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, Agenda 21 impact, climate change, ecology now, ecosystem, environmental impact, GO's (Government Organizations), NGO'S (non-government organizations), salmon, sustainable development

Idaho being targeted for the Agenda…

https://www.kivitv.com/news/environmentalists-threaten-to-stop-idaho-steelhead-fishing?fbclid=IwAR3yW1unARmDWdYjmNVcm9Jz3N37Q6TyqUs7MRyQSfzLPJI731ALWvAcB0o

Agenda 21 impact, Biosphere, climate change, columbia river, ecology now, ecosystem, environmental impact, life experience, living life, salmon, Wetland

One More thing proving Climate Change is a hoax….

Star fish die off west coast
Star fish die off west coast

It obviously is never about the fish or the frog or tortoise or the bears or the plankton or the bug. For years people of the earth have been saying that animals and mammals are going endangered or extinct. People have been lied to.  Believing that we need to throw lots of money into conservation. People have been lied to and made to believe that only organized conservation will save all species. They have been brainwashed into believing man is the biggest threat to animal (flora and fauna) on the planet. Well they are half right. The big money people who want it all to themselves are the culprit. The world leaders have gone so far as state that “animals” should have the same rights as people. The world court has had lawsuit after lawsuit representing animals because tier environment and right to live is in jeopardy. Yet, now the biggest threat to animals is currently taking place and the people of the world are being lied to.

pilot whale die off
pilot whale die off

The-pod-of-107-pilot-whal-007

 

Bird die off Alaska
Bird die off Alaska

The UN has launched a whole world-wide movement to save the whole earth and give animals rights in the world court.   http://www.ejnet.org/ej/principles.pdf

The pope even jumped on board for environmental justice. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/world/europe/pope-francis-united-nations.html?_r=0

Well I think all of these people who jumped on board with the movement have been lied to and have lied to themselves (these are called deniers). The people who voted for taxes in Vancouver,  Washington for conservation have been bilked.

Put into conservation to save something like salmon or some bug or some other fish?
Put into conservation to save something like salmon or some bug or some other fish?

All the billions and billions of dollars spent and all land taken for conservation of species is for NOT. The whole Pacific Ocean and ALL of the sea life are DEAD. The Fukushima melt down has been leaking for FIVE years. The rivers have very little fish returning . The species that depend on the fish are starving.  The eco system that was so precious to save, enough so they had to take people’s land for conservation, is now in a death spiral due to radiation leaking into the pacific ocean.

Fukishima before the tsunami!
Fukushima before the tsunami!

 

Fukishima after the tsunami!
Fukushima after the tsunami!

The nuclear plume in the ocean has reached the west coast of the America. The whole of Japan is one big nuclear disaster.Radiation in Pacific Ocean released by NOAA                                                     Radiation in Pacific Ocean picture released by NOAA

Look where it got you now  there are no more fish in the Pacific Ocean.

Fish die off California
Fish die off California

I will call the people who are still thumping the Climate Change mantra stupid and insolent. Wake up people the Pacific Ocean fish DIE OFF is not, I repeat,  DIE OFF , is not due to  “el Nino” or “el Nina” or any other climate change option you want to believe. The DIE off is happening because no one will stop the biggest disaster in world history, of our time. The spent fuel rods are still 5 years later leaking into the pacific ocean.

And they said Nuclear Energy was green. WHAT IS SO GREEN ABOUT IT NOW?

Please watch the following video about Fukushima:

http://livestream.com/accounts/16291058

This will be the most important video you will watch today.

creature die off in Singapore
creature die off in Singapore
Agenda 21 impact, columbia river, ecology now, ecosystem, environmental impact, NGO'S (non-government organizations), salmon, small community life

Eco Systems have rights…

Can you believe this?
They , whoever they are, have been fighting for the right to have an eco systems “Right to Exist” just like you and I as humans. So, at this point, if it does become law, then if you or I do something like walk on the wrong plant you could be jailed for “killing” part of the eco system. What if your kids are playing in the woods, like they do, then the family could be in bug trouble. A family could be completely devastated, paying huge fines and or having the children taken away from them for allowing your kids to abuse an eco system. Read the following links to get an idea of what they are accomplishing in the ecology movement.

right to exist watershed

http://communityrightspdx.org/podcast/dec-16-2014-history-in-the-making-an-ecosystem-in-pennsylvania-defends-its-own-right-to-exist-flourish/

http://www.appindie.org/index.php/appalachian-culture/55-appalachian-culture/3441-ecosystem-files-for-intervention-in-lawsuit-to-defend-own-legal-rights-to-exist-and-flourish?format=pdf
http://paulcienfuegos.com/history-making-ecosystem-pennsylvania-defends-its-own-right-exist-flourish

http://celdf.org/article.php?list=type&type=271

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v4n1/

Agenda 21 impact, ecosystem, environmental impact, salmon, small community life

The Mudslide revisited…

Here it goes the multiple studies spending taxpayer money in order to find out about what happened. I am sure the survivors of the Steelhead Haven can tell everyone what HAPPENED. It rained hard, the hill was not stable and the hill cut loose.

But now come all the different highly paid scientific that have degrees to tell the people what happened. Of course these people are saying it will be a tough thing to explain it to the public. Really people! Is it that hard to explain that the hill was unstable. The earth was saturated with water. possibly the footing of the hill(support was taken away and there was no support).

It is wonderful that they are studying the site but why on the taxpayer dime? The taxpayer dime is how they KNEW it was going to slide!?

Agenda 21 at work once again. To utilize funds for sustainable development.

RECOMMENDED READING:

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20140511/NEWS01/140519850

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Conference_on_Sustainable_Development

https://losingamericanland.com/2014/02/16/the-new-trade-off-energy-vs-ecology/

Agenda 21 impact, ecology now, ecosystem, environmental impact, GO's (Government Organizations), NGO'S (non-government organizations), Political Correctness, politics, salmon, small community life

More on the untouchable subject and how Cliven Bundy ended up in his situation…

The following will be a long read but an important one if you want to look at the big picture as to why the FEDS are acting like gangs against a rancher who has been occupying land for generations. It may also describe to you why the tortoise is the issue at hand.

One of the reasons why Mr. Clive Bundy was accosted by the FEDS. This will give insight into why a movement that started some 40 plus years ago has reached a tipping point on the world stage and affects every American citizen that dreams of owning land in America.

The movement was the save the planet movement. There has been a radical change in how the NGO’s and the GO’s see their roll in how to  save the planet.

This thing starts with the Kyoto protocol in 1997. In a nutshell the Kyoto agreement states that all countries shall reduce their carbon footprint. To do this each government shall put land into conservation. “That all countries, notably developed countries, should make an effort to “green the world” through reforestation and forest conservation” This is just one excerpt from the UN Summit agreement by 140 plus countries. (click on the link to read more)George Bush did not ratify the agreement.

It does start much earlier but for the purpose of this article we will start with 1997.

We have enough land in the hands of the Federal Government so why would we start buying land or acquiring land to offset our carbon footprint. The land acquisition can also be purchased thru carbon credits. This then allows NGO’s to acquire land and put it into a mitigation bank. This gives carbon credit to any organization or government who has purchased carbon credits.

A mitigation bank can be set up anywhere. So lets say you have an endangered species on land that you want to build on. You can buy mitigation credits for the offset of environmental impact. The organization that receives the money for mitigation credit does not have to be a governmental agency it can be a Non-governmental agency or NGO. The NGO can then buy land for conservation in perpetuity. Tricky word that perpetuity.

The Cliven Bundy situation is a perfect example of mitigating impact of something being built and the environmental impact of the desert tortoise. I saw it happen in southwest Washington the money that was flowing for the salmon was enormous. After all the GO’s in bed with the NGO’s had to prove that the money they were spending had to keep flowing. So in order to show that the numbers were low, they fish and wildlife, went to the river when the salmon were spawning and started to cattle prod and baseball bat the returning fish. This did not allow then to actually spawn. The numbers of returning fish would be low and BINGO more money would flow for salmon recovery.

In the case of the tortoise, They need a large area to transplant the tortoise to. The Bundy ranch appears to be right in the middle of land that has been purchased for this very reason and the Bundys are holding up the process by not selling. Other ranchers in the area have sold already due to being pushed out. By means of fines and fees and taxes and just plain giving up the fight. These organization will hound people to sell their land at pennies on the dollar. Until one day they give up. Now that Cliven Bundy is the last hold out they will do everything and I mean everything to move him off the land. He does not want o sell so disparaging will come.

Everything that can show that Cliven Bundy is a bad person will come out about him and his family. Everything that will show that he is not a REAL American citizen will be put in front of the cameras for all the world to see. And everything that will show the masses that he is just a “doddering old fool” will take place.

No one is talking about how 52 other ranchers have sold out. Why? Who purchased their ranches? Why were they purchase? What was the reason for the purchase? Ask yourself these questions. Research these answers. You will more than likely find that it leads to a Kyoto Protocol/Environmental impact.

If the Chinese company is building a large solar farm then the environmental impact will be large. Then the land surrounding the impacted land must be preserved in order to comply with the Kyoto Protocol and the UN agreements. After all it is a Chinese company that will be building so they will completely comply since China has ratified the Protocol all along.

Harry Reid stands to make lots of money for his people. Harry Reid stands to gain lots of political clout with the Chines and any other investors in his state. Harry Reid stand to even get a pat on the back by his voters who put him in office because he will be providing jobs. How many we really do not know?

 

MORE Explaining on this issue to come…….

 

period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020;

Agenda 21 impact, ecology now, ecosystem, environmental impact, GO's (Government Organizations), NGO'S (non-government organizations), Political Correctness, salmon, small community life

NOT a conspriracy theory…

The things I am writing about many people will say that I am just a nut job talking conspiracy!? But am I?

You go back and look at any 5, 10, 20 and even 30 year plan of many of the NGO’s and you will see the plans in place, Nothing is so blatant as to say that loss of life will happen. Yet if you read between the lines of all the scientific terms and the big ten dollar words and convolutions you can see how there is no conspiracy it is a plan.

Now you look at the ability to have plausible deniability? With an “act of God” or an “act of nature” you will see that the most intelligent scientist can get close to predicting what will happen to further an agenda.

The GO’s and NGO’s can orchestrate many things to meet their agenda, especially with a steady flow of money that is never monitored.

Take for example the mudslide in Washington state. They knew about the hillside being unstable. They even used taxpayer dollars to try a shore up the hill by putting in this and that fix. Just like Katrina they knew the dyke would break with a large enough storm, yet they (meaning government organizations) did nothing to really warn the public or really fix the problem.

Follow the money. Who has spent the most money trying to help nature out???

ecology now, ecosystem, GO's (Government Organizations), NGO'S (non-government organizations), salmon, small community life

Public disclosure Stillaguamish and Grays River…

Just like the bureaucrats to know of a problem and purposely not fix it. But of course they did the proper studies and they announced the problem. They even told the public about the study. A meeting was held and at the meeting it was announced that a geomorphologist accomplished his study and his finding where that something will happen from the problem. The NGO’s and GO’s do this all of the time.

Now that I have confused you enough or given you an enigma let me tell you a story that will help put all these statements and questions into perspective.

First point of interest all someone must do is a report to the public. Like for instance to make something like a prenuptial agreement legal, activate the legality of the document you must publish it. Make it publicly disclosed.

On any study, done by public funds (tax payer dollars), the study must be published and disclosed to the public.

Now we come to the enigma. Certainly meetings are held to announce that the study has been accomplished and can be found on this or that website or you can pay to have it sent to you. Sounds good so far doesn’t it?

Well, bear with me, a little. When we were in our last months in the Grays River Valley, a study was done by a Geomorphologist. The purpose of the study according to the people living in the valley(those that were paying attention) was to define how the river will live.  The study was done in seeking solutions to the severe flooding that was taking place in the valley. I attended the meeting that announced the Geomorphologist findings.

The Geomorphologist took me aside at the conclusion of the presentation and told me his findings on the Grays River. He announced to me that the river will be “straightened out.” I do not know why he told me unless it was because I wrote for the local paper. I never put this in the local paper. If the river were to straightened out it would take out some homes and severely reduce the property of others. The flooding that will take place when the river does do this will be devastating. It would be okay to those in the know tho because a few homes are okay. It meets the greater good of restoring the salmon to the river. The restoration of salmon habitat is the most important factor. It does not really matter to the “save the whatever groups”. If it meets the need then it was needed to take out some homes.

As long as the report is published somewhere it absolves them of responsibility. After all they “told the public”. Even if the publication is obscure and unreadable with convoluted terms, nothing has to be straight forward.

Urban development is the biggest and worst threat to salmon recovery. This has been clearly stated in all  “salmon recovery plans” across the nation. All means to convince land owners that conservation is the key to sustainable development.

What they won’t tell you is that natural disasters work well in their plans. They have complete plausible deniability when a disaster takes place.

I recommend to anyone who wants to get to the bottom of this disaster that you research what land has been put into perpetuity for stewardship by an eco group.?

RECOMMENDED READING:

http://snohomishcd.org/streams-plants-and-wetlands/CREP_InfoSheet_2sided.pdf

http://snohomishcd.org/streams-plants-and-wetlands/NFWFCURBFlyer.pdf

http://www.snohomishcountywa.gov/1123/Stillaguamish-Watershed-Salmon-Recovery-

 http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/washington/newsroom/the-nature-conservancy-in-washington-nature-conservancy-receives-1-mill.xml

http://www.forterra.org/where_we_work

http://www.conservationregistry.org/projects/111562

 

 

Agenda 21 impact, columbia river, ecology now, GO's (Government Organizations), NGO'S (non-government organizations), salmon, small community life

Trade off…

Anytime there is a controversial plan for something related to energy the ecology groups and earth-firsters come out in droves. They will create an environment of controversy enough for the different companies to bend a little. They (big companies) have their own requirements when doing any project. The biggest one is their mitigation plan. In plain English how much land will they set aside to offset the amount of land that they use for their project along with how much land will be affected by doing business. If they don’t buy land outright to put into conservation themselves they may donate the money to a mitigation bank that is being steward’s by a trust (i.e. non-profit). Mitigation banking was established in the early 90’s, to satisfy a U.N. policyon environment. Makes it real easy for big business to satisfy EPA policy just pour some money into a NGO that stewards land???

I saw this take place live on the Columbia River. This issue started with need for the Columbia river to be dredged. The Columbia River normally gets dredged for maintenance. This time was different, they said that the river needed to be dredged deeper than ever before. Now why would it have to be dredged deeper. Then the announcement was made, if 4200 acres of ditched a diked flood plain was returned to the lower Columbia estuary, then it would be safe to dredge the river.

The 4200 acres was to save the salmon. The purchasing of land for salmon recovery took off like a rocket. This would make it sustainable for salmon. (see the word sustainable).  For the next 5 years NGO’s working with GO’s started every project they could dig up, to save the salmon. They also bought land like crazy, (only if they could buy it for nothing) even with unethical business practices, to get it.

With save the salmon moneys 4200 acres did not have to be purchased, as long as 4200 acres of floodplain were returned to the lower Columbia estuary. Often times this meant buying a piece of land and creating a flood plain that also flooded other Peoples land.  This accomplished big business moved in and announced the building of a Liquid Natural Gas terminal(for the loading and discharging LNG in bulk). The LNG ships needed the river to be deeper. The land that was flooded all on the Washington side of the river. And FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)chose the location on the Oregon side , for the terminal. Trade off, Trade off, Trade off.

The mitigation plan complete for the LNG terminal and how much land would be affected by the LNG ships as well as the operation of business at the terminal. All is safe for the fish and everything is then sustainable.

Agenda 21 impact, ecology now, ecosystem, living life, politics, salmon, small community life

Watch out Montanans here it comes…takings

The recent controversy over the sage grouse. Yes Montana will finally feel the effects of takings. Taking land. Just like the Spotted owl and the salmon, all land that even shows an inkling of evidence, that the bird has been or is on your land, will make your land a target to take. I know first hand how the NGO’s will take this information and run with it, leaving you, the land owner, holding the bag. These organizations will use the policies against any land owner to bully, shove and kick you off of your land in order to accomplish the “greater good”.

If you are a nominal rancher/farmer you are the first target. As I said before the nominal ranch/farm is one that is under 100 acres. The environmental groups like: The Nature conservancy, The Columbia Land Trust,Wild Rockies Alliance, American Wild Lands, Clark Fork Coalitions, Wild Rockies, Five Valleys Land Trust, Montana Land Reliance, and many others. These organizations started out with good intentions yet the ultimate goal is to tell people what they can and cannot do on their own land. If you, as a land owner walk to your own drum, they will dog you and fight you with everything they have at their disposal until you give in. These organizations fight dirty, they will value you off your land (one way) they will tax you off your land (two) or they will policy and fine you off your land.

Yes these types of policies will cost you and cost you dearly.

The ultimate goal is to take everyone but the real, real big boys off the land. The world wide agenda. “Get them off their land” one way or another.

If you the land owner don’t think this will happen, go ahead jump in bed with them, Don’t complain when they come and tell you that your 200 head of cattle cannot graze on the federal land anymore. “After all you want to save the sage grouse habitat don’t you?” If this is not enough of a warning to you then you need to read principle 6, 7 and 8 of Agenda 21 from the UN Earth Summit in RIO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Declaration_on_Environment_and_Development

Agenda 21 is  the world organization method of moving people from their land in order for sustainable development. After all who gives a hoot about lifestyles and generational ownership, history, facts and the American way of life, as long as what they do is in line with the UN charter of sustainable development, sustainable resources, sustainable agriculture,sustainable biology, sustainable science, anything that meats the needs of Agenda 21

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/economy-environment-at-stake-in-fate-of-endangered-sage-grouse/article_b4f9036d-ed08-51de-a84d-7d6b437f13f0.html

Many farmers and ranchers have had knowledge of how best to take care of the land, passed on to them by their previous generations. The different government and non government organizations need to listen to them. The one thing that keeps them from listening is the generational knowledge is never in the textbooks and it is not on the sustainable development lists. The science is different now.? Really, is it? Maybe with all the new technology  and junk science on global warming and climate change it is different but does it really work? Ask yourself what really works?