Agenda 2030, Agenda 21, Agenda 21 impact, BLM, constitution, ecosystem, environmental impact, GO's (Government Organizations), politics, salmon, small community life, sustainable development, Uranium

BLM at it again……

The 11 western states with sagebrush-steppe habitat and sage grouse are: Oregon, Washington, California (northern), Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, North and South Dakota.

Screenshot_2018-11-08 Bringing Healthy Sagebrush Communities Full Circle
sage  grouse habitat https://nrcs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=1432f0c5f9cf4031a24df2e6f479b8eb

Just like saving the salmon land has been purchased, landowners have committed their development rights and projects planned. Government and non-government organizations have spent taxpayer money protecting these species.

BLM is at it again planning  a prescribed burn in order to help the sage grouse habitat.Even in BLM’s best efforts to control the land and help habitat of any species, they know not what they do. Th efforts that they make to help seems to really go side ways or is it part of the agenda to remove people from the land or get people(landowners out of someones way.

In Oregon there was a rancher who did not want to sell their ranch to BLM so BLM created a condition that would potentially give them what they want. BLM did some prescribed burns. This forced the Hammond ranch to take steps to protect themselves and their property. The result of that was Mr Hammond and his son were thrown in federal prison and labeled domestic terrorists. These are regular everyday working American people making a living and living the lifestyle they love.  Because the fight had gone on for more than 20 years  and BLM wasn’t winning. They approached the Hammonds to purchase the property the Hammonds said NO. The “international obligation”created a crisis for BLM and the political party involved.( see my post on Uranium connection https://wordpress.com/post/losingamericanland.com/27485  https://wordpress.com/post/losingamericanland.com/27763 ). By the way the Hammonds were fighting a grazing right issue as well. So when this was discovered by other ranchers dealing with the same issue. Many of these ranchers came together to support the Hammonds and educate the community on the unlawful methods BLM are doing. The BLM has no constitution right to own land and create laws regarding the lands.

At this time point we get the  Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The supposed federal refuge was and is the people’s land so the people who occupied the refuge, were and are, in their constitutional right to do so. The wave of understanding in the state of Oregon was growing very fast. The real constitution was being taught to the communities and the opposition to the BLM was growing. Then the FBI was brought in. At this point the FBI and BLM had to do something to stop the opposition and turn the people’s support back. They did do something very dramatic and  Lavoy Finicum, a man people loved and respected, lost his life. Please peruse the following link to see the forensic videos and see the drastic measures the government officials went to stop the movement. https://thementalmilitia.net/2017/03/28/forensic-analysis-murder-lavoy-finicum-2nd-page/

If you follow the money and the mitigation plans of businesses within 100 miles of lands in question you will find out why the BLM is making decisions to do stupid things that to most people make no sense. Quite often there will be a political reason behind it. And the Agenda will be moving forward. This agenda could be just as simple as getting land owners backed into a corner that will force them to sell their land. To a degree, the BLM,  won. How you say well since Mr Hammond was imprisoned, the BLM forced the Hammonds to sign a “first right of refusal”. This means that if for any reason the Hammonds decide to sell their ranch the BLM gets first crack at it.

The agenda I am talking about through all of this is the UN Agenda.

See the source image

The BLM wants to burn 30,600 acres of sagebrush in southwest Montana. (48 square miles) Yes Montana has a lot of wide open space but I would venture to say that there are some prime ranches inside this boundary that BLM would love to have or some politician would love to have for some money-making scheme or just simply the UN would like to clear the land and get rid of the ranchers in order to make the land “sustainable”.

See the source image

The problem with this kind habitat salvation, a prescribe burn, is that the sage grouse will be devastated. It will take years for the land to be habitable for the sage grouse. Just like salmon recovery, these organizations cannot have a successful plan. They cannot have a species return quickly in high numbers. If the species starts returning in high numbers the organization that is doing the projects, will have their budgets cut. All the high paying jobs that worked on the habitat acquisition and monitoring will be reduced greatly and the project will be a success. BLM cannot have that happen.

All government organizations that receive our tax dollars are under the rule of “use it or lose it” So of course they have to make sure that the project continues with no success.

People are extremely naive if they think that this kinda of thing does not happen with our government.

So in conclusion a prescribe burn in southwest Montana is a really, really bad idea. People have lost their freedom and their live because of prescribe burns by BLM.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/11/07/burning-sagebrush-will-not-save-endangered-grouse/

 

Advertisements
Agenda 2030, Agenda 21, Biosphere, BLM, columbia river, ecology now, ecosystem, environmental impact, small community life, sustainable development, Wetland

Glyphosate ruling..cancer causing……

https://gmoawareness.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/sprayweeds-roundup.jpg?w=825

Jury sides with plaintiff that the weed killer Roundup caused cancer on a former school groundskeeper now the truth is out on glyphosate.

This could set a precedent for more than 4,000 similar cases awaiting trial in federal or state courts.

How many children have been exposed to Roundup (glyphosate)?

 

https://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/The-Latest-Monsanto-weed-killer-legal-battle-to-13330916.php

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/monsanto-weed-killer-ruling-1st-step-long-legal-58703115

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/judge-denies-monsantos-request-to-scrap-dollar250-million-punishment-but-theres-a-catch/ar-BBOL205?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=ansmsnnews11

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit/u-s-judge-affirms-monsanto-weed-killer-verdict-slashes-damages-idUSKCN1MX011

https://www.naturalblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/spraying-herbicide-000019257784_large_87993.jpg

Why are all these people dressed in hazmat type suits if glyphosate (Roundup) is so safe?

https://i1.wp.com/www.lcdcc.org/sites/default/files/Starker-aerial-spray-9-400x267.jpg

Glyphosate spraying in Oregon forest to keep underbrush down. What does this do to the wildlife?

 

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.