U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)
Conceived in 2019, the Department of Defense (DOD), under its Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s (DTRA) Chemical and Biological Technologies Department (DTRA), developed a program called Discovery of MCMs (medical countermeasures) Against Novel Entities (DOMANE) "to rapidly identify a combination of drugs to impact the novel biological threat from multiple targets, which may prove effective in promoting a disease-modifying effect to counter the biological threat." One program aspect is the DOD experiments around with different treatments. If a treatment it creates does well it can become a new "standard of care" (SOC). It is the DOD belief that "Machine learning expedites the process of discovering medical countermeasures for emerging biological threats like COVID-19" for a biological rapid response. DTRA also works with the United Nations organizations WHO, FAO, and WOAH. This has evolved into a Chemical and Biological Defense Program that invests in producing new vaccines and medications utilizing Artificial Intelligence in a biological technologies department, while DOMANE can "reduce or eliminate the time-intensive...human safety studies". Not surprisingly, this all occurred around the emergence of Covid-19, and DOMANE was involved. It's drug cocktail for Covid was Remdesivir, Famotidine, Celecoxib, and Ivermectin. The medical field began using Remdesivir which ended up causing some problems with kidney function. Why was the lower cost and effective Ivermectin banned for use? Executive Order 13887 in 2019 brought in the US Department of Defense for influenza vaccine development with the National Influenza Vaccine Task Force, and the goal of "achieving the vision outlined in the NIVMS" (National Influenza Vaccine Modernization Strategy). Pandemic Hysteria In 2005, President Bush dumped $7.1 billion towards stopping the Avian flu pandemic (which never came) that he claimed would kill two million, with a full report of draconian actions to take. Maybe it was just the framework for what has been forced down our throats since Covid. Is there a real threat? Currently, mass hysteria continues about future pandemics, currently labeling unknown illnesses as Disease X. "Pandemic preparedness" is the buzz word of the day and the World Health Organization (WHO) is actively working to take control with a pandemic treaty, which Idaho should resist. One disease being hyped up for the next pandemic is Avian flu, also known as Bird flu, or H5N1. Avian flu, is a viral infection that spreads between birds and is a more serious variant known as HPAI that can kill poultry. Also known as a zoonotic disease, it can spread from animals to humans. Recent focus has been on H5N1 spreading to cows, including in Idaho, with one case this year. One Texas man working with cattle contracted H5N1 with eye inflammations as the only symptom. Or is H5N1 just another way to disrupt food supplies and destroy the livelihoods of Americans? While an H5N1 infection can be fatal, overall, H5N1 "rarely infect humans", and is rarely contagious between people. Interestingly, this article points out that if a version of bird flu mutated for easier spread between people, it could cause a pandemic. Just last year former CDC Director, Robert Redfield, stated in the audio that the next great pandemic will be "bird flu". Gain of function research to make H5N1 more transmissible between humans has been going on for years, and after a short pause, resumed in 2019. With speculation that Covid-19 was a gain of function virus, involving questionable DOD funding, some speculate that H5N1 is being utilized for the same purpose. Even the Center for Disease Control (CDC) is surveilling for its "ability for increased transmissibility to people". The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is even questioned about its participation. As early as 2007 a vaccine for H5N1 was developed because of a "threat to human health", with changes made in 2013 for a national stockpile, and contain mercury. Development of an Avian flu vaccine continues to be underway. Government Funding It is astonishing the amount of government funding that has escalated since the Covid event. In Biden's $1.2 Trillion spending package, $708,272,000 is allocated for emerging and zoonotic infectious diseases and $315,000,000 for flu pandemic preparation, including vaccine production. The White House is also pouring money into a Gates funded "50-country partnership" to "combat future pandemics" and create a Pandemic Fund, while at the same time launching the U.S. Global Health Security Strategy. Included in this strategy is to "Further strengthen a One Health approach to GHS, including integrating infectious disease data from human, animal, plant and environment sectors". One Health is a World Health Organization "approach" that links disease between the environment, animals, and humans. What a great way to keep everyone oppressed, control economic activity, and keep people jabbed. Maybe someone should tell them to quit manipulating viruses with experiments. It is also why Idaho should prohibit all WHO activity. This information is just a small slice of how government is really implementing a full onslaught of control. There is the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy (OPPR); DoD Biodefense Posture Review; National Health Security Strategy; (Pg 16) mitigation and minimizing risks of zoonotic diseases including implementation of sanitary animal production practices across all major animal value chains in accordance with international standards (which may explain the recent targeting of small farms, again no legislation to do it); engaging more with WHO, FAO, United Nations Environment Programme, WOAH; strengthening the WHO and International Health Regulations implementation; financing global funds such as Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness (CEPI), and the Pandemic Fund; partnering with the Global Health Security Agenda; and the Biomanufacturing, among many other tyrannical actions. Page 31 of the Global Health Security Strategy lists all involved federal agencies, actually all are involved as a "one government" approach. There is also the National Biodefense Strategy and Implementation Plan, Strategic Preparedness and Response, National COVID-19 Preparedness plan to prepare for Covid variants, and the Generative Unconstrained Intelligent Drug Engineering (GUIDE) program with addiction treatment. If this doesn't make the head spin resulting in nausea, it should be a testament to how out of control this government is, and the intention is full control. All this for a virus, and all other unknown bugs out there, that even the CDC knows is low risk, but it is actively working to do something, with handy tips on how to avoid contracting it. In reality, this all looks more like a new surveillance system for control. WHO lists nine potential pandemic virus threats, including Disease X. Good idea to list subjects that will continue to fund one's own existence. This continued government bloating is breathtaking. Even worse is how much the military industrial complex has expanded. It only adds to the burdensome weight of a government that every American must feel around their neck. Creating fear with climate change hasn't worked fast enough, but putting human lives at risk with pandemics will. For now, stay calm, don't get caught up in the fear frenzy. Scrutinize every piece of information disseminated by the government for accuracy and truth. Above all, conduct research on whatever the government is reporting. Quit pointing to the problem and start working with local officials and your state legislator, tell them you want policies put into place that will exercise state sovereignty when it comes to this issue. Where is the Birdman of Alcatraz when you need him?
0 Comments
Internet of Things (IoT) is basically a world of devices connected through the internet with most people using some form of this technology. But IoT is not the end goal here, it is the Internet of Everything (IoE). Basically, that means an individual's whole world will be centered around the internet. In this Cisco commercial, it becomes clear that every human will be reduced to a helpless blob if ever the decision were made to cut off the internet. How many decisions will technology make for a person's daily life? Will a person even know how to function without being told by a machine? Is this really how anyone would want to live? No one seems to identify just who has ultimate control over the internet, or who has the power and authority to shut it down. Is it the corporate world that owns the servers, the United Nations (UN), the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Federal Communications Commission regulators? And who owns and controls the data that is generated on the internet? Think about how much data is collected, stored, and shared each time that smart phone is tapped, and what would happen if IoE were taken down. Tyler Back briefly describes how IoE works. When he talks about "decentralizing" and creating a unified system, he is talking about tying together all data into one platform such as the Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), giving full access, and control, to your information. One of the ways information can be controlled is through central bank digital currency (CBDC). Here is the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) General Manger, Agustín Carstens, describing how CBDC is for the purpose of control; the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Deputy Managing Director Bo LI, explaining how CBDC can be programmed and utilized; and Minneapolis Federal Reserve President, Neel Kashkari, confirming every transaction can be monitored. The World Economic Forum (WEF) itself states "Over 98% of the global economy’s central banks are researching, experimenting, piloting or deploying central bank digital currency (CBDC)...".
IoE is already being used in China with the social credit score God, demeaning human integrity by demonstrating good behavior for scoring points. These Chinese seem to like it and see it as good that the nonconformists are punished. Given the abundance of bad behavior today, maybe it isn't such a bad idea. And what about that vaccine or digital health certificate that will support the Internet of Bodies (IoB)? It helps explain why the government is after our health care information. All that information the doctor stores in your electronic health record will be part of IoE. IoE is a WEF dream to realize its Great Reset ambitions. At some point, if everyone continues to comply, we will be engulfed by this system with little chance of escaping. It is time that everyone quits pointing to the problem and start acting on solutions. For IoT and IoE, go back to just a plain phone, and don't buy a smart appliance or use QR codes. Use cash, don't pay bills online, and leave that central bank for a local bank or credit union. All of this means giving up convenience, but is less painful than giving up all freedom. IoE does mean everything...what you eat, what you buy, what you watch, what you read, where you go...and the ability to do any of it will be under control of the IoE. This is an interesting animated video of how people will live under the Great Reset. It depicts what equity actually means. Doom and gloom messages of a financial apocalypse across the world continue, with many questions as what can be done about it. Most certainly, this federal administration has no intention of taking any corrective action, and the current Idaho governor doesn't seem to grasp how he has entangled our state into the fray. Creative solutions that go beyond just electing someone need to be considered, especially those that can protect Idaho from the current tyrannical federal government. Nullification is just one idea. Given the current horrific federally created economic situation, perhaps Idaho should give some consideration to creating a sovereign state bank. Following is an overview of how it would work, just something to consider. There is one state bank in the United States, the Bank of North Dakota (BND), established in 1919, and efforts are underway to establish a state bank in Tennessee. Similar efforts have been underway in Massachusetts and Washington. Catherine Austin Fitts explains there are many advantages to having a state bank starting at the 13:15" to 29" mark in this video. Some of the points she raises are that state transactions can be conducted through a state bank rather than through large central banks, and can prevent central banks from forcing digital currency onto local banks and citizens. Small Idaho banks and credit unions would not have to borrow money from large central banks but rather from the state bank. Governor Little is always bragging about the state surplus, wouldn't a state bank be a better place to hold a surplus rather than JP Morgan? At the 36:09" mark Fitts goes on to explain a state bank could protect small banks and credit unions by lending to small businesses, perform underwriting, and provide municipal bonds. Tennessee Senator Frank Niceley has been advocating for a state bank and bouillon depository. For a more in-depth look at how a state bank would operate, Richard A. Werner wrote a report with the details and discusses it briefly with Fitts in this video. A state bank is located only at one facility, but could be used as a bouillon depository for both the state and individuals. Included in the video is a discussion on how small banks can be protected from the central bank digital currency (CBDC) with Fitts showing a short clip of a globalist describing how CBDCs can be used for control. Concern over CBDC cannot be overemphasized as explained by Fitts starting at the 6:55" mark. Another Idaho bill, H585, would have excluded CBDC from the definition of money, but it failed to pass. Those who voted no on this bill need an education on the dangers of CBDC and that an interoperable infrastructure, called Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), is being built for such reason and supported by the World Economic Forum (WEF). It means everyone must have internet access and the United States is making sure it happens. It is also the key to the Internet of Things (IoT) that will eventually lead to the Internet of Everything (IoE). Back to the bouillon depository, SB1314 was sent to the Governor for signature that would have allowed the Treasurer to hold some "portion of state funds in physical gold and silver to help secure state assets against the risk of inflation and financial turmoil...". Unfortunately, Governor Little vetoed it which essentially leaves Idaho vulnerable to the federal financial fiascos. A state depository would alleviate his fears of storage costs. Tennessee is smarter, having recently authorized the state to protect state funds with gold and silver reserves which will help protect that state's financial independence.
Another state bank advantage would be preventing centralized banks from restricting gold and silver as tender. Idaho attempted to authorize gold and silver as legal tender this year but it did not move forward. Following a New Zealand cyclone, it became clear why cash is needed. The New Zealand Governor of the Reserve Bank echoed Fitt's words, "When people lose the ability to transact...social cohesion is very quickly challenged." In this video Fitts briefly discusses the structure and governance of the North Dakota state bank from the 16:45" to 26" mark. This video is longer but provides some information about the food system and a state bank, how the dependency on federal dollars is a problem (which Governor Little doesn't seem to understand), how involvement with corrupt corporate banks can be controlled, and various other suggestions. Citizens have already witnessed attempts to manipulate financial sources, whether it be prohibiting access if cash is used, closing accounts to those who hold certain beliefs, or federal and bank collusion to snoop into private financial information. The danger of CBDCs, how they would be used for control, is enough to pursue the idea of a state bank for protection of Idaho citizens. Everyone needs to start thinking solutions to protect Idaho, and become more involved. Much has been written about the difficulties that are in abundance throughout America, but often there are few concrete solutions offered that can be instituted for correction. Taking a look at what our Founders saw as solutions may be a place to start. What options were made available to states for reigning in a government that has exceeded its Constitutional boundaries? Perhaps one such approach not explored enough is nullification. In Federalist No. 78 Alexander Hamilton stated, "...every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid." Presidents can use veto power to reject what they perceive as unconstitutional laws. George Washington was the first to do so. James Madison was another with the Establishment clause. What has happened to the integrity of the Executive Branch over the years leading that branch to signing laws that are unconstitutional? Through the years various presidents have chosen to just ignore laws based on their belief the law violates the Constitution, by not enforcing them rather than a veto. But in the end, who has the authority to determine if a law is unconstitutional or not? Do states carry that authority? Thomas E. Woods, Jr. is a Libertarian and author who spoke about nullification in a 2010 interview. During the interview he raised some interesting points. As early as 1798, James Madison was well aware of the federal government already exceeding its enumerated powers through "the abuse of the “necessary and proper” clause" and encouraged Thomas Jefferson to elicit public opinion on those abuses. Both Madison and Jefferson argued against the Alien and Sedition Acts which uncannily mirror issues of today. It was also during this time Jefferson declared "that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy", and Madison declared "the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil," Neither mentioned any other means of determining whether a law is constitutional or not. Ironically at that time, a Congressman was re-elected to Congress from jail, having been imprisoned for his criticism of the president. Does that not sound familiar? Perhaps it does justify the recent Supreme Court decision that an individual cannot not be banned from a ballot. Not present at the time was the federal monetary bribery that is so prevalent now. But what about laws without an attached monetary bribe? What would happen if all of the non-constitutional Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and attached laws and rules were nullified by Idaho, sending the federal government a thank you very much note but Idaho will have its own environmental protection laws? The National Guard is referenced in the video. S1252 was presented this session to prevent National Guard deployment without an official declaration of war by Congress. This was an effort for Idaho to take back its sovereignty but unfortunately failed. Some U.S. Supreme Court justices have previously affirmed nullification. But, there are also those who support the opinion that it is only the federal judiciary holding that responsibility. In 1788 Samuel Adams stated, "...if any law made by the Federal government shall be extended beyond the power granted by the proposed Constitution, and inconsistent with the Constitution of this State, it will be an error, and adjudged by the courts of law to be void." There are multiple examples of the judiciary system being the only system that can determine if a law is constitutional, Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) being an example, declaring "The constitutional rights of children not to be discriminated against in school admission on grounds of race or color declared by this Court in the Brown case can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executives or judicial officers, nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation." However, attempts at nullification can go either way. In the case of Printz v United States the right to nullify a federal law was upheld. Mr. Woods also points out waiting around for a court decision or an election doesn't work very well in that federal courts are part of the system already, too many things can happen waiting around for an election (like how many more calamities can occur until this November?), and a doofus could end up being elected anyway. He also has some interesting points about nullification just prior to the civil war, current precarious federal economics, unfunded federal mandates, and the idea of a state having laws to exercise nullification. Tennessee has the "Restoring State Sovereignty Through Nullification Act" as an example, with other states taking similar actions. Mr. Woods has written articles about nullification and wrote a book with more information. How much further has this government expanded itself and destroyed liberties just since this interview was done? Does Idaho want to start investigating nullification as a possibility for protection against further government intrusion? Solutions are needed, this is just one possibility to explore. There is perhaps one aspect of Agenda 21 that escaped the attention of many who have read it, and that is genetics. Not easily recognized for its potential as a threat, it has taken almost 30 years for understanding what it really meant.
Patrick Wood, editor of Technocracy News & Trends, and by far the most expert in the field of technocracy, recently posted an article that had a video of a presentation he gave on genetic material. Until the Covid-19 event, the issue of genetics had not been fully clear, but looking back, it is now. In Agenda 21, Chapter 16, Management of Biotechnology, 16.1 clearly states, "a set of enabling techniques for bringing about specific man-made changes in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), or genetic material, in plants, animals, and microbial systems, leading to useful products and technologies." As can be seen, at least two areas have already been impacted, agriculture with genetically modified foods, and health with gene therapy vaccines. Here is the video in the article. In the last and current legislative sessions, the issue of access to certain books by minors continues to be at the forefront, with many in support of or in opposition to several bills.
Current Idaho Statutes address the prohibition of obscene or indecent material, some including towards minors. Idaho Statute 23-614, Idaho Statute 18-4105, Idaho Statute 18-1513 and 18-1515 both added in 1972, and Idaho Statute 18-1507 all cover and describe what is considered indecent and obscene. So here we have existing laws banning obscenity and indecency with descriptions on what it is, and with protections of minors in some cases Today, efforts are being made to include protections for children from obscenity and indecency in library materials, the internet, cell phones, and AI. HB498 allows a civil remedy for parents and protection on the internet; SB1253 would require enabling filters and ability to remove detrimental content on devices; HB382 includes banning sexual exploitation of children via AI; HB384 restricts children's access to obscene material in a library and allow civil action; SB1221 creates a procedural requirements for review, selection, and management of school library materials; and HB710 requires schools and libraries to restrict children access to obscene and harmful material and allows civil action. This bill is being held in the Senate State Affairs committee for further discussion. What the heck happened in 52 years that now all of a sudden what was determined as indecent, obscene, and harmful for children has now become educational, beneficial, or even a free speech or constitutional issue? Surely, every legislator who has been opposing these proposed bills would by contrast be a ardent supporter of each existing statute on obscenity and indecency. They would most likely never support the idea of such ribaldry in a public square, or facility. Would they support the exercise of this type of information in the streets, considering it a "free speech" right, or relabeling it art and of benefit to the masses? One outspoken individual opposing these bills is Lance McGrath, President of the Idaho Library Association (ILA), and who uses this association as representative of his views. In 2023 (McGrath) stated, “The government has a duty to protect its citizens – especially minors. But it cannot do so by infringing on the fundamental rights of free speech and access to constitutionally protected information.” That is an oxymoron. At that time he also stated, "Idaho libraries, whether school or public, do not provide materials that are harmful to minors.” If this were true there would currently not be such a brouhaha about protecting children on this issue. Going further, Mr. McGrath has stated “Librarians believe parents have rights and responsibilities to guide their children’s use of school and public libraries.” By that measure of logic, a parent then does have the responsibility and right to insist that their child is protected from harmful materials at a library. Perhaps libraries should be responsible and take that into account when stocking the shelves and recognizing who holds the authority to decide what a child will read. He reiterated the same this year and expressed concern that "The private right of action creates a bounty system that will place an incredible financial burden on libraries and open them up to serious actions and potential litigation.” The protection of the library is more important than a child? According to Mr. McGrath, "“Freedom of intellectual pursuits is a fundamental American ideal and a human right.” A minor reading sexually explicit material is an intellectual pursuit and a right? As an example of what he would consider an intellectual pursuit, here is an example of a banned book with a strong warning about the explicit graphics contained within it. The Idaho Chapter of the American Library Association (ALA), supports McGrath's stance on the idea that banning this type of material is a "threat to democracy" and likely violates its Library Bill of Rights. Many engaged in this issue might be aware that libraries accepting federal funding may already be utilizing internet filtering systems. The 2000 Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) provides funding for internet filtering mechanisms that can be disabled for adults on request. One focus of the law is safety policies addressing access, safety, and security of minors to inappropriate matter on the internet. Idaho Statute 33-2741 addresses this in Idaho libraries. Heck, if sexually explicit material is allowed on bookshelves, then the internet should be open access to minors as well! It seems illogical that protection from harm can be divided between different forms of information, maybe unless there is money involved. Few studies could be found on what harm is caused to children who are exposed to explicit sexual material, however there are many studies on the effect it has on adolescents, especially related to the internet, and it is all negative. If an adolescent experiences adverse reactions, how can it be expected that a child won't experience the same if not worse? Just as a side note, the ILA is a chapter of the American Library Association (ALA) which is a member of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), a UN listed nongovernmental organization (NGO) that also supports a Public Library Manifesto with UNESCO. It should be of no surprise that ALA and IFLA both support the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Therefore, it should be no surprise that this type of material is very much integrated into the SDGs that filters down to libraries. Okay, going with Mr. McGrath's and reasoning by others who oppose these bills, free speech and access to Constitutionally protected material are both Constitutional rights. If these books were displayed, freely handed out, or even sold to children or adults by someone on the street or at a public venue, would those books violate current state law, especially 18-1507(j) and 18-1515? If yes, then that material should not be made available in a library. If not, then it should be considered perfectly acceptable for these books to be handed out or sold at the next public event and current laws should be changed to remove all penalties for doing so. Perhaps reparations should be given to those who have been penalized under these laws for violation of their rights. Internet access should also be made available and the funding for filtering it should also be refused. As the Senate State Affairs committee continues to discuss this issue, contact them at [email protected] and let them know your thoughts because the opposition is strong right now. What comes to mind when thinking about a civil society? Perhaps where people interact in a civil manner, or the community at large participates with civility, airing differences without harshness towards one another. How did the Founders view a civil society?
Just prior to the Declaration of Independence, Alexander Hamilton declared, "When the first principles of civil society are violated, and the rights of a whole people are invaded, the common forms of municipal law are not to be regarded." James Madison wrote in Federalist #37, "Stability in government, is essential to national character, and to the advantages annexed to it, as well as to that repose and confidence in the minds of the people, which are among the chief blessings of civil society." John Locke, who had influence with the Founders, described civil society, "Those who are united into one body, and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them, and punish offenders, are in civil society one with another." Locke also had a few words on tyranny, "Wherever law ends, tyranny begins...". In Federalist #51, Alexander Hamilton or James Madison spoke to the need for separate branches of government, each assigned with different powers between them, and necessary for a check and balance system that would keep the government itself in line. "Since it shews that in exact proportion as the territory of the union may be formed into more circumscribed confederacies or states, oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated, the best security under the republican form, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished; and consequently, the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionally increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society." Federalist #51 also spoke to the dangers of factions, "In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign, as in a state of nature where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger." Federalist # 10 by James Madison also spoke to the dangers of factions. "Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction." "By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." "There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: The one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects." Removing its causes was not an option as it entailed limiting liberty. In Madison's view, the cure was "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking." The rationale for this, "...you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other." So, having a civil society was based on a Republic, with laws, and protecting rights. Ok, what is the point here? Who cares? Why is this even important? No, no, no, no, no! All of this foundation for a civil society has been scrubbed. Civil society, a term even used by presidents, has a whole new meaning, one that obliterates our Republic as intended. Madison tried to warn us. Back in 1992, the United Nations (UN) devoted a whole chapter in Agenda 21 to Strengthening The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO). Strengthening The Role of Trade Unions and Business were a couple of other chapters. These are factions James Madison warned us about, and his fears have come to fruition. The UN has its own Civil Society Unit, describing its factions as "any non-profit, voluntary citizens’ group which is organized on a local, national or international level." These UN factions include academia, professional, foundation, and environmental organizations across the world. The Organization of American States (OAS) has relations with Civil Society Organizations, interfere with citizen representation, and the U.S. Headquarters lie smack in the middle of Washington D.C.. The World Economic Forum (WEF) also has its own interesting slant on Civil Society, "a diverse community of civil society leaders come together to find solutions...advance multi-stakeholder cooperation with government and business leaders; ...includes the engagement of the most influential organizations representing the interests of citizens...NGOs, non-profits and charities; trade unions and labour organizations; come together to collaborate with government and business leaders on finding and advocating solutions to global challenges." As it is stated in the video, these factions that make up Civil Society are Shaping a Future. According to the World Bank, “Civil society ... refers to a wide array of organizations: community groups, non-governmental organizations [NGOs], labour unions, indigenous groups, charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, and foundations.” Civil Society "has the power to influence the actions of elected policy-makers and businesses" as a “third sector” (after government and commerce)". Klaus Schwab even wrote a paper on Civil Society, just another fascist advancement. A James Madison or John Locke he is not. As seen by history, people never change, especially when it comes to the gluttony of power. James Madison was aware of this and familiar with the development of factions that would be more than happy to usurp control and power over others. It is the Civil Society of factions that now control the government once so feared by Madison, but we have let it happen. On March 1, 2024, the Senate Judiciary & Rules Committee (SJRC) voted to send SCR 114 and SCR 115 to the floor for a vote. SCR 114 addresses Term Limits, and SCR 115 addresses a Balanced Budget amendment (BBA). Both resolutions include the language "call a convention" or "calling of a convention of the states". The bottom line is, many Americans do want something done to get a naughty federal government under control. To watch the meeting it can be found here under Mar. 1, 2024 1:30 P.M. Download Audio/Video.
Much is written about the interpretation of Article V and the language that either Congress proposes amendments, or on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states shall call a convention for proposing amendments. This document states if two-thirds of state legislatures transmit applications favoring a convention Congress must call a convention, which then decides whether to propose amendments, and if so drafts them. The Federalist Society discusses the differences between "plenary" and "aggregated" applications for a convention. Plenary means the application is unlimited or consideration is given for any amendments. Aggregated refers to combining applications with the same subject matter into one common language, or aggregating them together to make them consistent between states which leads to a plenary convention. As the Federalist Society explains it, "all valid applications must be aggregated with all other valid applications to yield a plenary result (pg 53)." In the case of a BBA, aggregating the numerous states resolutions for a balanced budget amendment would result in a plenary or open convention. In another opinion, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) reflects that "states may call on Congress to form a constitutional convention to propose amendments. Congress must act on this call if at least two-thirds of the states (34 states) make the request. The convention would then propose constitutional amendments." There are many other opinions and interpretations, too long to list here. But it is clear that the Convention of States Action (COSA) is calling for a plenary convention, open to many amendment possibilities and not just limited to imposing fiscal restraints, term limits, and scope and jurisdiction restraints on the federal government. Looking specifically at opinions on the proposed BBA, there is consistent agreement that government budgetary issues are far too complex to limit it down to just a simple "balance the budget" theme. SCR 115 states, "the total of all federal outlays made by the Congress for any fiscal year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal revenues for that fiscal year, together with any related and appropriate fiscal restraints." The Congressional Research Service (CRS) wrote a report in 2019 about the BBA history, and discusses the extensive impact it would have on fiscal matters in the government. As correctly pointed out during the SJRC meeting, the economic system is based on debt rather than assets, and this can be addressed without a convention. That is just one economic aspect of the problem. Not only is there debt, but as the report outlines there are tax, waiver, non-budgetary, off-budget, and expenditure limitation issues that could possibly be open to revision. Previous attempts to balance the federal budget also exposed fiscal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as possible issues for revision. Just defining the budget as needing to be balanced does not come close to all of the economic details that would be exposed for changes during a convention with this proposed amendment. So far, 26 states have passed resolutions specific to calling for a BBA convention. Heck, even Congress, as reviewed by the CRS report, has historically and has currently proposed legislation for a BBA. Some of the language in both Idaho resolutions came from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Rather than read hundreds of opinions on this subject, perhaps it would be better to determine what the Convention of States Action (COSA) has to say. Surprisingly, Mark Meckler, who leads COSA, opposes a BBA because it would "give the federal government power over the states", whereas a convention of states could impose "fiscal restraints". He includes "restricting taxing and spending" and forcing the government to use "generally accepted accounting principles (2:59 mark)". This appears to lead to the same end, an open door to changing many fiscal matters. Michael Farris, JD, LLM, Co-Founder of Convention of States, states a BBA is "one that COS supports" but a "BBA alone will not cure this problem". He goes on to cite the many fiscal and other issues that would have to be addressed in which the BBA is limited and also speaks to the aggregate issue of different state BBA resolutions. He concludes that both resolutions, calling for a convention and BBA, should proceed post haste. As previously noted, the numerous state BBA resolutions would need to be aggregated for an plenary convention. Further clarification is given by Mr. Meckler to the Pennsylvania House and Senate State Government Committees on October 22, 2019. Along with explaining that term limits could be set on "federal officials", he continues, "... the convention could propose a balanced budget amendment accompanied by limitations on Congress' spending and taxation powers. It could propose limits on executive power, federal agencies, and impose real checks and balances on the Supreme Court (pg 3)." As seen, it isn't just about balancing revenue with spending. While Mr. Meckler denies "Convention of States has a board member that has proposed a new constitution" in response to criticism regarding Robert P. George, it was announced in 2014 that the COS Project formed a "Prestigious Legal Board of Reference" which included Mr. George as a board member. "The conclusions of these prestigious experts are memorialized in The Jefferson Statement". This board crafted The Conservative Constitution. On page 11 it summarizes information related to finance, taxing, and spending. The actual Article I, Sections 9 and 10 can be found on pages 20-21 where more specific details are provided on fiscal policy and outlines how much "fiscal restraint" could, or would be applied. Given this is a COS project it might be considered as a source for consideration of possible proposed amendments that might occur during a convention, which would dramatically alter fiscal policy as various opinions have warned. Mr. George is listed as serving "as a legal advisor to the Project". All of the proposed Articles in this Conservative Constitution dramatically reconstruct our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Mr. George is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and served as the U.S. member of UNESCO’s World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology. In the COSA plenary resolution template, it does include fiscal restraints as one of the "limited" subjects, or rather "to a small range of subjects while still allowing for multiple amendments to be proposed." As for SCR 114, opinions are far more varied with multiple reasons as to why term limits are a bad idea, and why they are a good idea. However, the most frightening aspect is just how far these term limits would go according to COSA. As Mr. Meckler stated, these term limits aren't limited to just Congress, it also includes federal officials, Supreme Court justices, and federal judges. Once again, the People have failed to do their job in ousting officials who don't adhere to the Constitution. With all of the information made available by COSA, it should be clear that a broad restructuring of the Constitution is in play. Presenting such a narrow scope of objectives doesn't come close to how deep the intent is to vastly alter the foundation of the Republic. The original convention that created our Constitution emerged with delegates from each state coming together, it was initiated by them to the Continental Congress and an Act was declared for them to meet. Today, this isn't coming from states, it is coming from a highly organized political campaign that is primarily funded by one individual. The question has to be why, what is the motivation of one person to personally fund so much activity, not only to interfere in state elections, but to also pursue avenues that would potentially cause such profound changes in the Constitution. Should it not be done as was the 1787 convention, brought forward by state leaders, whether by Governors or legislators? Having covered the individuals currently pursuing a Convention of States (COS), the funding behind it, and how those funders are connected, it became clear that at the center of it all was Tim Dunn. He has been a busy boy in Texas when looking into his background, and there is reason for major concern. While this information appears to hold the values of what many Idahoans want, critical thinking is needed to understand the full picture.
Tim Dunn lives in Texas, is a billionaire, and a Christian, making his money from the oil industry. Over the last several years his political activities in Texas are well documented. By some accounts he has been building a "political machine" using his money to create a network of organizations, as have been documented in previous articles. As quoted in Forbes, “I view investing in politics as a philanthropic exercise. I pay dues to lobbyists to prevent bad regulation.” Also according to Forbes, "...in 2010 he cofounded Citizens for Self-Governance, a project to revise the U.S. Constitution", in which Convention of States is its project. In reviewing his many activities, it became clearer that revising the Constitution is exactly what he wants to do beyond balanced budget or term limit amendments. Moreover, as previously discussed, it is the "limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government" language that is the most threatening. The Constitution already defines enumerated powers. His influence has been far reaching in both politics and his ambition to change the Constitution. The Fiscal Responsibility Index, a non-profit chaired by Dunn, is a scoring system, assigning a number to each lawmaker based on how they vote, and is used to determine who should remain in Dunn's favor. The higher the score, the safer it is for the lawmaker with a clear message, "...if you don’t vote the way we tell you, we’re going to score against you,” Is this threat also being laid upon Idaho legislators? Perhaps this scoring system has already been applied in Idaho given the money that was used previously to target one legislator and support others. Buying politicians also buys the policies. This election interference by COS also happened in Montana, Wisconsin, and South Dakota. Along with his friend Farris Wilks from the infamous Wilks brothers associated with Idaho, both have poured money into the election process and influencing policy decisions that are rightfully the responsibility of citizens. In Texas, he used his money towards ousting lawmakers who didn't vote his way. His desire to replace the education system with all Christian schools might be widely accepted by many, but is clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment. However, could this be a hint for his desire to hold a convention for other reasons than what is presented by Convention of States Action? Sitting on the corporate 501(c)(3) America First Inc (America First Policy Institute} board is Mr. Dunn as Director, along with Larry Kudlow and Newt Gingrich as Vice Chairs. Brooke Rollins, playing a former role in the Trump administration, serves as President and CEO. This non-profit was also influential in the previous Trump campaign and appears to be gearing up for a new Trump administration with a set of issues for policy already in place, He has donated to several non-profits with similar causes. Mr. Gingrich describes this non-profit as "taking on the left". But when looking at all of Mr. Dunn's activity it appears more the ideological beliefs of one man who has the money to buy politicians and influence policy. Again, this is a direct violation of the Republic's foundation. None of it follows the Constitution as originally written, this isn't how the process works. Indeed, the Constitution would probably have to be profoundly changed to accommodate his ideals. "Dunn calls himself a proponent of self-governance". Self-governance is different than consent of the governed. All of his activities are the antithesis of what self-governance means. He is a founding board member of Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG) which is led by Mark Meckler. It could safely be said the whole purpose of the Conventions of States project is changing the Constitution to align with the ideals of Mr. Dunn and he has put into place the mechanism to do it. While Mr. Dunn claims that Marxism believes religion and politics don't mix, it was actually our Founders who separated religion out from government in the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"..."forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices." He also states Marxism defines religion as no beliefs other than theirs, when there is strong evidence that is exactly what he is promoting, Christian religion for all. It isn't clear where he obtained his degree in theology. He also believes it is "government's job to execute wrath on evil...something God appointed it to do". Mr. Dunn has views on the criminal justice system, having "spawned a national movement called “Right on Crime.” This organization "is a national campaign of the Texas Public Policy Foundation in which Mr. Dunn is a Vice Chair, and has an Idaho Chapter that influences legislation. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of his talk comes at the end when he talks about loving one another and not exploiting others, when it is clear he assigned himself as judge and jury by using his money and front men to do his dirty work in attacking political candidates. What can only be described as acting like a megalomaniac, Mr. Dunn has used his wealth, influence, and in some cases threats, to spread his wrath across many states, including Idaho, to change our Constitution. This information may stir different emotions in different people. Some may welcome the values Mr. Dunn espouses, others may have concern over the tactics he uses in order to sway our Republican form of government. Mr. Dunn is trying to use the available tool in the Constitution with Article V. However, it is the other ways in which he operates that are the bigger concern and just how much depth there is to his values that could possibly open up our Constitution to harm. His demonstrated ability at influencing politics could just as easily occur should a convention be held. Do Idaho legislators want to be held to the dictates of Tim Dunn under the threat of defeat? Should Mr. Dunn have the privilege of reading this information, he deserves to have a word of caution. His self-driven and sanctimonious ideology is the antithesis of self-governance, and he needs to go back and read every document written by the Founders. Mr. Dunn is distorting the very point on which our Republic was built, that government is only by the consent of the people. He is building it into his own consent. Given the history of this one man, his activities of influence in politics, and his antithetic beliefs to our Republic, it is imperative that Idaho rejects any involvement in the Convention of States Action, and should SCR 112 pass, it can be rescinded. South Dakota did it in spite of the COS threat, "This isn’t the last they’ll hear from us." A warning has already been issued in Idaho. |
Concerned Idahoans:This website is non-partisan and is solely dedicated to removing the harmful controls placed on our state and nation through associated programs of Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the Great Reset. We invite all Idahoans to join us in this fight for freedom! Categories
All
Archives
April 2024
|