Agenda 2030, Agenda 21, Agenda 21 impact, BLM, politics, Terrorist

Bundy issue takes an interesting turn….

Advertisements
Agenda 2030, Agenda 21 impact, Biosphere, BLM, climate change, ecology now, ecosystem, environmental impact, Political Correctness, small community life, Strong cities, strong communities, sustainable development

Is this something you want????????

 

 

 

 

Image result for Un Agenda 21 Depopulation Map

 

Image result for Un Agenda 21 Depopulation Map

 

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/outcomedocuments/agenda21

http://americanpolicy.org/agenda21/

Agenda 21, Agenda 21 impact, BLM, politics

Judge orders feds to identify agent in Cliven Bundy case

O

Source: Judge orders feds to identify agent in Cliven Bundy case

Agenda 2030, Agenda 21, Agenda 21 impact, BLM, constitution, ecology now, environmental impact, politics, sustainable development, Uranium One

Example of taking land at any cost……..

 

Image result for map of bundy ranch

We now have a perfect example again of taking land at any cost. Obama has, by the stroke of a pen taken large swaths of land for a national monument. If this isn’t enough the feds make a point to take land that has been involved in a controversy with the people. The feds did not like the fact that they had to back down so, after enough time has passed and the American people have forgotten all about it. The feds hate to lose, so they stomp their proverbial feet and abuse their power.
The feds had to back off from a land taking, bullying issue and they are like a bully on the play ground. They did not get their own way so they take a different strategy to take the land anyway. They couldn’t take it by buying it, they couldn’t take it by fining the owner, they couldn’t take it by damaging property, they couldn’t take it by force so they use the pen of the white house to take it.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/28/presidential-proclamation-establishment-gold-butte-national-monument
You may say they did not take the land that was privately owned, that may or may not be true! But, by making the property adjacent to the land will mean that the property owner will be put under an exorbitant amount of restriction as to what they will be able to do on the land. If any of the restrictions are violated, even if the restriction goes completely against common sense and constitutional right, fines will be imposed up to and including federal jail time.
We have already seen the federal over reach with the Oregon gentlemen ( Mr Hammond who sits in federal prison). Mr Hammond would not be bullied, he would not sell, he sucked it up and paid fines and still ended up in federal prison. These people know that if they wait out Mrs. Hammond and wait till she is financial troubled or becomes elderly enough to go into a nursing home they will swoop in and take the land. They hope the same thing will happen with the Bundy ranch.

Everyone says “oh they can’t do that” or ” that wouldn’t happen” or even still “why would they do that”.

Those that say these things are in the dark, they are gullible sheeple. They will believe anything the feds tell them.

All over the country as well as the world the land grabs have been going on unchecked and unabated. As long as a fantasy football season is in play there is no one to stop this bunch from implementing Agenda 21 (now known as Agenda 30).

The following articles include eminent domain, and other methods of takings…

https://losingamericanland.com/2016/12/04/eminent-domain-rears-its-ugly-head-again/

https://losingamericanland.com/2016/07/26/property-rights-vs-environmental-takings/

https://losingamericanland.com/2016/05/10/uranium-one-and-eastern-oregon/

https://losingamericanland.com/2016/03/04/reports-company-tied-to-reids-son-wants-land-in-bundy-standoff/

https://losingamericanland.com/2016/02/12/forcing-a-sale-by-any-means/

https://losingamericanland.com/2016/02/01/how-the-epa-separates-landowners-from-their-properties-the-ppj-gazette/

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/11/17/red-river-landowners-take-battle-feds-court/

https://losingamericanland.com/2014/05/24/mitigation-plan-for-nevada-solar-farm-part-2/

 

Save

Agenda 2030, Agenda 21, Agenda 21 impact, BLM, climate change, ecosystem, eminent domain, Strong cities, strong communities, sustainable development

Proof of “Uranium One”

The following information is taken dirrectly from  https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release
This shows the connection with the Uraniom in Oregon sold to “Uranium One” The Hammonds should never have been talked to by the Feds. Mr Hammond should never be fined or put in federal prison.

Today WikiLeaks begins its series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also controls the Podesta Group, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. Part 1 of the Podesta Emails comprises 2,060 emails and 170 attachments and focuses on Mr Podesta’s communications relating to nuclear energy, and media handling over donations to the Clinton Foundation from mining and nuclear interests; 1,244 of the emails reference nuclear energy. The full collection includes emails to and from Hillary Clinton.

In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called “Uranium One” which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.

As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.

When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment’s review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as “baseless”.

Mr Fallon promptly sent a memo to the New York Times with a rebuttal of the story (Podesta Email ID 1489).

In this memo, Mr Fallon argued: “Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS, it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”

What the Clinton campaign spokesman failed to disclose, however, was the fact that a few days before sending his rebuttal to the New York Times, Jose Fernandez wrote on the evening of the 17 April 2015 to John Podesta following a phone call from Mr Podesta (Email ID 2053): “John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign”.

Five days after this email (22 April 2015), Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon wrote a memo to the New York Times, declaring that “Jose Fernandez has personally attested that ‘Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter’,” but Fallon failed to mention that Fernandez was hardly a neutral witness in this case, considering that he had agreed with John Podesta to play a role in the Clinton campaign.

The emails show that the contacts between John Podesta and Jose Fernandez go back to the time of internal Clinton campaign concern about the then-forthcoming book and movie “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer on the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.

In an email dated 29 March 2015 (Email ID 2059), Jose Fernandez writes to Podesta: “Hi John, I trust you are getting a brief rest after a job well done. Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP [Center for American Progress] board of trustees, which I’m finding extremely rewarding.”

Julian Assange

Save

Agenda 2030, Agenda 21, Agenda 21 impact, BLM, eminent domain, environmental impact, GO's (Government Organizations)

Massive Cover-up: BLM leases Hammond ranch land to Russia through Clinton Foundation donors for uranium

According to The New York Times: “Whether the donations [to the Clinton Foundation] played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical c…

Source: Massive Cover-up: BLM leases Hammond ranch land to Russia through Clinton Foundation donors for uranium

Agenda 2030, Agenda 21 impact, BLM, climate change, ecology now, ecosystem, environmental impact, GO's (Government Organizations), life experience, small community life, sustainable development

BLM to resume operations in Gold Butte 2 years after Bundy standoff | St George News

They are back at it again….. BLM will now let the people help them acquire the land that the Bundy ranch now occupies. Lots of nay sayers will say “NO they are not going to do that” because the BLM doesn’t want the land. Then why pull together all the different non-profit conservation groups to put Gold Butte into conservation. This is exactly why the BLM went after the Bundy’s in the first place. The Harry Reid and Chinese project did not work out so now to save face with the UN Agenda 21 bunch they will go forth and put tons of Gold Butte land into conservation. It did work outright so good old Harry will do it the old fashion way. Stir up the conservation bunch (tree huggers, frog lickers, tortoise lovers, rapid eco people). Let crazys go berserk about saving the land and the rocks and the scrub brush and the trees and the cactus and the bugs and bees and tortoise but not the Human being who has ranched the land for 100 plus years. The human being who improved the land for the wildlife. These eco people are from a faction of society that believe that all people are destroying “mother earth”. The ultimate in sustainable development!

Why would any one feel the need to take land away from people who improve the land and give it to a privatized 501-c3 organization just to impose more of Agenda 21 (2030). The corporatizing of united states of America land is a crime!Your tax dollars at work to allow people to take land so they can play on it and no one else can!

READ  the following to see what they are up to……..

BUNKERVILLE, Nev. – The Bureau of Land Management is planning to resume work in the Gold Butte region in northeastern Clark County, Nevada, after two years of absence. BLM employees have not been working in the field in Gold Butte since early 2014 because of safety concerns following an armed standoff with Cliven Bundy and …

Source: BLM to resume operations in Gold Butte 2 years after Bundy standoff | St George News

Agenda 21, Biosphere, BLM, politics, Uranium, Uranium One

More Uranium One and the need for Uranium….

Is NUCLEAR ENERGY Really GREEN? Canada is burning so more Nuclear weapons and power can be made!

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=e1da89f1-0f1e-4aa0-ac04-a34fb02cabb8

The following companies are performing uranium prospecting and/or exploration in Alberta: CanAlaska Ventures Limited , Firestone Ventures Inc. , International Ranger Corp. , Marum Resources Inc. , North American Gem Inc. , Geo Minerals Ltd. , AREVA Resources Canada Inc., Solitaire Minerals Corp. , Thelon Ventures Ltd. , Triex Minerals Corporation , Yellowcake PLC , Roughrider Uranium Corp., Fission Uranium Corp. , Tribune Minerals Corp. , Black Hawk Exploration Inc. , DNI Metals Inc. , Brazil Resources Inc.

The following link is a PDF file that is a summary from the  Alberta Geological Survey. The summary describes the investigation for uranium potential of Southern Alberta since 2006:

http://cseg.ca/assets/files/resources/abstracts/2010/0525_GC2010_Sandstone-Hosted_Uranium_in_Southern_Alberta.pdf

This link shows Canada Uranium production:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/canada-uranium.aspx

More companies looking at Uranium Mining in the fire zone:

http://www.athabascanuclear.com/

http://atomenergyinc.com/

 

The following is a news release off of the Uranium One website:

Bay Adelaide Centre • Suite 1710, Box 23
Toronto • ON • CANADA • M5H 2R2
Uranium One Inc. Announces Termination of Debentures and Application to Cease to be a Reporting Issuer
TORONTO, January 30, 2015/CNW/ – Uranium One Inc. (“Uranium One” or the “Corporation”) today announced that it plans to discharge its outstanding unsecured subordinated debentures. The debentures, of which C$32.524 million principal amount is outstanding, are listed for trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange (the “TSX”) under the symbol “UUU.DB.A.” and are scheduled to mature on March 13, 2015.
The Corporation intends to discharge the trust indenture governing the debentures, and to immediately terminate the debentures, as of February 5, 2015. Uranium One will pay to debentureholders of record as of that date the principle amount of the debentures, plus the interest payments on the debentures through to their scheduled maturity date. The funds will be deposited with the indenture trustee. As soon as it is practical after the discharge, the debentures will be de-listed from the TSX.
In connection with the termination of the debentures, Uranium One applied to the securities regulatory authorities in each of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador for a decision deeming it to have ceased to be a reporting issuer in such jurisdictions.
If the requested decision is made by the securities regulatory authorities, the Corporation will cease being a reporting issuer in any jurisdiction in Canada and, as a result, will no longer be required to file financial statements and other continuous disclosure documents with Canadian securities regulatory authorities. The Corporation will continue to make the disclosures required to the holders of its remaining securities outstanding, being its Ruble Bonds Series 1 and 2 and the Senior Secured Notes issued by Uranium One Investments Inc.
About Uranium One:
Uranium One is one of the world’s largest uranium producers with a globally diversified portfolio of assets located in Kazakhstan, the United States, Australia and Tanzania. ROSATOM State Atomic Energy Corporation, through its affiliates, owns 100% of the outstanding common shares of Uranium One.
For further information about Uranium One, please visit http://www.uranium1.com
| 2
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
Chris Sattler
Chief Executive Officer
Tel: +1 647 788 8500
Juliana Lam
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Tel: +1 647 788 8500
Cautionary Statement
No stock exchange, securities commission or other regulatory authority has approved or disapproved the information contained herein.
Forward-looking statements:
This press release contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of applicable securities laws that are intended to be covered by the safe harbours created by those laws, including statements that use forward-looking terminology such as “may”, “will”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “believe”, “continue”, “potential”, or the negative thereof or other variations thereof or comparable terminology. Such forward-looking statements may include, without limitation, statements regarding the completion of the proposed discharge of debentures and other statements that are not historical facts. While such forward-looking statements are expressed by Uranium One, as stated in this release, in good faith and believed by Uranium One to have a reasonable basis, they are subject to important risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results to differ materially from future results expressed, projected or implied by the forward-looking statements. As a result of these risks and uncertainties, the results or events predicted in these forward-looking statements may differ materially from actual results or events. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance, given that they involve risks and uncertainties. Uranium One is not affirming or adopting any statements made by any other person in respect of the proposed discharge of the debentures and expressly disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except in accordance with applicable securities laws, or to comment on expectations of, or statements made by any other person in respect of the proposed transaction. Investors should not assume that any lack of update to a previously issued forward-looking statement constitutes a reaffirmation of that statement. Reliance on forward-looking statements is at investors’ own risk.

Agenda 2030, Agenda 21 impact, BLM, climate change, ecosystem, environmental impact, GO's (Government Organizations), life experience, Political Correctness, small community life, Uranium One

Uranium One and Eastern Oregon….

 Go to bottom of post for a link to a video showing more Uraniom One connection to BLM and others.

Wpdms_shdrlfi020l_harney_basin

Uranium One has purchased Uranium thru Hillary Clinton. Thats a problem all by itself. But lets look at the situation with mining the Uranium. First off everyone needs to look at the environmental impact statement of whatever company will be mining the Uranium and look at the mitigation statement of the same.

More than likely there is a huge impact statement plus a large amount of land mitigation. (put land into conservation for said impact) If the Uranium deposit is as large as it appears to be then the mitigation of land will be huge. In simple terms if the land will be affected by mining then an equal or larger amount of land must be put in conservation in order to mitigate the impact of said operation.

Both EIS (environmental impact statement) and mitigation plan are required for operation of said entity whether it is an office building or a mine. So lets say the impact of operation is 200 acres then another 200 acres are required for mitigation of the 200 acre site. Now lets look at other factors will the operation  of said company affect the air quality in the surrounding air. Then this will impact more acreage due to prevailing winds and other environmental factors. Lets say the winds carry a toxin across 300 more affected acres. Then the mitigation will require more land another 300 acres give or take depending upon the fallout of the prevailing winds. Now lets look at the water quality. How much water is affected this becomes a factor as well. Just like the Bundy situation how is the wildlife affected and how much land will be needed for the displacement of wildlife (flora and fauna).

In the case of Oregon the whole eastern side of the state could be part of an environmental impact and require exorbitant amounts of land for mitigation. In that the government would not only have to displace (flor and fauna) they would also have to displace the human element as well. And if the mitigation plan is delayed (there are time lines set for them)more than six months a whole new impact statement is required and a new mitigation plan is made. This process could delay a project by up to 2 years.

So back to the Hammonds the government required the Hammonds to be displaced for mitigation in order to go forth with the mitigation plan on time. When the deadlines approach the organizations panick and get ugly just like they did to the Hammonds.

The following is taken from a document titled:

New Uranium Mining Projects – USA

Oregon

General · Aurora


> See also Issues for: Operating Mines · Decommissioning Projects · Legislation & Regulations
> See also Data for: Deposits, Proposed and Active Mines · Old Mines and Decommissioning


Aurora, Malheur County

> View deposit info

Aurora uranium mine project on hold: According to Oregon Energy, “the project is on ice and not moving forward due to uranium prices and sage grouse issue.” (NRC Memo Dec. 12, 2013)

Notice of Intent provided to submit license application for Aurora project: On Apr. 4, 2012, Energy Ventures Limited external link announced that Notice of Intent to submit a Source Material Facility License Application has been provided to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This notice relates to the proposed development of a uranium processing plant and tailings management facility at the Company’s Aurora Uranium Project.

Company presents project for Aurora open pit uranium mine and mill: The results of Oregon Energy’s test drilling at the Aurora uranium deposit in southeast Oregon has encouraged the company to go ahead with its plans for an open-pit mine at the site, and Oregon Energy’s president Lachlan Reynolds says Oregon Energy is willing to drop $200 million to establish the mine.
Gary Lynch, assistant director of the Mineral Land Regulation and Reclamation Program of Oregon’s Department of Geology and Natural Resources (DOGAMI) external link says Oregon Energy presented its proposal at a public meeting of the DOGAMI governing board on Sept. 13 but the company has not yet submitted an application for a mine.
The mine area, according to Chris Hansen of the Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) external link, is “absolutely core sage grouse habitat.” Sage grouse have been in decline in Oregon. According to ONDA, there is warrant to list the rapidly disappearing sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act, but thanks to politics and a backlog with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the sage grouse is on a waiting list with 250 other species. Two drainages of Cottonwood and McDermitt Creeks go through the site, and Fish and Wildlife documents show that the creeks or their tributaries are endangered species listed Lahontan cutthroat trout habitat.
Oregon Energy plans to process the uranium on the site, which is also a concern for Hansen. (Eugene Weekly Sep. 29, 2011)

The Willamette Week reported on an Australian Company planning to mine the Uranium in Malheur County http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-18572-a_glowing_opportunity.html “It’s uranium—and the county has what may be the biggest sources in the U.S. “

The following is a link to a letter of Agreement to Acquire the Aurora Uranium”.  Pay very close attention to the purchase agreement. Two million dollars for 100% (percent) interest in the property. (for the deposit in Malheur County.)

http://www.australianuranium.com.au/files/Energy%20Ventures%20-%20Aurora%20Uranium%20Deposit.pdf

The following link is to the OregonLive (The Oregonian site. They reported on the deposit in 2012. http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2012/01/malheur_county_targeted_for_go.html

Based on the time frame of these articles and letters of agreement it is about time for the projects to move forward. To do so they must displace all property owners in order to mine the Uranium and Gold. The acquisition of the land is the most important key. If the deposits of these minerals are as large as I think, the whole eastern side of Oregon could be taken for mitigation of these projects.

Here is more proof that Uranium One is doing whatever for the Uranium:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBe3_iZ3HHk

Agenda 2030, Agenda 21 impact, BLM, climate change, ecology now, environmental impact, GO's (Government Organizations), living life, PC police, small community life, Wetland

EPA Fines Wyoming Man $16 Million for Building a Pond on His Property | http://www.independentsentinel.com

Another example of how lives are being destroyed by unalected government agencies. EPA is not to make law yet they get to enforce rules on American people and take  everything from them.

Source: EPA Fines Wyoming Man $16 Million for Building a Pond on His Property | http://www.independentsentinel.com