Much has been written about the difficulties that are in abundance throughout America, but often there are few concrete solutions offered that can be instituted for correction. Taking a look at what our Founders saw as solutions may be a place to start. What options were made available to states for reigning in a government that has exceeded its Constitutional boundaries? Perhaps one such approach not explored enough is nullification. In Federalist No. 78 Alexander Hamilton stated, "...every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid." Presidents can use veto power to reject what they perceive as unconstitutional laws. George Washington was the first to do so. James Madison was another with the Establishment clause. What has happened to the integrity of the Executive Branch over the years leading that branch to signing laws that are unconstitutional? Through the years various presidents have chosen to just ignore laws based on their belief the law violates the Constitution, by not enforcing them rather than a veto. But in the end, who has the authority to determine if a law is unconstitutional or not? Do states carry that authority? Thomas E. Woods, Jr. is a Libertarian and author who spoke about nullification in a 2010 interview. During the interview he raised some interesting points. As early as 1798, James Madison was well aware of the federal government already exceeding its enumerated powers through "the abuse of the “necessary and proper” clause" and encouraged Thomas Jefferson to elicit public opinion on those abuses. Both Madison and Jefferson argued against the Alien and Sedition Acts which uncannily mirror issues of today. It was also during this time Jefferson declared "that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy", and Madison declared "the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil," Neither mentioned any other means of determining whether a law is constitutional or not. Ironically at that time, a Congressman was re-elected to Congress from jail, having been imprisoned for his criticism of the president. Does that not sound familiar? Perhaps it does justify the recent Supreme Court decision that an individual cannot not be banned from a ballot. Not present at the time was the federal monetary bribery that is so prevalent now. But what about laws without an attached monetary bribe? What would happen if all of the non-constitutional Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and attached laws and rules were nullified by Idaho, sending the federal government a thank you very much note but Idaho will have its own environmental protection laws? The National Guard is referenced in the video. S1252 was presented this session to prevent National Guard deployment without an official declaration of war by Congress. This was an effort for Idaho to take back its sovereignty but unfortunately failed. Some U.S. Supreme Court justices have previously affirmed nullification. But, there are also those who support the opinion that it is only the federal judiciary holding that responsibility. In 1788 Samuel Adams stated, "...if any law made by the Federal government shall be extended beyond the power granted by the proposed Constitution, and inconsistent with the Constitution of this State, it will be an error, and adjudged by the courts of law to be void." There are multiple examples of the judiciary system being the only system that can determine if a law is constitutional, Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) being an example, declaring "The constitutional rights of children not to be discriminated against in school admission on grounds of race or color declared by this Court in the Brown case can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executives or judicial officers, nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation." However, attempts at nullification can go either way. In the case of Printz v United States the right to nullify a federal law was upheld. Mr. Woods also points out waiting around for a court decision or an election doesn't work very well in that federal courts are part of the system already, too many things can happen waiting around for an election (like how many more calamities can occur until this November?), and a doofus could end up being elected anyway. He also has some interesting points about nullification just prior to the civil war, current precarious federal economics, unfunded federal mandates, and the idea of a state having laws to exercise nullification. Tennessee has the "Restoring State Sovereignty Through Nullification Act" as an example, with other states taking similar actions. Mr. Woods has written articles about nullification and wrote a book with more information. How much further has this government expanded itself and destroyed liberties just since this interview was done? Does Idaho want to start investigating nullification as a possibility for protection against further government intrusion? Solutions are needed, this is just one possibility to explore.
0 Comments
On March 1, 2024, the Senate Judiciary & Rules Committee (SJRC) voted to send SCR 114 and SCR 115 to the floor for a vote. SCR 114 addresses Term Limits, and SCR 115 addresses a Balanced Budget amendment (BBA). Both resolutions include the language "call a convention" or "calling of a convention of the states". The bottom line is, many Americans do want something done to get a naughty federal government under control. To watch the meeting it can be found here under Mar. 1, 2024 1:30 P.M. Download Audio/Video.
Much is written about the interpretation of Article V and the language that either Congress proposes amendments, or on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states shall call a convention for proposing amendments. This document states if two-thirds of state legislatures transmit applications favoring a convention Congress must call a convention, which then decides whether to propose amendments, and if so drafts them. The Federalist Society discusses the differences between "plenary" and "aggregated" applications for a convention. Plenary means the application is unlimited or consideration is given for any amendments. Aggregated refers to combining applications with the same subject matter into one common language, or aggregating them together to make them consistent between states which leads to a plenary convention. As the Federalist Society explains it, "all valid applications must be aggregated with all other valid applications to yield a plenary result (pg 53)." In the case of a BBA, aggregating the numerous states resolutions for a balanced budget amendment would result in a plenary or open convention. In another opinion, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) reflects that "states may call on Congress to form a constitutional convention to propose amendments. Congress must act on this call if at least two-thirds of the states (34 states) make the request. The convention would then propose constitutional amendments." There are many other opinions and interpretations, too long to list here. But it is clear that the Convention of States Action (COSA) is calling for a plenary convention, open to many amendment possibilities and not just limited to imposing fiscal restraints, term limits, and scope and jurisdiction restraints on the federal government. Looking specifically at opinions on the proposed BBA, there is consistent agreement that government budgetary issues are far too complex to limit it down to just a simple "balance the budget" theme. SCR 115 states, "the total of all federal outlays made by the Congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenues for that fiscal year, together with any related and appropriate fiscal restraints." The Congressional Research Service (CRS) wrote a report in 2019 about the BBA history, and discusses the extensive impact it would have on fiscal matters in the government. As correctly pointed out during the SJRC meeting, the economic system is based on debt rather than assets, and this can be addressed without a convention. That is just one economic aspect of the problem. Not only is there debt, but as the report outlines there are tax, waiver, non-budgetary, off-budget, and expenditure limitation issues that could possibly be open to revision. Previous attempts to balance the federal budget also exposed fiscal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as possible issues for revision. Just defining the budget as needing to be balanced does not come close to all of the economic details that would be exposed for changes during a convention with this proposed amendment. So far, 26 states have passed resolutions specific to calling for a BBA convention. Heck, even Congress, as reviewed by the CRS report, has historically and has currently proposed legislation for a BBA. Some of the language in both Idaho resolutions came from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Rather than read hundreds of opinions on this subject, perhaps it would be better to determine what the Convention of States Action (COSA) has to say. Surprisingly, Mark Meckler, who leads COSA, opposes a BBA because it would "give the federal government power over the states", whereas a convention of states could impose "fiscal restraints". He includes "restricting taxing and spending" and forcing the government to use "generally accepted accounting principles (2:59 mark)". This appears to lead to the same end, an open door to changing many fiscal matters. Michael Farris, JD, LLM, Co-Founder of Convention of States, states a BBA is "one that COS supports" but a "BBA alone will not cure this problem". He goes on to cite the many fiscal and other issues that would have to be addressed in which the BBA is limited and also speaks to the aggregate issue of different state BBA resolutions. He concludes that both resolutions, calling for a convention and BBA, should proceed post haste. As previously noted, the numerous state BBA resolutions would need to be aggregated for an plenary convention. Further clarification is given by Mr. Meckler to the Pennsylvania House and Senate State Government Committees on October 22, 2019. Along with explaining that term limits could be set on "federal officials", he continues, "... the convention could propose a balanced budget amendment accompanied by limitations on Congress' spending and taxation powers. It could propose limits on executive power, federal agencies, and impose real checks and balances on the Supreme Court (pg 3)." As seen, it isn't just about balancing revenue with spending. While Mr. Meckler denies "Convention of States has a board member that has proposed a new constitution" in response to criticism regarding Robert P. George, it was announced in 2014 that the COS Project formed a "Prestigious Legal Board of Reference" which included Mr. George as a board member. "The conclusions of these prestigious experts are memorialized in The Jefferson Statement". This board crafted The Conservative Constitution. On page 11 it summarizes information related to finance, taxing, and spending. The actual Article I, Sections 9 and 10 can be found on pages 20-21 where more specific details are provided on fiscal policy and outlines how much "fiscal restraint" could, or would be applied. Given this is a COS project it might be considered as a source for consideration of possible proposed amendments that might occur during a convention, which would dramatically alter fiscal policy as various opinions have warned. Mr. George is listed as serving "as a legal advisor to the Project". All of the proposed Articles in this Conservative Constitution dramatically reconstruct our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Mr. George is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and served as the U.S. member of UNESCO’s World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology. In the COSA plenary resolution template, it does include fiscal restraints as one of the "limited" subjects, or rather "to a small range of subjects while still allowing for multiple amendments to be proposed." As for SCR 114, opinions are far more varied with multiple reasons as to why term limits are a bad idea, and why they are a good idea. However, the most frightening aspect is just how far these term limits would go according to COSA. As Mr. Meckler stated, these term limits aren't limited to just Congress, it also includes federal officials, Supreme Court justices, and federal judges. Once again, the People have failed to do their job in ousting officials who don't adhere to the Constitution. With all of the information made available by COSA, it should be clear that a broad restructuring of the Constitution is in play. Presenting such a narrow scope of objectives doesn't come close to how deep the intent is to vastly alter the foundation of the Republic. The original convention that created our Constitution emerged with delegates from each state coming together, it was initiated by them to the Continental Congress and an Act was declared for them to meet. Today, this isn't coming from states, it is coming from a highly organized political campaign that is primarily funded by one individual. The question has to be why, what is the motivation of one person to personally fund so much activity, not only to interfere in state elections, but to also pursue avenues that would potentially cause such profound changes in the Constitution. Should it not be done as was the 1787 convention, brought forward by state leaders, whether by Governors or legislators? Sometimes people get caught up in a craze and follow what is presented without giving much thought to the depth of what they are supporting, or the potential ramifications. Such is the case with the current pursuit of an Article V convention, also known as a Con-Con or Convention of States (COS). It may be tedious to read through these documents but it is worthwhile to look at the history behind Article V. Article V of the Constitutions states a convention for amendments to the Constitution can be called when "two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments". In 1777, the Continental Congress created the Articles of Confederation. Altering the Articles is found in XIII. Because of the Revolutionary war, the weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation, especially related to commerce and trade, became apparent. Originally, commissioners from Maryland and Virginia met to discuss fishing rights and regulation of commerce between their states. Virginia then "issued the invitation" to other states to attend a convention on this subject while some states felt it "transgressed the powers of Congress". James Madison even commented that "Many Gentlemen both within & without Congs. wish to make this Meeting subservient to a Plenipotentiary Convention for amending the Confederation." Eventually, nine state legislatures elected delegates to attend the Annapolis Convention, held September 11 to September 14, 1786, to discuss limited trade and commerce under the Articles of Confederation. But the convention was held with only five states, lacking "the requisite quorum of seven states necessary to conduct business". The assigned task for the convention, commercial matters and trade regulations, were never addressed. With representation from just five states and twelve delegates, they changed the assigned task to addressing "defects in the system of the Fœderal Government", and "devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Fœderal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union". It is speculated that failure to wait for the required quorum was deliberate by Hamilton and Madison for their pursuit of systematic, constitutional reform. The attending delegates did acknowledge the lack of representation and defended their alternative pursuits "dictated by an anxiety for the welfare, of the United States". They also knew of the opposition to constitutional reform by those delegates who had not yet arrived. By the end of the Annapolis convention, three rules had already been broken, failure to meet the quorum requirements, failure to address the assigned task by their legislatures, and creation of a completely new direction for constitutional reform which originated from just a few men. A report on the convention was submitted to Congress with a recommendation for a second convention, while recognizing the exceeding of their "strict bounds of their appointment". Calling it a "Resolution", on February 21, 1787, Congress called for a second convention, later known as the Constitutional Convention, “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several [state] Legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union”, held May 25 through September 17, 1787. Declared as an "Act", it was printed in newspapers for publication by the Continental Congress. From this Act, state legislatures provided the instructions to delegates. VA, NJ, PA, NC, DE, GA, NY, MA, SC, CT, MD, and NH, "appointed" delegates, "authorizing" them to attend the convention. Rhode Island refused to appoint delegates. The language to revise the Articles of Confederation and render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union is referenced in each letter. Several states called for certain restrictions for changes during the convention. Out of 70 appointed delegates, only 55 attended the convention. This was the first and only convention called by the states, with the assigned purpose by legislatures of revising the Articles of Confederation. What did happen is these delegates did not revise the Articles or make amendments as instructed by the congress, they created a new government structure, another broken rule. Several delegates wrote about delegates exceeding their powers, James Madison, "it is admitted that the Convention have departed from the tenor of their commission."; William Paterson, ""the articles of the confederation were therefore the proper basis of all the proceedings of the Convention. We ought to keep within its limits, or we should be charged by our constituents with usurpation."; John Lansing and Robert Yates, who both left the convention in July because the powers assigned to them were being exceeded; and Luther Martin, "it being directly in violation of the mode prescribed by the Articles of Confederation for the alteration of our federal government." are just a few. The new Constitution was ratified by 9 out of the 13 states, violating Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, "unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State." This was the final rule broken. This is the basis for concern by those who oppose a convention, often nicknamed a "runaway" convention, because history shows that is what happened. Appointed delegates did not stay within the bounds of their assigned responsibilities by legislatures at Annapolis or by the Constitutional Congress during the Constitutional Convention. Mark Meckler, previous co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, is co-founder and president of Convention of States Action (COS) and Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG) (previously DBA Convention of States Foundation), following several previous dubious entrepreneurial endeavors, a temporary suspension of his law license, felony charge (later reduced to disorderly conduct), and interim Chief Executive of Parler. One might want to give some thought about his activities before proceeding with support of COS. While presenting itself as a grassroots organization, there is information that may indicate otherwise. Listed on the COS 2022 tax form are the board of directors that include billionaire Tim Dunn; author and private investor Eric O'Keefe; CEO and Founder of Desert Royalty Company Kyle Stallings; private real estate investor Michael Ruthenberg; Timothy Murphy; attorney and lobbyist Robert Kelly; and Meckler's wife, Patricia. Former Senator Rick Santorum is listed as an independent contractor, compensated with $333,405.00. The Idaho Republican Party was given $500.00 along with donations to Republican parties in other states, and family members of the board of directors were also compensated as employees. Related tax-exempt organizations include Defending Liberty, Influence Watch reveals the Convention of States Foundation (COSF) received funding from the National Christian Charitable Foundation; Armrod Charitable Foundation, having received over $3 million dollars from 2015 to 2019; Mercer Family Foundation, and Donors Trust, and is supported by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Koch Brothers. There has also been allegations of violating campaign finance laws. (There was a Convention of States Political Fund in Idaho in 2022) It might be worthy to ponder for a moment what these wealthy organizations motives are to fund such a cause. This article written by Publius Huldah references Robbie George who Mr. Meckler states is on the COS Legal Advisory Board. Mr. Meckler denies that Mr. George re-wrote the constitution, however, here is that rewritten document. Rick Santorum is earning his compensation by giving interviews in support of COS. Like Sen. Lakey, both bring up the issue of federal lands, yet the Idaho resolution only addresses a balanced budget, term limits, and limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. COS has a longer list for potential amendments, clarifying "This structure limits the Convention to a small range of subjects while still allowing for multiple amendments to be proposed." There are raised concerns that should be thoughtfully considered. 34 states are needed to call this convention, if Idaho passes this application, the count will raise to 20. Having reviewed documents from both the Annapolis and 1787 convention, below is a COS document that makes attempts to dispel concerns by those who oppose its efforts to hold a convention. Does it hold up to what is in the Founder's documents? Mr. Meckler and his organization certainly present good arguments to proceed with a Convention of States, but the records left behind by our Founders do not support what he is saying.
It is not the current system of government that is the problem, it is the people who are not following it. A good example is the proposed amendment to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. This is already defined in our Constitution Article I Section 8, but elected officials are not following it. There is little reason to believe with an amendment they would act any differently just as the Founders failed to stay within their defined responsibilities. Sen. Lakey sponsored RS31257 / SCR112 which has been reported out of Committee with a Do Pass Recommendation. If you determine that there should be concern over Idaho engaging in this convention, contact all Idaho legislators in the House and Senate and let them know of your opposition. In 2021, the National School Board Association (NSBA) wrote a letter to the president asking that "the classification of these heinous actions (by parents at school board meetings) could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes" and be "reviewed by the U.S. Departments of Justice", later apologizing for that letter. Aided by the White House, the Attorney General did respond.
Along with the January 6, 2021 incident, both events have caused concern that Americans, exercising their right to free speech and peaceful assembly, could possibly fall under the definition as a domestic terrorist, or domestic violent extremist. Of particular concern is the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) terminology of domestic terrorism, "Anti-Government or Anti-Authority Violent Extremism: This threat encompasses the potentially unlawful use or threat of force or violence in furtherance of ideological agendas, derived from anti-government or anti-authority sentiment, including opposition to perceived economic, social, or racial hierarchies, or perceived government overreach, negligence, or illegitimacy (pg 2)." Under the 1992 18 U.S. Code § 2331, the United States defines international and domestic terrorism. The 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, (NDAA) defined domestic terrorism as "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws", "intended to: Intimidate or coerce a civilian population; Influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; and Affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. This similarly follows the Homeland Security Act definitions of terrorism. Both agencies extend definitions to the term "Domestic Violent Extremist (DVE)", an individual who "seeks to further their ideological goals wholly or in part through unlawful acts of force or violence", clarifying that "mere advocacy of ideological positions and/or the use of strong rhetoric does not constitute violent extremism...threats of violence must be present to constitute a violation of federal law". Also, "Both the FBI and DHS use the term “domestic violent extremism” to refer to DT threats (pg 4)", not individuals. Domestic terrorism is differentiated from the law on Foreign Terrorist Organizations, 8 U.S. Code § 1189, a foreign organization that engages in terrorist activity or terrorism, or that is capable of and intends to engage in terrorist activity, and threatens...the national security of the United States. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), "Federal criminal law defines domestic terrorism as acts", "federal law does not have a crime of domestic terrorism", and that "Prosecutors can seek to convict a person for these crimes without having to prove that their motive was to commit domestic terrorism (pg 66-67)". Also, "states may choose to enact statutes providing for a state specific definition and crime of domestic terrorism (pg 69)". There are many Idahoans who are ideologically bound to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. When there is government misconduct should the defense of those ideologies under the First Amendment be construed as terrorism? According to the DHS, only when there is "potentially unlawful use or threat of force", both of which fall under criminal law. Indeed, the Constitution is a major stumbling block for the government to label patriotic groups as extremists, even though that term is abhorrently used by journalists. In reality, there is no federal law that uses the term domestic terrorist. However, the term domestic terrorist is used only in cases of Foreign Domestic Terrorism. If an individual engages in terrorist acts and is connected to a federally identified foreign terrorist organization, then the term domestic terrorist is properly applied. This is reiterated by Micheal McGarrity, FBI Counterterrorism Division Assistant Director. In fact, "The federal government does not designate domestic terrorist organizations. In other words, there is no official open-source roster of domestic groups that the FBI or other federal agencies target as terrorist organizations." As noted, this has led "to confusion among the public as well as policymakers regarding exactly who is a domestic terrorist (pg2)." Even in the Idaho Terrorist Control statute the term domestic terrorist is not used. Both federal law and Idaho law speak to the "acts" that are considered terrorism, whether internationally or domestically. This FBI and DHS report defines more acts that are considered domestic extremism from pages 6 to 10. However, a bill sponsored by Sen. Anthon, SB1220, changes the language in Idaho statute to "prevent an Idahoan from being labeled a domestic terrorist or terrorist in Idaho without constitutionally protected due process." In SB1220, a domestic terrorist is defined as "a person who pleads guilty to or is found guilty of domestic terrorism". It does not negate any individual from being prosecuted for committing unlawful acts that fall under domestic terrorism laws. More Senators than not voted in favor of this bill. Ever the traitor to the Republic, former Attorney General Jim Jones has written an opinion, claiming SB1220 will "neuter" the Terrorist Control Statute. Mr. Jones claims SB1220 "would decriminalize any such criminal acts that were not done in cooperation with a “foreign terrorist organization." It would behoove Mr. Jones to read the bill, which explicitly does not state that. Mr. Jones also purports that the current statute, as written, could not be used to prosecute school patrons, "unless the patrons committed criminal acts that were dangerous to human life and intended to intimidate or coerce the public or school board." He just negated his own argument against SB1220. It is the involvement of defined criminal acts of terrorism that are prosecuted. And although he claims SB1220 would "decriminalize any such criminal acts that were not done in cooperation with a “foreign terrorist organization", he clearly does not understand the bill outlines what criminal acts an individual can be charged with, defined acts of terrorism. SB1220 does define what is considered acts of domestic terrorism that violate the law, including involvement with foreign terrorist organizations. The passage of this bill is even more important as a June, 2021 Executive Order only strengthened the work of the DHS (pg 84) on domestic terrorism. As Mr. Jones stated, the belief is that domestic terrorism in on the rise, and it is very concerning how the White House is responding to these alleged threats. More than ever, it is critical that Idahoans are protected from false, and unlawful accusations of being a domestic terrorist. So, while an individual can commit acts of domestic terrorism, they cannot be charged as a domestic terrorist. SB1220 only reinforces that stance. And, as previously noted, states may choose to enact statutes providing for a state specific definition and crime of domestic terrorism. When confronting the government as a right for redress of grievances on its "perceived government overreach, negligence, or illegitimacy", be alert to what that same government is defining as a terrorist act (pg 2). One note to pretentious journalists, you might want to think twice about sensationally identifying someone you ideologically disagree with as a domestic terrorist or extremist as was done to an Idahoan. That might just be an act of slander on your part. Contact the House of Representatives before February 13th and tell them to vote yes in support of SB1220, the bill safeguards the ability to prosecute any individual for committing criminal acts that fall under the definition of terrorism and protects Idahoans from being labeled a domestic terrorist without due process of the law. The current president has been hell bent on forcing America into a renewable energy waste bin, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is more than happy to participate. But the rush is on because the solar energy plan must be accomplished by 2035.
BLM land has been littered with solar panels since 2012. Because of this current president and his plan to "transition" America to renewable energy, the BLM has been working on updating its 2012 Solar Energy Development plan that involved six states. Now, along with four other states, Idaho is getting sucked into the mix. All of the documents pertaining to this agenda, which BLM has obviously been working on for months, can be found here. Graciously, the BLM has offered the opportunity to go through thousands of pages of information to understand how Idaho will be impacted along with the other four added states. Idahoans have been blessed by the BLM with the opportunity to "Provide input on the 5 action alternatives – including elements from all alternatives to be adopted in a Final Plan" by April 18th. There doesn't appear to be a "no action" alternative. Aside from the gobbledygook in all of the documents, the amount of reading required to go through all of the documents far exceeds what is reasonable. It is insulting how the BLM presents this for input. Cliff notes on the alternatives can be found here, and overall updates here, The Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement can be found here, all 538 pages. For those who really have a desire to go to sleep, there is the agonizing redundancy on Areas of Special Concern with only 760 pages, where one can wade through page after page to find something specific to Idaho. These are the proposed alternative areas to litter with solar panels in Idaho. All of the documents can be found on the National NEPA Register page, Input can be provided via the green Participate Now buttons, or on this page. Be patient, it takes a minute to load. It is bad enough the way in which the BLM abuses its power by tossing this out to Idahoans with no chance of receiving adequate input. Governor Little is no better, his cronies and corporate sponsors at the Western Governors Association (WGA) have supported this endeavor for years. Did he let Idahoans know? It is only going to get worse with the WGA decarbonization agenda. Since the BLM obviously doesn't have the skill set to place solar panels, just only providing the land, which corporation will they choose to cozy up to, and financially benefit from, to get the job done? Perhaps one it is already friends with? As a signatory to the International Solar Alliance (ISA) "to accelerate global adoption of solar energy", the United States receives support from the ISA "by helping to expedite solar deployment." Sounds like a military exercise. Yes, the U.S. is eager to be part of "Green Grids Initiative (GGI) One Sun One World One Grid’ operating in the U.S., thanks to its National Grid Partners. And it will benefit Brandon's friends as well. Returning to the BLM, just understand this expansion of solar panels on public land is being driven by the dark side of the government that everyone now lives under, corporatism. and also achieves the goal of reducing the amount of land that Idahoans will have access to for beneficial use. Idahoans should feel lucky the BLM has chosen to once again use the lawful process to placate the masses. is sometimes easy to write about all the issues elected officials get wrong by not stopping the tremendous damage being done to our state, and country. However, this time a tremendous thanks is owed to Attorney General Raul Labrador for joining twenty four state attorney generals and objecting to a Securities and Exchange Commission proposed rule change titled Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Listed Company Manual To Adopt Listing Standards for Natural Asset Companies,” 88 Fed Reg. 68,811 (October 4, 2023). Essentially, this rule would have authorized the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) to list Natural Asset Companies (NAC) on its exchange. As a result of the attorney generals letters, and other opposing parties, the NYSE withdrew this proposal. The leadership shown by these attorney generals is so desperately needed in all bodies of our government, the willingness to stand up and voice objection to not only an unlawful move by the federal government, but also protecting the rights of citizens.
Since there are multiple fronts of attacks occurring that are leading us to destruction, none any more or less important than another, it is easier to provide a quick snapshot of issues of which to be aware.
Censorship will advance even further as the World Economic Forum (WEF) has declared disinformation at the top of the list for global risks in 2024, actually superseding environmental threats. What that means is there will be an intensified effort to eliminate, refute, and/or censor any information that does not fit its narrative. In short, the WEF is clearly threatened by the backlash against its narrative that is occurring across the world. Cleverly, it is blaming AI for this spread of misinformation while at the same time touting its benefit for mankind. Keeping in mind that top media corporations are members of the WEF, such as Google, Meta (Facebook), Comcast, NBCUniversal, and News Corp to name just a few, a full smorgasbord of information can, and will be more severely controlled. A classic example of this is the recent refusal to show former President Trump's victory speech in Iowa. Or when he said he would be a dictator on day one was conveniently altered to exclude the full statement. Oh, and don't forget to start preparing for the next plandemic, Disease X. Depending on one's perspective, good news may or may not be on the horizon. WEF pharmaceutical giants are working on a vaccine for the fentanyl crisis. Basically, this vaccine blocks the effects of fentanyl on the brain so the individual can't get the high. So far, it has only been tested on rats, with "no side effects"...in rats that is. Interestingly, it doesn't work for other types of opioids such as percodan, codeine, or heroin, which could prompt a vaccinated individual to swap over from fentanyl to another opioid. Sounds like a move that may add to a higher profit margin for pharmaceutical companies just as the Covid-19 vaccine did, more vaccines for all, just a prophylactic measure for everyone to deter them from ever using. Naturally, the survey says, approval. And no, so far, these vaccines are not made with mRNA technology. Hmm, create synthetic fentanyl, use Covid-19 to exacerbate its lethality, so a vaccine could be developed to stop its effects? What about China? Then there is the border. The reality is that we do not have a border crisis, we are not being invaded, although that idea may be contested by some. It is actually migration by invitation via the government. Acting as a welcoming committee, the government will provide photo ID cards for easy access to other benefits, maybe even voting eventually. Or migrants could just print their own ballot and mail it in. As a result of the Global Refugee Forum held in 2023, the U.S. Department of State pledged 26 commitments towards 8 pledges "in meeting the needs of refugees and host communities" to help address the "forced displacements" across the globe. The State Department also made a "commitment to the Global Compact on Refugees...and...dedication to championing refugee protection and solutions", an international cooperation effort. Other pledges include deliberately bringing in refugees from Rohingya, and joining the Global Alliance to End Statelessness. Of course, funding is included in these pledges for refugee self reliance programs including WEF; working with the private sector for economic refugee inclusion, and assistance with finding work, attending school, and finding housing. So far, Idaho isn't on this government WelcomeCorps program that accepts refugees, but there are plenty of other avenues for "refugees". It is known that this border issue is really about destroying America, but there is also some thought that there is intent to de-Christianize America, and decimate the white culture, at least according to Joe starting at the 10:24" mark. Not once, as he blathers on, does he ever mention the privilege and responsibility of being an American. The border issue is a deliberate orchestration by countries, in which the United States is involved, to redistribute populations for economic reasons. This Department of Homeland Security website and report have some interesting information on immigration. Speaking of the WEF, which most don't give a tinker's cuss about, just finished its annual meeting at Davos, having convened under the theme, Building Trust, while remaining ignorant in understanding why nobody trusts them. However, there was a panel on "What to Expect from a Possible Republican Administration?" Panel members included former Senator Rob Portman, The Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, and what might be described as some other dolts. The panel discussion primarily centered around former President Trump, his previous presidency, and speculation about what he would do if he won the next election. Kevin Roberts gave some surprising statements at the 9" mark, chastising WEF by saying the political elites and unelected technocrats grasp over people should be destroyed; the next administration should make a list of every WEF agenda and object to all of them; upon Trump's inauguration every unelected bureaucrat should be fired, that climate change policies should be confronted, and Trump should spend less money (39:30" mark). Revitalizing self-governance was also mentioned (49:27 mark). The whole panel discussion is worth listening to regarding thoughts on another Trump presidency. WEF also took a hit of criticism from Argentine President Javier Milei about its collectivist and socialism agenda, why the freedom of capitalism provides prosperity, and why social justice does not work. The full speech can be viewed starting at the 2:09" mark. Bringing in confrontational speakers? Is it part of its Building Trust theme, to gaslight those who detest the WEF? Meanwhile, attacks on agriculture and ranching are worldwide from Environment, Social Governance (ESG) policies in America, to banning nitrogen in the Netherlands, slashing fuel subsidies in Germany, enforcing climate policies and higher costs in France, and culling cattle in Ireland. All of these tactics are intended to bring devastation to the agricultural and ranching sectors in the world, and corporations involved in this are all WEF members. Bring on the insects. See those folks in the streets in Germany and France? That is what we should be doing on every destructive issue that has been brought into America's soul. One last thought for the day. If anatomical parts do not define gender, how does adding/removing them affirm it? The Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 1-8 were previously covered. SDGs 9-15 are covered here.
Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure (8 Targets) - For the SDGs to be fully implemented, America's infrastructure must be changed. One target is the "adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies" which includes the elimination of fossil fuels and movement towards electric vehicles, use of LED lighting, and "smart" homes. But the more nefarious part of this target is building an infrastructure that will track everyone. Another Goal 9 target is "Significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet...". Again, this is part of Goal 4, the internet will be used to indoctrinate everyone on sustainable development (SD) and the SDGs in addition to the ability to track everyone with a digital ID. Goal 10: Reduced Inequalities (10 Targets) - This goal is probably the most blatant in terms of what is happening today. One target is to "promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all" which accounts for the forced acceptance of anyone regardless of behavior. Another target easily seen being implemented, "Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people", albeit the current flood of people at the border is hardly safe or responsible, but migration is a problem now seen around the world. But, migration is needed for building the workforce, creating cultural diversity, and loss of sovereign identity. Goal 11: Sustainable Cities & Communities (10) Targets - The first target of this goal is access to "adequate, safe and affordable housing" along with other targets for "transport systems", access to "green spaces", and focusing on "disaster risk reduction". The current homeless problem has only escalated across the U.S. with this goal, but most cities have placed emphasis on building "affordable housing", improving transport systems, integrating green spaces, and disaster reduction plans. Changing city designs has always been a top priority for the UN as it will be used as a means to control how humans live with condensed housing, restricted movement, surveillance, and monitoring of resource use. Goal 12: Responsible Consumption & Production (11 Targets) - Targets in this goal include "halve...global food waste at the...consumer levels", or put more simply, reducing food waste which Idaho has adopted. Another target is to "reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse", again adopted by Idaho. In fact, in its agreement to implement the SDGs, the Environmental Protection Agency is working hard to implement SDG 12.3. Goal 13: Climate Action (5) Targets - This has very blatant targets, "Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning". This has been successfully forced by the federal government, but not necessarily by law. Another target, "Improve education, awareness-raising...on climate change...". One cannot avoid the constant barrage of this messaging. Goal 14: Life Below Water (10 Targets) - Reducing marine pollution is a target that is seen with the focus on ocean plastics pollution; over fishing is being looked at; and regulating fish harvesting has started; Goal 15: Life On Land - There are 12 targets in this goal and probably of most interest to Idahoans because it involves forests, protected species, and habitat. The overall goal is protection, conservation, and restricted use "in line with obligations under international agreements" such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). One target touts "sustainable management" of forests and because of these practices there has been more destruction with fires and disease. There is also the emphasis on "conservation", a target being met by the federal government without congressional authorization (30x30), and is in line with the IUCN. Another target met is the focus on reducing invasive species. There is more but this goal is being heavily implemented. Goal 16: Peace, Justice, & Strong Institutions (12 Targets) - Several targets in this goal are paradoxical as most currently have opposite outcomes such as reducing violence, ending child exploitation, and institutional accountability and transparency. The United Nations (UN) itself is seen as corrupt. However, perhaps the most threatening target is "provide legal identity for all". This involves advancing the World Economic Forum (WEF) digital identity agenda that will provide the ability to track everyone and everything they do. However, even worse, it involves genetic tracking starting at birth. One has to go back to Agenda 21 chapters 15 and 16 to really understand this goal. Chapter 15 discusses the conservation of biodiversity based on the Center of Biological Diversity (CBD), while Chapter 16 discusses the "Sound Management Of Biotechnology". Biodiversity includes humans per the CBD, and biotechnology "is a science-driven industry...that uses living organisms and molecular biology to produce products", including "genetic engineering" and changes in DNA. Gold bioinformatics "refers to methods healthcare workers use to gather, store, and analyze biological data...and DNA sequencing" and "applied in other areas such as genomics" and nanobiotechnology, or bioinformatics. Putting it simply, Agenda 21 talks about using genetics and biotechnology not only in the environment, but in humans as well. This explains why one of its areas of use, vaccines, is being genetically created, and now humans are on the radar for the same. Children's DNA is being gathered in many states, often without parental consent, stored (including Idaho), and analyzed or sold. That genetic information is also being gathered through sites such as Ancestry and 23andMe. While the National Human Genome Research Institute blathers on about privacy, it and its cohorts are oblivious to the fact that there should be no engagement in this field at all. Since this all originated out of the UN, there should be no doubt that sharing of this information is with the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB) as outlined in Chapter 16. Technocrats from around the world are working on inflated ideas that with pharmaceutical partners, they can control the future of mankind. They might as well just force us to have a number tattoo, the intention is the same. Goal 17: Partnerships For The Goals - The targets for this goal are broken down into five sections: Finance, Technology, Capacity Building, Trade, and Systemic Issues. Sections are needed because Agenda 2030 is about changing the economic model of capitalism and it will take global partners that includes countries, corporations, and laws to change that system. Under the section Systemic Issues, there is a subsection called Multi-stakeholder partnerships. This includes "effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships". Public-private partnerships (P3) are being practiced at all government levels and includes non-governmental organizations (NGO) and corporations. This can also be called corporatism or crony capitalism. It does not mean representation of the people; it is representation of anything but the people. Another subsection is Data, monitoring and accountability. This includes on all people down to the most microscopic detail. This is the basis for digital identity and everyone having access to the internet which are two foundations for tracking humans. Also included in partnerships is indoctrination by the media and using it for censorship. As noted under SDG 4, everyone is to be educated on SD. The UN SDG Media Compact members are used for that purpose, Next will be a summary on the Agenda 2030 SDGs. For countries that adopted Agenda 21 in 1992, the goal was embedding its framework into their respective governments under the ruse of "sustainable development". As previously noted, Agenda 21, known as sustainable development (SD), was implemented in the United States in 1993 by W.J. Clinton. Just a short 22 years later in 2015, the United Nations (UN) compressed that framework into a more defined list of 17 sustainable development goals (SDG), calling it Agenda 2030. In these 17 goals, there is not one area of life that is not impacted, and the goals all overlap each other. The smoke screen in this game has always been that climate change is the catalyst for these needed changes in human lives, and that overpopulation has been a stressing factor.
Fortunately, these 17 goals are a little more specific and understandable than Agenda 21, which helps in understanding how the UN, with its multiple partnerships, intends to transform how humans live. The false premise is that these necessary changes will help slow climate change, help people live a better quality of life, and create a better, and more "equitable" world. However, the intent is really to dictate how everyone lives, and eventually control those lives. Over the course of the last 20 years, there has been some success in doing just that. The easiest way to recognize just how much of this agenda has been executed is to look at SDG targets and indicators of each goal. Targets are activities to be achieved to reach the goal and indicators are the measure by which it is determined if the target is met. Each goal is to be achieved by 2030, and some of the targets in the first 8 goals will be reviewed here. The irony of the SDG is that in some cases conditions have become worse. Goal 1: No poverty (7 Targets) - Two targets include reducing those who are living in poverty at least by half, and implementing social protection systems. The numbers vary among different countries but according to the World Bank there was an increase in the "number of poor people from 648 to 659 million" in 2023. This has happened in spite of the billions of dollars spent on social protection systems such as health care, housing, and income. Goal 2: End hunger, improve nutrition (8 Targets) - One target ensures everyone has access to adequate and nutritious food. Yet, at the same time, media is flooded with "food insecurity" messages, that people can't get enough access to food. On the other hand, the obesity crisis has reached an all time high. How can it be that people can't access food yet are experiencing an obesity crisis? Goal 3: Good Health & Well-Being (13 Targets) - Targets for this lofty goal includes reduction in maternal deaths (they are rising), "strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse...including narcotic drug abuse" (drug use is rising while billions are poured into treatment), and to increase the healthcare workforce (it's struggling). On the other hand Agenda 2030 has been very successful with other targets such as access to reproductive healthcare and vaccines for all. The devastation caused by these last two targets are apparent. Goal 4: Quality Education (10 Targets) - Two targets are education on SD and early childhood education. While the U.S. Department of Education was part of the original President's Council on Sustainable Development, the indoctrination on SD really accelerated in 2010. Multiple Idaho universities, and others, promote both SD, and placing children in care outside of the home in order for mothers to join the workforce. The real goal? The earlier children can be captured, the earlier they can be indoctrinated on SD and the education system has been changed for this very purpose as seen in Goal 8. Education on SD is not limited to educational institutions, it also includes all forms of the media. While the use of the media and entertainment was addressed in Agenda 21, but not so specifically in Agenda 2030, it is still being implemented. Newspapers, television, commercials, movies, advertising, magazines...anything and everything has been used for indoctrinating everyone on SD. In 2018, the UN launched the SDG Media Compact with members from across the world. It is through UN partnerships with media outlets that has led to so many problems with censorship and prohibition of factual information, opposite of its claims of freedom of expression. Although UN partnerships with book publishers, including children's text books, has been going on for years, a new aggressive drive for SD in written material is underway. Goal 5: Gender Equality (9 Targets) - This target is pretty advanced, to "Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels", and women who have been promoted continue to advance it. Note the word "gender". As one example, this target plays a role in the current donnybrooks in sports and bathroom polices. Goal 6: Clean Water & Sanitation (8 Targets) - One target is increasing water recycling, which is occurring throughout Idaho. The federal government used the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) monies to meet this goal and the Idaho cities and counties that took that money have implemented the SDGs. Yes, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the first federal agency that signed to implement SD and the SDGs. Goal 7: Affordable & Clean Energy (5 Targets) - As can be seen with the aggressive push for wind and solar energy, the target for increasing renewable energy is advancing rapidly. However, this is at a cost to the environment from the waste both produce, which points to the fact this agenda has never been about protecting the environment. Goal 8: Decent Work & Economic Growth (12 Targets) - "Decent" work for all isn't really defined but one target suggests putting more youth to work. Another target, "decouple economic growth from environmental degradation", again not defined, references efficiency in consumption and production. This goal is vague in order to hide the agenda that children are being steered towards science, technology, engineering, and math degrees (STEM) that will serve future corporate workforce needs in SD. Part 2 will cover the remaining SDGs, 9-15. There are two very good videos that explain how cattle owners are being pursued to put them out of business here in the U.S. and in the Netherlands.
The first is The Attack on Farmers and Ranchers that No One is Talking About By Jim Mundorf. In this video he speaks to the “climate smart practices” being forced onto ranchers. In this video, it is explained how ranchers in the Netherlands are being forced out of business, their resolve to fight back. It also explains how this has nothing to do with the climate but is rather an agenda to take land. Start the video at the 10" mark. It isn't any surprise that nitrogen is on the World Economic Forum and United Nations list to control. |
Concerned Idahoans:This website is non-partisan and is solely dedicated to removing the harmful controls placed on our state and nation through associated programs of Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the Great Reset. We invite all Idahoans to join us in this fight for freedom! Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
|