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.
0 Comments
This scheme is nothing more than an illegal way to deprive Americans from using both private and public land, and using their money to enrich the corporate world. As part of this administration's agenda to implement the international 30x30 plan, that is, placing 30% of land into conservation by 2030, it only makes sense to weaponize federal agencies. In this particular case it is the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). One perfect place to execute this plan is in Montana, called the Missouri Headwaters Conservation Area. While this map shows the boundary map clearly within the Montana border, it isn't clear what that red boundary line extending into Idaho means, but it does capture Centennial Valley. First some background, but one almost needs some sort of economic background to get the gist of what is being done.
Globalists began looking at the environment as having "Natural Assets", meaning the environment could be used as justification for economic gain. a "key to sustainable development". Natural assets are defined as assets of the natural environment that consist of wild or produced biological assets, land, water, ecosystems, subsoil, and air. Basically anything in the environment. These assets are sometimes called "ecosystem services". Using climate change hysteria, globalists plotted the latest snow job called Nature Based Solutions (NBS). Since climate change allegedly destroys everything, NBS "are actions to protect, sustainably manage, or restore natural ecosystems", or natural assets, especially if those solutions address societal challenges such as water security and disaster risk reduction, while providing biodiversity benefits. Alas, since natural solutions receive little financing for preventing greenhouse gas emissions, globalists designed a new financial market that uses the environment for economic gain. The White House is on board with its National Strategy plan. Initial funding for this atrocity came out of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act which was really intended to fundamentally transform America towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). On page 112, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was allocated $1 billion for a "pre-disaster mitigation program" which of course will be used for nature based solutions, promising "monetary...benefits...economic growth, green jobs, increased property values and better public health", all hornswoggle. In this April, 2022 Executive Order 14072, Section 4, the administration announced its plan for nature based solutions, which was followed in November, 2022 by the White House Nature Based Solutions Resource Guide. Of course this idea didn't come from the people, it came out of the United Nations (UN) COP 27 as a way to fight "climate change" and increase resilience to life. Ah yes, this president's brilliance will lead to protection for all. And the World Economic Forum (WEF) is drooling over how much money corporations can suck from us with this sham they created. Heck, the White House has already put into place a "roadmap" to assist moneygrubbing schmuck globalists by "Unlocking funding for domestic and international projects, and encouraging Federal agencies to do more to prioritize nature-based solutions in funding decisions." For those who are morbidly curious, a full review of potential funding avenues can be found here. No matter which way you look at it, the cost will be borne by us serfs to the elite. The really tough part in understanding this is how profits are made. One thing for sure, it does involve restoration, protection, and conservation of nature. But money will be made now that new economic markets have been created. Natural Asset Companies (NAC) were created for this specific purpose, "to develop an asset class that converts the value of nature and the ecoservices designed to sustain it into financial capital." An NAC allows "investors to financially back services that directly benefit the planet". Intrinsic Exchange Groups (IEG) are a type of company "whose equity captures the value of natural assets and the ecosystem services they produce." IEG basically determines how much value will be assigned to nature. Wall Street is on board but Whitney Webb hit the nail on the head, "The ultimate goal of NACs is not sustainability or conservation – it is the financialization of nature, i.e. turning nature into a commodity that can be used to keep the current, corrupt Wall Street economy booming under the guise of protecting the environment and preventing its further degradation", her words validated by this author. It is nothing more than another form of Environment, Social Governance (ESG). This author does a fine job in explaining with one example how to make money from this scam when it comes to water. Buy property, create a mitigation bank (buy cheap land and restore it to some ecological state that's deemed to be functional), and investors come in. As he explains it, it is like building houses only you are building wetlands. It is no wonder the corporate saturated WEF supports NBS. The World Bank might have given NBS a more appropriate name in this video, "green infrastructure". Enough of the economic lesson, back to Montana. The American Stewards for Liberty wrote an article about this land grab by the feds, indicating that central Idaho will be involved in it. While the article describes the agenda to connect protected lands together in Montana, Idaho is in the crosshairs for the same expansion, that area being within the red box in the map. Private land will also be usurped in this scam whether voluntary or not and property owners will be forced to comply with restricted and controlled land use. Private property rights will go down the drain. The article also talks about NACs and describes hybrid areas as part of the plan. At the end of the article there is an excellent link that explains how this whole scheme is only about monetizing nature, and notes the same bewilderment, "no investment professional can explain how investors will make money", but rest assured, these scallywag globalists are figuring it out. Both the USFWS and Bureau of Land Management have conservation areas. However, according to the Department of Interior "national conservation areas are designated by Congress" (page CRS-8) and only by the Bureau of Land Management, not the USFWS. Is the USFWS using a slight of hand by leaving out "national" or mixing national in with other wording? Or is this really just another White House violation of the law? Public scoping on this action ends November 27, 2023. The American Stewards article has recommendations for action at the end. Although the deadline for amendments has passed, H.R. 4821, sponsored by Rep. Mike Simpson, has little chance of passing. Regardless, Idahoans should contact congressional representatives (especially Simpson) and state representatives, ask them what Idaho can do for protection against this 30x30 agenda, the proposed conservation area, and ban NAC activity. Perhaps everyone should consider putting together a bill for state reps to sponsor. Definitely send an email to the USFWS at [email protected] and let them know it appears they are proceeding without congressional approval, and if anything, this action requires an Environmental Impact Statement. There is so much more to be written on this as it does extend into every aspect of our lives. This isn't being done for the environment, it is about taking away land use through conservation easements and ruling over how people live. You did not bear the shame. You fought back. You gave the great, Forever tireless Sign of change, Sacrificing your glowing life For freedom, Justice, and honor. While this is about Boise, every Idahoan should be on the alert for it happening in their city.
The Boise City Council recently approved a massive change in the city's zoning codes that will "permit the inclusion of more housing units, diverse housing options, and an increase in mixed-use districts. This is called upzoning, and consequently, development along transit corridors will be denser, combining both residential and retail spaces", opening the door to more money. A copy of the 611 page Boise Zoning Code Adoption Draft can be found here. One group fighting this change is Reject Boise Upzone. Among many other concerns, issues they raise include a lack of citizen involvement in the decision, a resulting lack of affordable housing and reduction in lot sizes, increasing ADU sizes, and the fact that "2 of 6 council members were not elected by public vote". Resources for other information can be found on their website. Traditional zoning codes are now perceived as exclusionary, damage equity, inhibit growth, and should be eliminated. There is also some thought that these codes perpetuate segregation and hinder sustainable development. Changing these codes addresses equity in every way possible. There is truth to this. Why should a person who works their arse off to better their lives be allowed to have property that isn't made available to others? Some think changes in zoning codes don't go far enough. After all, housing is a human right. So what is upzoning? Simply put, it is "changing the zoning code to allow taller and/or denser buildings", thereby creating more development. But it isn't just building size and numbers, it goes much farther with a drastic reduction in single housing lots and size, increased accessory dwelling units (ADU), reduced car use, and increased mass transportation with more walking and biking. Somehow, this is supposed to create social justice, equality, and protect the environment. These zoning changes are also typically built near mass transportation to move all those extra people around, and "promote inclusionary growth". ADUs can be built on existing single family lots. An addition can be added to the house, the space above a garage converted to an apartment, or a separate unit on the lot can be used for rent. Or a home can be split in half creating a rental unit. The whole purpose is to increase the number of people living on one lot, providing more housing "affordability", options, equity, and inclusion, and protect the environment from less car use. From where does all of this nonsense originate? The 1968 Fair Housing Act barred discriminatory practices regarding housing. In 2015, the then president decided to create some new rules to "combat segregation and wide-spread discrimination in neighborhoods". Basically, these rules began surveillance of housing to identify "patterns of integration and segregation, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disproportionate housing needs, and disparities in access to opportunity.” In 2020, President Trump rescinded this rule. As soon as the current administration came into office, the rule was reinstated and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reinstated it in 2021. This brings the requirement of ensuring cities have a blend of housing that meets the needs of all, including workforce housing for the influx of migrants. None of these rules fall under any congressional law. The theory: It isn't perceived as fair that lower income populations are not allowed to live in wealthier areas. Single family homes are hoarded by the wealthy so development in those areas should be mixed with lower income populations, and minority integration for inclusion, equity, and social justice. Tucked inside this debacle was the idea of loosening zoning regulations to increase housing availability. Like any other fad, or agenda in this case, the idea flourished and has already been executed in places such as Seattle, New York, and Oregon in spite of evidence that it does not increase affordability. There is also the issue of gentrification, which is the influx of the wealthy "white" into poor areas to renovate homes or businesses, increasing property values, but not housing supply. This whole agenda is a rehash for high density, compact, and mixed-use housing, but now it is invading private property rights, based on the fallacy of racism while pursuing social justice and social engineering objectives. How will a neighbor's decision to build an ADU affect your property value? Or having a ten story high rise apartment complex built next to your single family lot? This Brookings article covers some upzoning issues. It is also a step closer to the 15 minute city concept. Housing and the homeless have been a focus of Boise Mayor Lauren McLean. The most current data shows there are 687 people "without housing" in Boise, 101 of those without shelter. She supports the notion of preventing eviction, paying people's rent, and "increasing affordable units". In 2022, McLean joined House America with other mayors, in exchange for federal goodies to create more housing that feeds right into the mortgage industry, and may bring an opportunity to pursue more money for spending on her pet project as she already has. While background information on Ms. McLean is fluffy and Boise oriented, and she preaches her love of Boise ad nauseam, the truth is she is far more involved in activities and groups that are distant from Boise, and Idaho for that matter. Along with Rep. Ilana Rubel and many national figures with whom she can hobnob, Ms. McLean is one of the NewDEAL leaders, "who are pro-growth progressives" that are just full of ideas. The Mayors Institute on City Design (MICD), "a leadership initiative of the National Endowment for the Arts", guides Ms. McLean towards transforming Boise towards big city projects. The American Council of Young Political Leaders (ACYPL) gives Ms. McLean an opportunity to learn about China for a global perspective. Wonder if she understands "the people who gave their lives for China" were actually murdered along with many, many others. As a Notre Dame graduate, she is gutting the very place she believes is "so special". Having a degree in environmental policy, Ms. McLean is very much an environmentalist, being responsible for building a wall of no growth around Boise so the city can be more compacted and congested with people. She also supports the America the Beautiful 30x30 plan, to conserve 30% of land by 2030. In this interview, she discusses how she has moved Boise towards that goal by planting trees, having full support of residents, and fluffing over the source of her climate objectives. But, she ain't telling the whole story of what she is really doing. America Is All In, led by Michael Bloomberg as appointed by the United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Ambition and Solutions, is an organization that supports climate action, and in which Ms. McLean belongs. She has set a target for city government to be carbon neutral by 2035, and the community with a target of 2050. The Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy (GCoM) "share a long-term vision to combat climate change". A regional partner with this organization is the Climate Mayors of which Ms. McLean is a member and participant. As part of the Climate Mayors, she signed a letter committing to "adopt, honor and uphold Paris Climate Agreement goals" and was recently assigned to a steering committee to "strengthen city climate action". As a side note, GCoM is a participant with the World Economic Forum (WEF). Being carbon neutral by 2050 is a WEF goal, and her "100% “clean” energy by 2030" goal also belongs to the WEF. Her upzoning plan comes straight out of the objectives in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, while the WEF sees ADUs as one way to alleviate the housing crisis. Her playbook for WEF housing begins on page 18. Another GCoM partner is C40 Cities which has an Urban Planning agenda for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that promotes development in transit-oriented locations with an emphasis on affordable housing, and works toward a model of compact communities and 15 minute cities. Along with Climate Mayors they have a guidebook on how to spend money for these climate actions. In an effort to appear loyal to America, Ms. McLean is a member of the United States Conference of Mayors, where she can bring information back from the global elite to contaminate the minds of other mayors under its Alliance for a Sustainable Future, climate program, and MICD in which she is involved. Ms. McLean's agenda and associations with deep pockets doesn't go unnoticed by those paying attention. As a Democrat she has no qualms about using taxpayer money to grow the government for her agenda and "transform" it into being more equitable. For sure, she is using the WEF roadmap for Boise's climate action plan. The WEF vision is her vision, and mission. That's right, Ms. McLean is taking Boise down the WEF Great Reset path that will end up being a smart city or a 15 minute city design. There will be no escape as cars will no longer be available for escaping. Thanks to Ms. McLean, representing Boise citizens, and how they want their city to look and progress, has been taken over by outside organizations. Ms. McLean is bringing all of the WEF miasma and totalitarian objectives to Boise citizens that will also have an impact on surrounding cities. The goal has always been to infiltrate local governments with Agenda 21 objectives, and this is how the Great Reset gets integrated at a local level. That must be what the majority wants, as they elected Ms. McLean. County Commissioners hold more authority than they realize. Our Republic was built on a foundation of strength at a local level, where citizens can be engaged with those they elect to represent them. From that, citizens also have the responsibility for holding those elected officials to account for their actions. As already known, the federal government far exceeds it enumerated powers assigned by the Constitution. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is just one example of an infringement of the Constitution. Now, the BLM is attempting to exercise that blatant lack of authority in Idaho by cutting backroom deals with a corporation for money to build unwanted wind turbines on land that is protected by law for public use. The deal has a real pretentious name, the Lava Ridge Wind Project. All "public" land "managed" by the federal government lies in counties within a state. In the case of Lava Ridge, this project lies within Jerome, Lincoln, and Minidoka counties. Without going into the ongoing donnybrook about the federal government not "owning" public land that should be turned over to the states, or how the land is significantly mismanaged, or how the land has been incrementally taken away from public use, the focus should really be on the fact that whatever land is defined as public land, it sits in a state county. Along with Coordination, commissioners also have other available tools at their disposal to ban Lava Ridge. County commissioners have the authority to create and pass laws under local ordinances. In one Idaho county, Washington, the commissioners appropriately took note of the fact that public land sat in their county and, using federal law, chose to create ordinances that strongly reflect their authority to govern that land. Ordinance 88 defined that "the ranchers own the grass and the water rights on their allotments in Washington County" and "with any other private property rights, these rights on split estate land administered by the Federal Government are protected in the constitution." The Organic Act of 1897 ensured the "pasturing of livestock on public lands" would not be interfered with. The Lava Ridge project significantly interferes with grazing allotments. The Ordinance also references the Taylor Grazing Act that protects the grazing rights of ranchers, and is strengthened by Idaho Code 25-903 that anyone interfering with these rights is guilty of a misdemeanor. Another federal law, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) that protects the public's right to use the land, is referenced. It also gives the Washington county Sheriff the authority to protect these rights and a court to impose fines and other punishments to those who violate them. In Ordinance 87, the requirement for the federal government to Coordinate with the local authority is mentioned right off the bat. Also, mentioned again is the Organic Act of 1897 that "provides for State and Local Jurisdiction of Federal Lands". Specifically, #6 of the Organic Act states, "the intent and meaning of this provision being that the State wherein any such reservation is situated shall not, by reason of the establishment thereof, lose its jurisdiction, nor the inhabitants thereof their rights and privileges as citizens". That means the county holds the jurisdiction over the land, not the BLM. But the BLM doesn't want you to know this. Any BLM activity that interferes with the rights and privileges of citizens within a county must be held accountable to the local jurisdictional authority. The Ordinance also states, "The Sheriff has the authority under this ordinance", which again means jurisdictional authority. "Federal law enforcement officers operate under the Sheriff’s authority and shall not enforce any laws upon the citizens of the county without permission of the Sheriff." This is true for other actions by federal authorities, the permission of the local Sheriff is required. But the federal government has bullied and intimidated local governments and citizens into believing it holds supreme authority. It is time that stops. The federal government has been abusing its own laws, often against citizens. There are other documents that support these Ordinances. The BLM Mitigation Handbook states, "If siting compensatory mitigation on split estate lands, the BLM will ensure that the willing landowner consents..." (page 2-18). Has any rancher consented to the Lava Ridge DEIS mitigation measures? The BLM cannot move forward with this project without their consent.
The BLM is exploiting land for profit while abusing the lawful rights of those who use the land. It is time that the protection of these rights is exercised by county officials, and citizens of these counties should contact their respective commissioners and ask that these ordinances are put into place. It is also time that citizens, and local officials, stop being intimidated by the federal government and use the laws that have been established for their protection. The comment period on the Lava Ridge project ended April 20, but there is no reason to let that deter anyone from commenting. Voices still need to be heard. Let the BLM know that it is expected that they follow the law, first by the mandate that they Coordinate with the local county officials and second, that this project cannot go forward until the law is followed. This Technocracy News & Trends article, American Dream Of Home Ownership Turns To Dust, written by Dr. Joseph Mercola provides an excellent overview of Agenda 21 with several short videos that explains the impact Agenda 21 has had, and continues to have, on our lives.
Similar to Germans infiltrating American lines during WWII, private property owners are being targeted with renewed tactics to manipulate and bribe them into accepting and practicing conservation goals outlined in the current administration's non-authorized 30x30 plan. In fact, behind the scenes groups have been working on this for some time. As a Republic, we have a form of government where elected officials are responsible and accountable to listen to the constituents who elected them. It is time to stop the government infiltration by these groups, bring elected officials back into line, and use our Republic to incapacitate these new tactics. For several years non-governmental organizations (NGO) have recognized their failings in trying to flaunt their elite intelligence onto the masses, instead alienating them. The new tactic is "listening" to landowners, to engage them to join hands. In this report one such failure is discussed by blaming the "crazy people" for protecting their community, then deciding new messaging was needed by using people the community "trusts" to deliver the message. The hidden agenda doesn't change however. With 30x30 the objective is to now "Honor Private Property Rights", Support the Voluntary Stewardship Efforts of Private Landowners", and "Support Locally Led and Locally Designed Conservation Efforts". The Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) is a free market environmentalism think tank with the absurd notion that it will protect property rights while working with governments and NGOs on policy. Hmmm, isn't protection of property rights in the Constitution and by law? What it really means is that they are targeting private property owners to engage, that is manipulate, bribe and in some cases threaten, to buy into their ludicrous plan for those owners to conserve their own land. As always, there will be an economic cost to either the property owner or the taxpayer. This ruse is really a manipulated variation on conservation easements that stop land development in perpetuity, while expanding the opportunity for the wealthy to make money. But, let's get down to the dirt. PERC and other NGOs developed a way in which to "listen" and empathize with private land owners, one such case was in Wyoming. The focus has shifted from safety issues to an "opportunity" issue for "conserving" beloved wildlife and land. In gaining that trust and acceptance, the perpetrators then have the opportunity to present their "free market" solutions. In reality, this is all a devised scam to engage land owners into the America the Beautiful 30x30 plan, expanding land protection to 30% by 2030. The addition of private property to this conservation total is the goal, while also stopping any development and landowners in migration corridors are a particular target. Right now Paradise Valley in Montana is the target but it is a framework that could certainly be used in Idaho. After citizens were carefully surveyed several recommendations were crafted for new messaging and buy in tactics. Landowner Coordination and Outreach
For hunters, there are also some "tools" that will help conservation, how is unclear. Transferable landowner hunting tags somehow helps conservation but there are catches. Landowners would be required to steward their land in a certain way to qualify for permits with those property conditions tied to the number of permits given, and the landowner would be required to align with State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP). Imagine that, a private property owner managing their land under state program requirements. No freedom there folks. Transferable tags "lets landowners tap into the multi-billion-dollar U.S. hunting market". One more perk for private land conservation, giving landowners "permit vouchers, retaining authority to sell permits within state agencies." Here are all the goodies in a nutshell or the longer version. This change in Elk tag distribution hasn't gone over very well in Montana. In this video, National Wildlife Federation President & CEO Collin O'Mara; Nature Conservancy Chief External Affairs Officer Lynn Scarlett; ConservAmerica Brent Fewell; and PERC CEO Brian Yablonski discuss using private land for conservation to meet the 30x30 goal of 30% of land in conservation by 2030. In the discussion it is noted that private land owners are typically the best stewards of land and 2/3 of species rely on that habitat but the focus should be on how land is managed on a large scale, that is no recognition of jurisdictional boundaries. In one haughty opinion, if this land isn't counted towards conservation it "will lead to working lands not working". Do these people even listen to themselves? At least there was some honesty, it was acknowledged that there is concern that without conservation on private land there will be "more development and fragmentation". This is the strongest clue that these proposed conservation "tools" include some restricted use in perpetuity, similar to a conservation easement. Property owners must be lead to believe this is an opportunity and connect the environment with economics. A broad portfolio of "tools" are needed to entice landowners to participate such as habitat leasing, state tax benefits, and using state SWAP plans for species of greatest conservation need on private land. Ms. Scarlett spoke to investments in the carbon market, conserving land for sequestration, and working with investors for improved water quality. This coming from a woman who works for an outfit that buys land to forever put into non-use or sell to the government. Mr. Yablonski noted they want to "make sure landowners keep doing what they are doing" and "prevent land being switched over to development". Ahh, there it is, the truth. So again another clue that landowners engaging in this conservation ruse would lose rights to development. And in his opinion, NGOs should be allowed to bid on oil & gas leasing, not currently allowed, to prevent extraction of any resources and "they have the money to do that". However, there were several compelling statements in this video. Mr. Yablonski pronounced that private land put into conservation "will be key to making 30x30 a success" and "how those land owners are approached will be a huge deal". Ms. Scarlett boldly stated "We can design the conservation future." Mr. O'Mara identified the need to "get the next generation on board...as the baby boomers are dying out", and this is a "regional canvas" of land for conservation, again ignoring jurisdictional boundaries. He then admitted that the NWF was "involved in the discussions" on 30x30. The NWF is a member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature which also has the 30x30 plan. Maybe it is the IUCN playbook being used for this scam.
Currently there is no policy on these objectives as PERC is a think tank that sits back and creates these scams; however, a policy wouldn't be needed for these groups to take action on some of the recommendations. For landowners with large acreages this will be an incremental loss of land for development and use, potentially putting areas in Idaho perpetual state of conservation. Since these groups are unable to take land for migration corridors and other protections, it will be accomplished through private land ownership. The working group recommendation will be with private land owners only. But never believe that as partners, the government isn't actively working with NGOs and promoting their objectives. Being pulled into government plans is also another mechanism by which property rights will essentially be run by the government as in the case of SWAP. However, do form a working group of citizens, who live in the county. Create your own development plans for your area and what citizens want for these issues. Develop relationships with both county commissioners and council members, they are accountable to you, not NGOs or the state government. If these elected officials reject citizen input, start a campaign to remove them and find candidates who understand their responsibility to those who elected them. Do not engage with any surveys or enticements with economic goodies. Develop relationships with your state representatives and keep an eye on these issues possibly coming up for legislation. Let your representative know that all of these objectives are opposed. The bottom line is that Idaho citizens have always been the best stewards and experts over their land and wildlife, and will continue to do so because of their love of both. Yet these outsiders think they have to intervene in this expertise and change it into a money making scheme with strings attached. Property owners can share between themselves what they are doing for wildlife without any outside perks or requirements. Keep them out, let them know they will be opposed, and that their guidance and schemes are not wanted. Other videos by PERC can be found here. The Colorado Wilderness Act of 2021, H.R. 803, also known as Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act, was just passed by the House in Congress and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources by the Senate. This bill includes eight previous individual measures for public land and water protections in Arizona, Colorado, California, and Washington, a total of 1.49 million acres of public land and more than 1,000 river miles. 1.2 million acres of public land would also be withdrawn from new oil and gas and mining claims. A revision recommendation was made by the Committee on Rules that would require affected county approval for potential wilderness or wilderness designations in this Act to take effect. This was voted down. What does all of this have to do with Idaho? It foretells what is to come. On January 27, 2021 the White House released a "Fact Sheet" that described a series of Executive Orders (EO) that would "tackle the climate crisis" in the world, create jobs, and restore "scientific integrity" in the federal government. Under the Advance Conservation, Agriculture, and Reforestation section, the EO commits to conserving 30 percent of land and oceans by 2030 in the U.S.. Some reference this section as the 30 x 30 order. While the Fact Sheet only gives a superficial look at orders, it is EO 14008 that identifies more specifically the massive changes being executed without any federal legislation. According to National Geographic, and others, the belief is that prohibiting use of land will fight climate change and protect millions of species. To reach the 30 percent conservation target, one projection states 440 million acres will need protection, a land mass twice the size of Texas. Needless to say, this is really the initiative of some large, well funded, non-governmental organizations (NGO) such as World Wildlife Fund, Nature Conservancy, and United Nations Foundation. For those who aren't aware, Hansjörg Wyss, a billionaire who lives in Jackson, Wyoming, previously committed one billion dollars to conserving the same 30 x 30 in his Campaign for Nature program. These conservation groups identify three areas for conservation that includes protecting ecosystems, conserving species, and restoring habitats, just short of removing all humans. But this isn't just about public land, it includes private land as well. The 30 x 30 target will require improving conservation on private land which is about 60-70% in the U.S., and approximately 30% in Idaho. Using the Antiquities Act, a stroke of a pen would also create National Monuments that includes whatever land is contained in that area while restoring previous National Monument acreage has already begun. The National Park Service is also eyeing land they want to buy while the U.S. Forest Service is already buying land. Plans for bringing in "stakeholders", meaning Tribal members, ranchers, farmers, rural communities, and others to talk about putting land into conservation are already being made. Traditional farming practices will also be targeted, transforming those practices to ones that are "climate smart", meaning methods that involve carbon reduction and sequestration, a science that isn't completely proven. Targeting farmers and ranchers is deliberate because of food production and getting those cows out of the way. 30 x 30 isn't just an order about conserving land, there are other components to it as well including energy, infrastructure, technology, education, the workforce, public health, and other topics. but primarily it is an expansion of the federal government and its control. Ken Ivory, former Utah representative, and who has been involved in land issues, created a slide presentation, found at the bottom of this link, that breaks down the 30 x 30 impacts and other EO 14008 directives. Although the PowerPoint centers around Utah, it is applicable to every state. In the first few slides NGOs from across the United States supporting 30 x 30 are listed. Spearheaded by the Biological Center for Diversity, these groups presented a "Climate President" Action Plan and model executive order to the president-elect before even being confirmed. The National Emergencies Act (NEA), Clean Air Act, and Defense Production Act (DPA) were used as a basis for declaring a climate emergency, and to mobilize production of renewables. It even suggests using defense money to fund renewable energy projects. Other matters contained in the 2019 proposed Action Plan include rejoining the Paris Agreement and rejection of solutions by "polluters" with a direct move to only renewable forms of energy. By all appearances, these groups are getting shat they want, this is our new representative form of government. Looking at EO 14008, Section 214 (pg 7626) covers conservation by creating union jobs, and a Civilian Climate Corps for the purposes of tackling climate change by conserving and restoring public lands at a possible cost of 40 billion dollars with a renewed act. Other components include increasing reforestation and carbon sequestration in agriculture at a possible higher cost, and improving access to recreation. How will accessing recreation while protecting land from use work at the same time? On the next page, 7627, the order calls for bringing folks together to propose guidelines for determining whether lands and waters qualify for conservation that meet the 30 x 30 goal. Those other unidentified "stakeholders" are conservation groups, they will be at the same table since it is all their idea in the first place. Other parts to EO 14008 include how the United States can work with the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund to promote financing programs, economic stimulus packages, and debt relief initiatives; protect the Amazon rainforest; advance sustainable development; align the management of Federal procurement and real property, public lands and waters; ratify the Kigali Amendment; create a National Climate Task Force; catalyze private sector investment into domestic clean energy, buildings, and vehicles; achieve carbon pollution-free electricity sector no later than 2035; implement zero-emission vehicles for Federal, State, local, and Postal Service vehicles; increase renewable energy production on public and Tribal land; redistribute wealth with 40 percent of the overall benefits flowing to disadvantaged communities; and hold polluters accountable. There is also a push for environmental justice. Overall, this EO is loaded with expansion of government, government employees, government control, decimation of freedom to choose how we live, predetermine jobs, and loss of local jurisdictional control, what is now our representative form of government. The U.S. Forest Service is on the game, already proposing rangeland management directives that dictates succession planning to phase out family operations and "destocking herds", conservation easements, and land use planning for agriculture with designating agricultural land trusts. Estate planning and acting as a land trust are now non-constitutional government roles. This is how the government operates now, even here in Idaho. Someone decides they have a plan to change, improve, or control our lives and just proceeds to do it. No following of law or procedure is allowed. It seems apparent that the reason these officials keep getting elected is because enough Americans have been indoctrinated into believing this is the direction America must take. That is how they keep getting into office. As long as Idahoans believe this is the right trajectory for our state, and refuse to understand the long term implications of what is really being done, Idaho will continue to move forward with this globalist agenda. As seen by one of Ken Ivory's slides, Idaho will be completely subsumed into this 30 x 30 agenda, meeting the Wildlands Network Western Wildway objective. The Center for Biological Diversity Action Plan is in effect by an EO. The World Economic Forum (WEF) supported the 30 x 30 concept before EO 14008, using its Forum of Young Global Leaders as partners with the National Geographic Society and world conservation partners to support the Campaign for Nature. The WEF continues to support this effort and the United States is on the map. With all of their corporate partners in each of these sectors this agenda is being executed, right here in the United States and Idaho.
Governor Little doesn't even understand the Constitutional limitations of the federal government as outlined in the first few pages of this Western Governors Association document. He sees it as a buddy relationship that allows interference and influence in state sovereignty. Just keep that money flowing to the state with the strings attached and the backing of those who he really represents. As long as Idahoans believe this is the right direction, without understanding or even wanting to know the long term implications, we will continue to lose our freedom and rights. Charlie Rankin creates videos on ranching issues through his Meet My Neighbor Productions, "a Nonprofit Organization devoted to furthering the success of small farms" and educating the general public about agriculture. In this video he explains how the federal government has specific agendas for taking of ranch and farmland for either phony conservation or continued ballooning of corporate takeovers. All of this is in line with Agenda 2030. In this video he also references Tom Vilsack, prior U.S. Department of Agriculture secretary, who has been renominated, and a known friend of corporations. As time moves on over the next four years efforts in taking land from ranchers and farmers will become more aggressive. In 2018, then Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary, Ryan Zinke, issued Secretarial Order (SO) 3362 which, among other things, called for states to begin the process of identifying wildlife migration corridors "on federal lands" and "harmonize State fish and game management and Federal land management of big-game winter range and corridors." Several states such as Wyoming and Oregon have moved forward with supporting this SO, Idaho has been fairly quiet, until now. It seems there has been some typical behind the scenes activity between the federal government and Idaho Fish & Game (IDFG). In April, 2019, the DOI sent a letter to IDFG Director, Ed Schriever, soliciting a second version of Idaho's Action Plan identifying priority migration corridors in Idaho while providing thousands of dollars for research and mapping. Even though SO 3362 specifically stated federal land, this letter makes no mention of it, even providing thousands of dollars for conservation on "private land". Obviously, neither the IDFG Director, nor the DOI contact has any clue that IDFG is a state agency. Where does the DOI get off dictating how a state agency is managed? Did any of this go through the legislature for approval? Were Idaho citizens or their representatives ever advised of this DOI directive? No. However, as usual, the environmental groups, such as Center for Large Landscape Conservation were given the opportunity to provide their input. So, what brilliant plan has IDFG developed to meet DOI demands? What was a "federal lands" issue has now become a "cross-jurisdictional conservation", private land owner "collaboration" effort "to inform land management and habitat conservation actions". At the same time, other DOI agencies must be brought in to "partner" with IDFG to improve "migration corridors on DOI-managed federal lands in a manner that recognizes state authority to conserve and manage big game species and respects private property rights." Are they out of their minds? Improve corridors on "DOI-managed" land with state authority on private lands? DOI land has nothing to do with private land let alone state authority over private land. How does a state "conserve" big game and respect private property rights on DOI land? In reality, this is a very clandestine maneuver to hide the fact that the DOI plans to create fake corridors on DOI land while knowing full well wildlife crosses over private property. That is the intention, sucking private property into their fake corridor. What is not being divulged in this scheme is that this corridor scam is about land use regulations and restrictions and is part of their connectivity agenda. Once a corridor is established, a mandate will be issued to "protect" that corridor, everything in its path will be dramatically changed with local land use management authority diminished. The IDFG document itself even speaks to limiting wildlife disturbance (i.e. no recreation) and avoiding development. In its October, 2019 V2.0 Action Plan, IDFG had no problem gathering input from "regulatory agencies (e.g., BLM, USFS, IDL, ITD, and IDWR)", and coordinating with the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). Nowhere to be found is any effort to talk with the legislature, local jurisdictional authority, or Idaho citizens about this DOI mandate. Maybe citizens just don't have the money to bribe IDFG like the DOI because it is already being taken as tax dollars for the DOI to use against them. Page 8 in the document lists all priority corridor areas in red with no distinction of land ownership, in fact exceeding beyond federal land. Following that page is each targeted area in Idaho, described in detail. The identified migration routes extend across large areas of land, each with different ownership. Those potential migration corridor areas will require the type of land use restrictions mentioned previously. Federal land, protecting habitats, or identifying corridors has nothing to do with this. It is about redesigning all land to dictate where and what type of development can occur and requirements over how private property owners can use their land. It is the federal government behind this agenda and IDFG along with other state agencies being complicit with that agenda. As we are being distracted by the many horrific issues that are tearing our nation apart, the federal government is continuing on its path of tyranny. Collaboration, consultation, and partnering were never written into our Constitution. Our government was designed through representation, starting at the most local level. That representation includes jurisdictional boundaries and specific enumerated powers of the federal government. It is the local counties that have authority over the land. The DOI is coming into our state with a fake corridor scam and successfully using IDFG to execute their intent to rule over land, including private property. While stated as voluntary participation at this point, it will eventually become a mandate. A Secretarial Order is not a law. There is no law that supports IDFG adhering to DOI demands.
Until everyone understands that the government, both at a federal and state level, has become a tyrannical machine this activity will not end. This is highlighted by Governor Little making unilateral decisions to shut our state down, how to spend millions of dollars, and using that money as a bribery to overlook his behavior by placating citizens with property tax relief. What a joke. Heads up Idaho, none of this tyranny will stop until we take necessary actions to stop it. Non-governmental organizations (NGO) are celebrating the introduction of legislation for the "protection and restoration of certain native fish, wildlife, and plant species" on federal land called the Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act. Rep. Donald Beyer tried this before in 2016 and according to Govtrak this new bill only has a 3% chance of passing. The urgency came again following a 2018 United Nations report over mass extinction hysteria. Even though intended for federal land, the caveat includes funding conservation efforts on state and private land that encourages wildlife movement and creating a council to identify priority areas on "non-federal" lands. We all know that "council" would be NGO individuals. Some states, such as Oregon, have passed corridor legislation, others are studying it. While NGOs hammer the federal government for this type of legislation, they are also targeting state legislators for integration of corridors and connectivity policies into state legislation. Idaho has an action plan as well, identifying areas throughout the state for corridors. But the true plans are laid out by the Craighead Institute, targeting land use plans such as comprehensive plans, local zoning and ordinances, even HOAs for inclusions of such conservation drivel. The Western Landowners Alliance, based in New Mexico, has similar goals, advancing policies for connected landscapes. Executive Director, Lesli Allison, has started the campaign for convincing private land owners to conserve their "working lands" for migration. Translated it means designed, regulated, and restricted use. Ms. Allison presented this powerpoint, called Intermingled Public and Private Lands, to the Western Governors Association (WGA) last year, describing her intentions with graphics. Below is the most striking graphic. As the graphic shows, the true agenda behind any corridor type is restricted and highly regulated use on all property types. The "threats" Ms. Allison identifies in her powerpoint include development, roads, fences, livestock, and energy. Apparently she also thinks land owners are a threat as the process is "led by NGOs, government agencies". So much for her notion of working with private landowners on working lands. Ms. Allison isn't the only one looking at this "working lands" issue, the WGA held a "working lands" roundtable in April this year that included the Nature Conservancy and Bureau of Land Management, but no citizens. In spite of claims that landowners should be involved in the decisions, and listened to, it is really about deceiving them on the true agenda. The graphic shows the true intention. If a corridor is declared on public land, the committed effort will then be plowing through private, municipal, and state land, extending the corridor from one protected area to another. Corridors, no matter what type, will have protections placed on them for banned or restricted use. As seen in the graphic, the purple shows how corridors provide "connectivity" between protected public land. WARNING: It is critical that citizens fight any reference to corridors in local land use plans such as comprehensive plans, zoning, and ordinances. If inserted, that language will be a stepping stone for this land use restriction agenda. When it is time for comprehensive plan updates, be actively involved so this does not happen. Also, share this with your elected officials and private property owners with working lands so they understand what is happening. Lastly, where is all of this coming from? Gary Tabor, Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) president, and Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC) Coordinating Committee member, is also the Specialist Group Leader for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Connectivity Conservation program, the purpose of which is to facilitate species conservation through protected areas. CLLC is also an IUCN member, just type in CLLC. Tabor is bringing IUCN ideology to a local level, through the NLC partnerships that include federal agencies, and it is generally understood that IUCN is a UN partner. Hello Agenda 2030. Since information seems to mysteriously disappear off the internet once exposed, here is a copy of the powerpoint. |
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
|