Of all the subjects and issues presented on this website there have been none which match the level of UN and federal government corruption and fraud than the exploitation of Tribes and attacks on private property.
Understanding Tribal History
Federal Government Relations
It is well known that the United Nations (UN) uses partnerships with professional organizations, businesses, governments, and non-profit groups to advance their agenda and ideology.
But the UN is using another group, Tribes. Through the UN and federal government cartel for Sustainable Development (SD), aka Agenda 21 implementation, Tribes are being used to confiscate more resources, land, and private property. Tribal issues regarding land and water in the U.S. are extremely complex, involving multiple case decisions, Acts, settlements, and federal laws. The U.S. has had a troubled relationship with Native American Tribes from the beginning with malfeasance, and all that it implies, by the federal government, but never at the level that exists today. A review of that history is necessary to understand the current Tribal disputes regarding land and water, and how the federal government is using that history against Americans for UN agenda gains. Following are the more significant past laws that affect current decisions regarding Tribal land.
In 1452, forty years prior to Columbus landing on this new land, "...the Dum Diversas Bull, a papal bull (aka an edict), was issued by Pope Nicholas V, granting the blessing to "capture, vanquish and subdue the Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ and put them into perpetual slavery and to take all their possessions and their property." In 1493, one year after Columbus discovered this new land, Pope Alexander VI’s papal bull issued the Inter Caetera which granted the same to Spain. These declarations came to be known as the Doctrine of Discovery. The Doctrine's foundation was the ability to take land, private property, and rights from non-Christian inhabitants in newly discovered land. The UN uses these 522 year old papal bulls as a basis for the initial wrongful violation of indigenous rights across the world. The Doctrine of Discovery has been cited in Supreme Court cases regarding Tribal rights since that time.
There have been numerous treaties and laws regarding Tribal rights over the years, including ones that involved water and land, but to this day Tribal status decisions have been primarily based on the Doctrine of Discovery.
The 1887 Dawes Act placed Tribes and individual Native Americans on allotted land, opened up non-allotted land to non-native settlement, with surplus land usurped by the government; The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 reversed the Dawes Act, restored surplus land to Tribes, and authorized the government to acquire land, water and surface rights for Indians, and extended the placement of land into federal government trust; the 1950's Termination policies terminated some Tribes, removed land from trust status, extended state jurisdiction over land, and initiated relocation programs; and the 2000 Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments gave the government the ability to consolidate fragmented Tribal land resulting from the previous decisions.
Over the years there have been federal laws passed, and repealed, to reverse past injustices and litigation challenging the same. It was during the 60's when Indian activists took a role in bringing Native American rights to the forefront. As a result, laws began to focus more on Tribal self-determination and self-governance, rather than being a "domestic dependent nation" or a "ward to his guardian" (#18). Decisions affecting Tribes would now be made by the Tribes rather than the federal government, although the government still holds authority over the tribes and the land on which they reside.
The federal government holds reservation and other land "in trust" for the tribes, meaning tribes technically do not own title to their lands. The U.S. then administers and manages the land and resources for the fiduciary advantage of the tribe. Recognized as a "sovereign nation or state", tribes can form tribal governments; determine tribal membership; regulate individual property; levy and collect taxes; maintain law and order; exclude non-members from tribal territory; regulate domestic relations; and regulate commerce and trade. The federal government retains the ultimate power and authority to either abrogate or protect Native American rights while Congress creates regulations that govern the territory belonging to the United States. As legal title-holder to most Indian lands, the U.S. has the power to dispose of and manage those lands, and derive income from them. Due to federal fiduciary mismanagement and the Cobell lawsuit, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe (CDA) alone was awarded 18 million dollars of which 4.1 million will be used to buy back land with the Department of Interior (DOI) assisting. This establishes more land in trust to the federal government.
The CDA people once inhabited 3,500,000 acres in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. In 1867, President Johnson established a reservation for the tribe at the request of the territorial governor, but it was not accepted by the tribe because the main waterways were not included. After the Tribe ceded almost 2.4 million acres to the government in 1873, negotiations established 598,000 acres for a reservation that included the St. Jo and Coeur d'Alene rivers and a portion of Lake Coeur d'Alene. The remaining land was lost to the allotment process. This agreement was no approved by Congress at the time. In 1889 the tribe ceded the northern third of the reservation back to the federal government, including part of Lake Coeur d'Alene. When Idaho became a state in 1890 Congress included a section disclaiming the state's rights to lands owned by tribes in the state constitution, then ratifying the earlier tribal agreements in 1891. In the 2001 Supreme Court case, Idaho v United States, it was determined that the U.S. held title to lands submerged under Lake Coeur d'Alene, holding that land in trust for the CDA Tribe.
In 1909, after 114 allotments were completed, the remaining CDA reservation land was opened to homesteaders. By 1933, 40 per cent of the allotted land was sold. The federal government now uses land lost to allotment as a method to return land back to Tribes, still holding it "in trust" for the tribes. Other federal fiduciary responsibilities include protecting tribal treaty rights, assets, resources, and carrying out federal law mandates.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses these laws to define Tribal land, land in trust, and allotment lands. In the EPA definition of a Federal Indian reservation, the EPA interprets the law in light of Supreme Court case law, that a reservation includes trust lands set apart for a tribe's use even though not formally designated as a reservation. Here is their website explaining all their definitions on Indian country.
The EPA uses these different definitions for Indian country depending on each case. Using an Indian country definition from 1948 under 18 U.S. Code 1151, (c) states: includes all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same. This is based on the the 1887 Dawes Act which allotted land to Indians in exchange for land paid for by the government to keep in trust for the tribe. Any surplus lands were taken out of Tribal ownership.
In the Indian Energy Resource Program, the term Tribal Land "...means any land or interests in land owned by a tribe or tribes, title to which is held in trust by the United States...". Indian Land refers to any land located within or not within the boundaries of an Indian reservation, the title to which is held in trust by the U.S. for the benefit of an Indian Tribe.
The Indian Land Tenure Foundation is devoted to restoring these lands to the Tribes. With federal termination policies Tribal land was removed from trust status and Tribal affiliation. Since that time Tribes have fought to regain that land in addition to having land outside of reservations declared Sacred Sites for their protection and use. Money derived from casino earnings, federal grants and tax dollars, tax free trusts, court settlements, and resource use are used by Tribes to buy land back.
Federally recognized Tribes can be allowed "same treatment as a state (TAS)" status. The EPA was allowed provisions in the Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and Clean Air Act (CAA) to give Tribes with TAS status authority to implement federal environmental law, making them eligible for federal funding. Federally recognized tribes in Idaho include the Coeur D’Alene Tribe, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribe. The CDA Tribe obtained TAS status in 2005. These tribes also have lobbyists in Idaho.
Although there are multiple other court decisions and laws relating to tribal lands and rights, the essence is that because the federal government has full land and water authority over tribes through trusts, they have developed mechanisms for the tribes to not only recover previously held land but also enforce federal law. This is significant when it comes to both land and water rights. Engaging tribes in environmental regulations, and resource control, gives the government further power to implement Agenda 21.
Part 2 will explore how Tribal land and water rights are being decided by the federal government.
Tribal Water Rights
There have been long standing disputes regarding Tribal water rights with most court decisions upholding Tribal rights. Some of those cases are outlined in this article. However, there are a few court decisions that have determined the principle of Tribal water rights.
The 1908 Supreme Court decision, Winters v United States, was the most significant case regarding Tribal water rights. The court determined that designated reservation lands included reserved water rights. Expanding on that case in 1963, the court held that water rights included all federal reservations of land, such as national parks and forests. This decision took over 87% of Idaho water.
The 1983 case, United States v. Adair, gave senior water rights to Tribes "...with a priority date of time immemorial" (148) meaning from the time the reservation was established into the future. Arizona v. California is a set of different cases but the 1983 case increased water allotment to reservations. In the 1985 Montana case, Greely v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, the court determined that appropriators outside of reservation boundaries could not deplete stream waters where non-consumptive (fishing/hunting) rights apply.
Based on the Winters and Arizona cases, Indian water rights are commonly held to principles known as the Winters Doctrine. These rights include Congress holding the right to reserve water for federal lands, including Indian reservations; reservations have the right to water sources within or bordering the reservation; reservation water rights are reserved as of the date of the reservation's creation; and the amount of water reserved for Indian use is the amount necessary to irrigate all of the practically irrigable land on the reservation with state laws being secondary to federally reserved water rights. These rights apply to both surface and groundwater, and to other federal reserved land. To determine the amount of water needed for Tribal land a water quantification, or practicably irrigable acreage (PIA), was created.
Because of years of litigation and costs associated with these disputes, water rights are now negotiated between the Tribe, organizations, and the state and federal government for a settlement agreement, with specific criteria and procedures set forth in 1990, thanks to GHWB. If federal funding is involved it then goes through Congress for approval.
What started out as an attempt to quantify water rights for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead reservation, ultimately turned into the most egregious federal take over of water and elimination of water rights for Montana citizens. Instead of quantifying water allotment to the Tribe, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Federal Reserved Water Compact (CSKT) was created through negotiations between the federal government, Tribes, and the State. This compact puts all water rights in 11 counties under Tribal control. Yes, ALL water rights including municipal and private well water. In doing so, the federal government now holds those rights in trust. In this case the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used the 1948 Indian country definition (c) "all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished...".
The Aamodt settlement is another classic example of how the federal government uses previous treaties to give land back to Tribes and gain control over water. This settlement calls for diverting water to four New Mexico Tribes, creating a regional water system which will take water away from New Mexico citizens and who will then be forced to pay for it. As part of the 2010 Claims Resolution Act Pub. L. No. 111-291 this settlement was put into law along with other settlements.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), serving Idaho Tribes in the northwest region, has a department that specifically assists with tribal water issues, including funds for negotiations and litigation, your tax dollar being used against you to support Tribes in water disputes. The Department of the Interior (DOI) has an Indian Water Rights Office for the same as well as the Bureau of Reclamation. The DOI also provides personnel, technical, and financial assistance to tribes on water rights issues.
Through EPA regulation 131.8(a)(3), the CDA Tribe was authorized to administer and determine water quality standards (WQS) within the reservation boundary. However, any water from non-members flowing into reservation boundaries can be held to any WQS the tribe sets, which a tribe can make more stringent.
Prior to officially granting TAS status to the CDA Tribe, concerns about Tribal authority over waters and non-members were answered by the EPA. The EPA cited the reservation boundaries in the Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. at 1027 as the basis by which current water could be governed by the Tribe. The Act determined that land not ceded by the CDA Tribe but held by the U.S. would now officially be ceded by the Tribe, relinquishing all right and title. The government compensated the Tribe $150,000 along with other provisions with the DOI managing those funds for the Tribe. Not cited by the EPA, Article 2, page 1030, outlines the ceded land description for which they were paid $500,000. The EPA also referenced Act of August 15, 1894, 28 Stat. at 322. The CDA Tribe was paid $15,000 in 1894 for an additional tract of land on the northern boundary of the reservation. Article I under Agreement in President Grant's 1894 executive order explains the CDA Tribe boundaries. So the EPA is using land decisions from 124 years ago and older to justify extension of Tribal water rights, along with the 1983 "time immemorial" during current settlement negotiations.
The question as to whether or not non-ceded land should be given back to Tribes under the same 1894 Act was considered, then refused, in the 2011 Yankton Sioux Tribe vs South Dakota Supreme Court case. These same concerns about Tribal extension over non-members arise over air quality. Under the CAA, the EPA included previously negotiated Wind River land for the Tribe to regulate air quality in Wyoming. The Wyoming Supreme Court determined in 2008 that Congress "intended to diminish" reservation land in 1905. Land ceded by Tribes in 1905 became the EPA's justification under the CAA to extend Tribal boundaries which took the town of Riverton. The DOI Solicitor took part in this malfeasance by supporting the extension of reservation boundaries in 2011 using selective decisions and laws to substantiate the final decision for the Tribe. Why not, DOI uses your tax dollar to support Tribes. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) also supported this action. And why not, DOJ established the Office of Tribal Justice to "...coordinate policy towards Indian Tribes..." in 1995, partnering with other bureaus and offices in DOJ to achieve the same.
Recognizing this boundary issue as a potential barrier to their agenda, in August, 2015 the EPA brought forth a Revised Interpretation of CWA Tribal Provision which would give Tribes the ability to extend reservation boundaries as done in the CAA. The EPA is also working on streamlining the process to obtain TAS status which would in turn hasten EPA policy enforcement.
Bottom line is that the federal government is exploiting Tribes for the purpose of taking land, water, and other rights away from American citizens and putting those resources directly into their hands through the Tribal trust arrangement. America citizens who are not members of the Tribe lose all rights to a representative government as they then fall under Tribal jurisdiction and government. From the 6 to 9 minute mark in this video, Elaine Willman explains how the federal government is using Tribes to take control of land.
In this New American article, Exploiting Indians, the Wind River Reservation issue is explained which is really one methodology the federal government uses to take land and water away from American citizens. From these cases to what has been happening across the U.S. for years, it is clear the EPA as well as other federal agencies are in bed with Tribes to usurp land and water rights. The Tribal advantage is amassing millions in federal funds and for the federal government increased ownership and control of resources. With those funds the Tribes are then able to buy more land, hire lobbyists, and fund politicians to further advance their power.
So what does any of this have to do with the UN?
United Nations - Agenda 21
Agenda 21, Chapter 26 is titled "Recognizing And Strengthening The Role Of Indigenous People And Their Communities". That was in 1992. It is stunning how these goals have been implemented and advanced since that time. The United Nations (UN) has defined indigenous people as self-identified, pre-colonial and pre-settler, with a strong link to resources, distinct political systems, language, and beliefs, and being a non-dominant group.
Goals of Chapter 26 include strengthening policies to empower indigenous people; creating national dispute-resolution arrangements for land settlement and resource-management; strengthening indigenous peoples participation in formulation of policies and programmes relating to resource management and initiation of proposals for such policies and programmes; enhancing sustainable development (SD); protecting cultural property; creating inter-governmental cooperation; and providing technical and financial assistance to them. As seen in Part 2, some of these goals have been accomplished by the federal government.
The UN worked on Indigenous issues prior to Agenda 21. In 1982 the Working Group on Indigenous Populations began studying fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples to develop international standards for indigenous peoples rights.
Although never ratified by the U.S., in 1989, the UN International Labour Organization (ILO) law, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No. 169), called for countries to recognize indigenous people's right to control their institution, life, economic development, and right to maintain their identity, languages and religions. Article 14 specifically addresses land issues, requiring states to safeguard indigenous people's right to land "...not exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have traditionally had access...", and procedures to resolve land claims. The Convention also calls for indigenous recognition in other areas, all of which the U.S. has achieved through federal actions.
The first action taken to accomplish Chapter 26 goals was in 1993 by WJC Executive Order (EO) 12852, the President's Council on Sustainable Development, implementing Agenda 21. The council was comprised of federal agencies which included the Department of Interior (DOI); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and UN non-governmental organizations (NGO). The DOI manages the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Bureau of Land Management (BLM); U.S.Geological Survey (USGS); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); and National Park Service (NPS), all of which promote indigenous rights, while the DOI continued managing the fiduciary responsibilities.
In 1995 the Department of Justice (DOJ) established a policy to empower Tribes and government relations, and protect Tribal culture, establishing an Office on Tribal Justice in 2014. The 1996 EO 13007 by WJC declared Indian access to and protection of sacred sites on federal land. EO 12852 was expanded in 2000 with WJC EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments, giving Tribes a greater voice in federal policies by placing an Indian office in each federal agency. BHO reinforced EO 13175 in 2009 with a memorandum instructing all federal agencies to submit plans to implement EO 13175. In 2011 the EPA signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), to implement sustainable development goals, now removed. (Update: It is replaced with the new 2016 MOU to implement Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals) Sustainable Development goals are being achieved by the EPA. Other federal agencies promoting the same can be found here.
Those are some accomplishments for Agenda 21. But the UN expanded Chapter 26 goals.
In 2007 the UN revealed its United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP). The essence of this declaration is the recognition of indigenous collective rights for culture, language, identity, employment, health, education, and prohibiting discrimination. There are 46 articles in this document outlining indigenous rights. Some of those rights are directly related to U.S. history such as rights to self-determination and self government; not being subjected to forced assimilation or cultural destruction or forcibly removed from their lands or territories; not be dispossessed of their land, territories or resources; practice cultural traditions; control educational systems in their own culture and language; administer programmes through their own institutions; and right to traditional medicines. Most of these have already been enacted in U.S. law.
More terrifying however are the articles on indigenous rights to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise acquired; compensation for lands, territories, and resources they have traditionally owned, occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent; and that compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress.
Although never officially recognized or adopted by Congress, through BHO, this declaration is "supported" and being implemented. In 2007 the DOI appointed an individual as Counsel to Assistance Secretary-Indian Affairs who had actually worked in partnership with the UN on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The DOI, in 2010, called for a review of DRIP and subsequently, after a "review" by federal agencies, BHO declared U.S. support in 2010 while outlining his accomplishments in meeting some of the declaration's goals. The Department of State also supported this BHO declaration to "address the consequences of history". A representative from Interior Indian Affairs proudly announced BHO's decision to support DRIP at the UN in 2011. There was no Congressional approval for this.
Not satisfied with just governments implementing their agenda, in 2011 the UN created the United Nations-Indigenous People's Partnership (UNIPP), a full partnership with indigenous groups to advance the agenda and carry out DRIP mandates. This includes partnerships between UN organizations, indigenous groups, and other UN bodies such as non-governmental organizations (NGO). In 2012 UNEP developed a guidance policy for member states to use in policy development and bring indigenous people into closer partnership with the UN.
In 2013, EO 13647 established the White House Council on Native American Affairs that includes inter-governmental agency coordination on Indian affairs. Not surprisingly, the first meeting didn't include any Tribal leaders. Following that in December 2014, BHO announced to Tribal leaders his intent to restore tribal homelands and resolve water right disputes, both commitments to Agenda 21 and DRIP.
The DOI strategic plan 2014-2018 actively implements DRIP. In this plan the DOI outlines commitments to strengthen tribal nations; restore tribal lands; establish strong relationships with tribes; fulfill commitments for water rights; develop and increase energy resources; preserve and enhance cultural interests and sacred sites; convert 500,000 acres from fee to trust; enhance water availability to tribes; finalize and implement water rights settlements; provide technical assistance and ecosystem restoration; secure water supplies; protect tribal water rights; improve infrastructure; honor and protect cultural resources; and protect treaty rights. This will all be accomplished through DOI partnerships with other federal agencies, that "inter-government" collaboration. If anyone wants to know the direction American citizens are headed with land and water rights, this plan tells you. An outline of the plan was presented to the Indian Affairs committee in 2011 and as a result there has been legislation introduced and passed for implementation.
In 2014 Michael Crapo (R-ID) was responsible for the Blackfoot River Land Exchange Act which restores previous land held by the the Fort Hall Reservation and compensation for land lost in the exchange.
Jon Tester (D-MT) has taken it upon himself to sponsor laws that would restore water and land to Tribes in four states. Tester also introduced S.732 which would give the DOI the ability to take land back into trust even though a Tribe is not federally recognized, overturning a Supreme Court decision. Six bills were passed in November, 2015, four of which put land into trust on behalf of Tribes.
Having made previous attempts to extend Tribal land, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced legislation to declare Nevada land should be held in trust for Tribes as reservation land, including Duck Valley. Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) introduced a bill that would allow the DOI to take into trust additional lands for the Siletz Tribe from the original 1855 Siletz Coast Reservation. Fortunately going nowhere, the America Indian Empowerment Act 2015 by Rep. Don Young (R-AK) would fulfill DRIP by granting fee land back to tribes.
Land at Fort Wingate in New Mexico, an abandoned military installment, was given back to the Zuni Tribe and Navajo Nation in 2014, another example of how the federal government places land "in trust" for Tribes, along with all the resources.
The DOI implemented the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPR) in 1995 granting Tribal rights to human remains and sacred objects. In 2015 the DOI pulled together other crony federal agencies for an MOU to protect Tribal sacred sites, not only on federal land but private land as well. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) will help with this as well, along with other commitments.
The federal government is also spending 1.9 Billion to buy land back for placement into trust for Tribes per DOI Secretarial Order 3325. Here is the 2015 status report. But the truth is, that land is going into federal hands who are probably drooling at the opportunity to promote another UN goal, economic development. Tribes working with the government to implement SD practices as seen in this 2014 CDA Reservation Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, loaded with UN ideology. The government is lying to Tribes when it says this scam will restore tribal lands. It is putting land into government hands for future manipulation towards UN goals. It couldn't be more well stated in this Standing Rock Sioux Tribe agreement, "Consolidated interests are immediately transferred to Tribal governments and stay in trust for uses benefiting the tribes and their members." What has the federal government ever done with fiduciary responsibilities for Tribes that is ethical? It was the Cobell lawsuit, filed because of fiduciary mismanagement, that created this land buy back program in the first place. And now Tribes are being deceived again. Your tax dollar, "awarded" to Tribes, then used by Tribes to buy land which goes into federal hands.
These are only a few examples of how the federal government is working to achieve the UN DRIP agenda to restore land to Tribes. Other legislation related to land issues can be found here.
According to the UN NGO National Congress of American Indians document, on pages 26-27, the DOI has placed about 9 million acres of land into trust for Tribes since 1934 stating it represents only about 10% of 90 million acres lost. Idahoans better start pulling together and revolt against any further land confiscation as this issue will only worsen.
Established in 2009, the DOI has an Indian Water Rights Office for the purpose of oversee implementation of water settlements. The Bureau of Reclamation also supports Indian water rights. The DOI was successful in getting legislation passed in December, 2015 that provides technical assistance and funds for energy while giving preference for hydroelectric licenses to Tribes.
The 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Carcieri v. Salazar, held that under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 the federal government cannot take land into trust for Indian Tribes not under Federal jurisdiction in 1934. Tester's bill S.732 is an effort to overrule that decision so that more land, including the water rights attached to it, would be available for the government to place into trust for Tribes.
This year, DOI Secretary Jewell actively worked to give your tax dollar to Tribes, including Duck Valley, for restoration of "water rights", fulfilling DRIP requirements. Funds for improving Tribal water and sanitation infrastructure is provided by the EPA plus grants for building water infrastructures. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced a bill to fund renovations of Tribal irrigation systems. The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 met DRIP mandates to bring water disputes to settlement. According to the DOI Deputy Secretary water right settlements are the right direction for everyone. The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act 2009 is loaded with placing large parcels of land into federal hands and turning water over to Tribes.
But, most alarming, Tribes as well as American citizens should be concerned about the trend of banks, most of which are UN business partners, buying water rights and utilities. These UN crony banks won't care one iota whether Tribes get their perceived right to water. The whole scam is controlling water and the amount the UN thinks you should have. Wake up Idaho.
Meanwhile, back at the UN, UN NGOs such as the American Indian Law Alliance, Association on American Indian Affairs, Foundation for the American Indian, Native American Rights Fund, Cherokee Nation, and Western Shoshone Defense Project are just a few groups that work to promote UN ideology and goals.
Activists have also been working with the UN to urge more emphasis on water rights issues. But going beyond that, there are now demands for "...our right to have our treaties honored and respected as binding international instruments...", rejecting the faux U.S. support of DRIP. A UN human rights investigator called for the U.S. to return all land back to tribes in 2012.
In 2011 the UN criticized the U.S. of discriminating against indigenous people's right to safe drinking water even though the U.S. had recently joined a UN consensus resolution that recognized the right to water is a right to an adequate standard of living.
The Doctrine of Discovery has become an focused issue with the UN including groups advocating for its removal. This would dramatically alter U.S. relations with Tribes and have a devastating impact on America as we know it. Other bills permitting the use of peyote and educating Indian children in their native culture and language have been passed. The World Conference of Indigenous People, held in 2014 includes new declarations to incorporate Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development.
More serious, a subject that is never covered in the open, Alaska and Hawaii indigenous groups are asking for UN intervention to end U.S. "occupation". The UN has a group that works on decolonization. Beginning on page 18, the UN group discusses the possibility of Hawaii being decolonized, and concluding on page 21, "...there is a process to seek decolonization through the Decolonization Committee" for Hawaii.
Efforts to keep this issue short were impossible. The information presented in this 3 part series is only a fraction of what the federal government is doing in collusion with the UN and Tribes. And it is not going to end. EVERYONE must go back and read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy as so often stated by everyone now. Every aspect of the Constitution and Bill of Rights has been violated by the federal government. As a Constitutional Republic we are no longer being represented by those we elect. The federal government is in the business of representing the UN.
The federal government is so embedded with the UN that in 2010 legislation was actually introduced to have an Ambassador to the UN be in the line of succession to the presidency. Don't be shocked if this comes up again.
"But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."
It is up to us to stop these unconstitutional acts. It is time for Idahoans to come together, develop a plan, and execute that plan to demand Idaho stand up for state rights and disengage from every unconstitutional federal law being enacted in Idaho. We must do this or we will continue to be raped of any last piece of liberty that remains.
This website is non-partisan and is solely dedicated to removing the harmful controls placed on our state and nation through Agenda 21 and its associated programs. We invite all Idahoans to join us in this fight for freedom!