The federal government has increasingly been engaging in public-private partnerships (P3) as a way in which to fund projects. A huge portion of these partnerships involves conservation and land use, but not to the advantage of Idahoans. Rep. Simpson was previously involved in the Boulder-White Clouds designation as a wilderness and actively engaged with the Idaho Conservation League to get that accomplished. Aside from his alliance with non-governmental organizations (NGO), who they themselves are heavily financed by foundations, he is now taking a direct turn to corporate troughs for their endless pit of money, money that is often used to suck up land for non-use, known as syndicated conservation easements.
Sen. Risch and Idaho Fish & Game have also turned to corporate money to fund conservation. It seems Rep. Simpson has adopted that approach. Along with Rep. Kilmer (D-WA), Rep. Simpson introduced the Land and National Park Deferred Maintenance (LAND) Act. Federal "investment" using corporate profits? Using energy revenues, this bill would "...permanently reauthorize LWCF and create new dedicated funding to address the maintenance backlog at National Parks and other public lands.". The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was allowed to expire September 30, 2018, and for good reason. As Rep. Bishop points out, the original LWCF intent was to “preserve, develop and ensure access to outdoor recreation facilities" splitting money between state funding and federal land acquisition, with 60 percent going to states. Because of intense lobbying by environmental groups, the majority of that money now goes to the federal government for land acquisition, having added another 5 million acres of land under federal control.
Corporatism over our lands advanced after Bass Pro founder John L. Morris, with other corporate and NGO friends, created the Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) in 2014 to fund State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP), which targets species and habitats for conservation, for 1.3 billion. The same 1.3 billion dollars keeps popping up in other legislation. Restore Our Parks and Public Lands Act, introduced in 2018, also addresses the same maintenance backlog of parks, with the same 1.3 billion, in addition to Rep. Simpson's and Sen. Risch's bills. President Trump even previously budgeted Department of Interior money from sales of energy resources on public land for park maintenance backlog in 2018, and again this year. A full accounting of the Department of Interior 2019 budget can be found here. If corporate money is used for these activities, who has control over the land and how it is used? Will our national parks become corporate dens? Environmental groups are thrilled to potentially have their trough restored, regardless of which bill succeeds or where the money comes from.
It should be no surprise that P3 "investments" are increasing. Throughout Agenda 21 are references to creating P3's for Sustainable Development (SD) implementation. NGOs such as Yellowstone to Yukon are heavily funded by foundations and governments, admit to corporate funding, and are even allowed to accept foreign funding for SD. If energy revenues are used for maintenance backlog, what will be the payoff for the corporation in advertising and product distribution? Concern about corporate involvement from corporate donations has already been raised, just how much corporate control will there be through the influence of a P3? What concerns will there be with large sums of money that rebuild infrastructure? Who will get the sweetest deal? How much advertising will be allowed with slogans like, "This eco-restroom was proudly restored by Shell"? We have already seen our sports stadiums being renamed in the honor of some corporation, will this become the direction for our parks? National Parks have a permitting process for commercial activities with requirements on allowed activities. What constraints will be created for corporate financing though a P3?
Below is a short video on Agenda 21 P3. Or a slightly longer version is here.
Agenda 2030 is no exception for P3, if anything it is an advancement. Keeping in mind that the United Nations (UN) has partnerships with major corporations to implement SD, a.k.a. Agenda 21/2030, it is the natural course for them to use these partnerships as an avenue to integrate their agenda into governments with P3. Because of the SD goals for changing our infrastructure, corporate funding becomes necessary, at least according to the UN, even holding conferences on it. This is a natural way in which to fund and advance their agenda, the caveat for money acquisition is corporate SD requirements, and so very sadly, our elected officials fall for it. Or do they know about it and agree? With P3s, the UN is directing us into corporatism, where our country will be run by corporations through our government, and they have a plan just for that, Vision 2050, it is all laid out on what the world will look like with corporate governance.
Why, Why, Why do we continually fail to remove traitors of our Constitution from elected office? Why are we not able to come together enough for a force that will end this continued destruction of our sovereignty? We cannot continue to haplessly stand by and allow this to happen. President Trump says America will never be a socialist country, yet everything now continues to lead us that way, and in some cases we are already there. P3s are just another way in which it is being done.
Contact Rep. Simpson and let him know you vehemently oppose his bill that destroys our sovereignty, that we do not want corporations funding our public lands, that the LWCF should not be renewed due to its use as a government trough for accruing more land, and if he chooses to not listen to his constituents every effort will be made to remove him from office at the next election, or sooner by recall. Pass this on to everyone you know, have them pass it on. It doesn't just affect Idahoans, it will affect every citizen in America.
Sen. Risch proudly announced he is sponsoring a bill with two Democrats that will provide funding for conservation across the U.S.. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (S. 3223) will use money from energy development on federal land and water to fund the Wildlife Conservation Program, to the tune of $1.3 billion annually. What he does not include in his announcement is the back door agenda with that 1.3 billion dollars.
In 2014, the Blue Ribbon Panel (updated brochure) on Sustaining America’s Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources was created by Bass Pro shop founder John Morris, and former Wyoming governor Dave Freudenthal, now known as the Alliance for America's Fish & Wildlife (AAFW) partnership. “The Blue Ribbon Panel includes 26 business and conservation leaders", and “...was convened to evaluate and recommend a more sustainable funding approach to avert a fish and wildlife conservation crisis.” Panel members represent "...the outdoor recreation, retail and manufacturing sector, the energy and automotive industries, private landowners, educational institutions, conservation organizations, sportsmen’s groups and state and federal fish and wildlife agencies.", and their goal is conservation. Other goals include, “...recommendations and policy options on the most sustainable and equitable model to fund conservation of the full array of fish and wildlife species.”, and “...recommending a new funding mechanism to support state fish and wildlife conservation to ensure the sustainability of all fish and wildlife for current and future generations.” BRP is the one who recommended 1.3 billion dollars towards conservation. A conglomerate of corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGO), and government agencies who have decided for you that conservation is what you want. Interestingly, Canada also included 1.3 billion in their budget for species of greatest risk conservation and land protection, how coincidental is that? What corporate entities besides Shell and Toyota are behind this funding? And why?
At the time, BRP also recommended funding State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP) which identifies species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) and conservation efforts to protect them, providing necessary resources for implementing SWAP plans, and proposing oil and mineral extraction companies should turn over part of their proceeds for this endeavor.
The Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) is most likely drooling at this opportunity for funding to integrate their conservation goals into Idaho SWAP plans. The GNLCC is an organization of NGOs, conservation initiatives, land trusts, federal and state government agencies, Canadian governments, and of which Idaho Fish & Game is a member, that was never authorized by Congress, but rather by a memorandum from the Obama Administration. GNLCC's goal is placing as much land as possible into conservation and using linkage zones between protected areas for connectivity. With his bill, Sen. Risch is opening the door for funding to implement SWAP plans in which the GNLCC will then integrate their conservation objectives, without any Idaho citizen involvement. As species and habitat are identified for conservation, so will the land they inhabit require conservation. More land will be declared as needing protection for the sake of the species and with that, more land taken away from Idahoans for use.
Sen. Risch is not a friend to Idahoans, but rather with NGOs and conservation initiatives as seen with the Friends of Scotchman Peaks Wilderness (FSPW) issue. FSPW has been funded by and is also a partner with Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), another GNLCC member, whose interest in Scotchman Peaks is for linkage between the Bitterroot Mountains with their Cabinet-Purcell collaborative project that extends into Canada. With Y2Y's help, FSPW sought wilderness protection for that area in Idaho's panhandle and in 2016 Sen. Risch introduced the Scotchman Peaks Wilderness Act (S.3531) just for that purpose. Essentially, Sen. Risch was supporting the Y2Y agenda with his bill. With the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act he is giving full support to all initiatives and NGOs through their GNLCC partnerships.
No thanks, Sen. Risch. Idahoans expect you to represent those who elected you, not unlawfully created groups whose goals over our land is to erase jurisdictional boundaries and place land into conservation for their connectivity goals. Using corporate money to justify more conservation over land that rightfully belongs to us is very suspicious, just who are you working for? Is there not some conflict of interest here, corporate-government alliances? Perhaps when it comes time for Idahoans to consider who represents them they should consider who you represent.
For several years there has been much emphasis for a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education foisted upon our youth. The question arose, why so much emphasis in these educational areas, especially at the expense of other important, and needed, educational subjects? Although any industry could be used as an example for why a STEM education is promoted, agriculture is a pretty easy case study that explains STEM.
The agricultural industry, including your local farmers, provides food production not only for local needs, but often for regional and perhaps in some cases, global needs. Who doesn't need food? As populations increased, food production became more sophisticated in meeting those increased food needs. Advances in plant health, machinery, and harvesting have kept us well fed. Over time, irrigation methods have also changed to water crops in a more efficient manner. With STEM, a whole new ominous plan is now progressing for crop production.
According to some, the most efficient watering method for crops is drip irrigation. A machine delivers water right on top of or at the plant root at scheduled times, supplying the required amount of water, nutrients, and fertilizer needed for healthy growth while reducing water run off and evaporation. The larger the crop, the larger and more complicated the machine.
There are some drawbacks to drip irrigation including cost, as high as $10k for 1 acre, maintenance requirements, plus the potential for clogging, damage from environmental factors, and restricted water distribution.
According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the average Idaho farm is 486 acres. At $10k per acre, that means an average Idaho farmer would need to fork over 4 million dollars to install a drip irrigation system. Or, according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a drip irrigation system requiring pumps can be installed for as little as $1800 to $2500 an acre with additional costs to operate and manage it. For the Idaho farmer the cost is now down from $875k to a little over $ 1 million.
Using drip irrigation as just one example, STEM education fields are necessary for its operation.
No longer can we rely on a farmer, whose experience goes back multiple generations, who understands the land in ways that are not taught in a book, we must now have college educated science experts leading the way on plant management, even though those experts may have never worked a piece of land in their lives. Agribusiness Companies, sometimes called Corporate Farming, require different types of science "experts", or technocrats, determining nutrient and fertilizer amounts needed in drip irrigation for crop production as an example. Thus, agriculture is just one type of science emphasized in STEM. This could imply that current and past generations of farmers have never understood any of this science, even though they have been exemplary in feeding us for decades without a science degree. Workers educated in computer science are also needed, who else will manage all those fancy machine programs?
Watering crops includes drip irrigation systems and other types of technology, such as sensors and other devices, expanding the need for STEM educated workers in engineering and computer sciences. Agricultural technology is for the sole purpose of conserving natural resources, especially water, and boosting production, thus feeding the global population which is anticipated to explode in the next few decades, at least according to some folks. This cost of technology may be enough to end the survival of small farms. Not only is the technology expensive, there is the long term cost of hiring those technocrats to operate it.
Mechanical, civil, electrical, and chemical engineers can be used in agriculture. Different engineers are needed to design machinery, manage land and water use, conserve and store food, consider atmospheric science (no more Farmer's Almanac), manage soil, plant and harvest crops, manage waste, design experiments...these are just a few tasks requiring engineers in agriculture.
As for math, "...the increasing complexity of agricultural technology makes it mandatory that workers"... have the necessary math skills. These math skills may include include land locations, conversion, weights and other types of measurements, yield estimates, calculation of growing days, costs, chemical or nutrient calculations, and certainly calculating water use in the most efficient method possible. There is also more sophisticated agricultural economics, know as agronomics, which focuses on the increase in food production and distribution. How did farmers accomplish the same without that math degree?
In agriculture, the farmer is being forced to move to scientific production through the use of advanced science and technology, sophisticated engineering, and calculated methods on food production, all requiring more workers educated in STEM fields. All fields are needed to just manage a drip irrigation system which might be cost prohibitive for the farmer.
According to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), farming is now called "sustainable" agriculture for raising farm income, promoting environmentalism, increasing the quality of life, and increasing food production. It is also their desire to "improve the quality of surface water and groundwater resources". "Sustainable agriculture" actually came from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a United Nations (UN) non-governmental organization (NGO). Promoting and implementing UN goals are NGO obligations, in this case sustainable development (SD), which is also known as Agenda 21.
Agenda 21, Chapter 14, is devoted to agriculture. The goal is transforming agricultural practices to reduce waste and conserve resources. As UN organizational partners, the United Nations Environmental Program and Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO), focus on an "Activity Cluster" by “Creating the enabling conditions for uptake of sustainable production practices at the national level and through the building of partnerships”. The Agri-Food Task Force was created in 2010 with specific goals to overtake agricultural practices by 2022, of course with participation by our federal government. As part of the President's Council on Sustainable Development, the US Department of Agriculture has been implementing Agenda 21 since 1993, and is now implementing the UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).
Returning to irrigation, the goal is to squeeze out and utilize every drop of water in a sustainable manner and scientifically manage plant growth. Through its partnership with UNEP to implement Agenda 2030 SDG, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will mandate regulatory actions, forcing farmers out of business. Regulations such as requiring clean water prior to application on crops, pest and dust management, even regulating livestock, all for sustainable agriculture in line with the UN. Scientists support this as well by creating technology such as water recovery machines which add nutrients back into used water, requiring STEM educated workers. Idaho might be a particular target for requirements to change to other technologies because of its agricultural water use. The UN promotes drip irrigation, their business partner, Yamaha, even creating the technology for it.
With the expense for technology, ballooning requirement for scientific expertise, regulations, and brainwashing on the UN sustainable agriculture concept, farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to survive. Sustainable agriculture and food security are UN fallacies based on overpopulation and man-made climate change myths. The true goal is corporatism, forcing the death of farming for agri-corporations which have the finances to move in and take over our food production and supply. Monsanto, Noble, Mosaic, Nestle, DuPont, and General Mills are just a few agricultural corporations that join hands with the UN, often merging to advance their monopolies and push the local farmer out. These monopolies also lead to significant power, influence, and control over our food supply. Corporations have the financial resources to move food production towards the STEM principles and meet regulatory demands, along with bank investments in water, such as Citigroup, Goldman Sachs (14)(17), JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley. The World Bank thinks investment in water is great.
The UN uses climate change as justification for SD, and technocracy, the control of governments and society by science experts, to implement it. "Best practices and evidence based" are terms that insinuate only science holds the answers. As farms are destroyed by the inability to afford regulatory and technological demands imposed by our government in partnership with the UN, UN business partners are ready to take over, implementing SD practices for the UN. The UN is the primary force behind a STEM education to meet those corporate workforce needs, even providing resources for STEM and using it for social change. It is through the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) partnership with the UN that SD was integrated into education, which now includes STEM. The United Nations Educational and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) even has learning objectives for teaching SDGs. As stated in this video, the Western Governor's Association, of which Governor Otter is a member, is in support of "...aligning education and training with industry needs...". This is exactly the purpose of STEM which is part of the UN objectives for corporatism. Pick your industry, the same STEM rubbish is being integrated into those as well.
The trajectory has been the UN, in partnership with our government and corporations, leading us to a STEM education emphasis, which in turn will be used to oust our local farmers, with our food supply eventually being fully controlled by corporations, most of whom partner with the UN. Sound crazy? Well, others have written about it. There is also the question of whether an actual shortage of engineers and scientists exist. Starting on page 26 of this 2017 Congressional Research Service report, it summarizes why a true shortage may not exist. With the UN driving the agenda these facts are hidden. Meanwhile, Idaho children are being surrendered to this deceit, denied the right to an education that provides truth and balance in all subjects for a strong foundation, and robs them of self determination.
It would behoove the Idaho Legislature, Board of Education, and State Board of Education to give serious thought to really understanding the deceitful background behind STEM, and the direction they are taking Idaho children. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are loaded with SD ideology. References to climate change in the NGSS have been removed by the Idaho House, it is now up to the Senate to support the House in that decision. Incorporating climate change back into the standards is just advancing UN ideology and objectives. In fact, it would be impressive if our legislature would eliminate NGSS along with Common Core altogether, have Idahoans create its own standards and curriculum, and focus on teaching students the truth while giving them the freedom to make decisions about their future, rather than it being determined for them.
Update: 2019 Because Idaho has a statute that forbids other state ownership of utilities, this case was settled in court.
Aside from the possibility that north Idaho Avista customers will be under a Canadian electric utility, Hydro One, there is a far more serious problem in that a U.S. electrical grid will be run by a foreign country.
Hydro One is a Canadian electricity transmission and distribution service provider. Even though Hydro One is a private company, up until 2015 the Government of Ontario held 100% of its shares, at which time the government decided to sell up to 60% shares to raise money for infrastructure improvements. One concern expressed at that time was the possibility of foreign investments, which did happen with the Bahrain Gulf International Bank (GIB) holding approximately 93k shares. As of May, 2017 Ontario held the remaining 49.9% shares.
In July, 2017 Hydro One bought the American energy company Avista for $5.3 billion U.S. dollars as part of their plan "to grow our business to become a North American leader", creating "one of the largest regulated utilities in North America." Avista will be allowed to "keep its existing corporate headquarters... and continue to operate as a stand-alone utility in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Alaska." Scott Morris, Avista president, likes this deal because of future "opportunities in a consolidating industry landscape for the benefit of our customers.” Morris also stated, "The partnership largely allows Avista to preserve how it does business with its customers, enables it to continue to pursue technological innovation, and permits it to take advantage of operating efficiencies and shared best practices".
Sovereign boundaries between countries are now nothing more than an industry landscape? Ontario sits on the border from Minnesota to New York, now northwest states are part of this landscape?
According to Daiene Vernile, Member of Provincial Parliament, the Ontario Energy Board will set rates and Ontario will retain regulatory control. She better get together with Scott Morris, there seems to be a disconnect between their understanding of the deal. Wow, American electricity rates under a foreign country. Avista shareholders approved the deal November 21, 2017 but Avista is already being investigated for "potential breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Board of Directors". The deal requires the approval of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) and per this October 5, 2017 Order Avista promises no increased rate hikes and better service, Avista stock will be purchased by Hydro One, and August 14, 2018 is the final date of closure on the deal. On the other hand IPUC must find that "the transaction is consistent with the public interest". How is selling an Idaho utility out to a foreign country or allowing a foreign country determine what rates an Idahoan pays for electricity consistent with public interest? Entangling our electrical assets with foreigners has been going on for some time, such as the San Diego Gas & Electric entering into a "partnership" with the Russian Federation in 2010.
As part of the deal Hydro One will now also own Avista dams including the Upper Falls, Monroe Street, Nine Mile, Little Falls, and Long Lake dams in Washington and the Cabinet Gorge and Post Falls dams in Idaho, found on this map.
Rates were already rising prior to the selling of Ontario shares. Dismantling Ontario Hydro created a $38.1 billion debt, paid off by ratepayers through the “debt retirement fee” which was removed in 2016. However, Ontario residents continued paying higher rates, attributed to an oversupply of power, the cost of green energy such as wind and solar, and poor government management. Ontario recently took action to reduce rates while continuing reduced rate programs for those in certain categories ensuring "greater fairness". Hydro One has a history of poor billing service and was also ordered to cut administrative costs this year. In 2016 an audit revealed customers were overcharged $37 billion. Is this the type of financial mismanagement now being brought to Idahoans? Hydro One intends to continue buying U.S. electric companies which could potentially put them in control of all Pacific Northwest electrical coverage.
The way in which our energy is regulated is complex and only a few examples are given here. The most disturbing aspect of this transaction is the advancement of the Department of Energy's (DOE) intent to "harmonize" the Electricity Sectors across North America, which means "fully integrating energy policies" between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and integrating electrical grids. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is a "not-for-profit international regulatory authority whose mission is to assure the reliability and security of the bulk power system in North America.", and whose "jurisdiction includes users, owners, and operators of the bulk power system..." which stretches from Baja Mexico, through the United States, into Canada. Here is the NERC map. Idaho is located in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) region. Hydro One is located in the Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC). Integrating our electrical grid with Canada has been advancing since at least 2012.
Electrical grids are separated into three areas, generation (hydropower, renewable, coal), transmission (lines that carry electricity), and distribution (electricity delivered customers). The WECC Bulk Power System (BPS) includes transmission equipment which generate and deliver electricity across North America but does not include local distribution systems. Below is a BPS graphic. NERC has a delegation agreement with WECC to ensure WECC reliability standards are met and advance NERC reliability standards, which are international.
WECC Committee members include individuals from Avista, Bonneville Power, Idaho Power, Canada, Arizona, California, the BLM, and others. They also develop and implement "Regional Reliability Standards and Regional Criteria for the Western Interconnection" which includes Canada and Mexico standards. The Board of Directors are not elected by Idahoans to represent them and their electricity needs. As in so many other issues, the United States is being broken up into regions and subregions, erasing all sovereignty, whose representation is being obliterated by individuals who are not elected by us but who have authority to make decisions about our lives, and then regulate us under international standards. The United States is being transformed into a borderless country.
One Department of Energy (DOE) goal is integrating renewable energy. Coincidentally, representatives of UNIDO and UNEP have served on advisory committees to this goal (iv)(116) as both of these United Nations (UN) organizations support energy integration. The UN Department of Economic Social Affairs (DESA) also wants "International Electric Power Grid Interconnections". DOE has joined hands with the UN in their Sustainable Energy For All (SE4ALL) program, implementing Agenda 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goal 7, enhancing "international cooperation" (7.A), and "foreign direct investment in financial transfer for infrastructure and technology" (7.B.1).
In Agenda 21, DESA was assigned the responsibility to "...undertake the task of directing system-wide coordination and integration of environmental and developmental aspects of United Nations policies and programmes..." (38.10). Chapter 30, Strengthening The Role Of Business And Industry, also addresses the need for "cleaner production, cooperation, and partnerships" (30.1), to "mix laws and standards with industry" (30.8), and "facilitate exchange of technology" (30.23), which Hydro One supports. Chapter 31, Scientific and Technological Community, commands promotion of "regional cooperation, expanding international and regional agreements" (31.4bc), and promoting "international acceptance of codes of practice and guidelines relating to science and technology" that is "recognized by the society as a whole" (31.9). These UN objectives are advanced by the DOE and the deal between Avista and Hydro One.
Why doesn't the federal government just quit pretending, announce we are being run by UN dictates, and admit to all of their UN partnerships?
Canada is a global partner to UN Sustainable Development which Hydro One follows in their Corporate Social Responsibility program, a UN program concocted to redistribute wealth. Avista has its own "Corporate Governance" model it follows which is another fabricated UN ruse. Now Idahoans will be dragged further into this obscene activity, along with Hydro One "green values". Ontario hydropower is generated by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and its employees receive a "portion of their pay in Hydro One stock as part of a new contract settlement." Avista customers will now be subsidizing those pension plans, another way to redistribute wealth per Agenda 21. Hydro One comes with massive financial problems, what better way to fix them than to redistribute the debt to Idahoans.
One frightening factor about this electrical integration is the interconnected electrical grid systems. All electricity in the western states could be completely obliterated by an attack, rather than one grid being destroyed while the remaining separate grids would be protected. Another concern is the Columbia River Treaty. While one agreement in the original Columbia River Treaty was Canada storing water for release to the United States for hydropower, now with Hydro One in control of U.S. dams, how will this influence the re-negotiations currently taking place, especially with their UN alliance? Do Idahoans have a voice in anything, or will we just continue being subjected to the influences and decisions by foreigners and the UN?
Avista customers might want to give consideration to filing an injunction. Surely there are potential harms that will come with Hydro One, especially financial, along with other factors that are clearly not in the public interest. Why should Idahoans pay for foreign infrastructure projects or pension plans? Are there no laws that protect our sovereignty? Does this deal not violate the very foundation of our Republic? The evidence is here, the DOE and UN intend to internationalize our electrical grids, it will be only a matter of time before we see more foreign takeovers of Idaho grids to fully achieve their agenda.
Patrick Wood has more information on electrical grid integration here, and fellow Idahoan, Vicky Davis has more information on NERC and smart meters here.
In 2007 the Western Governor's Association (WGA) created the policy Resolution 07-01, Protecting Wildlife Migration Corridors and Crucial Wildlife Habitat in the West" which has since been scrubbed from their website. The purpose was "to strengthen the protection of wildlife migration corridors and crucial wildlife habitat in the west." Subsequently in 2008, the Wildlife Corridors Initative established the Western Wildlife Habitat Council (WWHC), accountable to WGA governors.
Using GIS tools, the WWHC created the Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT). The WGA launched this tool in 2013, managed it through 2014, then transferred it to the Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) in 2015, where it was renamed the WAFWA CHAT. Implemented in several states, as of this time, Idaho does not have a CHAT site. Here is the result of their work, the Chat map. This tool was also used to integrate wildlife data into transportation projects for mitigation of wildlife vehicle collisions and conservation.
Since 1922, WAFWA has represented "Western Fish & Wildlife Agencies", currently in 23 states and Canadian provinces...". Aside from the treasurer, all Officers are from other states besides Idaho and members include other states and countries.
While WAFWA claims to be an "affiliate" of the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), and "not a related organization", IDFG is listed as a AFWA member, there are at least 13 IDFG employees on various AFWA committees, and Virgil Moore, IDFG Director, was named AFWA President this year. Isn't there some sort of conflict of interest here? Shouldn't Moore be focused on Idaho and serving Idahoans rather than other interests? AFWA, originally created in 1902, is based in Washington D.C. and "represents state agencies" on capital hill, among other activities. AFWA members include other countries, federal agencies, and UN NGOs (NAS, TNC, SCI). How is this representing IDFG?
How boring, why does any of this matter? It matters because now there are corporations and UN NGOs involved and they are driving the agenda, not Idahoans.
In 2014, the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America's Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources (BRP) was created by Bass Pro shop founder John Morris, and former Wyoming governor Dave Freudenthal. BRP "represents the outdoor recreation retail and manufacturing sector, the energy and automotive industries, private landowners, educational institutions, conservation organizations, sportsmen's groups and state fish and wildlife agencies." Their goals include, "recommendations and policy options on the most sustainable and equitable model to fund conservation of the full array of fish and wildlife species.", and "recommending a new funding mechanism to support state fish and wildlife conservation to ensure the sustainability of all fish and wildlife for current and future generations."
"The Blue Ribbon Panel includes 26 business and conservation leaders, and "was convened to evaluate and recommend a more sustainable funding approach to avert a fish and wildlife conservation crisis." Panel members include UN partners (Toyota, Shell), UN NGOs (NWF, AS, NSSF), and other groups funded by UN partners.
In 2015, the BRP released their final report, deciding America's Fish & Wildlife future, and "recommending a new funding approach". Meeting just three times, they came up with two recommendations.
First, they target the difficulty of State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP) to fully fund their objectives, which is identifying species of greatest conservation of need (SGCN) and conservation efforts to protect them. Therefore, they recommend, "Congress dedicate up to $1.3 billion annually in existing revenue from the development of energy and mineral resources on federal lands and waters to the Wildlife Conservation Restoration Program. These funds would provide states with the resources needed to implement State Wildlife Action Plans which are designed to conserve 12,000
species in greatest conservation need." They propose oil and mineral extraction companies should turn over part of their proceeds for this endeavor and advertise that opinion to the public as, "This story of state-based fish and wildlife conservation is not understood by most Americans.", while at the same time stating, "Investing a portion of these proceeds into fish and wildlife conservation is supported by the public...". Which is it BRP? Do we Idahoans get your propaganda or not? Actually Idahoans understand both, we understand their agenda and the BRP stating we support their agenda is false. How can an hidden agenda that has never been brought to Idahoans be supported?
Recommendation 2 "...will convene a working group to examine how shifting demographics and changing attitudes about nature are affecting the relevancy of fish and wildlife conservation.", while also recommending "...state fish and wildlife agencies will need to transform their structures, operations and cultures to meet the changing expectations of their customers." Excuse me BRP, Idahoans are not your customers who can be manipulated into buying your line of false advertising and Idahoans are Constitutionally in charge of their own state agencies. The BRP solution to offset a loss in revenue from decreased hunting and fishing licenses and other fees is corporate involvement.
Perceiving that Americans are not connected correctly to their land, the BRP also believes "New funding would also provide resources to states to help reconnect people with nature and improve access to the outdoors to improve health and cultivate the next generation of conservationists." Ok, you are going to spend money to indoctrinate us on your beliefs, like a predator grooms its victim. Maybe we wouldn't be losing our connection to our land if you and others would stop devising ways to ban our ability to use it. Just how will people be reconnected to land when your goal is placing more land into conservation? Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.
The BRP focus areas are not just limited to conservation. They also include agriculture, international relations, climate change, and bioenergy, to name a few. Both WAFWA and AWFA support the BRP recommendations. To make everything more complicated, the BRP has changed its name to the "Alliance for America’s Fish and Wildlife" (AAFW). The AAFW does not yet identify its partnerships and members. Needless to say, it is most likely nefarious.
Simply stated, the BRP is a conglomerate of lobbyists to advance corporate interests and conservation NGO objectives, and have succeeded in getting legislation introduced for the 1.3 billion dollars, H.R. 5650, Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2016.
However, all of this leads to the true damaging aspect. Corporate involvement has garnered another piece of legislation, H.R. 3400, called the Recreation Not Red-Tape Act. Among other things this bill would create a system of National Recreation Areas (RMA) managed specifically for recreation. A National Recreation Area is the counterpart to a designated wilderness area or national monument, an identified protected area for recreation. The Outdoor Industry Association and NGOs love this as it benefits corporate greed, and NGO agendas to lock up and control land. Idaho representation is removed as the AAFW, with its corporate partners and NGOs, will continue to influence the direction of our federal land use. The WGA is also entertaining the idea to "fund landscape-scale conservation through private investments in habitat stewardship and ecosystem services." The Wilderness Society spells out just exactly what a recreation management area is, with all the restrictions, using the BLM as an example. Recreation Resource Management is already providing these types of services. Rep. Simpson already stung us with a RMA in the Sawtooth area, thanks Mike.
The UN places great faith in these public-private-partnerships (PPP) for recreation and tourism as outlined on page 14 in this UN World Tourism Organization booklet, even going so far to claim that "eventually the government must rely on the private sector to deliver services to tourists." Really? How did Americans ever get by without crony capitalism or a despot organization dictating our experiences in the wild? Now, the DOI Secretary is promoting the PPP right in line with the UN objectives.
As the advances in corporate takeover of our public land continues, another scheme is the "green investment scenario would allow the sector to continue to expand steadily over the coming decades while ensuring significant environmental benefits such as reductions in water consumption, energy use and CO2 emissions." UN business partners will start forcing UN ideology on us as we try to use our public lands. In true technocratic fashion, the UN has broken tourism down into four categories, ecotourism, nature, sustainable, and responsible tourism. The UN has been at this awhile, expanding on tourism in the 2002 Johannesburg Plan of Implementation of Sustainable Development.
Chapter 7.20(e) of Agenda 21 promotes sound and culturally sensitive tourism programmes, even writing about it in 1997. In Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 8.9 and 12.B, are targeted to "devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products". Given UN business partnerships are driving us towards corporatism, this is the direction our government is taking us, placing the governance of public land into private business hands which will promote "sustainable" recreation while creating jobs and products, all in support of the UN SDGs. We are being robbed of our God given right to use our land.
Land conservation is also falling into corporate hands. The National Fish & Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), established by Congress in 1984 and based in Washington D.C., is a conglomerate of federal agencies, corporations of which many are UN partners, and foundations. It is a "conservation grant-maker"..."to protect and restore our nation’s fish, wildlife, plants and habitats." They have multiple conservation programs throughout the U.S., including the Cabinet-Yaak area in northern Idaho.
The NFWF describes the corporate run future of Idaho land in their business plan, which provides "prospective investors" information and "internal guidance" to achieve conservation goals. Money from investors, which matches public dollars with private contributions, is intended to help fund conservation initiatives for "corridors and connectivity". Focal areas include the Cabinet Yakk, US 20 in Island Park, and along the border in the High Divide area for protection and conservation, while bridging "multiple jurisdictions". Themes of that funding include road ecology (wildlife overpasses), habitat protection, and capacity building (getting others to join in their agenda). It isn't enough that the government possesses the majority of Idaho, they want to take more for protection and control. $12.0 million has already been approved for the High Divide project.
Not to be outdone, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has joined the corporatism band wagon. In 2014, sponsored by UN business partner JPMorgan Chase & Co, they created a program called NatureVest, which is intended to accelerate their conservation goals. How can the lowly taxpayer compete against all of this corporate money advancing UN goals?
Starting with the WGA, then winding through a barrage of non-Idaho agencies, corporations, countries, and individuals, we are being led to corporations with money that completely bypasses our Constitutional right to local and state representation. IDFG employees are public servants, hired to represent Idahoans through state law. Our Senators and Representatives are elected to represent our state, and us. But, the truth is, representation has been turned over to other states and countries, corporations, and NGOs who are here to serve the UN agenda. Sad to say, but Americans have already lost one foundation of our Constitution, representation by elected officials, going instead to corporate control and interests, and the UN. More information on Agenda 21/2030 can be found here.
The Johannesburg Summit 2002 defines the U.S. responsibilities for land management. Program implementation includes, "internationally accepted principles for environmental management and governance"; "influence use of land...dealing with water and wildlife habitat"; "the ESA can constrain the use and development of private land"; "Government regulations, conservation easements, contracts, or other instruments that arise out of law, custom, and the operation of private markets serve to regulate both landowners' and society's rights to use land."; "The BLM and FS (Forest Service) are...mapping them using Geographic Information System"; "The BLM manages federal lands using multi-jurisdictional approaches to ensure that planning decisions are developed in concert with sustainable development concepts"; and "The U.S. Departments of State...and Interior...actively participated in activities to negotiate the International Convention to Combat Desertification".
And the federal government, having actively implemented these objectives, have enough structure in place to easily and rapidly control all land within the next 5-10 years because nobody is stopping them.
GIS deserves an explanation. It is the acronym for geographic information system which uses layers of geographic data to produce spatial analysis and derivative maps, while geospatial refers to the applications of geographic data. This means that every blade of grass, rock, water body, tree, elevation, city growth, or other land attribute and activity is captured, stored, manipulated, analyzed, and managed. This video is short and explains what can be mapped while this video frighteningly explains just how much detail GIS can capture. As noted in the previous Johannesburg Summit report, the BLM uses GIS. What they don't tell you is that GIS information is passed on to the UN. See number 4 on page 4. The federal government, part of the UN cartel, hands over our GIS information and other data to the UN.
Going back to the Part 2 note, "Keep the renewable energy in mind", what is the BLM goal taking land? Most BLM land is rich in resources. Remembering the UN wants control of not only people, but resources as well, then BLM involvement in resource use should be scrutinized. Renewable energy projects on BLM managed lands include wind, solar, oil, gas, coal, mining, helium, and geothermal projects. Renewable energy projects are complicated and the reader is encouraged to learn more about it. With the UN goal to take as much land away from us for its resources, while transforming us to a "green" economy, the BLM is assisting with this goal. The DOI is pretty open about its intent in using public land for renewable energy.
Starting with wind farms, here is the BLM map of Oregon listing renewable energy projects. At this point Idaho does not require utilities to generate a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources as does Oregon.
The BLM has contracted with Iberdrola. Why are wind projects being farmed out to foreign companies? Aren't there any wind developers in the United States? About 75, but bets are on each one of them is connected in some way to a foreign corporation or the UN. It makes sense that the BLM actively needs more land, free from humans, to develop these projects. The BLM has ballooned so much they need an outside source, Ameresco, to manage their finances. According to their website, the BLM "generated $75 billion in sales of goods and services throughout the American economy in fiscal year 2016." What are they, a business or a government agency that is suppose to manage land?
While there is no requirement for wind farms in Idaho we do have some. Here is a dandy USGS interactive map that pinpoints where the farms are located with added information. Private land owners can contract with a wind developer and are paid to have the turbines placed on their property. One such farm is in American Falls. There are negative aspects to wind energy such as it being unreliable and very expensive.
Called "Solar Energy Zones" or SEZs, the BLM created the "Western Solar Plan" which contain these zones. Their first zone brought in "$5.8 million for the U.S. Treasury". Now cows and people just might cause interference in these zones. Idaho hasn't been sucked into this plan yet, but with the new aggressive ecosystem management requirements it probably won't take that long to force Idahoans off their land, as in the attempts with the Hammond case in Oregon, and the GIS mapping is already in progress. And what are the ranchers suppose to do when their grazing rights are taken from them and they can no longer afford to live there? Sell their land to the BLM for peanuts and move, and that is what is happening. Taking water and grazing rights, raising grazing fees, and seizing land with refuge and wilderness areas are just BLM ploys to force humans off the land, leaving it ripe for resource seizure. Restrictive ecosystem management will be the nail in the coffin, for everyone. At least Oregon Representative Walden understands.
Now just who is the beneficiary, what company builds and manages these solar developments? Why one of them is Google, an UN business partner! Now Ivanpah, the outfit building this mess, is part of BrightSource, a global company and Clinton favorite, and has had some questionable history including nearing default on contracts, low energy production, and killing birds. $1.6 billion from the U.S. Energy Department, your tax dollar, was loaned to this outfit. Think Solyndra. But BrightSource has some good backing from other UN business partners like Morgan Stanley so the federal government was mindful in keeping more UN cronies in the loop.
According to the BLM, "Distribution of revenue from renewable energy varies depending on the authority used.", but substantial money is made for the federal government from other energy projects. And plans have been started to site "...new transmission projects that would cross public, State and private lands." Has anybody notified the cows? Maybe dumping more of your tax dollar into the BLM will accelerate the takeover of land and resources, say 1.1 billion, that should hasten the job.
One last resource to mention is uranium, which the BLM also wants, but it is a non-renewable form of energy used for nuclear production. Multiple federal agencies are involved with uranium mining as it is very profitable. Once again foreign companies are involved in reaping the profits such as Russia, again with a Clinton hand. This contributes to the "world economy" as do the foreign benefactors with solar and wind projects. Millions of dollars in tax credits and other federal gimmicks are given to companies for renewable energy. This money is being stripped out of America. It is no wonder America is dying.
Oregon Energy LLC, a subsidiary of Austrailian company Energy Ventures Ltd, gave a presentation for uranium mining in Malheur County, starting the process in 2011. Page 4B of this USGS map shows "mineral resource potential" in Harney county, Oregon. That is how long they have been drooling over the amount of money they can reap for their coffers.
This BLM energy map site shows maps for other Oregon projects on lands with "Federal Interest", Biomass Energy Projects and Non-Renewable Energy Projects. At this time there were none listed for Idaho, but there is little doubt it will come as the Western Governor's Association, of which Governor Otter is a member, is working on creating renewable energy zones with the Department of Energy.
In 2014 the DOI was on the hunt for reclaiming and re-mediating uranium mines with multiple government (pg v) agencies involved. It was also noted that potential human risks indicate further restrictions on use may be required (pg 20). One more way to get you out of the way.
Renewable Energy Credits
This is where the story becomes more complicated, and corrupt. Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) are part of the scam, and it costs you more money. Companies are issued these credits for solar and wind energy production. Utilities are forced to pay higher rates for these credits and that monetary loss is passed on to you with higher rates. This subject is beyond the scope of this post but it is one more BLM method for land and resource theft, being in charge of transmission grid permitting. And those pesky cows and humans just keep getting in the way, better move them out of the way and off the land. A fellow Idahoan, Vicky Davis has written about RECs on her website, Technocratic Tyranny, The Renewable Racket, and how it started with Agenda 21.
Ok, now it makes sense. The ultimate UN goal is to move humans off land, take control of resources, and feed their crony partnerships. This can all be justified with saving the planet. Hopefully the reader now understands why the BLM is an enemy and how we are being forced away from the land they control. It is all about taking and controlling resources. Very simple. A memorandum giving the DOI and other federal agencies a directive to create regulations advancing this land and resource theft was issued 11/3/15, completely bypassing Congress. And why not, Agenda 2030 has put a renewed emphasis on protecting ecosystems, habitat, wetlands, and species in Goal 15 with increased financing and national and local implementation.
Dear God, how long before Idahoans and Americans stand up for their Forefather's endeavors to give us the greatest Republic in the world? How much freedom and liberty must be stolen from us before we stand up and say it is ending now? Idaho, wake up, stand together in a mass protest against a foreign entity dictating our lives. It must be done now.
Eh, So What - Part 1
Whenever someone reads about the United Nations (UN) or Agenda 21, whatever site they are on, they may think to themselves, "Eh, so what", the UN is involved, its just a conspiracy theory, or Sustainable development (SD) is great, we are saving the planet. But the truth is SD is the synonym for Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030. As stated by J. Gary Lawrence, "...we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth."
Nothing is more disheartening or discouraging than to read how America has been taken over and embedded with UN ideology and implementation of SD, the information right there in the open on UN and government websites, and how seemingly hopeless it is to get Americans to understand, accept, or even care.
Even now, with Agenda 21 on steroids through Agenda 2030 for SD, and its warped 17 goals, Americans can't, or don't want to, make the connection. Agenda 2030 is intended to expand the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) but are primarily an expansion of Agenda 21. Those 17 goals contain the exact verbiage being tossed around by everyone today. Does it not give Americans pause? Does it not strike them as odd that the UN uses the same words? The end goal of the UN, via indoctrination, governments, education, and businesses implementing their ideology, is redistributing wealth and controlling all aspects of human life in the world. The goals will come into effect January 1, 2016 but have already been implemented.
There are Americans who hold the delusion that the UN is an organization providing good in the world through their humanitarian programs. The U.S. gives your tax dollar to the UN for these programs. It is difficult to understand just how much of your money is given to them. This Heritage Foundation report does have some numbers with a report by the Office on Management and Budget breaking down how much money has been given by U.S. agencies. What better way to implement an agenda, you paying for your own destruction. But the delivery of money goes far beyond just the UN as this series of posts will hopefully explain.
G.H.W. Bush signed Agenda 21 in 1992. When Nancy Pelosi was unable to get it passed through Congress, W.J. Clinton executed it via E.O. 12852, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. Since then every piece of federal legislation includes SD. Beginning on page 17 of this 2011 research document by D.K. Niwa, federal legislation that has inserted SD up to 2011 is listed. Both parties are participants in this treason. How much more blatant can it be? Eh, so what?
Most Americans understand that America is not what it used to be and there are continued rapid changes to "transform" what America has traditionally been. When facts are presented to them on the source of these changes does it matter to them? Even Hitler eventually convinced Germans to go along with him. Churchill understood. There are also countless Americans who understand the same about the UN. Some Germans were able to see the ominous path and succeeded in getting out. Americans need to take note of this history.
There is no limit to what can be read about SD. The facts are available on UN and federal websites. The federal government has devoted departments to the UN such as the Department of Education, U.S. mission to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and even the U.S. Department of State has an overall U.S. Mission to the UN. Every federal agency is connected to the UN through partnerships.
This UN website gives the details and purpose of Agenda 2030 and reviewing it is highly recommended to really understand how America is being transformed. Some highlights of the Agenda 2030 goals include: all countries implementing SD as a universal Agenda; delivery in economic, social and environmental objectives; envisioning a world under the rule of law and commitment to international law; conformity to the Charter of the United Nations; wealth sharing and income inequality addressed for economic growth; cooperation with regular migration and hosting refugees; governments deciding how these targets are incorporated into national planning and policies; goals being rigorous and evidence based; fostering the ethic of global citizenship; and the biggest slap in the face to America, "It is an Agenda of the people, by the people, and for the people", a plagiarism of Abraham Lincoln's words in the Gettysburg Address.
So how much of Agenda 21 has been implemented so far? How much is left to accomplish before we are finally finished off in just a short 15 years or less?
The methodology by which this transformation is being accomplished is technocracy. Everything will be "evidence based", science will determine what is best through regulatory control. Technocracy gives some insight into the massive increase in regulations we see today. The reader is encouraged to watch this video by Patrick Wood which clearly explains how technocracy is being used and the purpose, giving light to what is happening in America. Further posts will outline the technocracy machine.
Given Agenda 2030 is nothing more than a reworded, extension, and final commitment to fully achieve UN control, the next seven posts will examine just exactly what has been achieved with Agenda 21 in comparison to the new 17 goals. The 40 Chapters of Agenda 21 have essentially been condensed into 17 goals, the goals are still the same in Agenda 2030 with some expansion. Through the UN, global governance can be achieved.
These posts are intended to introduce the reader to Agenda 2030. For a full in-depth understanding each goal should be reviewed individually as the scope of these posts primarily cover the highlights of each goal.
Eh, so what? It will never happen in America.
In the next post Agenda 2030 goals 1-3 are covered.
Eh, So What - Part 2
Agenda 2030 - Goals 1-3
Goal 1 - End poverty in all its forms everywhere.
Ending poverty is a combination of Chapters 2, 3, 8, and 33 in Agenda 21. According to the Economist, 1 billion people have been lifted out of "extreme" poverty over the last 20 years. Notice how the graph shows 2030 as the ultimate goal to end poverty. YaleGlobal credits globalization and the United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Goals (MDG) for this achievement and references "institutions of global governance". The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are both UN institutions used to redistribute wealth around the world meeting UN goals of ending poverty. Money contributed to the IMF by the U.S. adds to our debt according to the CATO Institute. As long as these two organizations suck money, your tax dollar, out of the U.S. economy, the goal of ending poverty will be achieved. But it goes farther than that. Via other avenues U.S. dollars are being spent to implement Sustainable Development (SD) in the U.S. and throughout the world.
Goal 1 states everyone will have "equal" rights to economic resources, basic services, natural resources, and technology. This calls for a mobilization of resources to provide adequate means for developing countries, that is poor countries, and accelerated investment in poverty eradication actions. The list is long on how this is being achieved but a large part is in trade, giving poor countries more advantages in trade polices, as well as redistributing populations, and sending money to other countries to bring them out of poverty. If the UN has control of the money, they have control of where it goes. Here are just a couple of examples.
How much money does the US put into "refugees", "migrants", or "immigrants" through the provision of housing, health care, food, employment, and education? Here is a 2011 report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform. It is interesting to note the title on page 3, Importing Poverty. That is exactly what is happening, not ending poverty, just redistributing it by reducing wealth in America. The UN is actively promoting migration, humans coming and going, working where they want, with no borders. "Refugees" come through the UN Refugee Agency, UNHCR, and are placeed into established networks, including Idaho which has ties to UNHCR, private entities, higher education institutions, and religious groups.
How many American jobs are lost to foreigners who send that money back to their country? The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is one example of how wealth is redistributed to other countries and the TransPacific Partnership (TPP) will finish us off while putting us under international law, which is what the UN desires for poverty elimination.
So, the UN is winning on this goal, ultimately fully globalizing the economy to end poverty by 2030 through redistribution of wealth.
Goal 2 - End hunger, achieve food security, and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.
Agenda 21 Chapters 6 covers nutrition, 14 sustainable agriculture, and 32 the role of the farmer. The UN believes every human has the right to safe and nutritious food, food grown properly, and among other activities the farmer should be expected to increase diversification, improve harvesting, manage pests, facilitate the transfer of environmentally sound technologies, improve production, enhance food security, and ensure that risks to the ecosystem are minimized.
In Goal 2 food security refers to everyone's right to food availability, access to nutritious foods, and food use. This requires significant regulation over food production and delivery, a difficult task for small farms to meet. The United Nations (UN) International Food Standards already mandate the regulations our government follows.
The U.S. has its own Office of Global Food Security to assist with meeting the UN food security requirements along with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has made a commitment to sustainable agriculture with UN international agreements, and the USAID spends your tax dollar to extend the same to foreign countries.
The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) has imposed such strict regulations that small agricultural businesses are unable to monetarily finance the requirements and are forced to shut down. The end result will be the further advancement of agri-businesses that will control all sources of food production under UN dictates and which the UN supports.
As far as nutrition we are all familiar with Ms. Obama and her grand plan to starve school children with her "healthy" school lunch program. But we also have technocracy at work taking evidence based control of products by banning foods that contain trans fats and others, forcing you to pay for food product labels spelling out every last little detail of ingredients, and forever changing what it is they think you should eat based on new scientific evidence. One other UN goal is creating a meatless society as livestock contributes to climate change, and the World Health Organization (WHO) advances these scare tactics on processed meat. Because the federal government is now run by the UN rather than constituent representation, they supported this decision before WHO actually even announced it.
Goal 2 defines sustainable agriculture as practices that increase productivity and production, maintain ecosystems, adapt to climate change, improve land and soil quality, all requiring a system of global governance. This is the real goal, through partnerships with agribusinesses like Monsanto, Dow, and DuPont to name a few, controlling food production and delivery. If the UN has control of food production and delivery, they also have control of food allocation. Think about that.
Goal 3 - Ensure health lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.
Health is covered in Chapters 6 and 24 in Agenda 21. These goals state every person has the right to health care and governments should provide community based primary health care systems. The federal government is pouring millions of your tax dollar into this through grants. Prenatal care, breastfeeding, immunization, and nutrition are also promoted for women and children which your tax dollar has been implementing as outlined in both chapters.
UN Goal 3 focuses on women, children, and disease. Why not health for men? The UN goal is universal health care "providing all people with access to affordable, quality health-care services" which the US supports. We have Obamacare now which will never go away.
Goal 3 also wants to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive services and integration of such into national programmes (sic). Through Obamacare we now get "free" reproductive screenings to detect problems, and regardless of your need for those screenings, you will pay for others to have it, more redistribution of wealth. In spite of the exposure on Planned Parenthood activities there will be no effort to eliminate it, as they are a UN non-governmental organization (NGO).
Vaccinations are encouraged by the UN and the federal government list of required or recommended vaccinations continues to grow and has expanded to adults. With technocracy all health care is "evidence based" which means your provider is held to standards dictated by insurance companies, not clinical judgement. These standards are a box in which every person is placed.
But it is easier for the UN to accomplish control over health care through their partnerships. UnitedHealth Group has two platforms, UnitedHealthcare and Optum. Through these platforms AARP, Tricare, and Medicare are administered plus they offer medicare advantage plans, in addition to AARP. Notice the partnership between the government and a private company, does corporatism come to mind, or is it fascism? Now it just so happens UnitedHealth Group is a UN non-governmental organization (NGO). They take part of your money to work on global health research. Data collected on patients through electronic health records is used to analyze how costs can be reduced in health care such as Optum does through Truven. UnitedHealth Group has made itself a tidy little profit. Other health insurance companies will be hard pressed to do better and UnitedHealth Group is on its way to having full control of all health care in the world in partnership with the UN.
As far as health care goes the UN is winning. They already have a nice little hand in making your healthcare decisions.
Eh, who cares? It is fine the UN controls how my money is shared, what I should eat, food production and how much I get, and the healthcare I am entitled to.
In the next post Agenda 2030 goals 4-6 are covered.
Eh, So What - Part 3
Agenda 2030 - Goals 4-6
Goal 4 - Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.
Although Chapter 36 of Agenda 21 is specific to education for all Chapter 25 covers educating youth on Sustainable Development (SD) and the same is dispersed throughout the remaining chapters. The primary focus of educating the populace on SD, drawing on technocratic "scientific evidence", is indoctrinating humans to believe human caused climate change demands a change in human behavior to save the earth. If not, we are doomed to earth's destruction and death. Other methods spreading SD indoctrination includes public awareness and training, including training programs for teachers.
Goal 4 strives to ensure every child, man, and woman has an education including a vocational and university education. In addition, early childhood development should be available to prepare children for primary education readiness. The focus of this education is to learn knowledge and skills of SD, sustainable lifestyles, gender equality, human rights, global citizenship, and cultural diversity, plus increasing the supply of qualified teachers.
The United Nations (UN) has been committed to education from the beginning. In fact the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was created first. In his 1946 paper UNESCO: Its Purpose and its Philosophy, Julian Huxley wrote about his vision of utopia. Since then the UN has worked diligently to bring this to fruition. The reader is encouraged to read this document and think about just how much of his writings are currently in practice.
The UN created an initiative in 1990 called Education for All (EFA) with 6 goals to be met by 2015, basically education would be available to everyone with the UN monitoring it globally over the years.
The UN vision for Education for the 21st Century includes education playing a role in human, social and economic development, from pre-school to higher education, ensuring education on the knowledge and skills in SD, human rights, and gender equality. Working with governments and a wide range of partners UNESCO strives to make education systems more effective through policy change and fostering global citizenship. One of the first partners to join was Microsoft, with the goal of bringing in computer technology, and connecting teachers to the same information and knowledge.
UNESCO calls for more education in science, technology, and engineering which the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) promotes through STEM, but Common Core fails at this task. DOE even has a Mission to UNESCO agency. Beginning on page 32 of this UNESCO document, the intent is to reorient all education towards SD which the U.S. supports. SD is now taught in all curriculum, aka UN ideology. This indoctrination goal is supported by the DOE. Under the June, 2015 archives is the 6/20 post, Welcome to the United Nations of Idaho Education, which explains how SD has already been integrated into higher education.
Although the DOE claims their role in education is limited, by enticing states to adopt Common Core through funding, Common Core is the catalyst for implementing UN ideology as its creators and financiers all work with the UN. Multiple examples of Common Core lessons that indoctrinate on UN ideology are available on the internet.
The UN has now created a separate program for Education 2030 and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics will be monitoring the progress of implementation. Their Technical Advisory Group (TAG) came up with 43 "thematic" indicators to use for monitoring. Page 9 of their proposal shows one indicator for monitoring: Extent to which (i) global citizenship education;
and (ii) education for sustainable development (and student understanding of both) are mainstreamed in (a)national education policies; (b) curricula; (c) teacher education; and (d) student assessment (testing). On the bottom of page 12, 4.7 sums up the indoctrination on UN ideology. In the U.S. this goal has been essentially met, especially when we now have the U.S. Mission to UNESCO already integrating SD into our education system. Through Race to the Top (RTT) the U.S. is assisting with data gathering, with the goal of tracking children "...from preschool to high school and from high school to college and college to career.", creating assessments for the data gathering, and reforming teachers.
An example of the UN method of controlling education is explained in this booklet, pg 16. "The incorporation of human rights education in national legislation regulating education in schools" and "The revision of curricula and textbooks". As a UN business partner Pearson, one of the largest textbook publishers in the world, is Common Core aligned.
If there is any doubt children have been indoctrinated on SD, students in Washington sued the local government for not taking enough action on climate change. One of the more covert parts of Agenda 21 is promoting youth and elevating their involvement in "decision making" as outlined in Chapter 25. The intent is to diminish the parental role and elevate the state as their authority.
Education, the media, entertainment, and advertising have been powerful indoctrination tools for the UN. It has been made easier by partnering with the likes of CNN, Discovery, National Geographic, NBC (parent company GE),
Readers Digest, Yale, University of Chicago, MTV, and Disney just to name a few.
Education is a complex area as there are a multitude of details that cannot be explained given the length of this post. However, with indoctrinating children, viewing them as human capital while putting them on a pre-determined path for a career to meet the workforce needs of corporations, and desensitizing them to believe what type of world they should live in...well, that is the ultimate goal as outlined in Agenda 21 36.18. "Countries should strengthen or establish practical training programmes for graduates from vocational schools, high schools and universities, in all countries, to enable them to meet labour market requirements...". The National Governors Association, who brought you Common Core, explains it here.
Goal 5 - Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.
Women and children have their own special Chapters in Agenda 21, 24 and 25, but advancing the role of women and children is spread throughout all chapters.
Goal 5 endeavors to end discrimination against women and children, value unpaid domestic work through public services, ensure access to reproductive health services, and promote gender equality. Where have you heard all of this before?
Rhetoric about equality for women is rampant in today's society, there is little doubt this originates from the UN which has its own UN Women website. Advocating "equality" for women, this includes such things as policy changes that support women and enable their participation in the economy, global trade and financial agreements which are conducive to the promotion of gender equality, support of women-owned businesses, ensuring minimum wage and equal pay for women, and of course tracking data on member state implementation. This is just more UN class warfare, separating out groups for special treatment. One must think about why the UN is making this effort so huge, why are they elevating women and children to a higher status?
The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) ensures that all women will have the right to birth control (mandated by Obamacare), sex education (provided by Common Core), and maternal care including for adolescents. This is why you are paying for women's contraception and other services, the federal government has inserted this goal into Obamacare, and why you will never see Planned Parenthood de-funded or shut down, as they are also a partner with the UN. More of your money supporting Agenda 2030.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child started the agenda to put children above the adult and commit their loyalty to the "state". In Goal 5 articles 13, 17, and 18 help explain this. The "state" will ensure the child's right to everything and will provide it.
Goal 6 - Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.
Agenda 21 Chapter 18 is exclusively devoted to water, 19 to toxic chemicals, 20 to hazardous waste, 21 to sewage and waste, and 22 is on radioactive waste. The issue of water and sanitation is a complex mix of oceans, lakes, rivers, urban, agricultural and other water uses to name just a few. Toxic chemicals, hazardous waste, and radioactive waste are too broad for the purposes of this post so focus will be on water and sanitation. The bottom line is that the United Nations (UN) needs full control of all water sources.
Included in Goal 6 is equitable world access to water and sanitation, increasing the reuse of water, integrating water resource management, and expanding international cooperation. This section will focus on just the urban aspects of water management.
No human can survive without water, and the UN knows it. The EPA is tightly embedded with the UN as well as the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) and both are attempting to achieve the goal of water control for the UN through the revised Clean Water Act. Heck, even Hillary Clinton told the UN the world should cooperate on shared waters. The World Bank has their hands in it, "implementing integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate".
This USACE document, Sustainable Solutions, outlines their plan for Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and water resources infrastructure on pages 18-20.
On page 3 of this USACE document, the USACE is implementing "sustainability plans". "We are making sustainability a part of all the decisions we make in designing, constructing and managing water
infrastructure." Here is the full report.
The EPA has developed its own water infrastructure sustainability policy. Also, as part of the UN program, International Water Quality Guidelines for Ecosystems (IWQGES), the EPA is offering your tax dollar to other countries to fix their water problems.
Right now there is an assault on Idaho irrigation water. The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) is attempting to charge Treasure Valley Water Users (TVWU) for discharged water even though not used. This is a direct violation of water rights for Idahoans who need water for irrigation. It would devastate Idaho agriculture, but, that is part of the UN plan. If small, private farmers and ranchers are denied access to water they will be put out of business, agri-business will take over, and the farmers will be forced to move to the city. More on this issue can be found at TVWU.
USACE has an Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) program to reduce the waste stream, identify reuse or recycling opportunities, obtain solid waste services from municipal utility systems and the private sector, and reducing, reusing, and recycling solid waste among other activities. Now these goals just happen to align with the UN ISWM goals outlined under 2.1.
The EPA has a multitude of different aspects to waste management which can be found here. Their ISWM program includes waste prevention, recycling and composting, and combustion and disposal in properly designed, constructed, and managed landfills. These are the same as the UN goals.
The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) covers other types of municipal wastewater under their "Environmentally Sound Technologies" for "Guidance on Municipal Wastewater".
Because this is a complex issue that goes beyond what this post discusses, the easiest way to explain it is that UN guidelines on water and waste management are being implemented by the federal government. There is so much emphasis on infrastructure right now because the infrastructure needs to accommodate future human settlements for water control. More on that in Goal 9, 11, and 12. One more resource for UN control, and allocation. Think about that.
Eh, so what? A child should be educated on UN ideology via SD, a women deserves free reproductive services and elevation in status just based on her sex, and as long as water is provided all is good.
Goals 7-9 will be covered in the next post.
Eh, So What Part 4
The Agenda 2030 Goals 7-9
Goal 7 - Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.
Chapter 4 and 7 of Agenda 21 covers access to energy for all as it pertains to human settlement development. Translated it means changing how our cities are designed to manage dense populations and all energy sources are equitable and fair. Smart Grids and meters accomplish this goal.
Goal 7 gives the assurance that everyone will have access to affordable energy, increase the share of renewable energy, double improvements in energy efficiency, enhance "international" cooperation to share energy and technology, and investment in energy infrastructure while upgrading infrastructure and technology for developing (poor) countries.
There has been good progress in achieving this goal. Since we are no longer considered three separate countries, the U.S., Canada, and Mexico classified as North America, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) has been working as an international regulatory authority to connect electrical grids between the countries. Here, under Regions you can see how we are connected to Canada. The Global Energy Network Institute (GENI) is also linking the U.S. to Mexico as seen in this map. ABB completed their connection in 2007. But efforts are underway to connect other energy resources which you can read about here. And to finish us off the federal government is actively working to export electricity internationally. The United Nations (UN) goal is an international electric grid. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is working on international coordination for smart grids. GridEx III is an exercise in North America to test responses to an attack on our shared electrical grid. There are some advances that still need to be made but overall the goal is almost finished.
Goal 8 - Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all.
Goal 8 tends to be an expansion of Agenda 21 in a different way. While Chapter 29 in Agenda 21 promotes the idea of unions, educating workers on SD, providing worker training, reducing accidents, and strengthening employment for women in Chapter 24, Agenda 21 rarely mentions promoting work for all.
Goal 8 promotes higher levels of economic productivity; policies supporting productive activities; decent job creation; growth of enterprises in addition to access to financial services; work for all and "equal pay"; reducing youth unemployment; eradicating forced labor; and protecting labour rights for migrants. It also calls for increasing Aid for Trade, dictating 7% gross domestic product growth per annum (sic), and implementing the Global Jobs Pact of the International Labour Organization (ILO), of course a UN organization. This is the effort behind workforce development through education reform, meeting corporate needs, and sustaining human settlements.
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is the answer to Goal 8. They have statistics on productivity policies, technology and job creation, and education and training from 1996, 3 years after Agenda 21 was implemented. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guarantees equal pay and non-discrimination for women and others, migrant rights, and the USAID implements the Aid for Trade program via initiatives with the UN, WTO, and and OECD (UN NGO) relationships.
Goal 9 - Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation.
Agenda 21 Chapters 30, 31,and 34, cover infrastructure, industrialization, and innovation while Chapter 35 covers the "science" for SD. There's those words again, infrastructure and science. For the UN, changing our infrastructure is vital to accomplishing their agenda. Infrastructure holds the key to controlling resources, and people. They are not only talking about resource infrastructure changes but also government infrastructure. Infrastructure refers to transportation, energy, and water. The intent is changing infrastructure to create a system of control, controlling how transportation supports human settlements and how resources are delivered and controlled, which is how smart meters work. With infrastructure upgrading, regulations direct the changes which support human settlement development. For example, federal dollars force the inclusion of mass transportation, bike paths, and walking into cities where it may not be in the best interest of the city. The EPA has a list of projects that meet UN guidelines for human settlements.
Goal 9 calls to "upgrade infrastructure to make them sustainable" for "increased resource-use efficiency", "with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all". This is expanded to include "regional and transborder" infrastructure to support "economic development".
The UN has placed the world into regions. These are broken down further into sub-regions in each country, then into county regions. For example, Idaho has several Regional Economic Groups, Magic Valley, Valley/Adams county, Boise Valley, and Idaho Falls to name a few. The county method of regionalism is the Council of Governments (COG). The purpose of these groups are to take control away from your local representatives, there is no accountability to the populace for the decisions they make. And of course Goal 9 includes the U.S. sharing all the technological information on this with other countries to make us all equal and one happy world.
Eh, so what? It doesn't matter that the use of water and energy is controlled and allocated equally or that freedom of movement is dictated by the use of a bus or biking. Work should be based on corporate need rather than by merit or skill. And it doesn't matter that decisions are made by a board who wasn't elected to represent local citizens, there should be no borders between cities or counties, or the country for that matter.
Goals 10-12 will be covered in the next post.
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!