Wow, there have been many changes since the last post. We have a new President who has promised to restore America to its original foundation. He has moved forward with dropping the TransPacificPartnership (TPP), rolled back the Clean Water Rule, has challenged participation in the Paris agreement which will bind us to Agenda 2030, and placed a hard core critic of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, into the driver's seat.
But, he has also made some questionable decisions. The first is Ryan Zinke as the director of the Department of Interior (DOI). While Zinke has voted in some respects contrary to traditional United Nations (UN) dictates such as endangered species, and has already issued an order to expand access to public lands, he none the less has a track record of promoting land conservation efforts. His activities will need to be closely monitored over the next year.
There are also a few others that will need close monitoring. Will Ben Carson as director of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) move forward with his concerns about the Fair Housing Act? Rick Perry is another questionable choice with his history of promoting Agenda 21 goals. What is Trump thinking? There are others but for now vigilance must remain.
Because of the new administration many links on the posts might no longer be valid. Many of the references to climate change have been removed, but unfortunately the mission to the UN is still present on several agency websites such as the Department of Education. In spite of this new administration it is not the time to stop being vigilant, threats to America's future still exist until such time there is concrete removal of UN influence through federal legislation and agency programs which implement Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030. Foundations of UN ideology that have previously been laid are still in place and being implemented.
Ambassador For The United Nations
Multiple non-governmental organizations (NGO), also known as non-profits, promote United Nations (UN) goals and objectives and they have been very successful at it. Our whole society is infested with their ideology. But don't be fooled here in Idaho when a local innocent appearing non-profit presents itself as tho it is advocating for Idaho when it is really advocating for a foreign organization occupied by despots.
As the UN gets closer to the final slamming of the door on the U.S., there is an increased boldness by these groups and individuals proclaiming their true allegiance to the UN. Finally the truth. One such Idaho group, the Idaho Conservation League (ICL).
Rick Johnson, ICL Executive Director, in a May 19, 2016 speech, proudly announced to the audience "You are ambassadors of the wilderness for the United Nations." He lovingly describes his initial involvement with Washington, D.C. elites, meeting in rooms and sharing beers, ultimately devising ways in which Idahoans use of their own land would end as they created ways to take control away. Working for the UN NGO Sierra Club, he open admits becoming "skilled" with "bringing others along". Who? Certainly not Idahoans who want to keep their right to use their land instead of having it locked up in wilderness areas and other conservation gimmicks espoused by the UN, which he presumably learned from his UN buddies. It is highly unlikely that any Idahoan declared themselves as an ambassador to the UN.
In pursuing the Boulder White Clouds wilderness bill he recognized a "polarized" Congress. He failed to see that polarization as a result of his, and others, attempts to take Idahoans right to use their state land. Seeing "collaboration" as a solution, he also failed to understand that those collaborations did not include Idaho citizens. Regardless of understanding that the current President is not popular in Idaho he proceeded with pursuing a National Monument designation to manipulate signing of the Boulder-White Clouds wilderness bill, titled the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act. His buddy, Rep. Mike Simpson, proudly watched the bill signing by a President who is not liked by Idahoans. How is that representing, supporting, or advocating for Idahoans? Claiming the wilderness is protected by "regular Idaho people", well, that is just dishonest. In reality, if you look for citizens who opposed this bill, all you can find are groups such as bikers, opposing it only because they didn't want a national monument designation. The ruse worked. At least Rep. Labrador got it right, “The truth is, the public will is against this bill.”
The ICL website states it is a "...conservation community working to keep Idaho the kind of special place you experienced as a child..." They are mistaken. Idaho children, prior to the UN taking over, experienced Idaho freely. Free to go into the forest and build huts, splash in springs and streams, ride snowmobiles through the trees, hunt for mushrooms, cut wood for a warm fire, camp in a favorite spot, shoot fireworks celebrating America, float a river, pick some watercress, wild strawberries, or huckleberries, ...FREE, without some person dictating where, what, when, or how they were to enjoy themselves. FREE, to roam and explore, maybe pick some flowers to make a bouquet. FREE, to enjoy and experience their state. Of all those children who were free to experience their forest, does this group see any lasting damage from it? NO. Out of this Board of Directors and staff group, how many of them are Idaho natives? How many are old enough to even remember experiencing Idaho freely? How many "experienced" Idaho as a child?
In a "longstanding partnership" with the the UN NGO Wilderness Society, they helped ICL celebrate robbing Idahoans of their right to use their own land with the Boulder White Clouds Wilderness designation. Joining hands with the UN NGO Nature Conservancy on Idaho projects, they were then rewarded by another UN NGO, the American Planning Association. This is not a demonstration of supporting and protecting Idahoans, it is promoting and supporting the UN and all the cronies that go with it. In just another display of true loyalty the ICL celebrates the UN Earth Day. Have they ever heard of the Fourth of July? Idaho is where their true loyalty should lie. Mike Simpson openly displays himself as a buddy to these traitors, even giving them money. Is there a law that says this is corrupt, a state representative giving donations to a lobby group?
For the future, the ICL plans to take more land away from Idahoans use, restrict your water use and forcing UN climate change into your life with corrupt renewable energy projects, prevent the mining of resources that belong to Idaho, mess with your right to hunt and fish, all the while engaging with their crony UN and corrupt legislators.
Thick as thieves, the UN and its NGOs, thick as thieves. ICL is not for Idaho or its citizens. They are in it for themselves, forcing their UN ideology onto us.
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.
Water is a major component of ecosystems and inextricably links together every organism. The ecosystem cannot survive without water. Ecosystem water sources include aquifers, wetlands, riparian, rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, puddles left from rain, and watersheds.
A watershed is defined as an entire region draining into a river, river system, or other body of water, or an area of land that includes a particular river or lake and all the rivers, streams, etc., that flow into it. It includes all sources of water. A synonym for watershed is basin, the numerous watersheds make up the basin. Idaho has 92 watersheds and your area can be searched here or here.
Ecosystems, by their very nature, are dependent on watersheds for survival. If the watershed, or basin, is impaired, the ecosystem, and every part of it dies.
There are some Bureau of Land Management (BLM) watershed programs in Idaho, the Upper Salmon Basin, Owyhee County, and the Hawley Creek watershed. These projects focused on protecting fish. The Forest Service (FS) also engages in watershed programs such as in Coeur d' Alene. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gets into the watershed act at Tepee Creek and Bear Valley Creek. In a Watershed Restoration Partnership the USFS and BLM gave the Nez Perce Tribe 7.5 million dollars to protect and restore watersheds. Here is a 2011 FS map showing watershed conditions in Idaho and other Idaho watershed programs listed by the EPA.
Idahoans have come together creating groups on watershed issues such as the Henry's Fork Watershed Council and North Fork Coeur d' Alene River Watershed Advisory Group.
The USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan 2015-2020, Objective D focuses on restoring watersheds with a Watershed Condition Framework. This framework starts with classifying watershed conditions, prioritizing for restoration, developing a plan, implementing integrated projects, tracking those projects, then verifying accomplishment. Through their National Best Management Practices Program, the FS also has National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands booklet with extensive information on aquatic ecosystems starting on page 19 and another for riparian areas.
The EPA has a 400 page document for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters. Management practices include conserving, protecting, and restoring watersheds (pg 231); focus areas in agriculture, forests, and urban areas (pg 233-236, 241); more protective/restrictive practices than state regulations (pg 286); and of course monitoring all land use practices (pg 298).
Notice that most of these plans center around restoration and protection. There is a reason for that.
This FS document outlines its commitment to the UN and Agenda 21 by "Continuing large-scale watershed projects, involving mixed ownership jurisdictions and diverse partners, to achieve sustainable conservation and related development".
In 20011 the EPA signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to protect and conserve the environment, share common goals and objectives, cooperate with other nations to protect the environment globally, support environmental laws and regulatory instruments, with an ultimate goal for transitioning to a green economy. The EPA has a whole program devoted to watersheds as water is a high priority for UN control.
Department of Interior (DOI) agencies such as the USGS and USFWS work with the UN, and the DOI itself belongs to several UN organizations, including international. Commitment to the UN means implementing their objectives. And several UN organizations have objectives on watersheds.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) works with the DOI on an international basis with an international forum on watershed management, page 13.
The World Bank, which actively works with the UN, has been focused on water issues for some time, creating a Watershed Management, Approaches, Policies, and Operations report in 2008, financing watershed projects since the 1970s (ix).
Agenda 21, Chapter 18, is devoted to water. Objectives include assessment and data gathering on water sources, conservation, restoration, and water planning and management, not only through government polices, but internationally as well. Chapter 13 also promotes watershed development.
So it is easy to see how the federal government and the UN have been actively working on gathering the necessary data since Agenda 21 implementation in the United States. Enough data has been gathered to implement watershed plans and seize control over watersheds. If a watershed is restored it must be protected from further harm so keep people out, and if it does not need restoration it must be conserved and protected from harm, so keep people out. These plans are so successful that it has even Idahoans have been duped to engage in the deception.
Bottom line, watersheds are just the beginning of how our water is being pursued for control, serving the UN race to global governance.
It is near impossible trying to narrow down the exact United Nations (UN) version of ecosystem management as the information is a conglomeration of different booklets, articles, and ideas with multiple UN organizations that go on, and on, and on. When tying in the federal government it gets even more complex. So, ecosystems will be taken one subject at a time.
In 2015 Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, came up with this brilliant plan to "restore and protect" sagebrush, the Comprehensive Rangeland Fire Strategy to Restore & Protect Sagebrush Lands. One more joke of an idea. Following this announcement came the Soda Fire which destroyed more than just land, it destroyed species, habitat and private property as well. Now that the UN and federal government have joined hands for ecosystem management, to "control or direct human practices, species populations, and physical environment" as a means to protect ecosystems, sagebrush becomes a specific target because it is an ecosystem link with sage grouse habitat and other native species or grasses. Jewell states, "The plan's landscape-scale approach emphasizes sustainability of entire ecosystems...", while "addressing the spread of cheatgrass." This endeavor intends to "...conserve and protect sagebrush habitat...".
Now it is always interesting to note references of support from individuals for these obtuse plans, in this case ranchers. Jewell should be challenged on this claim, to identify just who those "ranchers" are that support her land destruction policies. The Idaho Cattle Lobby certainly doesn't agree with her.
One group was identified, the Idaho Rangeland Fire Protection Associations, where ranchers form groups to assist with firefighting efforts throughout the state. As important, and far more trustworthy as these ranchers are for protecting Idaho lands, would it not be more wise to let them engage in land practices that prevent fires in the first place? In spite of the years of knowledge these ranchers possess, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) thinks these Idahoans are not competent enough to manage a fire without their blessing. How dare they pass judgement on an Idaho rancher. The claim of "Ranchers backing Jewell’s order..." seems farfetched, it is more suspicious that these groups formed to protect the land from the BLM.
Oregon ranchers videotaped evidence of BLM officials using fire management to destroy land, private property, and animals near Frenchglen, Harney County. These ranchers were helpless to intervene for fear of arrest. Who in their right mind deliberately destroys all of this? Any BLM official reading this is invited to respond on the reasoning for this action.
In Jewell's grand scheme cheatgrass is a targeted ecosystem component because it tends to take over other native species and contributes to fire loads. Once again grazing is targeted as one cause. The BLM generalizes cheatgrass overgrowth to "disturbed" land which can encompass humans, recreational users, or any other reason to keep our land free from our use.
Claims of now using a “science-based” approach is laughable, and just where is the science coming from? By Jewell's own admission, "Many fire rehabilitation efforts have failed in previous decades because federal officials planted the wrong species of the similar-looking sagebrush." Shocker, the feds screwed it up. The Society of Range Management has an interesting article on cheatgrass and grazing in Nevada going back to the 1940's. It was determined that cows and sheep prefer cheatgrass. If cattle were allowed to graze cheatgrass in the spring there was secondary damage to other desired native plants but it also reduced the fire load during the summer. However, "Native perennial grasses can be grazed in the spring, but not repeatedly every year, or excessively in any one year, and the grasses must be given a chance to recover." The article also noted that "...grazing management to reduce cheatgrass as a fuel for wildfires has to include late spring grazing in years with enough soil moisture for abundant tiller growth." In addition, if grazing cheatgrass in the fall is allowed during seed proliferation there is less growth of cheatgrass.
Jewell's botched restoration plan for native plant species is to "solve that problem by using local seeds or seeds from the correct species found at similar elevations and growing conditions." Hello? According to the Nevada article, "No one has been consistently successful with large-scale artificial seedings of native perennial grasses in the face of competition from cheatgrass." However, using herbicide and tillage with cheatgrass competition in 1942 and the 1950's and 60's succeeded in establishing wheatgrass. Maybe this article should be sent to Jewell for "proven" science rather than science out of the UN.
"If ranchers and land managers are going to graze cheat-grass, they must have the flexibility to adjust existing grazing systems to fit the actual forage production on a given year without the expensive and time-consuming preparation of a new Environmental Assessment." A "rest–rotation grazing system" is needed as an asset to address cheatgrass issues. "On Federally managed rangelands the wheels of bureaucracy often have difficulty with changing grazing management systems to fit the exceptional years for cheatgrass production." No, they and the UN really want the land destroyed as an excuse to restore it, control it, and keep us from using it.
"There have been some reports and articles written up about the potential
for reducing catastrophic fires with grazing. There is a lot of opposition against this kind of project, however, from environmental groups. It goes against their philosophy of land management. They don’t want to acknowledge a beneficial use for cattle or this would negate their whole strategy and agenda for removing cattle from public land" (pg 5). Most of these environmental groups are UN non-governmental organizations.
How about putting goats out there, they like cheatgrass? Oh wait, no, let's create a National Sagebrush Ecosystem Conservation Area instead!!! This meets the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) strategic plan using the Aichi Biodiversity Strategic Goal C, "To improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems...", Target 12 "...the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status has been improved and maintained." Of course, to be accomplished by 2020.
The BLM is proud to use the UN tool "rapid ecoregional assessment" and recognizes the CBD on page 1 of their booklet about the snake river plain.
This is just the beginning of using ecosystem management as an excuse to steal more land from Americans, ban land use, push landowners into cities, and continue destructive land management practices.
Oh no, we can't have any solution that has already been practiced, it has to all be about control of the land in a manner that is the most destructive to all habitat, species, and the land itself. What does Jewell or any other previous Secretary know about managing a piece of land? At some point it will be the luxury of those who control the land to enjoy and use it, and no one else.
Let Idaho ranchers take over and kick the UN and their BLM buddies out.
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. 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. 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), BIA, 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 the 8 chapters of ecosystem maps showing the numerous mapping details, including topography, hydrologic, vegetation, landscape, grazing, watershed, riparian, rangeland, ecology, roads, habitat, species, timber, economy, population, and reservations, naming just a few. 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 Environment Programme (UNEP) envisions integrating ecosystem management into "ecosystem services", providing "specialized expertise" for assessment, management, economics, and governance including international agreements, legislation, and policy. As part of the memorandum of understanding with UNEP, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports ecosystem services along with multiple federal agencies promoting the same. 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. UNDP provides "technical and policy advice to governments" while promoting "Ecosystem-based Mitigation of & Adaptation to Climate Change", currently being implemented by the DOI as previously noted. Again a 2020 date for framework implementation.
One other UN organization, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), of which the DOI is a member, 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. This UNEP document gives a convoluted, scattered description of ecosystem based management on pages 4-5, almost as if they were trying to figure out how to justify a way to control everything. All four Idaho representatives, Risch, Crapo, Simpson, and Labrador urged the adoption of this treasonous document.
The USGS sits on the U.S. National Commission 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, financed via UNEP. 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 U.S. and Idaho water. 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 river is primed for UN take over.
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?
Bureau of Land Management - Part 1
Throughout all posts the United Nations (UN) has been explicitly clear about usurping land throughout the world in order to control not only the resources, but humans as well. Controlling how humans live and think, controlling how land and resources are used, and having global governance with laws and rights defined by the UN.
Previous posts have explained how the United States Forest Service is being run by UN dictates with continued mandates to lock up more forest through national monuments, wilderness areas, and forbidden use. The use of Tribes to remove land and resources from Americans is clearly outlined with their exploding partnerships to achieve these goals. Prior to the announcement of Agenda 2030 the UN has already sent their UN non-governmental organizations (NGO) out to convince local city and county officials to create city clusters for the benefit of the corporate world, which they proudly call "corporate governance".
One federal agency making the news lately is the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Although the January seizure and occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon by protesters was intended to highlight the BLM and its continued illegal confiscation of privately owned land, this BLM extortion was really not adequately exposed.
The Department of Interior (DOI) is a federal government agency that is systematically destroying America. Here is a chart of departments managed by the DOI, the BLM being one, all of which are resource based.
Because of complexities between government agencies, the BLM agenda will be broken down into overlapping issues of wilderness, desertification, ecosystems, and federal resource theft. Disputes over BLM land management occur because the BLM goal is eliminating private ranching, pushing ranchers off private property, preventing use by humans, stealing resources, and as in the case of forests, destroying BLM land via destructive land management policies.
According to the Idaho BLM site they control 541,812 acres of wilderness in Idaho, justifying this with Congress ensuring "...that an increasing population, expanding settlement and growing mechanization would not occupy and modify all areas of the United States." Better get back on that birth control. America still has settlers?
The BLM defines wilderness as "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain…Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions...". Shame on you for wanting to enjoy land in your state, for which you are being taxed and banned from using. Here is a map of BLM wilderness and other land in Idaho.
For years there have been ongoing grazing and water right disputes between ranchers and the BLM. The UN, BLM, and other nefarious federal agencies hate grazing, claiming "unregulated grazing" has over the years caused "...damage to soil, plants, streams, and springs...". Their solution is to reduce and restrict grazing, charge ranchers grazing fees, and use species protection for further restricted land use, justifying their obligation to "...ensure the long-term health and productivity of these lands...". Bullcocky, the purpose is to remove humans from their land and take over the resources. These restrictions and fees are the basis for the Bundy and Hammond ranch conflicts.
For generations ranchers have used grazing to maintain land health, grazing can even be used to heal damaged land. Allan Savory, a noted ecologist, explains how grazing has restored neglected land in this video. Of course, he has his critics such as Idaho State University professor Dr. Ralph Maughan, who has probably never worked a piece of land in his life other than through a UN biased government agency.
Allowed activity is defined by the BLM as activity on or near wilderness land through "Resource Management Plans". As an example, the Idaho BLM just approved the Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness and Wild & Scenic River Management plan. Among other requirements, through this plan the BLM dictates obsessive requirements for motorized vehicles, livestock grazing, hunting blinds, rock climbing, camping, recreation permits, visitor restrictions, trail use, and even bodily function requirements! The BLM is also obligated to "protect endangered species" such as the sage grouse, which ensures that you don't "harrass" or step on mating nests. These restrictive practices are passed down from the Wilderness Act (WA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) or through other "special designations". But the ruse is really to ban you from using the land.
It is well understood that wilderness and other "protected" areas are a focus of the UN. As noted in previous posts, the Wilderness Act was written by Howard Zahniser, director of the Wilderness Society, a UN non-governmental organization (NGO). The UN has other deceitful "protection" plans through national monuments, conservation easements, and habitat reserves. But their swath of land theft will continue to grow though other hoaxes.
"In cooperation with UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre..." the United States Geological Survey (USGS) hands over information to the UN for data gathering and monitoring progress, and ..."supports global analyses and policy decisions by maintaining World Database for Protected Areas (WDPA) Site Codes and data for International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)...". Even the Idaho BLM is in the game using the IUCN Red List of threatened species to ban you from using Idaho land. Anticipate more species needing protection from you.
Desertification will be the focus of Part 2.
Bureau of Land Management - Part 2
The USGS defines desertification as, "The alteration of arable land to dry, barren land due to prolonged drought or the deleterious effects of human intervention including overgrazing, overpopulation, or destructive agricultural practices." The most comical aspect of this definition is that the lack of use has caused more desertification. As noted in the Savory video, land not being used contributes to its destruction and it is the reintroduction of land use that brought its life back. As with forests, UN interference with responsibly managing forests has resulted in destruction. Why has desertification grown as an issue while the BLM has progressively restricted land use? Shouldn't this have lessened the problem?
Ironically, desertification is a United Nations Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organization (UNESCO) fabricated word. Looking at a dictionary from the 1960's it is nowhere to be found. The closest is the word desert defined as an uncultivated, barren region, largely treeless and sandy. One should be alarmed the UN has infested dictionaries with propaganda.
With UN interference forest destruction by fire is well under way, leaving destroyed land behind. What to do? Light bulb on, contact the UN for expertise on how to restore it! The Great Basin Restorative Initiative (GBRI) was born from the DOI representative to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). One selected site for restoration was the Owyhee Upland area, an area integrated with the sage-grouse conservation program. And for all the BLM's alleged protection, the 2015 Soda fire decimated almost 400 square miles of land. Once again, the reduction of grazing to protect some bird from the endangered species list led to land destruction with certain "desertification" unless the BLM jumps in and "restores" it. Thanks BLM, glad to know you are self generating job protection.
Chapter 12 in Agenda 21 is devoted to the subject of desertification and "fragile ecosystems". "Combating desertification" should be a goal of national governments, identifying the BLM and USGS as just two participating federal agencies who took on the task.
Established in 1994, the UNCCD became the force behind desertification, Congress signing the Desertification Treaty in 2000. According to UNCCD, over 30 percent of the land in the United States is affected by desertification. By the time the UN is finished destroying land in the U.S., there may be no land left, except for them. A few UNCCD thematic "priorities" include "...poverty reduction... agriculture, water access, rangeland production and renewable energy." Keep the renewable energy in mind. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is one offending agency implementing UNCCD, squandering U.S. dollars to other countries. The DOI also gives special mention to the UNCCD. One UNCCD objective is "...to become a global authority on scientific and technical knowledge in the fields of anti-desertification work (pg 8). The Global Policy Centre on Resilient Ecosystems and Desertification is a one stop shopping center for the DOI on policy recommendations. That is exactly what the federal government is doing, giving the UN full authority, on everything.
In Part 3 Ecosystems will be discussed.
Bureau of Land Management - Part 3
Desertification isn't enough however, now ecosystems are introduced as a BLM issue, an agenda that will completely obliterate all land use. Again, the term is not found in a dictionary from the 1960's, but the BLM defines it as "...natural processes and systems are intricately linked over broad expanses of space and time." What it really means is there is potential harm to every insect, plant, water source, or animal species if humans are present. The only solution is to keep humans away.
Using wetlands as an example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is forging ahead to define any drop of water as needing protection. The BLM goes further, breaking down wetlands into riparian areas with "land management plans...provide protections for riparian areas including BLM’s no net loss of wetland/riparian habitat policy...to maintain, restore, and improve riparian areas to protect water quality, improve water retention and groundwater recharge, provide wildlife habitat, support biodiversity, and other goals." Now how are they going to accomplish this if humans are in the way?
And why wouldn't the EPA and BLM forge ahead with these decisions, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) expected wetlands to be "...integrated into decision-making as a vital component of the transition to a resource-efficient, sustainable world economy...". Keep the world economy in mind. Read the list of recommendations. Or read the Ramsar Strategic Plan 2016-2021 to learn what they will be doing to us over the next 5 years. In 2013 the UN NGO, Pacific Institute, wrote a report, Global Water Governance, about ecosystems and their conditions are "... likely to continue to decline unless action is taken to address acute threats and better manage freshwater resources." (pg 6) The UN has definitely activated action on this "acute threat".
The IUCN also has wetland recommendations for our DOI member to impose on its departments such as more conservation and preserving more wetlands. According to UNEP ecosystems can generate wealth and employment. Indeed, as the UN destroys land, there will be government jobs ready to fix it, and the wealth will come from taking resources that rightfully belong to states. Kootenai County has already fallen victim to this agenda under the Idaho Wetland Conservation Prioritization Plan - 2012 (NWPCP) with other Idaho targets identified.
Going back to the sage grouse, the DOI patted itself on the back for preventing the grouse from being listed on the endangered species list via "...support of partners like the Audubon Society (UN NGO), we have been able to help ranchers implement conservation strategies that improve sagebrush ecosystems, reduce risks to sage-grouse and keep working lands for working." Oh yeah? How many of those birds were destroyed in the Soda fire along with where they lived because of your strategies? Let the restrictions for human use begin.
But federal government ecosystem "protection" will expand, "... all species throughout the entire range will be listed as threatened or endangered.", including private land management. The BLM intent to expand its authority to take more land was found in 2010. As a UN NGO, IUCN is the creator of the Red List for ecosystems and endangered species. As a IUCN member the DOI and other federal agencies will follow these lists.
Indeed, don't forget Agenda 2030. "Goal 15.9 By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning..." and needing "... strong political commitment and national-level strategies...". Just 4 very short years to stop land and resource theft by the UN and federal government co-conspirators.
Resource theft and conclusion in Part 4.
Bureau of Land Management - Part 4
The Johannesburg Summit 2002 defines the U.S. responsibilities for land management. Program implementation includes, "internationally accepted principles for environmental management and governance"; "influence use of land...dealing with water and wildlife habitat"; "the ESA can constrain the use and development of private land"; "Government regulations, conservation easements, contracts, or other instruments that arise out of law, custom, and the operation of private markets serve to regulate both landowners' and society's rights to use land."; "The BLM and FS (Forest Service) are...mapping them using Geographic Information System"; "The BLM manages federal lands using multi-jurisdictional approaches to ensure that planning decisions are developed in concert with sustainable development concepts"; and "The U.S. Departments of State...and Interior...actively participated in activities to negotiate the International Convention to Combat Desertification".
And the federal government, having actively implemented these objectives, have enough structure in place to easily and rapidly control all land within the next 5-10 years because nobody is stopping them.
GIS deserves an explanation. It is the acronym for geographic information system which uses layers of geographic data to produce spatial analysis and derivative maps, while geospatial refers to the applications of geographic data. This means that every blade of grass, rock, water body, tree, elevation, city growth, or other land attribute and activity is marked and mapped. This video is short and explains what can be mapped while this video frighteningly explains just how much detail GIS can capture. As noted in the previous Johannesburg Summit report, the BLM uses GIS. What they don't tell you is that GIS information is passed on to the UN. See number 4 on page 4. The federal government, part of the UN cartel, hands over our GIS information and other data to the UN.
Going back to the Part 2 note, "Keep the renewable energy in mind", what is the BLM goal taking land? Most BLM land is rich in resources. Remembering the UN wants control of not only people, but resources as well, then BLM involvement in resource use should be scrutinized. Renewable energy projects on BLM-managed lands include wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass projects. Renewable energy projects are complicated and the reader is encouraged to learn more about it. It is also connected to the UNEP "world economy" statement in part 3. The DOI is pretty open about its intent in using public land for renewable energy.
Starting with wind farms, here is the BLM map of Oregon listing renewable energy projects, at this point Idaho does not require utilities to generate a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources as does Oregon.
There are two California wind projects in the works. One will be managed by AltaGas, a Canadian company, and the other in Tylerhorse, managed by Iberdrola, a company in Spain. According to Iberdrola, they ..."will be a leader in the transformation of the U.S. energy industry." They also clearly hold themselves to the UN sustainable development agenda. AltaGas supports the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Why are wind projects being farmed out to foreign companies? Aren't there any wind developers in the United States? About 75, but bets are on each one of them is connected in some way to a foreign corporation or the UN. It makes sense that the BLM actively needs more land, free from humans, to develop these projects.
While there is no requirement for wind farms in Idaho we do have some. Here is a dandy USGS interactive map that pinpoints where the farms are located with added information. Private land owners can contract with a wind developer and are paid to have the turbines placed on their property. One such farm is in American Falls. The Energy Integrity Project explains why wind farms are economically detrimental for all of us.
Called "Solar Energy Zones" or SEZs, the BLM created the "Western Solar Plan" which contain these zones. Their first zone brought in "$5.8 million for the U.S. Treasury". Now cows and people just might cause interference in these zones and the BLM does cite that "human resources" could get in the way. Note we aren't people, we are resources to be drawn upon or eliminated. Anyway, Idaho hasn't been sucked into this plan yet, but with the new aggressive ecosystem management requirements it probably won't take that long to force Idahoans off their land, as in the attempts with the Hammond case in Oregon, and the GIS mapping is already in progress. If the cows get in the way of solar development the BLM must notify them. And what are the ranchers suppose to do when their grazing rights are taken from them and they can no longer afford to live there? Sell their land to the BLM for peanuts and move, and that is what is happening. Taking water and grazing rights, raising grazing fees, and seizing land with refuge and wilderness areas are just BLM ploys to force humans off the land, leaving it ripe for resource seizure. Restrictive ecosystem management will be the nail in the coffin, for everyone. At least Oregon Representative Walden understands.
Now just who is the beneficiary, what company builds and manages these solar developments? Why one of them is Google, an UN business partner! Now Ivanpah, the outfit building this mess, is part of BrightSource, a global company and Clinton favorite, and has had some questionable history including defaulting on contracts, low energy production, and killing birds. $1.6 billion from the U.S. Energy Department, your tax dollar, was loaned to this outfit. Think Solyndra. But BrightSource has some good backing from other UN business partners Morgan Stanley and Chevron so the federal government was mindful in keeping more UN cronies in the loop.
According to the BLM, "Distribution of revenue from renewable energy varies depending on the authority used.", but substantial money is made for the federal government from other energy projects. And plans have been started to site "...new transmission projects that would cross public, State and private lands." Has anybody notified the cows? Maybe dumping more of your tax dollar into the BLM will accelerate the takeover of land and resources, say 1.3 billion, that should hasten the job.
One last resource to mention is uranium, which the BLM also wants, but it is a non-renewable form of energy used for nuclear production. Multiple federal agencies are involved with uranium mining as it is very profitable. Once again foreign companies are involved in reaping the profits such as Russia, again with a Clinton hand. This contributes to the "world economy" as do the foreign benefactors with solar and wind projects. Millions of dollars in tax credits and other federal gimmicks are given to companies for renewable energy. This money is being stripped out of America. It is no wonder America is dying.
Oregon Energy LLC, a subsidiary of Austrailian company Energy Ventures Ltd, gave a presentation for uranium mining in Malheur County, starting the process in 2011. On page B4 this 1987 USGS map shows areas of uranium in Harney county, Oregon. That is how long they have been drooling over the amount of money they can reap for their coffers.
This BLM energy map site shows maps for other Oregon projects on lands with "Federal Interest", Biomass Energy Projects and Non-Renewable Energy Projects. At this time there were none listed for Idaho, but there is little doubt it will come as the Western Governor's Association, of which Governor Otter is a member, is working on renewable energy zones. Here is their policy resolution on forest and rangeland management. Why don't they just kick the UN out?
In 2014 the DOI was on the hunt for reclaiming and remediating uranium mines with multiple government (pg v) agencies involved. It was also noted that potential human risks indicate further restrictions on use may be required (pg 20). One more way to get you out of the way.
Renewable Energy Credits
This is where the story becomes more complicated, and corrupt. Renewable Energy Credits (REC) are part of the scam, and it costs you more money. Companies are issued these credits for solar and wind energy production. Utilities are forced to pay higher rates for these credits and that monetary loss is passed on to you with higher rates. This subject is beyond the scope of this post but it is one more BLM method for land and resource theft, being in charge of transmission grid permitting. And those pesky cows and humans just keep getting in the way, better move them out of the way and off the land. A fellow Idahoan, Vicky Davis has written about RECs on her website, Technocratic Tyranny, The Renewable Racket, and how it started with Agenda 21.
Ok, now it makes sense. The ultimate UN goal is to move humans off land, take control of resources, and feed their crony partnerships. This can all be justified with saving the planet. Hopefully the reader now understands why the BLM is an enemy and how we are being forced away from the land they control. It is all about taking and controlling resources. Very simple. A memorandum giving the DOI and other federal agencies a directive to create regulations advancing this land and resource theft was issued 11/3/15, completely bypassing Congress. And why not, Agenda 2030 has put a renewed emphasis on protecting ecosystems, habitat, wetlands, and species in Goal 15 with increased financing and national and local implementation.
Dear God, how long before Idahoans and Americans stand up for their Forefather's endeavors to give us the greatest Republic in the world? How much freedom and liberty must be stolen from us before we stand up and say it is ending now? Idaho, wake up, stand together in a mass protest against a foreign entity dictating our lives. It must be done now.
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!