In spite of the tin foil hat accusers that Agenda 21 doesn't exist, here is former Vice President, and traitor to the United States, talking about it and how the world could now see themselves as a "single community of nations", "making up a global civilization". AKA signing our sovereignty away. In spite of his claims that the Senate holds responsibility for signing treaties, Agenda 21 was never signed by the Senate, yet it was implemented.
Agenda 21, known as Sustainable Development, was implemented by WJ Clinton in 1993 via his President's Council on Sustainable Development. Here he is talking about it.
Here is Nancy Pelosi promoting the adoption of Agenda 21.
Now 26 years later, we have been destroyed as a Republic, there is no longer a representative government, but rather an extension of our government by non-governmental organizations and the implementation of UN objectives, an oligarchy, funded by the wealthy. Until this is eliminated, we will continue on the downward path of globalization by the UN, and a complete loss of our freedom.
It is so nice to know what our future holds for us, instead of having to worry about it, the United Nations (UN) has it all figured out through their corporate partnerships.
The World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) originally created the Vision 2050 document which can be downloaded here. Recently however, because of all the progress they have made in taking over the world, they had a "refresh", but they won't allow anyone to access it unless they are a member. To tantalize those of us who are of no importance, they did put out a brochure on the refresh. Below is an image of how the UN plans to govern the world that reflects their Vision 2050 refresh. Sit back, relax, you will be taken care of, compliments of the UN.
The Death of Idaho
Columbia River Treaty
With the new United Nations (UN) and federal government grand plan to steal what remains of our land through the ruse of ecosystem management, there is one grand daddy that will take all of Idaho in one fell swoop.
In 1944 the United States and Canada began talks to jointly manage the Columbia River which crossed the border. Both came to an agreement in 1961 creating a treaty that would provide flood control, generate hydropower, and meet irrigation needs. This treaty, known as the Columbia Treaty, was finalized in 1961 and implemented in 1964. Because the river crossed borders, called transboundary, it was also recognized as an "international treaty".
In fact, the International Joint Commission (IJC), created from the Boundary Waters Treaty in 1909 to help with treaty negotiations, was involved with the Columbia Treaty. The IJC created the International Columbia River Engineering Board (ICREB) in 1944 to study the Columbia basin waters, soils, population, economics, hydrology, and existing dams, while considering ..."the basin as a whole, without regard for the international border."
The agreement stipulated that Canada would provide water storage with dams, then be compensated for water release that generated hydropower. Although not specifically stated as a "basin" treaty, the treaty does reference the Columbia basin.
Below is a map of the Columbia River and Canadian dams, the river itself just barely touching Idaho. The Montana Libby dam was agreed to by Canada.
This treaty successfully accomplished the goals of controlling flooding, producing hydropower, and irrigation management. In the treaty, for any potential unresolved disputes, the final decision could be referred to the UN International Court of Justice. How about that, no Idaho citizen has a say in the matter, but the UN does.
In 1995 Canada created the Columbia Basin Trust (CBT). Somehow the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) and the CBT refer to the river as the "International Columbia River". The NPCC adheres to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) science, you know, that UN organization, UNEP. One CBT goal was to "...promote the social, economic, and environmental well-being in the Canadian portion of the Columbia River Basin.", all three Agenda 21 pillars. After GHW Bush signed Agenda 21 (Chapter 18) in 1992, the U.S. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project began in 1994, under WJ Clinton, incorporating the same three pillars. Meanwhile, Canada also promotes sustainable development, aka Agenda 21.
Although the treaty was intended to run in perpetuity one clause allowed both countries the opportunity to give ten years notice, starting in 2014, for unilaterally renegotiating or terminating the treaty. The flood control aspect expires in 2024, unless both reach agreement to extend it. The 2014/2024 Columbia River Treaty Review began in 2010, four years prior to 2014. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), operated by the Department of Energy, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) planned workshops for public input. Do you remember being invited?
Ok, so what, they are going to renegotiate the treaty. Well, it now goes way beyond that.
Given the belief that environmental and social factors were not considered in the original treaty, being unfair to Tribes and the environment, negotiations must now include those factors. After all, we must remember our loyalty to Agenda 21 and the UN. The gimmick to do such? Ecosystems. All of these groups, agencies, and governments are now going to massively expand the treaty to include not just the river, but the entire Columbia basin. Here is the 2014/2024 Columbia River Treaty Review basin map. It clearly shows just how much area they plan to incorporate into the treaty with Idaho obliterated. Click here for larger view.
As explained in the BLM posts, the agenda is now incorporating ecosystems into all decisions. This is the final tool that will kill all sovereignty over state and private land. Every species, habitat, wetland, watershed, river, insect, grass, bush, water drop, and more will need protection...there will be no justification for any one of us to use any land because of ecosystem damage we cause. Plus it gives reason to regulate private land, if you are lucky enough to possess it.
A simple ecosystem definition is "the complex of a community of organisms and its environment functioning as an ecological unit". Others make it more complex in that "...ecosystems themselves represent part of the earth’s biodiversity.", and humans are destroying this biodiversity, a "human-caused biotic holocaust." In this description there is no mention of humans in the ecosystem environment.
The Department of Interior (DOI), which manages the BLM, USFWS (pg 31), USFS, NPS (pg 19), and USGS among other agencies, has declared a more effective "mitigation" policy, defined as "...mitigation that includes the “preservation, enhancement, restoration or creation (PERC)” of areas destroyed in the name of progress." That means you, human being, you have and continue to destroy land. The effort is "...attempting to establish a department wide mitigation strategy that will protect natural resources as the US prepares for an expected rise in development projects on public land." This references the Resource Theft in the BLM posts, more land confiscation for the federal government to engage in renewable and other energy projects for land and energy control in partnership with foreign countries to redistribute our wealth. Here is the DOI 2014 mitigation strategy update with the cat out of the bag on renewable energy in the bottom paragraph. The BLM is already applying an Ecosystem Services Framework for Land Use Planning. Shocker. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity lists how federal government agencies are implementing their ecosystem restoration, USFS page 76, EPA watersheds page 83, and USDA agriculture/livestock page 85.
The USDA, USFS, DOI, and BLM have been working on identifying the Columbia Basin ecosystem risks since 1997. 107 "layers" of information were analyzed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Throughout this document every map shows some type of ecosystem destruction, which means the only way to preserve or restore the basin is to control it. In 2003 these same agencies created a memorandum of understanding to "implement" the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy, updated in 2014. The strategy? "A Strategy for Applying the Knowledge Gained by the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project to the Revision of Land Use Plans and Project Implementation". If the reader takes the time to read this document it becomes very apparent that there is no room for any human to use any of this land as it has to be protected or "restored" from human damage. Page 1 lists all the Idaho areas that will be affected. Ecosystems listed include landscape, habitat, forests, rangelands, riparian and other species, riparian areas, and Tribes.
Since 2002 more GIS and Spatial Data have been collected on the basin for the purpose of eventual full control through ecosystem management. Here are GIS ecosystem maps showing the numerous mapping details they capture. Now that all of this data has been collected and strategies developed prior to the 2014 renegotiation start date, let the two countries begin talks. And, because the U.S. Department of State has a specific mission to the UN, they support incorporating ecosystem management strategies into the treaty.
All groundwork has been completed to finalize the takeover of Idaho through a renegotiated treaty using ecosystem management.
Agenda 21, Chapter 15 and Agenda 2030, Goal 15 address the need for ecosystem protection and restoration. There is also the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (signed by the U.S. in 1993) which outlines targets for ecosystem management by 2020. Did you read that? 2020, 4 years from now. It would be fair to say they are on the last leg of getting it done. Let's see what else UN wants for ecosystem management.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has launched a program for "assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services", and "evaluate the future impacts of today's policies or management decisions". Federal agencies have already incorporated ecosystem services into their work include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and basically all DOI agencies along with others, even creating another program to enact it, the National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP). UNEP also has several booklets on ecosystem management if you would like to know more.
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) also has an agenda for ecosystem management and created the Biodiversity and Ecosystems Global Framework 2012-2020 for countries to use as a guide. It can be downloaded to read. This "Framework seeks to leverage the organization’s status as a trusted partner of governments..." meaning the expectation that governments use the framework in policy decisions which is exactly what the DOI is doing. Again a 2020 date for framework implementation.
One other UN organization, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), has partnerships which includes the DOI as a partner, along with the USFS. The IUCN has a special Commission on Ecosystem Management, including a Red List of Ecosystems the DOI can use, plus a transboundary water assessment and management program.
Although not signed by the U.S. or Canada, the UN Watercourses Convention (UNWC) is recognized as the "most authoritative source of international water law". The UNWC aims to be the global water instrument, the authoritative source of international water law, and create frameworks for water governance arrangements which includes transboundary water and ecosystem protection. If the U.S. signs this convention it will put the Columbia basin under further, and complete, UN rule.
The United States Entity, comprised of the BPA and the USACE, released a document, Regional Recommendation for the Future of the Columbia River Treaty after 2024 on 12/13/13, meeting the UN regionalism goal. One noteworthy recommendation is on page 5, Ecosystem-based Function. This is a scheme concocted by the UN, justified by climate change scare tactics, and is really about taking final control over land, resources and humans. It is also called "Ecosystem-based Adaptation", ecosystem based management, and can be separated out into different areas such as fisheries, mountains, and even disasters. At least this outline exposes the truth, "...there has been increasing international recognition of the need to manage human activities...". All four Idaho representatives, Risch, Crapo, Simpson, and Labrador urged the adoption of this treasonous renegotiation document.
The USGS sits on the U.S. National Committee for UNESCO's International Hydrological Programme (IHP) with one interesting function, "Recommending U.S. programs for participation in the UNESCO International Hydrological Programme.", and there are several programs. What this means for the hydropower generated by Columbia River dams is uncertain. It is difficult to ascertain just how the Columbia River Basin became "international". But, being designated as such, it places the basin under International Waters Governance, as part of the GEF International Waters Governance Project. GEF stands for Global Environment Facility and much of its funding comes from the private sector. Regardless, it also involves Idaho dams, so it will affect us as well.
In the United Nations World Water Development Report 2016, everything you would want to know about how the UN will control our water is explained. On page 57-58 it describes changing our water use to a "green" economy which means industrializing our agriculture and urban water infrastructure as two examples, using UN business partnerships. This explains the Common Core emphasis on STEM and vocational education, preparing our children for the workforce needs of these industries. Pages 58-61 cover Agenda 2030 Goal 6 and related water goals. The UN will manage water through their Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (IWRM), which the Idaho Water Resource Board follows. Transition to renewable energy investment starts on page 83, addressing hydropower and urban infrastructure, which is why the UN bank partners are buying water utilities in preparation for the takeover. The Idaho Department of Water Resources was given a special mention on this page also. Yes, the UN monitors water use in the United States. Ecosystems are covered from page 26-28.
The UN believes transboundary waters should be under international rule with focus on the "use, development, protection and conservation of water resources." Since the Columbia Basin has somehow been declared international, it looks like the treaty renegotiation is primed for more UN involvement.
Briefly on the social pillar. As previously posted in the December, 2015 archives on Tribes being used by the federal government to take land and water from American citizens, Tribal rights are not being ignored in the treaty negotiation, including Idaho Tribes. Emphasis on salmon, tribal resources, and culture will be part of the talks, with full UN backing on Tribal water rights.
If all of this gobbledegook has left you bored to tears or brain dead, there is a more simple explanation. The UN wants control of water, and they want it bad as water is the most valuable resource needed for everything.
The intent is expanding the treaty to include the full Columbia Basin, not just the original river. With ecosystem management, defined by the UN and implemented by their federal buddies, public land will not only be affected, but private land as well. The goal is taking basin water resources, from basin water drops to storage, then controlling its use in agriculture, industries, and urban infrastructure, among other uses. Forcing Idaho into a "green economy" means expensive technology will be needed for redesigning water use in all areas, and the federal government taking more land for their renewable energy projects. UN business partners, many of them banks, will be investing in this green technology while the federal government will ban land use and take private land away through regulations causing economic devastation, what they are doing to ranchers. Agricultural farmers will be next. Common Core will educate your child to those new industrial technology needs. The UN has multiple water partners supporting this agenda. Ecosystem data is made available to UN business partners so they can take advantage of energy projects once we are stripped of our land.
Idaho will soon die, there will be nothing left of our state. This will truly be the death of Idaho. The UN controls our forests, government agencies implement UN objectives on our land, our cities are being redesigned by the UN, we are being forced off our land into cities, children are being indoctrinated on UN ideology...there is nothing left but ecosystem management to finish us off. Our water will be taken and controlled, we will be told where and how we can enjoy the outdoors, if at all. Jobs will be determined by UN corporate industries. Yet Idahoans don't listen, state legislators refuse to address this out of the fear it looks like a conspiracy. It is not a conspiracy, it is right there in front of everyone. And we do nothing. Shame on us, shame on us.
We should be in the streets demanding our legislators remove us from every illegal, treasonous, unconstitutional regulation that each corrupt federal agency forces on us, and demand that there will be no implemented UN objective in our state. We should be yelling at the top of our lungs that if this is not done, we will remove each legislator, and keep going through them until we find one that has the courage, and the love of Idaho, to do as we tell them, not ask, tell them. When will we be ready and have the courage to do this? We have 4 short years, the UN has given us the year. When?
Gau - district leiter - leader District Leader
Roland Gaul is an author of two books, The Battle of the Bulge, The Southern Flank, December 1944-January 1945; Volume I: The Germans, and The Battle of the Bulge, The Southern Flank, December 1944-1945; Volume II: The Americans.
Written by this man, who not only lived through it but researched it from the German, American, and civilian perspectives, these books record a history of the second takeover of Luxembourg starting December 16, 1944. Luxembourg was under Nazi occupation from 1940 until September, 1944 when the Nazis were pushed out by the Americans. A short reprieve of freedom was enjoyed by Luxembourg citizens until December when Hitler made his last grand offensive, known as the Battle of the Bulge.
Now what does this have to do with Agenda 21.
Probably not much. However, what it does resemble is the methodology being used by the United Nations (UN) in advancing Agenda 21 such as environmentalism. The Nazi party was the first to pass environmental laws that are strikingly similar to the UN agenda such as protecting the natural environment, setting aside reserves, preventing air pollution, or treating animals more humanely. But in truth, WWII was probably one of the most environmentally destructive wars ever seen. This is what environmentalism is doing right now, destroying our forests, wasting water, and destroying agriculture. Frank Uekoetter wrote a book on this in 2006,The Green and the Brown: A History of Conservation in Nazi Germany.
Another interesting comparison is the intent to purify the world with only Aryan heritage, ridding the world of all other non-pure races. Now the UN doesn't speak to this atrocity but it does focus heavily on what they perceive as the burgeoning population, which they say has not only destroyed the earth, but will need better management for the future. Populations are tracked by the UN very closely by demographics and trends in their UN Population Division. As for heritage, it is the UN's desire that we all consider ourselves a "global citizen" and have aggressively put this agenda in force over the years. There is your purity.
While no direct implications can be made that it is the goal of the UN to eliminate humans, there are concerning activities that would suggest controlling it. Activities such as making sure every female has a right to "family planning", and all that it implies, would be one example. There is also the Catholic Church accusation that tetanus vaccinations given only to women by UN organizations were deliberately laced with birth control in Kenya, a revelation that is still a controversy.
Aside from those few examples, Gaul probably wrote about it from a first hand perspective best starting with World War I.
"The status of neutrality was violated by Imperial Germany in World War I..." "Although no hostilities or armed conflicts took place during that time in Luxembourg, the Germans more or less imposed martial law status on the population, and individual rights and liberties were thus curtailed."
Currently in America no hostilities or armed conflicts are taking place but our individual rights and liberties have been and continue to be curtailed. The ruse of Agenda 21, known as Sustainable Development, has been imposed on America, its own form of martial law with regulations that prohibit freedom.
Gaul writes on:
"When Hitler came to power, the majority of the Luxembourgers...became very much aware of the threatening danger of nazism (sic)."
Multiple researchers and authors have written about Agenda 21 trying to warn Americans of its "threatening danger".
Gaul writes about the initial days of occupation on May 10, 1940.
"On May 10, 1940, when the Nazi German armies started the campaign in the West, they poured through Luxembourg in their rush against France." "...no armed resistance was initially opposed to the aggressor, who overran the small country in less than a day." "...the Grand-Duchy was integrated into the Third Reich and came under German jurisprudence."
The United States federal government has integrated into the UN and has come under Sustainable Development jurisprudence, a system of laws created by the UN and supported by the federal government.
And finally Gaul writes:
"The name Luxembourg ceased to exist; from then on the country was called "Gau Moselland," (Mosel country district), which had at its head a high ranking Nazi official, the "Gauleiter," whose primary task was to 'Germanize' the Luxembourg population. German law was imposed, the use of the Luxembourg native language forbidden, French-sounding names were converted, and the Nazis started a vast campaign to indoctrinate and lure the Luxembourgers to come "Heim ins Reich" (home to the mother country) to make them believe that they were ethnic Germans." "...98% of the population vigorously expressed themselves against becoming German citizens, which drew a series of reprisals. People were beaten, harassed, and jailed..."
Substituting some words, how would this look:
The United States ceased to exist, from then on it was part of One World. Leading this quest were Regional Boards to help move the country towards globalization, interdependence, and global citizenry with the rest of the world. Sustainable Development law has been imposed. Higher education has indoctrinated young adults into thinking they are global citizens and to practice Sustainable Development, now our children will learn the same with Common Core. Offensive language is no longer allowed, we must be diverse and inclusive of all. Not complying with this will result in condemnation.
And for the protesters at Harney county, their punishment was death and imprisonment. All because they resisted the federal government exceeding its Constitutional authority.
Here are the Nazi Gauleiters. America and the UN have their own Gauleiters, some hidden, some right out in the open spewing their propaganda. The American Gauleiter is the federal government and those who support Sustainable Development.
You have been warned.
Welcome to Agenda 2030 in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho!
Agenda 2030 claims to be a replacement for the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDG). But the truth is it is nothing more than an expanded version of Agenda 21. Agenda 2030 was introduced in 2015 with a start date of January 1, 2016. Thanks to UN non-governmental organizations (NGO) and other United Nations (UN) partnerships, Agenda 2030 has already been at work in Coeur d'Alene.
The citizens of Kootenai County were successful in fighting off a horrific implementation of Agenda 21 with the 2010 Kootenai County Comprehensive Plan. This villainous plan would have taken property rights away; controlled private property development; put a false boundary around the city preventing future growth; forced citizens to adopt mostly biking, walking, or mass transportation for mobility; forced social integration; increased regulatory authority over private property; along with other Agenda 21 Human Settlement ideology. The Northwest Property Owners Alliance (NWPOA) found multiple issues to object to in this plan and it was eventually defeated in 2013.
But, they're back.
With very little citizen involvement the city of Coeur d'Alene has created a plan that disguises the same UN Sustainable Development (SD) agenda in the CDA 2030 Visioning Project. How ironic they used the exact same year as Agenda 2030 and even uses the UN term visioning.
Agenda 2030 has crammed forty chapters of Agenda 21 into 17 goals. To really understand their plan to transform "the world", the UN provides you with a in-depth explanation. Did the citizens of Coeur d'Alene ask to be transformed?
Part of the purpose of the 2010 comprehensive plan was to create clusters. This is a United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) brainchild to put you into a forced economic development scheme to meet the needs of corporations. Rather than defining it as a cluster, the CDA Visioning Project just creates it. Clusters are the concentration of resources and funding in targeted areas, with patterns of economic growth creating opportunities for the poor, and includes businesses, banks, governments, and education. It is the manipulation of people to serve the needs of corporations. And it is astonishing how this plan even openly outlines it.
Because the length of both documents exceeds this post the highlights of both plans, are outlined below. The CDA plan has six themes matched against some of the Agenda 2030 goals. For anyone who lives in the Coeur d'Alene area, it is recommended that these themes are reviewed against the Agenda 2030 goals.
Coeur d'Alene Visioning Project
Theme 1 - Community & Identity
Create places where people can gather; mixed housing; encourage regional adoption; access to child care
Goal 4 - Access to quality early childhood development and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education
Goal 11 - Access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services; access to green, public spaces; strengthen regional development planning
Coeur d'Alene Visioning Project
Theme 2 - Education & Learning
Address industry needs, educational requirements; availability of skilled workers; improve local workforce education and training programs
Goal 4 - Equal access to technical, vocational and tertiary education; increase numbers of youth and adults with relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills for employment, decent jobs
Goal 8 - Reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training
Coeur d'Alene Visioning Project
Theme 3 - Environment & Recreation
Preserve urban forests; preserve open space; watershed planning; expand recycling participation
Goal 6 - Protect and restore water-related ecosystems (water sheds)
Goal 11 - Reduce waste generation through recycling
Goal 15 - Ensure the conservation of forests
Coeur d'Alene Visioning Project
Theme 4 - Growth & Development
Expand medical services, businesses; utilize renewable energy; develop infrastructure master plan to ensure critical infrastructure needs are met; complete a ‘multi-modal’ program of transportation
Goal 3 - Ensure access to quality essential health-care services
Goal 6 - Improve water and sanitation management
Goal 7 - Facilitate access to renewable energy
Goal 9 - Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure
Goal 11 - Ensure access to transport systems; expand public
Coeur d'Alene Visioning Project
Theme 5 - Health & Safety
Expand new high demand medical services; promote development of recreational activities and a healthy lifestyle; nutrition
Goal 2 - Access to nutritious food all year round by all
Goal 3 - Ensure healthy lives; strengthen the capacity for risk reduction
and management of health risks
Coeur d'Alene Visioning Project
Theme 6 -Jobs & economy
Support activities to start, recruit, and expand businesses and industries that provide higher wages and wage increases; identify job skills needed by employers; assess worker skill levels; provide skills certification testing for workers to better match worker skills to employer needs; develop economic incentives to attract new businesses or encourage business startup and development activities
Goal 8 - Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all including young people and persons with disabilities; equal pay for work of equal value; encourage the formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, including through access to financial services
Everything needed for the UN's goal of regional cluster development is in this plan, and beyond.
Now why would Coeur d'Alene elected officials do this to their citizens? They are doing it because they don't listen to their citizens, they listen to the UN.
The partners in this plan include multiple UN associates. Not only were Kootenai County city planners, who are associated with the American Planning Association (APA), part of this plan, but a UN organization itself, the United Way. Waste Management is a member of the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), which just happens to be a member of the International Waste Management Association of North America, a UN NGO. The Salvation Army was also a participating member in this plan's development, and they too are a UN NGO. Another active partner with the UN is the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. And sadly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce engages in this plan as a traitor to the United States as a UN NGO and member of the International Chamber of Commerce as another UN NGO.
So, the UN cronies, who have already been given their assignment to engage with local officials to push UN ideology and goals, have been successful in taking away the rights of Coeur d'Alene citizens. How irresponsible those officials have been to those who elected them. The citizens are the ones who should be advising their officials on how they want their city to look, be managed, and what they want for their future, not the UN. These same citizens should take a direct and demanding approach with their elected officials to stop this plan and insist on their involvement ONLY for any future plans. If those officials fail to listen an immediate recall should be in order.
It is time the citizens of all Idaho cities and counties take control of their government.
Native Tribes - Pawns of Agenda 21 - Part 1
Of all the subjects and issues presented on this website there have been none which match the level of UN and federal government corruption and fraud than the exploitation of Tribes and attacks on private property.
Understanding Tribal History
Federal Government Relations
It is well known that the United Nations (UN) uses partnerships with professional organizations, businesses, governments, and non-profit groups to advance their agenda and ideology.
But the UN is using another group, Tribes. Through the UN and federal government cartel for Sustainable Development (SD), aka Agenda 21 implementation, Tribes are being used to confiscate more resources, land, and private property. Tribal issues regarding land and water in the U.S. are extremely complex, involving multiple case decisions, Acts, settlements, and federal laws. The U.S. has had a troubled relationship with Native American Tribes from the beginning with malfeasance, and all that it implies, by the federal government, but never at the level that exists today. A review of that history is necessary to understand the current Tribal disputes regarding land and water, and how the federal government is using that history against Americans for UN agenda gains. Following are the more significant past laws that affect current decisions regarding Tribal land.
In 1452, forty years prior to Columbus landing on this new land, "...the Dum Diversas Bull, a papal bull (aka an edict), was issued by Pope Nicholas V, granting the blessing to "capture, vanquish and subdue the Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ and put them into perpetual slavery and to take all their possessions and their property." In 1493, one year after Columbus discovered this new land, Pope Alexander VI’s papal bull issued the Inter Caetera which granted the same to Spain. These declarations came to be known as the Doctrine of Discovery. The Doctrine's foundation was the ability to take land, private property, and rights from non-Christian inhabitants in newly discovered land. The UN uses these 522 year old papal bulls as a basis for the initial wrongful violation of indigenous rights across the world. The Doctrine of Discovery has been cited in Supreme Court cases regarding Tribal rights since that time.
There have been numerous treaties and laws regarding Tribal rights over the years, including ones that involved water and land, but to this day Tribal status decisions have been primarily based on the Doctrine of Discovery.
The 1887 Dawes Act placed Tribes and individual Native Americans on allotted land, opened up non-allotted land to non-native settlement, with surplus land usurped by the government; The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 reversed the Dawes Act, restored surplus land to Tribes, and authorized the government to acquire land, water and surface rights for Indians, and extended the placement of land into federal government trust; the 1950's Termination policies terminated some Tribes, removed land from trust status, extended state jurisdiction over land, and initiated relocation programs; and the 2000 Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments gave the government the ability to consolidate fragmented Tribal land resulting from the previous decisions.
Over the years there have been federal laws passed, and repealed, to reverse past injustices and litigation challenging the same. It was during the 60's when Indian activists took a role in bringing Native American rights to the forefront. As a result, laws began to focus more on Tribal self-determination and self-governance, rather than being a "domestic dependent nation" or a "ward to his guardian" (#18). Decisions affecting Tribes would now be made by the Tribes rather than the federal government, although the government still holds authority over the tribes and the land on which they reside.
The federal government holds reservation and other land "in trust" for the tribes, meaning tribes technically do not own title to their lands. The U.S. then administers and manages the land and resources for the fiduciary advantage of the tribe. Recognized as a "sovereign nation or state", tribes can form tribal governments; determine tribal membership; regulate individual property; levy and collect taxes; maintain law and order; exclude non-members from tribal territory; regulate domestic relations; and regulate commerce and trade. The federal government retains the ultimate power and authority to either abrogate or protect Native American rights while Congress creates regulations that govern the territory belonging to the United States. As legal title-holder to most Indian lands, the U.S. has the power to dispose of and manage those lands, and derive income from them. Due to federal fiduciary mismanagement and the Cobell lawsuit, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe (CDA) alone was awarded 18 million dollars of which 4.1 million will be used to buy back land with the Department of Interior (DOI) assisting. This establishes more land in trust to the federal government.
The CDA people once inhabited 3,500,000 acres in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. In 1867, President Johnson established a reservation for the tribe at the request of the territorial governor, but it was not accepted by the tribe because the main waterways were not included. After the Tribe ceded almost 2.4 million acres to the government in 1873, negotiations established 598,000 acres for a reservation that included the St. Jo and Coeur d'Alene rivers and a portion of Lake Coeur d'Alene. The remaining land was lost to the allotment process. This agreement was no approved by Congress at the time. In 1889 the tribe ceded the northern third of the reservation back to the federal government, including part of Lake Coeur d'Alene. When Idaho became a state in 1890 Congress included a section disclaiming the state's rights to lands owned by tribes in the state constitution, then ratifying the earlier tribal agreements in 1891. In the 2001 Supreme Court case, Idaho v United States, it was determined that the U.S. held title to lands submerged under Lake Coeur d'Alene, holding that land in trust for the CDA Tribe.
In 1909, after 114 allotments were completed, the remaining CDA reservation land was opened to homesteaders. By 1933, 40 per cent of the allotted land was sold. The federal government now uses land lost to allotment as a method to return land back to Tribes, still holding it "in trust" for the tribes. Other federal fiduciary responsibilities include protecting tribal treaty rights, assets, resources, and carrying out federal law mandates.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses these laws to define Tribal land, land in trust, and allotment lands. In the EPA definition of a Federal Indian reservation, the EPA interprets the law in light of Supreme Court case law, that a reservation includes trust lands set apart for a tribe's use even though not formally designated as a reservation. Here is their website explaining all their definitions on Indian country.
The EPA uses these different definitions for Indian country depending on each case. Using an Indian country definition from 1948 under 18 U.S. Code 1151, (c) states: includes all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same. This is based on the the 1887 Dawes Act which allotted land to Indians in exchange for land paid for by the government to keep in trust for the tribe. Any surplus lands were taken out of Tribal ownership.
In the Indian Energy Resource Program, the term Tribal Land "...means any land or interests in land owned by a tribe or tribes, title to which is held in trust by the United States...". Indian Land refers to any land located within or not within the boundaries of an Indian reservation, the title to which is held in trust by the U.S. for the benefit of an Indian Tribe.
The Indian Land Tenure Foundation is devoted to restoring these lands to the Tribes. With federal termination policies Tribal land was removed from trust status and Tribal affiliation. Since that time Tribes have fought to regain that land in addition to having land outside of reservations declared Sacred Sites for their protection and use. Money derived from casino earnings, federal grants and tax dollars, tax free trusts, court settlements, and resource use are used by Tribes to buy land back.
Federally recognized Tribes can be allowed "same treatment as a state (TAS)" status. The EPA was allowed provisions in the Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and Clean Air Act (CAA) to give Tribes with TAS status authority to implement federal environmental law, making them eligible for federal funding. Federally recognized tribes in Idaho include the Coeur D’Alene Tribe, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribe. The CDA Tribe obtained TAS status in 2005. These tribes also have lobbyists in Idaho.
Although there are multiple other court decisions and laws relating to tribal lands and rights, the essence is that because the federal government has full land and water authority over tribes through trusts, they have developed mechanisms for the tribes to not only recover previously held land but also enforce federal law. This is significant when it comes to both land and water rights. Engaging tribes in environmental regulations, and resource control, gives the government further power to implement Agenda 21.
Part 2 will explore how Tribal land and water rights are being decided by the federal government.
Native Tribes - Pawns of Agenda 21 - Part 2
Tribal Water Rights
There have been long standing disputes regarding Tribal water rights with most court decisions upholding Tribal rights. Some of those cases are outlined in this article. However, there are a few court decisions that have determined the principle of Tribal water rights.
The 1908 Supreme Court decision, Winters v United States, was the most significant case regarding Tribal water rights. The court determined that designated reservation lands included reserved water rights. Expanding on that case in 1963, the court held that water rights included all federal reservations of land, such as national parks and forests. This decision took over 87% of Idaho water.
The 1983 case, United States v. Adair, gave senior water rights to Tribes "...with a priority date of time immemorial" (148) meaning from the time the reservation was established into the future. Arizona v. California is a set of different cases but the 1983 case increased water allotment to reservations. In the 1985 Montana case, Greely v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, the court determined that appropriators outside of reservation boundaries could not deplete stream waters where non-consumptive (fishing/hunting) rights apply.
Based on the Winters and Arizona cases, Indian water rights are commonly held to principles known as the Winters Doctrine. These rights include Congress holding the right to reserve water for federal lands, including Indian reservations; reservations have the right to water sources within or bordering the reservation; reservation water rights are reserved as of the date of the reservation's creation; and the amount of water reserved for Indian use is the amount necessary to irrigate all of the practically irrigable land on the reservation with state laws being secondary to federally reserved water rights. These rights apply to both surface and groundwater, and to other federal reserved land. To determine the amount of water needed for Tribal land a water quantification, or practicably irrigable acreage (PIA), was created.
Because of years of litigation and costs associated with these disputes, water rights are now negotiated between the Tribe, organizations, and the state and federal government for a settlement agreement, with specific criteria and procedures set forth in 1990, thanks to GHWB. If federal funding is involved it then goes through Congress for approval.
What started out as an attempt to quantify water rights for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead reservation, ultimately turned into the most egregious federal take over of water and elimination of water rights for Montana citizens. Instead of quantifying water allotment to the Tribe, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Federal Reserved Water Compact (CSKT) was created through negotiations between the federal government, Tribes, and the State. This compact puts all water rights in 11 counties under Tribal control. Yes, ALL water rights including municipal and private well water. In doing so, the federal government now holds those rights in trust. In this case the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used the 1948 Indian country definition (c) "all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished...".
The Aamodt settlement is another classic example of how the federal government uses previous treaties to give land back to Tribes and gain control over water. This settlement calls for diverting water to four New Mexico Tribes, creating a regional water system which will take water away from New Mexico citizens and who will then be forced to pay for it. As part of the 2010 Claims Resolution Act Pub. L. No. 111-291 this settlement was put into law along with other settlements.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), serving Idaho Tribes in the northwest region, has a department that specifically assists with tribal water issues, including funds for negotiations and litigation, your tax dollar being used against you to support Tribes in water disputes. The Department of the Interior (DOI) has an Indian Water Rights Office for the same as well as the Bureau of Reclamation. The DOI also provides personnel, technical, and financial assistance to tribes on water rights issues.
Through EPA regulation 131.8(a)(3), the CDA Tribe was authorized to administer and determine water quality standards (WQS) within the reservation boundary. However, any water from non-members flowing into reservation boundaries can be held to any WQS the tribe sets, which a tribe can make more stringent.
Prior to officially granting TAS status to the CDA Tribe, concerns about Tribal authority over waters and non-members were answered by the EPA. The EPA cited the reservation boundaries in the Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. at 1027 as the basis by which current water could be governed by the Tribe. The Act determined that land not ceded by the CDA Tribe but held by the U.S. would now officially be ceded by the Tribe, relinquishing all right and title. The government compensated the Tribe $150,000 along with other provisions with the DOI managing those funds for the Tribe. Not cited by the EPA, Article 2, page 1030, outlines the ceded land description for which they were paid $500,000. The EPA also referenced Act of August 15, 1894, 28 Stat. at 322. The CDA Tribe was paid $15,000 in 1894 for an additional tract of land on the northern boundary of the reservation. Article I under Agreement in President Grant's 1894 executive order explains the CDA Tribe boundaries. So the EPA is using land decisions from 124 years ago and older to justify extension of Tribal water rights, along with the 1983 "time immemorial" during current settlement negotiations.
The question as to whether or not non-ceded land should be given back to Tribes under the same 1894 Act was considered, then refused, in the 2011 Yankton Sioux Tribe vs South Dakota Supreme Court case. These same concerns about Tribal extension over non-members arise over air quality. Under the CAA, the EPA included previously negotiated Wind River land for the Tribe to regulate air quality in Wyoming. The Wyoming Supreme Court determined in 2008 that Congress "intended to diminish" reservation land in 1905. Land ceded by Tribes in 1905 became the EPA's justification under the CAA to extend Tribal boundaries which took the town of Riverton. The DOI Solicitor took part in this malfeasance by supporting the extension of reservation boundaries in 2011 using selective decisions and laws to substantiate the final decision for the Tribe. Why not, DOI uses your tax dollar to support Tribes. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) also supported this action. And why not, DOJ established the Office of Tribal Justice to "...coordinate policy towards Indian Tribes..." in 1995, partnering with other bureaus and offices in DOJ to achieve the same.
Recognizing this boundary issue as a potential barrier to their agenda, in August, 2015 the EPA brought forth a Revised Interpretation of CWA Tribal Provision which would give Tribes the ability to extend reservation boundaries as done in the CAA. The EPA is also working on streamlining the process to obtain TAS status which would in turn hasten EPA policy enforcement.
Bottom line is that the federal government is exploiting Tribes for the purpose of taking land, water, and other rights away from American citizens and putting those resources directly into their hands through the Tribal trust arrangement. America citizens who are not members of the Tribe lose all rights to a representative government as they then fall under Tribal jurisdiction and government. From the 6 to 9 minute mark in this video, Elaine Willman explains how the federal government is using Tribes to take control of land.
In this New American article, Exploiting Indians, the Wind River Reservation issue is explained which is really one methodology the federal government uses to take land and water away from American citizens. From these cases to what has been happening across the U.S. for years, it is clear the EPA as well as other federal agencies are in bed with Tribes to usurp land and water rights. The Tribal advantage is amassing millions in federal funds and for the federal government increased ownership and control of resources. With those funds the Tribes are then able to buy more land, hire lobbyists, and fund politicians to further advance their power.
So what does any of this have to do with the UN?
Native Tribes - Pawns of Agenda 21 - Part 3
United Nations - Agenda 21
Agenda 21, Chapter 26 is titled "Recognizing And Strengthening The Role Of Indigenous People And Their Communities". That was in 1992. It is stunning how these goals have been implemented and advanced since that time. The United Nations (UN) has defined indigenous people as self-identified, pre-colonial and pre-settler, with a strong link to resources, distinct political systems, language, and beliefs, and being a non-dominant group.
Goals of Chapter 26 include strengthening policies to empower indigenous people; creating national dispute-resolution arrangements for land settlement and resource-management; strengthening indigenous peoples participation in formulation of policies and programmes relating to resource management and initiation of proposals for such policies and programmes; enhancing sustainable development (SD); protecting cultural property; creating inter-governmental cooperation; and providing technical and financial assistance to them. As seen in Part 2, some of these goals have been accomplished by the federal government.
The UN worked on Indigenous issues prior to Agenda 21. In 1982 the Working Group on Indigenous Populations began studying fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples to develop international standards for indigenous peoples rights.
Although never ratified by the U.S., in 1989, the UN International Labour Organization (ILO) law, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No. 169), called for countries to recognize indigenous people's right to control their institution, life, economic development, and right to maintain their identity, languages and religions. Article 14 specifically addresses land issues, requiring states to safeguard indigenous people's right to land "...not exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have traditionally had access...", and procedures to resolve land claims. The Convention also calls for indigenous recognition in other areas, all of which the U.S. has achieved through federal actions.
The first action taken to accomplish Chapter 26 goals was in 1993 by WJC Executive Order (EO) 12852, the President's Council on Sustainable Development, implementing Agenda 21. The council was comprised of federal agencies which included the Department of Interior (DOI); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and UN non-governmental organizations (NGO). The DOI manages the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Bureau of Land Management (BLM); U.S.Geological Survey (USGS); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); and National Park Service (NPS), all of which promote indigenous rights, while the DOI continued managing the fiduciary responsibilities.
In 1995 the Department of Justice (DOJ) established a policy to empower Tribes and government relations, and protect Tribal culture, establishing an Office on Tribal Justice in 2014. The 1996 EO 13007 by WJC declared Indian access to and protection of sacred sites on federal land. EO 12852 was expanded in 2000 with WJC EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments, giving Tribes a greater voice in federal policies by placing an Indian office in each federal agency. BHO reinforced EO 13175 in 2009 with a memorandum instructing all federal agencies to submit plans to implement EO 13175. In 2011 the EPA signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), to implement sustainable development goals, now removed. (Update: It is replaced with the new 2016 MOU to implement Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals) Sustainable Development goals are being achieved by the EPA. Other federal agencies promoting the same can be found here.
Those are some accomplishments for Agenda 21. But the UN expanded Chapter 26 goals.
In 2007 the UN revealed its United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP). The essence of this declaration is the recognition of indigenous collective rights for culture, language, identity, employment, health, education, and prohibiting discrimination. There are 46 articles in this document outlining indigenous rights. Some of those rights are directly related to U.S. history such as rights to self-determination and self government; not being subjected to forced assimilation or cultural destruction or forcibly removed from their lands or territories; not be dispossessed of their land, territories or resources; practice cultural traditions; control educational systems in their own culture and language; administer programmes through their own institutions; and right to traditional medicines. Most of these have already been enacted in U.S. law.
More terrifying however are the articles on indigenous rights to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise acquired; compensation for lands, territories, and resources they have traditionally owned, occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent; and that compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress.
Although never officially recognized or adopted by Congress, through BHO, this declaration is "supported" and being implemented. In 2007 the DOI appointed an individual as Counsel to Assistance Secretary-Indian Affairs who had actually worked in partnership with the UN on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The DOI, in 2010, called for a review of DRIP and subsequently, after a "review" by federal agencies, BHO declared U.S. support in 2010 while outlining his accomplishments in meeting some of the declaration's goals. The Department of State also supported this BHO declaration to "address the consequences of history". A representative from Interior Indian Affairs proudly announced BHO's decision to support DRIP at the UN in 2011. There was no Congressional approval for this.
Not satisfied with just governments implementing their agenda, in 2011 the UN created the United Nations-Indigenous People's Partnership (UNIPP), a full partnership with indigenous groups to advance the agenda and carry out DRIP mandates. This includes partnerships between UN organizations, indigenous groups, and other UN bodies such as non-governmental organizations (NGO). In 2012 UNEP developed a guidance policy for member states to use in policy development and bring indigenous people into closer partnership with the UN.
In 2013, EO 13647 established the White House Council on Native American Affairs that includes inter-governmental agency coordination on Indian affairs. Not surprisingly, the first meeting didn't include any Tribal leaders. Following that in December 2014, BHO announced to Tribal leaders his intent to restore tribal homelands and resolve water right disputes, both commitments to Agenda 21 and DRIP.
The DOI strategic plan 2014-2018 actively implements DRIP. In this plan the DOI outlines commitments to strengthen tribal nations; restore tribal lands; establish strong relationships with tribes; fulfill commitments for water rights; develop and increase energy resources; preserve and enhance cultural interests and sacred sites; convert 500,000 acres from fee to trust; enhance water availability to tribes; finalize and implement water rights settlements; provide technical assistance and ecosystem restoration; secure water supplies; protect tribal water rights; improve infrastructure; honor and protect cultural resources; and protect treaty rights. This will all be accomplished through DOI partnerships with other federal agencies, that "inter-government" collaboration. If anyone wants to know the direction American citizens are headed with land and water rights, this plan tells you. An outline of the plan was presented to the Indian Affairs committee in 2011 and as a result there has been legislation introduced and passed for implementation.
In 2014 Michael Crapo (R-ID) was responsible for the Blackfoot River Land Exchange Act which restores previous land held by the the Fort Hall Reservation and compensation for land lost in the exchange.
Jon Tester (D-MT) has taken it upon himself to sponsor laws that would restore water and land to Tribes in four states. Tester also introduced S.732 which would give the DOI the ability to take land back into trust even though a Tribe is not federally recognized, overturning a Supreme Court decision. Six bills were passed in November, 2015, four of which put land into trust on behalf of Tribes.
Having made previous attempts to extend Tribal land, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced legislation to declare Nevada land should be held in trust for Tribes as reservation land, including Duck Valley. Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) introduced a bill that would allow the DOI to take into trust additional lands for the Siletz Tribe from the original 1855 Siletz Coast Reservation. Fortunately going nowhere, the America Indian Empowerment Act 2015 by Rep. Don Young (R-AK) would fulfill DRIP by granting fee land back to tribes.
Land at Fort Wingate in New Mexico, an abandoned military installment, was given back to the Zuni Tribe and Navajo Nation in 2014, another example of how the federal government places land "in trust" for Tribes, along with all the resources.
The DOI implemented the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPR) in 1995 granting Tribal rights to human remains and sacred objects. In 2015 the DOI pulled together other crony federal agencies for an MOU to protect Tribal sacred sites, not only on federal land but private land as well. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) will help with this as well, along with other commitments.
The federal government is also spending 1.9 Billion to buy land back for placement into trust for Tribes per DOI Secretarial Order 3325. Here is the 2015 status report. But the truth is, that land is going into federal hands who are probably drooling at the opportunity to promote another UN goal, economic development. Tribes working with the government to implement SD practices as seen in this 2014 CDA Reservation Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, loaded with UN ideology. The government is lying to Tribes when it says this scam will restore tribal lands. It is putting land into government hands for future manipulation towards UN goals. It couldn't be more well stated in this Standing Rock Sioux Tribe agreement, "Consolidated interests are immediately transferred to Tribal governments and stay in trust for uses benefiting the tribes and their members." What has the federal government ever done with fiduciary responsibilities for Tribes that is ethical? It was the Cobell lawsuit, filed because of fiduciary mismanagement, that created this land buy back program in the first place. And now Tribes are being deceived again. Your tax dollar, "awarded" to Tribes, then used by Tribes to buy land which goes into federal hands.
These are only a few examples of how the federal government is working to achieve the UN DRIP agenda to restore land to Tribes. Other legislation related to land issues can be found here.
According to the UN NGO National Congress of American Indians document, on pages 26-27, the DOI has placed about 9 million acres of land into trust for Tribes since 1934 stating it represents only about 10% of 90 million acres lost. Idahoans better start pulling together and revolt against any further land confiscation as this issue will only worsen.
Established in 2009, the DOI has an Indian Water Rights Office for the purpose of oversee implementation of water settlements. The Bureau of Reclamation also supports Indian water rights. The DOI was successful in getting legislation passed in December, 2015 that provides technical assistance and funds for energy while giving preference for hydroelectric licenses to Tribes.
The 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Carcieri v. Salazar, held that under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 the federal government cannot take land into trust for Indian Tribes not under Federal jurisdiction in 1934. Tester's bill S.732 is an effort to overrule that decision so that more land, including the water rights attached to it, would be available for the government to place into trust for Tribes.
This year, DOI Secretary Jewell actively worked to give your tax dollar to Tribes, including Duck Valley, for restoration of "water rights", fulfilling DRIP requirements. Funds for improving Tribal water and sanitation infrastructure is provided by the EPA plus grants for building water infrastructures. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced a bill to fund renovations of Tribal irrigation systems. The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 met DRIP mandates to bring water disputes to settlement. According to the DOI Deputy Secretary water right settlements are the right direction for everyone. The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act 2009 is loaded with placing large parcels of land into federal hands and turning water over to Tribes.
But, most alarming, Tribes as well as American citizens should be concerned about the trend of banks, most of which are UN business partners, buying water rights and utilities. These UN crony banks won't care one iota whether Tribes get their perceived right to water. The whole scam is controlling water and the amount the UN thinks you should have. Wake up Idaho.
Meanwhile, back at the UN, UN NGOs such as the American Indian Law Alliance, Association on American Indian Affairs, Foundation for the American Indian, Native American Rights Fund, Cherokee Nation, and Western Shoshone Defense Project are just a few groups that work to promote UN ideology and goals.
Activists have also been working with the UN to urge more emphasis on water rights issues. But going beyond that, there are now demands for "...our right to have our treaties honored and respected as binding international instruments...", rejecting the faux U.S. support of DRIP. A UN human rights investigator called for the U.S. to return all land back to tribes in 2012.
In 2011 the UN criticized the U.S. of discriminating against indigenous people's right to safe drinking water even though the U.S. had recently joined a UN consensus resolution that recognized the right to water is a right to an adequate standard of living.
The Doctrine of Discovery has become an focused issue with the UN including groups advocating for its removal. This would dramatically alter U.S. relations with Tribes and have a devastating impact on America as we know it. Other bills permitting the use of peyote and educating Indian children in their native culture and language have been passed. The World Conference of Indigenous People, held in 2014 includes new declarations to incorporate Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development.
More serious, a subject that is never covered in the open, Alaska and Hawaii indigenous groups are asking for UN intervention to end U.S. "occupation". The UN has a group that works on decolonization. Beginning on page 18, the UN group discusses the possibility of Hawaii being decolonized, and concluding on page 21, "...there is a process to seek decolonization through the Decolonization Committee" for Hawaii.
Efforts to keep this issue short were impossible. The information presented in this 3 part series is only a fraction of what the federal government is doing in collusion with the UN and Tribes. And it is not going to end. EVERYONE must go back and read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy as so often stated by everyone now. Every aspect of the Constitution and Bill of Rights has been violated by the federal government. As a Constitutional Republic we are no longer being represented by those we elect. The federal government is in the business of representing the UN.
The federal government is so embedded with the UN that in 2010 legislation was actually introduced to have an Ambassador to the UN be in the line of succession to the presidency. Don't be shocked if this comes up again.
"But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."
It is up to us to stop these unconstitutional acts. It is time for Idahoans to come together, develop a plan, and execute that plan to demand Idaho stand up for state rights and disengage from every unconstitutional federal law being enacted in Idaho. We must do this or we will continue to be raped of any last piece of liberty that remains.
Eh, So What - Part 1
Whenever someone reads about the United Nations (UN) or Agenda 21, whatever site they are on, they may think to themselves, "Eh, so what", the UN is involved, its just a conspiracy theory, or Sustainable development (SD) is great, we are saving the planet. But the truth is SD is the synonym for Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030. As stated by J. Gary Lawrence, "...we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth."
Nothing is more disheartening or discouraging than to read how America has been taken over and embedded with UN ideology and implementation of SD, the information right there in the open on UN and government websites, and how seemingly hopeless it is to get Americans to understand, accept, or even care.
Even now, with Agenda 21 on steroids through Agenda 2030 for SD, and its warped 17 goals, Americans can't, or don't want to, make the connection. Agenda 2030 is intended to expand the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) but are primarily an expansion of Agenda 21. Those 17 goals contain the exact verbiage being tossed around by everyone today. Does it not give Americans pause? Does it not strike them as odd that the UN uses the same words? The end goal of the UN, via indoctrination, governments, education, and businesses implementing their ideology, is redistributing wealth and controlling all aspects of human life in the world. The goals will come into effect January 1, 2016 but have already been implemented.
There are Americans who hold the delusion that the UN is an organization providing good in the world through their humanitarian programs. The U.S. gives your tax dollar to the UN for these programs. It is difficult to understand just how much of your money is given to them. This Heritage Foundation report does have some numbers with a report by the Office on Management and Budget breaking down how much money has been given by U.S. agencies. What better way to implement an agenda, you paying for your own destruction. But the delivery of money goes far beyond just the UN as this series of posts will hopefully explain.
G.H.W. Bush signed Agenda 21 in 1992. When Nancy Pelosi was unable to get it passed through Congress, W.J. Clinton executed it via E.O. 12852, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. Since then every piece of federal legislation includes SD. Beginning on page 17 of this 2011 research document by D.K. Niwa, federal legislation that has inserted SD up to 2011 is listed. Both parties are participants in this treason. How much more blatant can it be? Eh, so what?
Most Americans understand that America is not what it used to be and there are continued rapid changes to "transform" what America has traditionally been. When facts are presented to them on the source of these changes does it matter to them? Even Hitler eventually convinced Germans to go along with him. Churchill understood. There are also countless Americans who understand the same about the UN. Some Germans were able to see the ominous path and succeeded in getting out. Americans need to take note of this history.
There is no limit to what can be read about SD. The facts are available on UN and federal websites. The federal government has devoted departments to the UN such as the Department of Education, U.S. mission to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and even the U.S. Department of State has an overall U.S. Mission to the UN. Every federal agency is connected to the UN through partnerships.
This UN website gives the details and purpose of Agenda 2030 and reviewing it is highly recommended to really understand how America is being transformed. Some highlights of the Agenda 2030 goals include: all countries implementing SD as a universal Agenda; delivery in economic, social and environmental objectives; envisioning a world under the rule of law and commitment to international law; conformity to the Charter of the United Nations; wealth sharing and income inequality addressed for economic growth; cooperation with regular migration and hosting refugees; governments deciding how these targets are incorporated into national planning and policies; goals being rigorous and evidence based; fostering the ethic of global citizenship; and the biggest slap in the face to America, "It is an Agenda of the people, by the people, and for the people", a plagiarism of Abraham Lincoln's words in the Gettysburg Address.
So how much of Agenda 21 has been implemented so far? How much is left to accomplish before we are finally finished off in just a short 15 years or less?
The methodology by which this transformation is being accomplished is technocracy. Everything will be "evidence based", science will determine what is best through regulatory control. Technocracy gives some insight into the massive increase in regulations we see today. The reader is encouraged to watch this video by Patrick Wood which clearly explains how technocracy is being used and the purpose, giving light to what is happening in America. Further posts will outline the technocracy machine.
Given Agenda 2030 is nothing more than a reworded, extension, and final commitment to fully achieve UN control, the next seven posts will examine just exactly what has been achieved with Agenda 21 in comparison to the new 17 goals. The 40 Chapters of Agenda 21 have essentially been condensed into 17 goals, the goals are still the same in Agenda 2030 with some expansion. Through the UN, global governance can be achieved.
These posts are intended to introduce the reader to Agenda 2030. For a full in-depth understanding each goal should be reviewed individually as the scope of these posts primarily cover the highlights of each goal.
Eh, so what? It will never happen in America.
In the next post Agenda 2030 goals 1-3 are covered.
Eh, So What - Part 2
Agenda 2030 - Goals 1-3
Goal 1 - End poverty in all its forms everywhere.
Ending poverty is a combination of Chapters 2, 3, 8, and 33 in Agenda 21. According to the Economist, 1 billion people have been lifted out of "extreme" poverty over the last 20 years. Notice how the graph shows 2030 as the ultimate goal to end poverty. YaleGlobal credits globalization and the United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Goals (MDG) for this achievement and references "institutions of global governance". The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are both UN institutions used to redistribute wealth around the world meeting UN goals of ending poverty. Money contributed to the IMF by the U.S. adds to our debt according to the CATO Institute. As long as these two organizations suck money, your tax dollar, out of the U.S. economy, the goal of ending poverty will be achieved. But it goes farther than that. Via other avenues U.S. dollars are being spent to implement Sustainable Development (SD) in the U.S. and throughout the world.
Goal 1 states everyone will have "equal" rights to economic resources, basic services, natural resources, and technology. This calls for a mobilization of resources to provide adequate means for developing countries, that is poor countries, and accelerated investment in poverty eradication actions. The list is long on how this is being achieved but a large part is in trade, giving poor countries more advantages in trade polices, as well as redistributing populations, and sending money to other countries to bring them out of poverty. If the UN has control of the money, they have control of where it goes. Here are just a couple of examples.
How much money does the US put into "refugees", "migrants", or "immigrants" through the provision of housing, health care, food, employment, and education? Here is a 2011 report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform. It is interesting to note the title on page 3, Importing Poverty. That is exactly what is happening, not ending poverty, just redistributing it by reducing wealth in America. The UN is actively promoting migration, humans coming and going, working where they want, with no borders. "Refugees" come through the UN Refugee Agency, UNHCR, and are placeed into established networks, including Idaho which has ties to UNHCR, private entities, higher education institutions, and religious groups.
How many American jobs are lost to foreigners who send that money back to their country? The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is one example of how wealth is redistributed to other countries and the TransPacific Partnership (TPP) will finish us off while putting us under international law, which is what the UN desires for poverty elimination.
So, the UN is winning on this goal, ultimately fully globalizing the economy to end poverty by 2030 through redistribution of wealth.
Goal 2 - End hunger, achieve food security, and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.
Agenda 21 Chapters 6 covers nutrition, 14 sustainable agriculture, and 32 the role of the farmer. The UN believes every human has the right to safe and nutritious food, food grown properly, and among other activities the farmer should be expected to increase diversification, improve harvesting, manage pests, facilitate the transfer of environmentally sound technologies, improve production, enhance food security, and ensure that risks to the ecosystem are minimized.
In Goal 2 food security refers to everyone's right to food availability, access to nutritious foods, and food use. This requires significant regulation over food production and delivery, a difficult task for small farms to meet. The United Nations (UN) International Food Standards already mandate the regulations our government follows.
The U.S. has its own Office of Global Food Security to assist with meeting the UN food security requirements along with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has made a commitment to sustainable agriculture with UN international agreements, and the USAID spends your tax dollar to extend the same to foreign countries.
The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) has imposed such strict regulations that small agricultural businesses are unable to monetarily finance the requirements and are forced to shut down. The end result will be the further advancement of agri-businesses that will control all sources of food production under UN dictates and which the UN supports.
As far as nutrition we are all familiar with Ms. Obama and her grand plan to starve school children with her "healthy" school lunch program. But we also have technocracy at work taking evidence based control of products by banning foods that contain trans fats and others, forcing you to pay for food product labels spelling out every last little detail of ingredients, and forever changing what it is they think you should eat based on new scientific evidence. One other UN goal is creating a meatless society as livestock contributes to climate change, and the World Health Organization (WHO) advances these scare tactics on processed meat. Because the federal government is now run by the UN rather than constituent representation, they supported this decision before WHO actually even announced it.
Goal 2 defines sustainable agriculture as practices that increase productivity and production, maintain ecosystems, adapt to climate change, improve land and soil quality, all requiring a system of global governance. This is the real goal, through partnerships with agribusinesses like Monsanto, Dow, and DuPont to name a few, controlling food production and delivery. If the UN has control of food production and delivery, they also have control of food allocation. Think about that.
Goal 3 - Ensure health lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.
Health is covered in Chapters 6 and 24 in Agenda 21. These goals state every person has the right to health care and governments should provide community based primary health care systems. The federal government is pouring millions of your tax dollar into this through grants. Prenatal care, breastfeeding, immunization, and nutrition are also promoted for women and children which your tax dollar has been implementing as outlined in both chapters.
UN Goal 3 focuses on women, children, and disease. Why not health for men? The UN goal is universal health care "providing all people with access to affordable, quality health-care services" which the US supports. We have Obamacare now which will never go away.
Goal 3 also wants to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive services and integration of such into national programmes (sic). Through Obamacare we now get "free" reproductive screenings to detect problems, and regardless of your need for those screenings, you will pay for others to have it, more redistribution of wealth. In spite of the exposure on Planned Parenthood activities there will be no effort to eliminate it, as they are a UN non-governmental organization (NGO).
Vaccinations are encouraged by the UN and the federal government list of required or recommended vaccinations continues to grow and has expanded to adults. With technocracy all health care is "evidence based" which means your provider is held to standards dictated by insurance companies, not clinical judgement. These standards are a box in which every person is placed.
But it is easier for the UN to accomplish control over health care through their partnerships. UnitedHealth Group has two platforms, UnitedHealthcare and Optum. Through these platforms AARP, Tricare, and Medicare are administered plus they offer medicare advantage plans, in addition to AARP. Notice the partnership between the government and a private company, does corporatism come to mind, or is it fascism? Now it just so happens UnitedHealth Group is a UN non-governmental organization (NGO). They take part of your money to work on global health research. Data collected on patients through electronic health records is used to analyze how costs can be reduced in health care such as Optum does through Truven. UnitedHealth Group has made itself a tidy little profit. Other health insurance companies will be hard pressed to do better and UnitedHealth Group is on its way to having full control of all health care in the world in partnership with the UN.
As far as health care goes the UN is winning. They already have a nice little hand in making your healthcare decisions.
Eh, who cares? It is fine the UN controls how my money is shared, what I should eat, food production and how much I get, and the healthcare I am entitled to.
In the next post Agenda 2030 goals 4-6 are covered.
This website is non-partisan and is solely dedicated to removing the harmful controls placed on our state and nation through Agenda 21 and its associated programs. We invite all Idahoans to join us in this fight for freedom!