Hot off the press is a progress report on the implementation of the United Nations Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Liu Zhenmin, UN Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, who is very difficult to understand, and Francesca Perucci, Chief, Statistical Services Branch, UN Statistics Division provide information on the report in this video. It is all based on the massive amount of data provided by "member" states, which includes the United States. That data is on every aspect of American lives.
Some highlights of the report include information on poverty levels, decoupling consumption from production, improving international cooperation for migration, vaccinations, childbirth and child mortality, mass species extinction, access to electricity, internet, renewable energy, water, and sanitation, "water scarcity", income and gender inequality, education, promotion of green development, and oh catastrophe, the acceleration of climate change that is endangering our health, all of these being "global problems" that need solutions as a "global agenda". Ms. Perucci guaranteed the purity of the data, no manipulation or corruption here folks. To succeed towards full implementation they recommend more "investment", meaning more money coming their way.
The most astounding question asked of the panel members is at the 55:57" mark and everyone should listen to it. A question was asked about the United States on SDG 13, that it isn't a matter of convincing the government, it is about "how to convince the people because it is the people that change the government". Did you read that? They know the United States is different, the people are the government. In response to asking what the "strategy" is to convince the people, Mr. Zhenmin replied, "The media could help, ask them to promote climate change". What rock is he living under? Every one of the issues discussed is thrown in our faces every day by the media. He then goes on to exalt the UN, its member states, the UN Secretary General himself whom he thinks is in charge, and he even has the gall to reference all of them as "we the people".
WE have the ability to stop this, if there is no "political will" then it must be "our" will. These people are committed to destroying us, we cannot let that happen, and they are getting more aggressive with their actions. We can continue to fight the symptoms of this UN disease, but until we fight the UN intrusion into our lives, we will continue to decline until our death.
Non-governmental organizations (NGO) are celebrating the introduction of legislation for the "protection and restoration of certain native fish, wildlife, and plant species" on federal land called the Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act. Rep. Donald Beyer tried this before in 2016 and according to Govtrak this new bill only has a 3% chance of passing. The urgency came again following a 2018 United Nations report over mass extinction hysteria. Even though intended for federal land, the caveat includes funding conservation efforts on state and private land that encourages wildlife movement and creating a council to identify priority areas on "non-federal" lands. We all know that "council" would be NGO individuals.
Some states, such as Oregon, have passed corridor legislation, others are studying it. While NGOs hammer the federal government for this type of legislation, they are also targeting state legislators for integration of corridors and connectivity policies into state legislation. Idaho has an action plan as well, identifying areas throughout the state for corridors. But the true plans are laid out by the Craighead Institute, targeting land use plans such as comprehensive plans, local zoning and ordinances, even HOAs for inclusions of such conservation drivel.
The Western Landowners Alliance, based in New Mexico, has similar goals, advancing policies for connected landscapes. Executive Director, Lesli Allison, has started the campaign for convincing private land owners to conserve their "working lands" for migration. Translated it means designed, regulated, and restricted use.
Ms. Allison presented this powerpoint, called Intermingled Public and Private Lands, to the Western Governors Association (WGA) last year, describing her intentions with graphics. Below is the most striking graphic. As the graphic shows, the true agenda behind any corridor type is restricted and highly regulated use on all property types.
The "threats" Ms. Allison identifies in her powerpoint include development, roads, fences, livestock, and energy. Apparently she also thinks land owners are a threat as the process is "led by NGOs, government agencies". So much for her notion of working with private landowners on working lands. Ms. Allison isn't the only one looking at this "working lands" issue, the WGA held a "working lands" roundtable in April this year that included the Nature Conservancy and Bureau of Land Management, but no citizens. In spite of claims that landowners should be involved in the decisions, and listened to, it is really about deceiving them on the true agenda. The graphic shows the true intention.
If a corridor is declared on public land, the committed effort will then be plowing through private, municipal, and state land, extending the corridor from one protected area to another. Corridors, no matter what type, will have protections placed on them for banned or restricted use. As seen in the graphic, the purple shows how corridors provide "connectivity" between protected public land.
WARNING: It is critical that citizens fight any reference to corridors in local land use plans such as comprehensive plans, zoning, and ordinances. If inserted, that language will be a stepping stone for this land use restriction agenda. When it is time for comprehensive plan updates, be actively involved so this does not happen. Also, share this with your elected officials and private property owners with working lands so they understand what is happening.
Lastly, where is all of this coming from? Gary Tabor, Center for Large Landscape Conservation (CLLC) president, and Network for Landscape Conservation (NLC) Coordinating Committee member, is also the Specialist Group Leader for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Connectivity Conservation program, the purpose of which is to facilitate species conservation through protected areas. CLLC is also an IUCN member, just type in CLLC. Tabor is bringing IUCN ideology to a local level, through the NLC partnerships that include federal agencies, and it is generally understood that IUCN is a UN partner. Hello Agenda 2030.
Since information seems to mysteriously disappear off the internet once exposed, here is a copy of the powerpoint.
The Better World Campaign (BWC) was created in 1999 by Ted Turner as part of his historic $1 billion gift to support UN causes. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., this organization "works to foster a strong, effective relationship between the United States and the United Nations" by engaging "policymakers, the media, and the American public". Naturally, since the UN is all about corporatism to promote their ideology, businesses have financially benefited from the UN. Fortunately Idaho seems to be left off the list.
In addition to the BWC, Turner also created the United Nations Foundation with that billion. Since that money dried up in 2014, the UN had to find other dupes to fund them. Well, it turns out that was no problem. Governments around the world including the US, foundations, and corporations have picked up the tab without a word on how that money is spent.
The United Nations Association of the United States of America (UNAUSA) also supports UN activities and work with BWC. They are even involved in helping our youth to become global citizens. In Idaho, there are two chapters, one at Boise State University, and the other at Idaho State University. The UNAUSA works to promote the UN Sustainable Development Goals, indoctrinate the young through their programs, advance LGBTI rights, support illegal aliens, and in general force us into a global world under UN dictates.
It is a sad future for America.
In spite of the tin foil hat accusers that Agenda 21 doesn't exist, here is former Vice President Al Gore, 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.
Technocrats, those who are driven to have scientific control over society, are working hard to ultimately design how we recreate, known as Community Based Tourism (CBT). In there quest for ultimate control, they are determined to design the area where we recreate, dictate how we mange our businesses and behave as tourists, and decide how we are allowed to enjoy ourselves.
In usual technocratic fashion, definitions of tourism are broken down into microscopic details of data. One shouldn't be allowed to just go someplace and enjoy themselves. Ecotourism is "responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment, sustains the well-being of the local people, and involves interpretation and education" of tourists. This is seen as different from other screwball tourism categories they have created such as responsible, sustainable, or even green tourism. All of these over analyzed definitions of people going somewhere to freely enjoy themselves will just be listed here as Sustainable Tourism (ST). ST has some set criteria that includes consideration for environmental, socio-economic, and cultural impacts, and sustainable management of the tourist destination, all of which are essentially the same as other definitions. These criteria determine how you are allowed to use land, where, and the way in which you should behave.
Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) is part of this agenda and have been very secretive about this longer term plan for CBT, usually referring to it vaguely as a form of economic development or diversity. While working hard to place as much land as possible into protection between existing protected areas (PA) for their connectivity agenda, the end goal includes dictating how that land should be designed and used as a tourist. While this Y2Y link to a conference does not work, it does state the conference includes presentations on "ecosystem economics and tourism", and is appropriately named "Tracking the Human Footprint". This is CBT and there are now degrees that can be earned in this field.
As usual with technocrats, everything has to be broken down into precise categories for scientific measure. For PA tourism, CBT includes the ST concept but in true technocratic fashion, the criteria are even more precisely defined. Increasing the amount of PAs is essential for CBT implementation, and is a driving factor behind the urgency by Y2Y and their partner non-governmental organizations (NGO) to get as much land as possible into protection. Because the list of technocratic CBT requirements is so exhaustive, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) provides the best guide for now. This particular document is also important because Y2Y is an IUCN member, just type their full name in the search box, and Y2Y founder, Harvey Locke, is also a member, working hard to implement IUCN objectives. The IUCN is an active partner of the United Nations (UN). It is a falsehood for any Y2Y member to say there is no connection to the UN as Jody Hilty, Y2Y President and Chief Scientist, stated while insulting Idaho rural residents at the 31:20 mark in this video. While claiming the population has doubled, Ms. Hilty doesn't believe anyone has the right to freedoms as she condescendingly mocks those who do at the 26:10 mark, and that OHV use should be removed at the 9:00 mark. Doubled in what time frame Ms. Hilty, and is it not rather pompous to presume that this alleged double population will descend on what you believe is land that should never be used? Folks, this is the technocratic arrogance we are dealing with. Ms. Hilty herself references the IUCN PA agenda in the video.
In a 2014 study, Ms. Hilty even scrutinized local land use ordinances for "conservation design" in protected areas, advocating for development that "requires a portion of a residential property to be set aside for conservation" with "smaller lots...clustered together, allowing for open space and biological resources to be permanently protected", having full intentions of targeting local governments for inclusion of these objectives into land use policies. There are Y2Y and other NGO members who carry out these tasks, targeting local governments.
In the IUCN Tourism and visitor management in protected areas Guidelines for sustainability document, all aspects of controlling tourism in PAs is covered. IUCN and others believe tourism has a negative impact on the environment and especially on PAs such as parks and wilderness areas. As more areas are placed into protective status, there will be more regulated use, at least that is the plan. Regulated use considers conservation of the area, economical and social factors, and cultural aspects with guidelines broken down into miniscule details. While this document may seem overwhelming and of not much interest, it should be at least scanned through to understand, and prepare for, the future of what Y2Y and others want to do. Being aware of this regulatory control agenda will assist Idahoans in recognizing it when attempts are made to integrate the objectives into local land use policies.
There are some basic elements to Protected Area Tourism. Some of those elements include programs that educate the the tourist on conservation practices and the importance of PA conservation. Guided tours, campfire talks, and friendly reminders located around the area are just a few traps for education. The intent is influencing both tourist businesses and visitor behavior. These ideologues believe CBT is an economic benefit with increased number of jobs while charging fees for visiting a PA. Also within this fatuous idea is the belief that living standards will increase, cultures will be appreciated more, and mental health will improve, but not without the dichotomy of concerns over "psychological" stress to wildlife and environmental damage from tourism.
As a result, there must be management objectives because of these impacts. Tourism must align with conservation objectives which leads to strict control over land use and the way in which one behaves and visits the area. There should also be a "commercialisation (sic) manual", dictating how businesses are managed, some of which includes adopting "an ecosystem-based approach in tourism development" and designing and adopting "nature-based solutions". For businesses that currently exist, the plan includes educating them on the proper way to conduct their business.
With their "Visitor Management Framework", recommendations include putting "hard limits (up to and including bans) on problematic visitor uses" through zoning, rationing, and enforcement. Other management methods involve increasing surveillance, limiting activity to bike only zones or hiker only days, prohibiting motor use, limiting campsite designation, length of stays, access points, and size of groups; restrictions on campfires, fishing, and hunting; requiring visitors to hire guides; and imposing fines. In the never ending endeavor for control, requiring tourist proof of ecological knowledge and recreational activity skills is even listed. The World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) prepared a report for IUCN which has a special tools section for visitor management which IUCN advocates. The U.S. Forest Service and other federal agencies have already adopted these visitor management tools, true technocratic dictatorship.
Certification as a tourist and especially as a business is seen as needed for "conformity to a set of standards, including specific sustainability targets", which they see as a possible "marketing tool" to attract tourists, a way in which to influence behavior, duping people to believe that all of this control over what we do and how we behave is good.
An ominous subject is "buffer zones". These are communities just outside of protected areas, often referred to as failures, in spite of the fact that communities which lie near PAs have been successfully managed by locals and families for generations. Another term for these buffer zones is gateway communities. Because of the erroneous belief that these communities don't know what they are doing, a summit was held in 2018 to discuss strategies on how to change the way in which these communities currently function with local control. This insulting 1999 article also expresses the idea that gateway communities don't know what they are doing and should look like Jackson. Currently, the Federal Highway Administration also has their hands in redesigning gateway communities for economic benefits and "livability", defining a gateway community as a "community directly adjacent to or near public lands managed by a federal agency which actively provides services to the public land visitors." A case is also made for expanding parks to manage the deluge of tourists, just sucking those gateway communities right into the fold of dictatorship. For every Idaho tourist community near public or protected land, you are a target for this agenda, starting with communities near Yellowstone.
The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) also has their fingers in the bowl for PA tourism, publishing this Ecotourism: Principles, Practices & Policies for Sustainability document in 2002. Y2Y is identified as an active "regional" participant in this 2012 document, Sustainable Mountain Development Green Economy and Institutions, which describes the true intention behind Y2Y activities, a "framework" for mountain development. With Agenda 21 as a key reference for future action for Governance, the focus is conservation and development, "green investment", policy partnerships with the private sector (P3), and green energy use. What this gibberish really means is the technocrats believe we are unable to control our growth with proper planning, harm the land and environment, and indeed we ourselves need to be micromanaged. This is one massive agenda for control, or more appropriately worded, dictatorship, and our government is right in line to implement it in their partnerships with the UN and NGOs such as Y2Y. The UN World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) is spreading this same agenda around the world, promoting "observation" of nature, specialized tour operators, managing areas for conservation, and promotion of education on conservation.
Both Agenda 21 (pg 33) and 2030 have specific sections on tourism. This objective has been planned for many years and as more land is placed into forms of protection, they are to the point where more dictatorial methods will incrementally be placed on us. The UN recently updated their sustainable mountain development objectives.
To guard your local land use policies from this assault, contact your local elected officials about creating a citizen advisory committee (CAC), there are multiple types of CACs, one of which could be specific to land use policies. The mission can be simple, to have citizen involvement over decisions made for land policies and prevent the inclusion of the ST agenda. It also ensures citizens would have prominent input into those policies as the CAC could hold public meetings, rather than NGOs controlling the discussion. This would also be a tremendous service to your commissioners and council members as understanding state land use laws can be complex. Recommendations can be made to the officials, this being especially critical for "gateway" communities. If you want to get involved in protecting your community from the larger Y2Y and UN agenda, give this some serious thought. Create a Resource Management Plan similar to this Custer County prooposal that ensures adherence to federal laws and maintains local control. Now is the time for you to leave behind the "I don't know what to do" slogan. Be the sheepdog before a sustainable tourism corporate developer comes knocking at your door to design the whole area as a master plan, or through the federal government.
Otherwise, you will be outweighed by this agenda, and the graphic below indicates your position in the decisions.
Once again a bill has been introduced in Congress to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations (UN). Alabama Rep. Mike Rogers introduced H.R. 204, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2019, to the House on 1/3/19, which has been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Fellow Rep. Thomas Massie from Kentucky has been a regular co-sponsor. Rep. Rogers has attempted this before without success. However, his home state of Alabama was the first to create a law banning participation in Agenda 21. Another supporter is Sen. Rand Paul whose father, Rep. Ron Paul, introduced previous versions in 1997 and 2009.
President Trump has already provided direction on withdrawal from the UN. One UN organization he withdrew the U.S. from is the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) which has been the driving force behind the change in our educational system. Other activities he pulled the U.S. out of include the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), UN Migration Compact, and the Paris Climate Agreement.
Not only is there grave concern about UN anti-Semitism, there is also the outrageous amount of money the U.S. gives to the UN, more than any other country. H.R. 204 would end that cost. This Act would also repeal various federal statutes that authorize U.S. involvement in the UN, prohibit the use of U.S. troops by the UN, close the U.S. Mission to the UN, remove the UN headquarters from U.S. soil, and formally repeal U.S. participation in UNESCO, the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), and World Health Organization (WHO), while ending involvement in conventions and agreements and all participation in any UN organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body.
Contact your Congressional representatives and ask them to co-sponsor this bill and vote in favor of its passage.
Update: 2019 Because Idaho has a statute that forbids other state ownership of utilities, this case was settled in court.
Aside from the possibility that north Idaho Avista customers will be under a Canadian electric utility, Hydro One, there is a far more serious problem in that a U.S. electrical grid will be run by a foreign country.
Hydro One is a Canadian electricity transmission and distribution service provider. Even though Hydro One is a private company, up until 2015 the Government of Ontario held 100% of its shares, at which time the government decided to sell up to 60% shares to raise money for infrastructure improvements. One concern expressed at that time was the possibility of foreign investments, which did happen with the Bahrain Gulf International Bank (GIB) holding approximately 93k shares. As of May, 2017 Ontario held the remaining 49.9% shares.
In July, 2017 Hydro One bought the American energy company Avista for $5.3 billion U.S. dollars as part of their plan "to grow our business to become a North American leader", creating "one of the largest regulated utilities in North America." Avista will be allowed to "keep its existing corporate headquarters... and continue to operate as a stand-alone utility in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Alaska." Scott Morris, Avista president, likes this deal because of future "opportunities in a consolidating industry landscape for the benefit of our customers.” Morris also stated, "The partnership largely allows Avista to preserve how it does business with its customers, enables it to continue to pursue technological innovation, and permits it to take advantage of operating efficiencies and shared best practices".
Sovereign boundaries between countries are now nothing more than an industry landscape? Ontario sits on the border from Minnesota to New York, now northwest states are part of this landscape?
According to Daiene Vernile, Member of Provincial Parliament, the Ontario Energy Board will set rates and Ontario will retain regulatory control. She better get together with Scott Morris, there seems to be a disconnect between their understanding of the deal. Wow, American electricity rates under a foreign country. Avista shareholders approved the deal November 21, 2017 but Avista is already being investigated for "potential breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Board of Directors". The deal requires the approval of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) and per this October 5, 2017 Order Avista promises no increased rate hikes and better service, Avista stock will be purchased by Hydro One, and August 14, 2018 is the final date of closure on the deal. On the other hand IPUC must find that "the transaction is consistent with the public interest". How is selling an Idaho utility out to a foreign country or allowing a foreign country determine what rates an Idahoan pays for electricity consistent with public interest? Entangling our electrical assets with foreigners has been going on for some time, such as the San Diego Gas & Electric entering into a "partnership" with the Russian Federation in 2010.
As part of the deal Hydro One will now also own Avista dams including the Upper Falls, Monroe Street, Nine Mile, Little Falls, and Long Lake dams in Washington and the Cabinet Gorge and Post Falls dams in Idaho, found on this map.
Rates were already rising prior to the selling of Ontario shares. Dismantling Ontario Hydro created a $38.1 billion debt, paid off by ratepayers through the “debt retirement fee” which was removed in 2016. However, Ontario residents continued paying higher rates, attributed to an oversupply of power, the cost of green energy such as wind and solar, and poor government management. Ontario recently took action to reduce rates while continuing reduced rate programs for those in certain categories ensuring "greater fairness". Hydro One has a history of poor billing service and was also ordered to cut administrative costs this year. In 2016 an audit revealed customers were overcharged $37 billion. Is this the type of financial mismanagement now being brought to Idahoans? Hydro One intends to continue buying U.S. electric companies which could potentially put them in control of all Pacific Northwest electrical coverage.
The way in which our energy is regulated is complex and only a few examples are given here. The most disturbing aspect of this transaction is the advancement of the Department of Energy's (DOE) intent to "harmonize" the Electricity Sectors across North America, which means "fully integrating energy policies" between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and integrating electrical grids. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is a "not-for-profit international regulatory authority whose mission is to assure the reliability and security of the bulk power system in North America.", and whose "jurisdiction includes users, owners, and operators of the bulk power system..." which stretches from Baja Mexico, through the United States, into Canada. Here is the NERC map. Idaho is located in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) region. Hydro One is located in the Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC). Integrating our electrical grid with Canada has been advancing since at least 2012.
Electrical grids are separated into three areas, generation (hydropower, renewable, coal), transmission (lines that carry electricity), and distribution (electricity delivered customers). The WECC Bulk Power System (BPS) includes transmission equipment which generate and deliver electricity across North America but does not include local distribution systems. Below is a BPS graphic. NERC has a delegation agreement with WECC to ensure WECC reliability standards are met and advance NERC reliability standards, which are international.
WECC Committee members include individuals from Avista, Bonneville Power, Idaho Power, Canada, Arizona, California, the BLM, and others. They also develop and implement "Regional Reliability Standards and Regional Criteria for the Western Interconnection" which includes Canada and Mexico standards. The Board of Directors are not elected by Idahoans to represent them and their electricity needs. As in so many other issues, the United States is being broken up into regions and subregions, erasing all sovereignty, whose representation is being obliterated by individuals who are not elected by us but who have authority to make decisions about our lives, and then regulate us under international standards. The United States is being transformed into a borderless country.
One Department of Energy (DOE) goal is integrating renewable energy. Coincidentally, representatives of UNIDO and UNEP have served on advisory committees to this goal (iv)(116) as both of these United Nations (UN) organizations support energy integration. The UN Department of Economic Social Affairs (DESA) also wants "International Electric Power Grid Interconnections". DOE has joined hands with the UN in their Sustainable Energy For All (SE4ALL) program, implementing Agenda 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goal 7, enhancing "international cooperation" (7.A), and "foreign direct investment in financial transfer for infrastructure and technology" (7.B.1).
In Agenda 21, DESA was assigned the responsibility to "...undertake the task of directing system-wide coordination and integration of environmental and developmental aspects of United Nations policies and programmes..." (38.10). Chapter 30, Strengthening The Role Of Business And Industry, also addresses the need for "cleaner production, cooperation, and partnerships" (30.1), to "mix laws and standards with industry" (30.8), and "facilitate exchange of technology" (30.23), which Hydro One supports. Chapter 31, Scientific and Technological Community, commands promotion of "regional cooperation, expanding international and regional agreements" (31.4bc), and promoting "international acceptance of codes of practice and guidelines relating to science and technology" that is "recognized by the society as a whole" (31.9). These UN objectives are advanced by the DOE and the deal between Avista and Hydro One.
Why doesn't the federal government just quit pretending, announce we are being run by UN dictates, and admit to all of their UN partnerships?
Canada is a global partner to UN Sustainable Development which Hydro One follows in their Corporate Social Responsibility program, a UN program concocted to redistribute wealth. Avista has its own "Corporate Governance" model it follows which is another fabricated UN ruse. Now Idahoans will be dragged further into this obscene activity, along with Hydro One "green values". Ontario hydropower is generated by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and its employees receive a "portion of their pay in Hydro One stock as part of a new contract settlement." Avista customers will now be subsidizing those pension plans, another way to redistribute wealth per Agenda 21. Hydro One comes with massive financial problems, what better way to fix them than to redistribute the debt to Idahoans.
One frightening factor about this electrical integration is the interconnected electrical grid systems. All electricity in the western states could be completely obliterated by an attack, rather than one grid being destroyed while the remaining separate grids would be protected. Another concern is the Columbia River Treaty. While one agreement in the original Columbia River Treaty was Canada storing water for release to the United States for hydropower, now with Hydro One in control of U.S. dams, how will this influence the re-negotiations currently taking place, especially with their UN alliance? Do Idahoans have a voice in anything, or will we just continue being subjected to the influences and decisions by foreigners and the UN?
Avista customers might want to give consideration to filing an injunction. Surely there are potential harms that will come with Hydro One, especially financial, along with other factors that are clearly not in the public interest. Why should Idahoans pay for foreign infrastructure projects or pension plans? Are there no laws that protect our sovereignty? Does this deal not violate the very foundation of our Republic? The evidence is here, the DOE and UN intend to internationalize our electrical grids, it will be only a matter of time before we see more foreign takeovers of Idaho grids to fully achieve their agenda.
Patrick Wood has more information on electrical grid integration here, and fellow Idahoan, Vicky Davis has more information on NERC and smart meters here.
As a United Nations (UN) non-governmental organization (NGO), the Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA) has abandoned their loyalty to the United States. UN NGOs are required to to commit their loyalty to implementing the goals and objectives of the UN.
With so much false information at hand now, finding some legitimate source on the origins of the Girl Scouts is concerning. It is best to go to the first printings and discover the original intentions of the Girl Scouts.
Juliette Lowe originally founded the Girl Guides in 1912, modeled after a boys program in England, and the name changed to Girl Scouts in 1915. The 1922 handbook states the Promise as: "On my honor I will try: To do my duty to God and my country; To help other people at all times; and To obey the scout laws. The Promise now states: On my honor, I will try: To serve God and my country; To help people at all times; And to live by the Girl Scout Law. No more duty to God or country.
The scout law originally included that a Girl Scout(s): Honor is to be Trusted; is Loyal; is to be Useful and to Help Others; is a Friend to All and a Sister to every other Girl Scout; is Courteous; is a Friend to Animals; Obeys Orders; is Cheerful; is Thrifty; and is Clean in Thought, Word and Deed.
The more recent changes to the law first came in 1972, then again in 1996. The law has now morphed into I will do my best to be: honest and fair, friendly and helpful, considerate and caring, courageous and strong, and responsible for what I say and do; and to respect myself and others, respect authority, use resources wisely, make the world a better place, and be a sister to every Girl Scout.
It may seem like mincing words here but what was a traditional American foundation has now been hijacked for the world. While no "mission" could be found in the 1922 or 1925 handbook, the mission is now building "girls of courage, confidence, and character, who make the world a better place." No more duty to country, America.
The Principles in 1922 were the Motto: Be Prepared; Slogan: Do a Good Turn Daily; Pledge: Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag; and the Promise. The GSUSA currently retains the Motto and Slogan as "traditions" rather than a Principle, but not the Pledge.
No more allegiance to the Flag or duty to God and country. In fact, Section VIII in the 1922 edition is devoted entirely to the US Flag, much of which seems to be omitted, at least on the GSUSA website.
While the GSUSA has similar requirements for the Flag it now also includes inviting girls from other countries "to honor their flags too, and together conduct an international flag ceremony." They also describe the flag ceremony as "honoring the American flag" as the "symbol of our country and all the hopes, dreams, and people it represents." Wrong.
While no specific information could be found on what the Flag represents this site has an interesting description of what the Pledge means as Red Skelton recites what he was taught in grade school. However, the Flag colors do have specific representations: white signifies purity and innocence; red, hardiness and valor; and blue signifies vigilance, perseverance, and justice. The stars represent the states, and the thirteen stripes represent the original thirteen colonies. The Flag is not a symbol, it does not represent dreams or people, it represents the United States.
The official Handbook in 1925 placed a heavy emphasis on learning life skills such as cooking, sewing, understanding weather and nature, camping, first aid, gardening, even Morse code.
Few life skills are now taught. Badges are earned for business etiquette, buying power, public policy, customer loyalty, programming robots, entertainment technology, with a sprinkling of first aid, simple meals, and archery. Numerous job badges can be earned rather than for personal life skills. Just like ambassadors to the UN, there are "Ambassador" badges for grades 11 and 12. Young girls are being groomed to learn skills that will serve corporations.
The GSUSA is now run as a business model which includes corporate partners, many of which are UN business partners, and a National Board made up of individuals from many UN business partners as well. GSUSA has been transformed into a conglomerate of pseudo-corporate heads, a business enterprise. It is no surprise given the UN is leading us to corporatism.
Why is this being done? Very simple, as a UN NGO since 2003, the GSUSA is obligated to support UN goals and objectives, and this includes the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). All Girl Scout activities will now be for the sole purpose of indoctrinating young girls in UN ideology. And we wonder why there has been such an acceleration of socialist, collectivist, and global citizenry thinking in our youth. It should be no surprise.
No use turning to the Boy Scouts. They have also adopted the UN through the World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM), a UN NGO. The Boy Scouts Citizenship in the World merit badge educates scouts on the UN. Not to worry, the UN will be reaching out to the Boy Scouts to implement their SDG goals as well.
Just remember the direction and philosophy of scouts is no longer American, it is UN.
This is too good to pass up.
What exactly is the drive behind gaining control over the ecosystem? How is it that every microscopic detail is captured under a vague title which is ultimately a concept where every detail has to be managed?
Well, the name given to this concept is called ecosystem services. This is a notion that every ecosystem detail "services" humans. Say what?
While the Portneuf River flooded Pocatello several times over the years, 1910 & 11, 1912, and 1944-45, the 1962-1963 flood was "the greatest ever experienced", "with damage estimated more than $10 million", and declared a disaster area. Pocatelloans actively engaged to protect fellow citizens. The flood was sadly far more widespread than just Pocatello.
Following the massive devastation of those floods the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was brought in to build a concrete channel, also known as a flume, that would control future flooding. Debris build up had also been a problem on the Portneuf from various items being thrown into the river, and bank overgrowth, both creating a bottleneck in the flow. Skunk overflow was even a problem on the banks! All of these issues could be, AND WERE, solved with the channel.
Ok, ok, now we know some Portneuf River history. What does that have to do with ecosystem services?
Allegedly in Pocatello, "people", or 95% of "stakeholders" want the river "restored". Ninety people responded out of a population of approximately 54,000. One third of those respondents work for the government, another one third are environmentalists. That makes 30 people in each group, great survey sample. Restoring “the natural water course of the Portneuf was also highly rated" while maintaining flood control. Are you kidding? Look at the historical facts of letting the river return to its natural water course.
Managing Idaho's Landscapes for Ecosystem Services (MILES) is the group behind changing the Portneuf through their "river vision study" and connecting "people to ecosystem services". Perhaps it would be fair to say the citizens in 1962 were very closely "connected" to the river.
Among other definitions, ecosystem services are defined as benefits that humans derive from the ecosystem. Benefits such as food, air, water, and flood control. Flood control? MILES includes raw materials and medicinal resources, and adds disease control. In this organization's mind, ecosystems act as "regulators" that provide the benefits. But what would the ecosystem be without the additional "social" benefits such as recreation, tourism, mental health, aesthetics and inspiration, and spirituality. Of course habitats are also part of these services while protecting the "genetic diversity". Ergo, these "services" must be restored and protected.
Now it just so happens the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) all promote the fantasy of ecosystem services, naming just a few federal agencies. But the real meat of ecosystem services comes from the United Nations (UN).
The notion of ecosystem services arose out of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), launched by the UN in 2005. On page 1 the definition is pretty much the same as MILES, noting the "ability of ecosystems to deliver services can be assessed" and that "People seek many services from ecosystems". The MEA separates the services into categories (pg 57):
Provisioning - Products obtained from ecosystems
Regulating - Benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes
Cultural - Non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems
Supporting - Services necessary for production of all other ecosystem services.
Still the same as MILES. Somehow the UN equates ecosystem services (pg 78) to "freedoms and choice" and drivers of ecosystems changes are primarily from local, national, and international groups (pg 90). Those 90 survey respondents represent the "local drivers" regarding the Portneuf.
There are some other interesting aspects to this report. On page 7, "The relative influence of individual nation-states has diminished with the growth of power and influence of a far more complex array of institutions, including regional governments, multinational companies, the United Nations, and civil society organizations." A reference to the United States and growing UN influence in our government and over our lives? And how about that corporate influence?
And going back to that tiresome UN social justice theme on page 14, "Unequal access to ecosystem services has often elevated the well-being of small segments of the population at the expense of others."
Without going into the excruciatingly painful details of all the UN organizations, here is a list involved in the MEA, including the United States. As previously noted federal agencies, who all partner with the UN, are also engaged in pushing ecosystem services onto us. Plus, Goal 15.1 in Agenda 2030 is to "... ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services...". And of course, the Portneuf River in southeast Idaho has been declared a basin and "watershed" needing restoration.
Of the three Agenda 21 pillars, social, economic, and environment, two are often integrated, social and economic, referred to as socio-economic. As seen here, the MILES program is part of this integrated concept.
Where is the UN influence coming from in the MILES program? One of its funding sources is the National Science Foundation (NSF). And the NSA actively works with UN organizations. Take the money, push the ideology.
Now, this ecosystem services nonsense would not even be an issue if it weren't for the UN. The UN wants us to believe that disasters of all types are lurking around the corner and immediate action must be taken to address climate change to stave off such destruction. Just one more scare tactic the UN lays on us to justify taking control. The notion that there will be increasing floods is nothing more than a bunch of rubbish, there have always been devastating floods. This Department of Interior report discusses far western state flooding in 1964-1965 stating on page A1, "The floods of December 1964 and January 1965 in the Far Western States were extreme". And this was after the 1962-63 floods. Now how could that be without climate change, isn't the worst to come? Or maybe it was just the fact that the particular climate activities, in combination with the river itself, was just nature doing her thing? Man, in his wisdom, came up with a workable solution, to build a flume only as the river flowed through the city, leaving the river alone to its forces once out of the city. Now because of the UN it all has to be undone. Let those UN supporters go talk to people who suffered through that flood, it is most likely they will get an earful. Ecosystem services? To serve humans? Those citizens were not served by that flood.
Ecosystem services is a warped falsehood, reversing how humans really care for the environment, we service it. We care for the environment when mother nature becomes destructive, not only to itself, but also to us. If the Portneuf had been allowed to once again run wild after the floods there would have been further massive environmental destruction along with destruction to humans. Pocatello citizens took care of their own, the way it should be, not from outside UN or government influences dictating decisions or how lives should be lived.
If Idahoans believe that the UN has no influence in their lives, it is right at their back door, they had better wake up. Idaho is under siege, it has blatantly been taken over, with more to come.
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!