Sustainability & Certification Scams
National and Idaho forest lands are governed by federal laws, the United States Forest Service (USFS), and the Idaho Forest Practice Act (IFPA). But how can corporations and private land owners prove they are being responsible forest managers. Who is going to "monitor" them like the government lands are? Certification schemes, that's how. Certification programs are "voluntary" but the public has been led to believe that a piece of wood coming from a "certified forest" has somehow been more properly managed so there is considerable pressure for family forest owners and forest industry companies to become certified. There are two major certification organizations in the U.S., the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). There are others but these are the primary programs. Certification requires certain forest management standards are met which implies the forest is being managed "sustainably". Although they use different standards, and even fight between themselves, both promote "sustainable" forest management. If a corporation or family forest owner is "certified" one could be lead to believe that somehow they are practicing more responsible forestry. There is much disagreement between these two organizations. The FSC was formed by environmentalists and European industry leaders in 1994, headquartered in Mexico, and has members worldwide including Idaho. FSC has 10 principles it operates under, several of which are similar to the USFS such as assessing environmental impact, developing a plan, and monitoring the plan. They claim private land owners, if certified, are better at "protecting" forests, having a special category for "Family Forests". Boasting about its Gold Standard for Forest Management, some practices include limited clearcutting, protecting old growth, and restricting forest conversion. Every log is tracked by Chain of Custody (COC) and kept separate from "non-certified" material, however non-certified material can be mixed with certified material called controlled wood. Forest Management Certification requires adherence to standards that are as restrictive as USFS regulations and can be found under the US Forest Management link. Of course there is a cost (North stands for wealthy countries, South for poor) to become certified but you can also get a group certification for cost sharing. Those costs are passed on to you, the consumer, when you buy FSC products. You can recognize FSC products by its label. In general FSC is heavily supported by environmental groups. SFI was also launched in 1994, similar to FSC in that it has a COC, has 15 management standards similar to the FSC principles with a guide to implement them, and promotes "sustainable forest management." SFI partners with major corporations to promote their cause. Although there is "no fee for COC certification" obtaining COC certification involves a "body" which conducts an audit for $2,000 to $3,000 per site with annual renewal required. Again, this cost is passed on to the consumer when SFI products are purchased which can be identified by their labels. FSC is global and SFI is in "North America" as noted on this FSC/SFI comparison sheet by SFI. As two examples in Idaho, Boise Cascade is SFI Wood Products certified and Idaho Forest Group is SFI COC certified. Another voluntary certification program, the Idaho Tree Farm Program (ITFP), an affiliate of the American Tree Farm System (ATFS), promotes "better forest management among nonindustrial forest owners", preferably known as family forest owners. ATFS just came out with new 2015-2020 standards that require a plan that accounts for forest species; protection from fire, pests, disease, and destructive grazing; reforestation; harvesting for sustained yield; and the requirement that all federal laws are followed. One goal of the State committee for ITFP is to, "Establish and maintain standards and procedures for Idaho lands, certified under the American Tree Farm System." The Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) is an organization that endorses forest certification systems (except national forests) with its own logo. SFI and ATFS, Boise Cascade, Potlatch, and Idaho Forest Group are PEFC certified. PEFC has standards, believes private land owners should be certified to prove they are "demonstrating respect" for their land, and comply with "internationally benchmarked" standards. Idaho forest owners voluntarily meeting "international" standards, in addition to Idaho state required standards. There is also a "certification" for foresters through the Society of American Foresters (SAF), established in 1994, and again "voluntary". Standards include following all regulations on environmental quality and management of forest resources. All of the federal laws, regulations, and certification programs sound important for protecting forests. Promotion and protection of the "ecosystem", "habitat", "cultural", and "biodiversity" really does sound like the right thing to do. But, stop and think. If these protections weren't there 60 years ago then why were those same forest attributes still present when the environmentalists decided they needed protecting? Wouldn't they have disappeared, especially from all the "harm" being caused by man? They didn't because the forest has the breathtaking ability to regenerate itself. As a renewable resource it is our responsibility to help the forest regenerate, not set it aside for "preservation" whether by making it untouchable or creating rules that are illogical attempts to leave it in the same state at any given moment in time. Forests are living, breathing, and evolving miracles on their own without humanity trying to outsmart Mother Nature, man will never be smarter than her. Natural habitat should be protected when harvesting forest resources, as much as possible nature should be left in the same shape as when it was disturbed to promote regeneration, much needed watersheds should be protected from damage, forest management should continue in a way that wildlife can continue to thrive, and we should be held accountable for enjoying recreational activities without forest harm. There is nothing wrong with any of this. But, the hidden agenda and the true managers of the forest, who most are not aware of, will be discussed in Part 4.
0 Comments
Who Really Controls Our Forests? Where did all of these regulations come from? Was it the federal government, expansion of the United States Forest Service (USFS), the environmental groups, corporations, or something else? How did it all get started? Now that the reader understands forest history, the USFS, environmental groups, federal laws and regulations, and certification programs, another parallel timeline needs to be considered. UN Organizations The UN created the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in 1945 having 3 goals, one of which is the "sustainable management and utilization of natural resources". Forestry is one FAO department which promotes "sustainable forest management (SFM)", a "toolbox" that outlines proper forest management, and Fire Management guidelines. The FAO has been monitoring forests since 1946 with the first Forest Resources of the World report completed in 1948 and includes U.S. forests with an FAO post-2015 plan under #15. This new plan includes conservation of ecosystems, halting loss of biodiversity, protecting and preventing loss of endangered species, and integrating biodiversity values into national and local planning which they have already accomplished. The U.S. joined with the FAO in 1946, and provides reports to the FAO, here is the 2010 report. Another FAO goal is re-inventing the USFS. The North American Forest Commission (NAFC), of which the USFS is a member, carries out its assigned FAO "mandate" as one of six regional forestry commissions. This FAO 2010 Global Forest Resources Assessment defines how forests should be managed globally. The FAO also developed a list of Criteria & Indicators (C&I) for "Sustainable Forest Management" in line with Agenda 21 Forest principles and also supported the concept of certification originally created by the FSC, actually tracking certification, pg 40. The C&I are being implemented through the Montreal Process of which the U.S. is a member and which the USFS uses. The FAO Model Code of Harvesting Practice can be used for policy and legislation by members which the USFS also uses. The USFS openly partners with the FAO. The International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN), founded in 1948, is another UN NGO that influences global policy on conservation including forests. The USFS is a corporate member of IUCN. In 1972 the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) adopted a treaty called “The Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage". Among other things Article 4 and 5 call for the conservation and preservation of natural heritage sites, meaning wilderness areas and national monuments which environmental NGOs advocate. Once a wilderness area or national monument is under federal control it becomes easier to further restrict access and use. Established by the UN in 1983, the Bruntland Commission released Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in 1987, which proposed "legal principles" for environmental protection and sustainable development", a forerunner to Agenda 21. The goal of environmental assessments, conservation, maintaining ecosystems, and environmental protection standards are just a few principles that have already been achieved in the United States. In 1992 G.H.W. Bush signed the UN Agenda 21 sustainable development plan, then implemented by W.J. Clinton in 1993. Chapter 11 discusses strengthening forest related national institutions; enhance management and SD of forests; strengthen institutions for forest education and training as well as forestry industries; protect endangered species; prepare national forestry action plans; accelerate research for a better understanding of problems relating to the management and regeneration of all types of forests; strengthening UN organizations for technical support; carry out environmental impact analysis; plus a cadre of other ideologies. Chapter 12 covers ecosystems. Chapter 13 goes further with goals to generate and integrate forest data bases (started by the USFS in the 1998 Farm Bill); establish natural reserves and protective areas; exchange information with the World Bank and NGOs; promote education on SD; assess the environmental and socio-economic impacts of projects; and support and establish partnerships with NGOs. A more condensed 1992 report can be found here. All current forest management includes these objectives. The 1994 Montreal Process started the process for international forest standards. Referring to the International Forestry program in the booklet USDA Forest Service - The First Century, it states, "The 1992 signing of the Forest Principles and Agenda 21 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) - "The Earth Summit" - was coordinated by this new branch of the agency." The Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA), created by the UN in 1995, gave justification for biodiversity assessments in forests and other landscapes. The UN Forum on Forests (UNFF) was created in 2000 of which the United States is a member. The goal of the UNFF is to promote “… the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests and to strengthen long-term political commitment to this end…”, is based on Agenda 21, and uses UN accredited NGOs to implement their objectives. They require national reports, here is the 2005 U.S. report to the UNFF on progress towards implementing UNFF objectives. Under their Global Forest Watch they can track Idaho forests. Four Global Watch Objectives on Forests were agreed upon by the UNFF and member states in 2006, one of which is increasing the area of protected forests (wilderness areas and national monuments), sustainably managed forests (certification), and increasing products from sustainably managed forests (certification). No wonder Boulder-White Clouds and Island Park are targets and certification is promoted. As a side note the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), UN NGO, reviews U.S. progress from 1996-2004 for meeting international objectives, with recommendations for progressing further on forest management practices and SD. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) NGOs originated with the UN. UN NGOs "Play a major role in advancing United Nations goals and objectives". One of the other responsibilities is networking and supporting other UN NGOs and UN business partners. The following Pdf lists the previously mentioned UN NGOs who partner with the federal government and other organizations, who have been responsible for influencing the changes in forest management, and who are instrumental in putting our forests under UN governance. The Society of American Foresters (SAF), which certifies foresters is also a UN NGO. Not only does the UN capture our forests, they have a mechanism to capture our foresters for the promotion of SD.
Land Grabs In meeting Agenda 21 and other UN organizational objectives to establish natural reserves and protective areas, several agendas have been underway by environmental groups, with both federal and state governments, to designate land for limited or even banned use. UN NGOs have made tremendous progress in meeting the UN objective for establishing protected areas and reserves through many schemes. This Pdf lists some of those agendas related to Idaho forests.
UN Business Partners
As previously noted, UN accredited NGOs network with other UN NGOs and UN business partners. Both are responsible in advancing UN goals and objectives, primarily SD goals, based on Agenda 21. An example of another UN generated certification scam, which the forestry industry is most likely unknowingly involved, is explained. UN NGO, FSC, partners with Home Depot, a UN business partner. As UN partners, Home Depot works with FSC by selling FSC certified products. It is the responsibility of UN partners to support each other. The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has been a UN NGO since 1997 and in 2000 started a "certification" program, Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED), which promotes "green building leadership". USGBC and LEED promote the use of FSC products. Construction companies, such as the Gardner company in Boise, promote their LEED certification and have been heavily contracted by Boise for downtown development. Here is the cost for certification. In 2002 the US Department of Interior even signed an MOU with the USGBC to build federal buildings with LEED standards and support "green building standard design and practices". Another UN business partner, Coca Cola, commits to FSC products. But it goes farther than that. As an UN NGO, the USGBC mission is, "To transform the way buildings and communities are designed, built, and operated, enabling a sustainable, socially-responsible, and prosperous environment that improves the quality of life for all." Members who belong to the USGBC include organizations such as US Airforce, US Army, Target, Kohler, Waste Management, Weyerhaeuser, UPS, even Ada County, and other UN business partners. The goal, to change "the way buildings and communities are designed, built and operated." That means changing buildings to how the UN wants them built, supporting more UN programs and businesses, and the UN having a monopoly on businesses. Idaho even has a chapter. The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) launched the Sustainable Building and Construction Initiative (SBCI) in 2006 to promote environmentally friendly construction which promotes LEED certification. In an effort to broaden this UN agenda of promoting "green" buildings, Green Globes certification was licensed for use under the "green building" initiative, a UNEP program, and will capture SFI and ATFS certified products Like LEED, certification is required. The Department of Energy approved Green Globes for building in 2014. Your tax dollar going to UN managed programs. EPA is also there to support "green building". The UN Global Compact and IUCN now have a "framework" for business partners to incorporate "biodiversity and ecosystems services" (BES) into business activities to increase profits, and establish partnerships with NGOs and other businesses. The IUCN openly supports BES. This booklet explains how businesses can accomplish that task. The UN Global Compact is a conglomerate of huge corporations who advance UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and plan to transform businesses. Members can be searched here. This former World Wildlife Fund (UN NGO) scientist, Lara J. Hansen, created EcoAdapt, which appears to be based on the UNEP "Ecosystem-based Adaptation” strategy to help humans brace for climate change disasters, which the USFS is integrating into forest management. Of course this group has a multitude of UN NGO partners, even working on projects such as Y2Y. In summary, Idaho forestry businesses and family forest owners are "encouraged" to voluntarily become certified by UN NGOs. As a result, more money is put into UN programs; more certified products are sold at a higher cost benefiting Home Depot; construction companies pay UN programs for certification in order to compete; all of which ultimately promote UN ideology and objectives. The other planned effect not discussed here, through UN business partnerships, is the goal of "corporate governance" as defined by the UN. Because of this UN monopoly through partnerships there is a negative impact on smaller businesses who are unable to compete. It has been suggested this is a form of corporatism, forcing Americans into a "green economy". Whether knowingly or not, the Idaho forest industry has been taken over by UN scams within federal laws, USFS regulations, certification programs, protected areas, products and businesses. The consumer has been indoctrinated into believing that sustainable forestry and certified products should be preferred, wilderness areas and national monuments are the right thing to do, and building "green" is the way to go, when all the while the real story is they are supporting UN goals and objectives, their tax dollar and money are taken to promote those scams, and the UN is becoming more powerful. Their goal? Global environmental and economic governance which is monitored by The Federalist Society through Global Governance Watch. The majority of climate change science is generated by UN scientists such as the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), UN NGO, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate change is the scam being used to promote the justification for sustainable development and transforming the world economy, as stated by Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC. The lodgepole has long since been forgotten underneath this massive agenda ridden ideology. Concluding remarks will be in Part 5. Conclusion
Congratulations to those who have read through Part 1-4. Sadly, this information on forests only scratches the surface. These articles have progressed from understanding Idaho forests to the needs of the lodgepole and forest, through the regulations and federal programs that contribute to its destruction, land grabs that are slowly removing Idahoans from the forests that are rightfully theirs, NGO and business involvement with the United Nations (UN) to govern our forests, how education programs are used to indoctrinate on sustainable development (SD) and UN ideology, and the deep involvement of the UN down to a very local level. No information could be found where the UN was not an influence on any forest policy. There are businesses and people who really do have the best interests of forests at heart. Although not in Idaho, the Sustainable Lumber Co. in Missoula, Montana, owned by Ryan Palma, coined the phrase, "We are the true tree huggers". They salvage beetle kill pine and fire damaged timber, while leaving behind a healthier forest, and produce some of the most beautiful wood products you will ever see. There are legitimate reasons to remove dead beetle killed growth for forest health as explained by this article, which environmental groups are unable to grasp, as well as other reasons explained in this article. Holding the same ideology as the UN, environmental groups believe any salvaging or forest management through logging or thinning is deforestation or profit motivated. However, as this company demonstrates, every tree taken is for the forest's benefit as a renewable resource and a constant watchful eye is kept on each tree's health. For the true tree huggers such as this business, foresters, and family owned forest landowners, frustrations are felt. They understand how these practices are contributing to forest destruction. Although they buy wood from local certified business and family forest owned land, this company practices good forest management, a skill that far exceeds any certification program, because they have a love of trees and forests that exceeds any profit motives, and without any hidden agenda to take land away from Americans. Glen Bailey is a Bonner County Commissioner in the Idaho Panhandle and has some interesting comments about collaborative relationships between all the parties involved with forests. This series of articles is intended to inform, educate, and enlighten Idahoans about forest management in Idaho, and the UN influence on how our forests are managed. If this has led to concern about Idaho forests, perhaps one will become motivated to take Idaho land back. The American Lands Council (ALC) is doing just that, fighting to take back control of state land from the federal government. The numbers are against Idahoans, both by individuals, groups, and financially. But Idahoans can disengage with groups who promote UN ideology, create their own groups of resistance, educate others about this information, and boycott all businesses or products promoted by the UN. It is up to Idahoans. Rather than Welcome to the United Nations of Idaho Forests, it would read much better as Welcome to Idaho Forests. uch misinformation has ensued following the attempt to pass SB 1067, The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, through the house where it was stopped. What most people do not understand is that is bill is not about child support, it is about the federal government subjugating Idaho to international law from a United Nations (UN) affiliated organization. Per federal mandate this bill mandates Idaho to change existing Idaho law to include provisions of the Hague Convention.
There is a tangled web of how this federal mandate came about. Here is a timeline of those events. 2007 The Hague Convention, also known as the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), develops and services multilateral (countries working together) legal instruments. Countries, referred to as states, who are members of the Hague Conference are shown on this map. The United States is a member state of this convention and signed onto the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance which outlines the requirements for the state to follow. It was not ratified by the U.S. Senate but Hague protocols allow ratification when all 50 states are forced to adopt their requirements into state law. Here is the vision and mission of the HCCH, "...for the development and implementation of common rules of private international law...". This HCCH document outlines how to implement the Child Support Convention. Special attention should be paid to pg 4 & 5 under Methods of Implementation. The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (2008) (UIFCA) and Hague Treaty Provisions was created with consensus by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), U.S. Department of State, Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), and state and local child support practitioners. These groups decided that the UIFSA would be the appropriate vehicle to integrate the treaty into U.S. law via state legislation. In 1996 the UIFSA was modified to enable U.S. states to enforce child support orders across our state lines. Hague involvement with the United Nations: 1. The Uniform Law Commission, also know as The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), was listed as a certified UN NGO until it was removed from their site. The federal Department of State and Health and Human Services (pg 3) worked with the NCCUSL to use the UIFCA for implementation. 2. Hague reinforces the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child through its Intercountry Adoption Section. The U.S. ratified this in 2007. 3. This document outlines how Hague actively works with UNCITRAL and UNIDROIT, both UN organizations for conventions and other instruments of international law. This document identifies how Hague worked under the auspices of UNCITRAL and UNIDROIT on child support enforcement, pg 6, III, J, 6. 2009 From the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE): "In 2009 the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee conducted hearings and in 2010 the full Senate gave its Advice and Consent to the ratification of the treaty (Hague). The House of Representatives passed implementing federal legislation in 2013. In 2014 both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed implementing federal legislation. The bi-partisan bill is titled Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act, Pub. L. 113-183." This is the federal bill mandating states to implement the law through through UIFSA. Notice it will also "extend and improve adoption incentives", where the Hague Convention reinforces the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. 2010 Page 12 of this document outlines how this treaty moved through the U.S. Senate in 2010. It interesting to note that Sen. Jim DeMint successfully passed an amendment to the Hague Convention on International Recovery of Child Support and Family Maintenance stating "...the Treaty does not create any obligations of the United States under the Convention on the Rights of the Child as a matter of United States or international law." How is it possible for the U.S. to not adhere to this when it is imbedded in the treaty? The treaty requirements were eventually inserted into H.R. 4980. 2014 On October 9, 2014 an action transmittal was sent out ..."requiring all states to enact any amendments to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)... which integrate the appropriate provisions of The Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support...". This is how it ended up in the lap of Idaho. Starting from a UN affiliated convention the US signed on to, through our federal government with UN affiliated consensus, and forcing states to insert it into state law without any ability to amend. As one of the Hague Convention requirements, SB1067 also opens up the door to shared databases between Idaho and foreign countries including, but not limited to, the IRS, Social Security, VA, Department of Defense, and the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS). Page 9 of this document outlines databases that will be searched by the "central authority" (in the U.S. the central authority will be the Department of Health and Human Services), and states the process will be followed per the Hague Convention. But fear not, the HCCH has it all figured out with their iSupport program, funded by the European Union, and how that information will be "secure" when shared with foreign countries. In the above link the OCSE states that data will not be shared, that when a request is made by a foreign country OCSE will search the FPLS and provide only the state of residence of an individual to the foreign country. What OCSE does not say is how all the other database information is shared. H.R.4980 - Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act became law on 9/29/14, requiring states to enact the amendments to the UIFSA. Under the Child Support Enforcement section, Title III: Improving International Child Support Recovery Grants, "The entity designated as a Central Authority for child support enforcement in a foreign reciprocating country or a foreign treaty country access to the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS)" and "Revises state law requirements involving the use of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act." This is how Idaho data would be opened up to foreign countries. Idaho would have no ability to change any aspect of this law. Vicki Turetsky, in her 2013 testimony as Commissioner for The Office of Child Support Enforcement Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), provides justification for ratification of the Hague Convention, "...Hague Convention establishes a new and more effective international system..." asked for "...Ratification of the Convention...", and supported "...legislation would mandate that all states enact the 2008 version of UIFSA...". Interestingly, she notes that current international cases are only one percent. She believes international law is the answer for all. The U.S. already has laws to conduct child support enforcement on an international basis. The difference with Hague is the door is open to international governance and data sharing. She makes it all sound so wonderful. Once again Idaho is being held hostage to the federal government. The federal government has threatened Idaho that all funding will be stopped for child support enforcement unless this is passed. But this is not just unique to Idaho, the feds are also commanding other states to adopt the same because all 50 states must comply with this mandate in order to ratify the International Recovery of Child Support treaty. A complete illegal bypass of our Constitution that all treaties must be ratified by the Senate, Article VI. This is nothing more than the typical back door maneuver that is the gold standard of UN tactics, laundering their crime behind a front just like the mafia. Agenda 21 is wrought with using NGOs to influence governments to imbed its goals and objectives into legislation. This is just one stark example of how it is done. A UN NGO working with our federal government to put us one step closer to a global, UN controlled, world. Although the document itself does not specifically state an international or cross-boundary law for child support enforcement should be made, under the word development it can easily be seen that efforts to enhance a parent and child's right to economic resources by a court should be honored through an international law. Chapter 39 is devoted to the use of International Legal Instruments and Mechanisms again as it relates to development meaning societal development, especially for women and children. Chapter 40.8 states "In addition to the strengthening of existing development-related data collection, special attention needs to be paid to such areas as ...rights of access to resources, as well as special groups, including women, indigenous peoples, youth, children..." Chapter 40 in Agenda 21 says it all: 40.16 "All countries, particularly developing countries, with the support of international cooperation, should strengthen their capacity to collect, store, organize, assess and use data in decision-making more effectively." Decision making in child support enforcement decision making will be more easy if SB 1067 is passed. 40.19. "Existing national and international mechanisms of information processing and exchange, and of related technical assistance, should be strengthened to ensure effective and equitable availability of information generated at the local, provincial, national and international levels..." 40.23. "Governments should consider supporting the efforts of governmental as well as non-governmental organizations to develop mechanisms for efficient and harmonized exchange of information at the local, national, provincial and international levels, including revision and establishment of data, access and dissemination formats, and communication interfaces." 40.25. "Countries, international organizations, including organs and organizations of the United Nations system, and non-governmental organizations should exploit various initiatives for electronic links to support information sharing, to provide access to databases and other information sources, to facilitate communication for meeting broader objectives, such as the implementation of Agenda 21, to facilitate intergovernmental negotiations, to monitor conventions...transfer technical data. These organizations should also facilitate the linkage of different electronic networks and the use of appropriate standards and communication protocols for the transparent interchange of electronic communications... Mechanisms should also be established to carry out the necessary transfer of information... " Our government continues to engage with the UN to implement goals and objectives of Agenda 21. This is just another example of how it is done. Technocracy - The new North America
One of the premises of Agenda 21 is for there to be shared resources through the world controlled by national governments, and of course the United Nations (UN). Well folks, it is happening. Our borders are being erased through the use of smart grids for electricity, and the EPA for "climate control". Below are two articles on the truth behind smart grids by Freedom Advocates First, Freedom Advocates has nicely laid out how the UN is systematically taking over our electrical grid system through smart grids and of course the Department of Energy is there to help. Your tax dollar is also being used by this administration to fund it. And who will be in charge of it? Through the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), a UN NGO. The current administration recently announced more aggressive action to combat climate change. With these grids moving rapidly to completion, their plan for the new North America is almost in place. But wait, the final goal is completion of a "global smart grid" where "North America" can be electrically connected together with the world. Next we have the EPA busy at work for the benefit of North America, meaning we are one with Canada and Mexico, called the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). And what would the EPA do without other federal agencies being involved such as the State Department (thank you Hillary), U.S. Trade Representative, Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, U.S. Geological Survey, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Health and Human Services. The objective is to "...tackle climate change and improve air quality, green transportation in North America, address waste in trade in North America, and a host of cross-cutting issues to protect human health and the environment in North America." And yes, this does mean redistribution of wealth from the United States, your tax dollar. Do these supposed Americans even listen to what they are doing? Do they ever stop to think that they are actively participating in the erasure of American borders and sovereignty? Everything is moving rapidly, if there is ever a time to become involved it is now. The writing is on the wall. The final phases of destroying America are in place. Is that what you want? One frustration for the UN and Agenda 21 is taking control of all water in the United States. In previous posts it was noted that several attempts have been made and that the Army Corps of Engineers sat down with the UN in order to figure out how to take control of our water.
The EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Land Management have come up with a new idea under the Clean Water Act that will take control of all water including water on private land, and water needed for farming, grazing, and energy. WND has a nice article that explains what they are trying to do. It cannot be emphasized enough, the UN has accelerated the goals of Agenda 21 with the full support of BHO and his abuse of regulatory agency authority. All of these regulations are bypassing Congress and your representative, who seem to continue to sit by and do nothing to stop this agenda. It may be that we will have to take a stand much like Bundy to get this stopped. Fortunately, the stand off at the Bundy Ranch ended with the decision by the BLM to back off. There has been much speculation as to the real reason for the escalation of this site, one frequently cited was the alleged back taxes owed by Bundy. Reports also include that he has paid these taxes to the state of Nevada. Another speculation is that Harry Reid was involved in a deal to build a Chinese solar plant in that area.
The bottom line is that regardless of which point is accurate, they all meet Agenda 21 objectives to force us off private property and take over all resources. From corporatism with Reid, to over taxation putting ranchers out of business, to globalizing American soil with foreign countries, and forcing humans off land to protect a species through regulations. But there is one other striking reality. Water. The UN has struggled on how to gain control of this resource as covered in previous posts. The most recent efforts led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to take control of all "wetlands" in the U.S. effectively wanting every drop of water on private land. Here is an interesting article on this very subject by the American Thinker. Unless we, as Americans, begin to stand our ground as Bundy did, there is a possibility of increasing events of this nature, the feds coming in with their assault teams. The time is now for states to take the necessary action and take back their sovereignty. This is not the first round for Nevada, it happened once before in 2004, stretching the litigation to 2012, when the BLM and US Forest Service were found guilty. A "travel management plan" has also been considered to restrict our use of the Owhyee area. And instead of the turtle, we now have the sage grouse as the excuse to prohibit use of land. Idaho needs to wake up, we need a governor and representatives who will create laws that protect us from a Nevada style ambush, and get the feds off our land and out of our state. Idaho Panhandle National Forest
They are at it again. Please take a moment to glance over the following posts as the same issues exist regarding the Panhandle Forest. Category Regulations - 10/20 Forests - 10/6 Forests Category Private Property - 11/1 Antiquities Act & Wilderness areas In October, 2013 the U.S. Forest Service released the Panhandle National Forests' revised forest plan. And as usual environmental groups are complaining the wilderness recommendations leave out areas they think should be designated as wilderness areas. They filed an objection with the U.S. Forest Service. These groups include: Moscow-based Friends of the Clearwater - partners with Earthjustice, UN NGO Seeds of Peace, UN NGO, and others connected to the UN. Sierra Club - UN NGO Alliance for the Wild Rockies - board members include: Stewart Brandborg - former executive director of The Wilderness Society, UN NGO Clif Merritt - was a national leader in The Wilderness Society, UN NGO Kootenai Environmental Alliance - staff & board Mike Mihelich - board member for the Coeur d’Alene Audubon Society (formerly the president), UN NGO Jenny Taylor - devotes time to Audobon Society, UN NGO Ed Buchler - assists The Nature Conservancy, currently President of the Coeur d’Alene chapter of the National Audubon Society , both UN NGOs As the reader can see there is a heavy influence of UN ideology behind these groups to restrict more use of land from Idahoans. Animal Life Supersedes Human Life
A small village in Alaska, King Cove, has been asking to build a road for medical emergencies for years. The supposed problem is that it would intersect through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. Alaska even offered an exchange of land to the benefit of the federal government. The Department of Interior's Secretary Sally Jewell just denied this community the ability to build this road, the premise being it would "disturb" the habitat of the refuge. This mindset is similar to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius denying a 10 year old girl the chance for life with a double lung transplant because she would have to "check the policy". These mindsets are the trend for America, there is no regard for what is right or humane. Here is more information on the King Cove issue. Newsminer U.S. Department of Interior Time U.S. EPA
The EPA has become a huge regulatory agency without any congressional oversight. It is necessary to control all human activity. Chapter 15 in Agenda 21 supports the protection of habitat and ecosystems. It also supports food safety. 15.4(b) Develop national strategies for the conservation of biological diversity... 15.4 (c) Integrate strategies for the conservation of biological diversity... 15.5(b) Integrate strategies for the conservation of biological diversity... 15.5(g) Take action where necessary for the conservation of biological diversity through the in situ conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats, as well as primitive cultivars and their wild relatives, and the maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their natural surroundings, and implement ex situ measures, preferably in the source country. In situ measures should include the reinforcement of terrestrial, marine and aquatic protected area systems and embrace, inter alia, vulnerable freshwater and other wetlands... Here is an LA Times article on how California is held hostage to smelt, while BHO claims it is secondary to drought. The reason is to force individuals out of their farming business and into human settlements. 6.3 ...promotion of a safe food supply... Particular attention should be directed towards food safety, with priority placed on the elimination of food contamination... 12.50(c) Support FAO (Food & Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) programmes and other programmes for the development of national early-warning systems and food security assistance schemes Here is an article on how the Food & Drug Administration is implementing "food safety" as outlined by Agenda 21. One of the potential secondary casualties, as noted in the article, is the closure of these farms. The goal, the takeover of these farms by agribusinesses, corporatism and 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
April 2024
|