Target 14 ensures "the full integration of biodiversity and its multiple values into policies, regulations, planning and development processes" which are being implemented through the BLM. Following COP 15 in March 2023, the White House Council on Environmental Quality issued guidelines "for ecological connectivity and wildlife corridors" that "incorporate the objectives in this guidance into agency actions". Travel Management Plans are not the only area where this connectivity agenda will be used. In a NLC webinar, as attendees to COP 15, it was discussed how the GBF is part of the America the Beautiful 30x30 agenda, and as a U.S. observer, it will help to implement GBF objectives. Indigenous rights were also heavily emphasized. Not surprisingly, it was also revealed that about 2,000 corporations were present at COP 15 to develop markets for this agenda, Nature Action 100 being one of them. Like the proposed conservation leasing, public land is being monetized, not for our right to use the land, but to conserve it for the purposes of making money for the government. The Department of Interior (DOI) also held its own little party in March of this year, celebrating its conservation agenda, even with Biden in attendance, who gave kudos to Rep. Mike Simpson "to bring healthy and abundant salmon runs back to the Colorado [Columbia] River system." (This is in reference to Simpson wanting to remove dams. Parenthesis is to fix Biden's gaffe. His remarks begin at the 37" mark in the video). Nice to know we have an Idaho representative enmeshed with a president and not the people. Biden even referenced running roughshod over private land for this agenda. In the video of the DOI event, there were multiple Native American speakers and again, a very heavy emphasis on Indigenous rights. At the 11:25 mark, CEQ Chair Brenda Mallory, a COP 15 attendee, spoke. She mentioned the same, connecting habitat across private land, infusing equity and justice into the use of land, and was excited the president could do all of this by just using his pen. So, the upshot is that public land agencies will be integrating connectivity into all land planning, resulting in a reduction of land use for the protection of biodiversity, as outlined by organizations in which these agencies have made international agreements. Also on the horizon, these agencies are looking to monetize this work, making the land a money-making machine for them. Who then will control how the land is used? Be on the lookout for GBF implementation on BLM and other public land in your area. Land use planning is now about connectivity and eliminating the use of land. Understand your enemy. Watch the videos. These directives are not based on the law. It is nearly impossible to find any government agency that is not tied in with corporations, foreign governments, environmental and other radical non-profit groups, and despotic organizations such as the UN. The U.S. has not followed the Constitution for decades. Until this is realized by all, and choose to do something about it, we will fail in getting our country back. While this information is about southeast Idaho, the issue is relevant for all Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land throughout Idaho. In March 2023, the BLM released its Upper Snake East Travel Management Plan Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) that affects Fremont, Teton, Bonneville, Madison, Jefferson, Bingham, Power, and Clark Counties. The plan "proposes a network of designated routes and trails for managing travel" in these areas that includes "highway vehicles (low-7 clearance sedans and trucks), off-highway vehicles (OHVs), motorcycles, utility terrain vehicles (UTVs), all terrain vehicles (ATVs), snowmobiles, bicycles, e-bikes, equestrian, and foot travel." What it really means is that these modes of transportation are being targeted for a reduction, and in some cases, full elimination, for use on public land. The basic gist of this BLM plan is to take current trails, remove them from use for restorative work, and then build new trails that will be reduced in number, or have more restricted use.
Yes, it is back to the old adage that humans are destroying the environment and need to be banned from using it. Environmental damage claims include loss of biodiversity from compacted trails, wildlife "harassment", excessive noise, and watershed disturbance. In the four alternatives, the description of OHV use is broken down into Open, Limited, and Closed (pg 16). A breakdown of alternatives in Appendix F (pgs F7-F13) includes A, which is continued use with no changes; Alternative B, which is closed to all activity; Alternative C, which is limited use; and Alternative D, which is Open, meaning year round use. Alternatives have also been classified with an Emphasis, covered on pages 108-109. These are all compared to Alternative A, which is no change, regarding reduction in use. Alternative B has a Natural Resource Emphasis (pg 37) which, as an example, includes decommissioning trails for reclamation, then constructing new trails that have no motorized use. Multiple Use Emphasis is Alternative C (pg 39), which ironically goes on to describe the reduction of use. Alternative D is an Access Emphasis (pg 41), which similarly describes how much reduction there would be for use. Throughout the document, there are multiple charts detailing the impact of how the land is damaged and can be improved, what species are affected, and how this plan with its different alternatives will protect everything. This information contained here is only a very limited summary of the plan. Bottom line, this is nothing more than an attack against OHV and non-OHV use (pg 112) on public lands, and that is clearly blatant as outlined in Appendix C. And just where does the BLM get its authority to do any of this? As responsible, accountable government employees, all of their authority and right to make these changes are listed in the plan itself. But the truth is, there is no law for what the BLM is doing, and (c)"Authorization means any...determination, or other administrative decision issued by an agency that is required or authorized under Federal law in order to implement a proposed action." Starting with Appendix D(D-1), Policies, Statutes, and Guidance, the first policy cited is 43 CFR Part 8340: Off-Road Vehicles. CFR stands for Code of Federal Regulations, the government rules published in the Federal Register that are supposed to reflect the intent of laws passed by Congress. So the BLM is basically saying its own rules gives it authority to do what it is doing in the plan, because there is no law to cite. Going back to 43 CFR Part 8340, it states one authority for this rule is E.O. 11644. Well, this E.O. (Executive Order) was created in 1972 by President Nixon, it was never a law. He created this to "establish policies and provide for procedures that will ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed", and in "furtherance of the purpose and policy of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321)". The second cited authority is E.O. 11989 by President Carter in 1977, which basically excluded the military and law enforcement from these rules, but also dictated that OHV use causing "considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat or cultural or historic resources of particular areas or trails of the public lands, immediately close such areas or trails to the type of off-road vehicle". So Mr. Dictator Carter made up his own law to close areas that the BLM is using in part to justify its actions while modifying NEPA. "The United States Constitution permits federal agencies to promulgate rules to enable Congress’ legislation", not executive orders. “The President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker,” Justice Hugo Black said in the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer case with regard to executive orders. Clearly, the E.O.s by Nixon and Carter were creating laws regarding OHV use on public land. Several legitimate laws are cited as the authority for 43 CFR Part 8340, that is laws that support the rule, including the Federal Land Policy & Management Act (FLPMA), but none of those laws address OHV use. FLPMA instead states that lands (8) "will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use". The draconian OHV rules in the plan clearly violate (7) "goals and objectives be established by law" because there is no law on OHV use, but there is for the establishment of trails. Does the BLM even understand there is no OHV law to follow for this plan? While 16 U.S. Code § 1531 is also cited as an authority in the CFR, nowhere does it state that public use can be limited or banned. Take note of (a)(4), which states "the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community" and to "maintain conservation programs which meet national and international standards is a key to meeting the Nation’s international commitments". More to come on that. 16 U.S. Code § 1281 is worth reading, and 16 U.S.C. 1241 says to "encourage and assist volunteer citizen involvement in the planning, development, maintenance, and management, where appropriate, of trails", Were any OHV or non-OHV users, or any county citizens for that matter, involved in the development of this plan? Appendix A, References (A1-A5), primarily uses only government data, which may be a violation of the Data Quality Act. Has the BLM looked beyond its own data for other studies? For example, the plan states, "It is highly likely that recreation visitor numbers in the TMA would continue to increase in the future. A travel route network that provides for a wide variety of structured motorized and non-motorized opportunities and experiences is more apt to reduce user inclination to travel off-route. This can provide for increased user compliance with route designations which helps to minimize OHV use-related damage to unique and sensitive natural and cultural resources. A travel network that closes and reclaims more routes to year-round OHV use would provide for higher quality recreation experiences for non-motorized users than a network that designates more routes as open to OHV use (pg 113)". Just how does the BLM know this, did they do a study that proves any of these opinions? Is the BLM clairvoyant or does it have a crystal ball? Even its own 2007 report on OHV use said research was lacking (pg 56). Know the law, it can be your best friend. Now, this plan isn't just a sudden development to take land use away, it has been in the works for awhile as it has been on hold since 2016. On March 23, 2023, the White House announced its intent to dump $2.1 billion into land conservation. Specifically, Strengthening the Stewardship of America’s Public Lands was assigned to the BLM to seek input on a new rule to "modernize" strategies for managing the land. Amazing how this plan and the announcement came out at the exact same time. So how did anyone know to be working on this? Well... In November 2021, the Department of the Interior joined land managers from around the globe and endorsed a Protected and Conserved Areas Joint Statement on Climate Change and Biodiversity Crisis, which was submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP26 and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP15. Along with the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), signers included the BLM, National Park Service, US Bureau of Reclamation, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and US Forest Service. All of their signatures can be seen here, on pages 5-7, along with the other foreigners. So even though the law states the U.S. is a sovereign state, the traitors at the head of these agencies are committed to meeting "international commitments". No surprise given the current incompetent person running the Department of Interior. This land protection scam is only going to get worse, every species in existence on God's green earth will eventually be scooped up. The global standard for management is already in place (Criterion 3.1) with "an indication of the activities that are allowed or prohibited" and "Where use and access are permitted" (Criterion 3.6). And they are all in on the 30x30 agenda, which is well understood by California OHV users. So, it's okay to tear up the land for wind turbines that create noise that harasses wildlife and kills avian life, and solar panels that prevent vegetation growth and habitat, but not okay to use a trail. Maybe linking this plan to an international plot is a stretch. However, most Americans probably understand there are forces greater than their voice ruling everything. About 85 years ago, there were many who turned their souls over to a dictator and government, blindly following every dictate that was delivered to them. It seems the BLM has been drifting in a similar direction for some time. Maybe it is time to bring the BLM back into reality by confronting them with the laws they are not following and to whom they are accountable. For recreational areas like Island Park this plan would have a devastating economic impact. Maybe the BLM needs to go back to the drawing board and involve OHV groups to develop a plan, at least that is what the law requires. Comments on this plan can be made at this link, click on the green Participate Now link on the left, and choose Alternative A. The comment period ends on July 10, 2023. Paul Raskin is president and founder of the Tellus Institute. It has grand plans to reframe the world into something it will never be. In 2006 Raskin and his minions wrote, "World Lines Pathways, Pivots, and the Global Future". One particular page is interesting as it describes what has been going on in the U.S. and world. On page 10 the booklet discusses: "The sources of general crises are located in this nexus where environmental, social, and geo-economic dimensions overlap--the central region of Figure 5. These would be extremely complex phenomena driven by multiple causes and feedbacks that cannot be discerned in advance. However, it is possible to imagine plausible high impact events that might trigger a chain reaction of de-stabilization. For illustration, five possible triggers of a general crisis are shown in Figure 6. One chain begins with severe climate change leading to altered hydrological patterns, food shortages, economic collapse, social disruption, institutional breakdown, and international conflict. Another path to general crisis might be initiated by an unprecedented pandemic; perhaps via an extremely contagious disease vector that emerges from disrupted ecosystems and is carried to the four corners of the Earth by a highly mobile affluent population and by waves of impoverished refugees fleeing the spreading chaos. A third sequence might begin with a macro-terrorist attack, such as nuclear detonations in major cities or wide deployment of biological weapons, resulting in colossal disruption and death counts orders of magnitude greater than past attacks, massive military reaction, and an ongoing cycle of violence and disruption. A fourth cycle of destabilization might begin with absolute oil shortages and huge spikes in cost, leading to economic de-stabilization and wide geo-political conflict. Finally, a fifth might begin with a collapse in the global financial system where the combined effects of excessive speculative investment, artificial exchange rates, and massive international debt reach a tipping point, and a global depression ensues with profound social, environmental, and geo-political reverberations." What does Raskin know that we don't? This is a video clip of Klaus Schwab talking about the infiltration of his Young Global Leaders into government, and even mentions Putin as being one of those earlier leaders. Sometimes the agendas come so rapidly it is difficult to keep them apart because at the core they all serve the same purpose.
Since the federal government no longer operates as three separate branches with the legislative branch assigned to creating laws, the Executive Branch and unconstitutional administrative rulemaking process now create laws that Americans are subjected to without any congressional involvement. Quite notorious are rules that are written under the Department of Interior (DOI). Given that the federal government now operates in bed with corporations and non-government organizations (NGO), many of the rules are created for the benefit of those groups and not us. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and its buddy corporations and environmental groups have been busy creating a new "rule" that will economically benefit the BLM, serve the ideology of environmental groups, and help the corporate world advance renewable energy projects. Not only are the Executive Branch and DOI handing over "public" land to corporations for renewable energy projects, but with BLM's full participation, this proposed rule also advances the White House 30x30 agenda, a goal of conserving 30% of land by 2030. It is the rewriting of a regulatory framework that will put public land under the 30x30 classification for land conservation. 30x30 isn't even a federal law passed by Congress, it is a dictate from the White House that meets an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) goal, a United Nations participant. That alone should negate any participation in 30x30, or through illegal rulings by the BLM. However, the DOI is an IUCN member through several of its agencies, so the same ideology is probably applied to the BLM. The DOI announced its "Plan to Guide the Balanced Management of Public Lands" in March, putting "conservation on equal footing with other uses". Other highlights include identifying "areas in need of restoration or conservation", and building "on...clean energy deployment". Its three-pronged justification is to "protect intact landscapes, restore degraded habitat, and make wise management decisions based on science and data” while incorporating "land health assessments" in BLM decisions on land use. This proposed rule was released in the Federal Register on April 3, and folks are urging a rapid deployment before a possible flip in Congress in 2024. Now, if this were such a wonderful idea, why are they scared? Just a quick summary of this rule provides the fluff. "Manage the land for multiple use and sustained yield by prioritizing the health and resilience of ecosystems"; "protect intact landscapes, restore degraded habitat"; "apply land health standards" (now there's a scary thought); "clarify that conservation is a “use” within the FLPMA’s multiple-use framework"; and "revise existing regulations to better meet FLPMA’s requirement that the BLM prioritize designating and protecting Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)." By "clarifying" conservation as a use, the BLM is changing the law without Congressional involvement. The Federal Land and Policy Management Act, as amended in 2021, does not address the classification of land for conservation leasing, instead emphasizing that land is used for its resources. Page 2(c) defines multiple use. Effect on existing rights, page 79(a), makes it clear that nothing can terminate the rights to use the land. Pretending that leasing land for conservation serves the purpose of multiple use is only a distorted fantasy. Through the DOI, the White House is revising the FLPMA law without any congressional involvement. Once again, the rule of law is ignored by the White House. Buried deep in this rhetoric is a plan that should raise the hair on the back of the neck, "conservation leasing". DOI's definition of this is a "time-limited lease" allowing "interested organizations conduct restoration or mitigation activities...to facilitate development projects". It will also "prioritize the identification, evaluation and designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) through land use planning." All of this means non-use. PERC probably describes it best, "creating markets for conservation". With this rule, the DOI is advancing public land as a commodity. The BLM will make an unknown amount of money because corporations can pay "to restore a degraded ecosystems" to "offset environmentally harmful activities". Same with NGOs. Through NatureVest, the Nature Conservancy already has the program to exploit conservation for profit. Opposite of what the DOI claims, that multi-use will continue in spite of this conservation, if a wealthy environmental group or corporation dumps their money into one of these leases, use can be denied, as either will hold the ability to "preclude the parcel from...grazing during the extendable 10-year term. The leases might also block future leasing for uses deemed incompatible with the conservation work." It might become a mad bidding war between corporations and environmental groups to see who can buy up the most "leasing". However, perhaps unbeknownst to some, it has always been illegal for environmental groups to lease public land. This proposed rule removes that problem for them and really opens the door to their bank vault, tying up land across America. No wonder they love it. Perhaps quid pro quo? Companies have also been "requesting conservation leases". No doubt, the DOI is serving its NGO and corporate constituents well. To offset the damage from a renewable energy project, corporations will use the excuse to lease land either surrounding the project or in another area to offset that damage by restoring the leased land. In some instances, it is called "carbon offsetting", which really appears to be more of a money game than making a real difference. The insane idea behind this is that leased land would be saved for more public use because it would somehow be healthier. As the BLM goes about making its "health assessments" of the land, there is fairly good potential that more land will be identified as unhealthy and needing repair, then sucked up for conservation and non-use. With powerful and wealthy corporations and their rich NGO pals, the whole BLM landscape could be sucked up in restoration and mitigation projects through leasing. "Science" will surely be used to justify the land's need for restoration. If NGOs love it, it has to be bad. Temporary restrictions on use are part of the rule for restoration of degraded land. Keeping the land available for multiple use through this proposed rule is a lie. Temporary restrictions while degraded land is restored can extend up to ten years. How long does land take to restore itself, or is that up to some bureaucratic technocrat? The rule also states it "would not override valid existing rights or preclude other, subsequent authorizations so long as those subsequent authorizations are compatible with the conservation use.” So cattle grazing would have to fit this new narrative or else, and with the hatred of cattle, no compatibility would probably ever be recognized. So in between all of the malarkey of how wonderful this is to improve the land and make it available for everyone's great-great grandkids, it is really a twisted way of taking land away from public use and making money off corporations and NGOs. For corporations, the excuse can be to offset greenhouse gas emissions they create, or "funding renewable energy projects" can be considered a carbon offset. How handy is that for renewable energy corporations? The regulation calls for an assessment of all public land, its state of degradation, and need for restoration, which includes grazing land. For now, grazing is spared from this rule until the land can be assessed, but it is still a threat to the cattle industry and is in the 30x30 crosshairs for conservation leasing. At least U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) and U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) understand this rule violates the law and will kill multiple use as land that is leased out for conservation will not be available for use under the Multiple Use & Sustained Yield Act (MUSY). He, along with Senator Jim Risch, have introduced a bill to stop this proposed BLM rule. Of note, comments are being made by individuals who don't even live in states where BLM land exists, many of whom live in eastern states. They think the idea of the BLM conserving the land is great without really understanding the full impact of this proposed rule, let alone understanding it is a violation of the Congressional role to create laws. This is borne out by the significant numbers of canned support letters the NGOs tell them to use, just accepting what is spoon fed to them without taking the time to understand the issue. It seems most of these comments originate from The Wilderness Society. This is the ignorance we are up against and the herd mentality. Because the sheep are following orders, most of the comments support this rule. All comments can be browsed here. Comments on this proposed rule can be made on this link and submitted by June 20, 2023. To review the proposed rule, go to this link. Let the BLM know that this rule is illegal, that it only serves its corporate and NGO buddies, and will destroy the purpose of FLPMA for multiple-use. |
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
|