Telling On Themselves: Rural Cleansing in Idaho and Montana

Rural cleansing in Idaho & MontanaI just love it when someone slips up, and tells us country folk what’s really being planned for us.

Rural cleansing is the purposeful removal of rural citizens from the countryside and the relocation of rural populations into urban areas. Many public officials and media pundits scoff at the mere suggestion that rural cleansing is taking place, but the problem, you see, is that there are people who have inadvertently left tell-tale clues we can use to piece together things for ourselves.

One of the most startling clues I’ve run across lately comes from a July 1, 1998 newspaper article in The Montanian, which is published in Libby, a tiny rural town in Northwest Montana.

Did She Just Say That?

In the article, Libby County Commissioner, Rita Windom, informs us that she and other commissioners were approached by Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (FWP) state land manager, Darlene Edge, with a proposal to cooperate in driving rural residents out of the Montana countryside into cities. When commissioners responded with horror, Windom says Edge replied

“Can’t you see we are doing you a favor by forcing people to move from rural areas into the urban areas. That way you can close roads…Why don’t you work with us and move these people out of the rural areas and into the urban areas so cities can shoulder more of the responsibilities and the county can save money?”

This exchange took place in a meeting regarding a document called The Wildlife Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), of which only 300 were published. According to Windom, there was very little public input because the few public meetings held were so poorly advertised.

But was this just an isolated, though shocking, incident? Did this public policy only affect Montana?  I don’t think so.  I’ll tell you why.

Sometime around 1997 I called a Boundary County, Idaho resident from Washington State regarding possible job openings in my field in Boundary County.  Her answer was that the woods had been shut down and 300 families had left.  She continued on to tell me she had seen a public land management agency document outlining a plan to empty North Idaho of people and turn the entire area into a wildlife corridor.  Naturally, she was outraged.

About ten years later, another reliable eyewitness told me that the same document had arrived at his home first.  The document was marked not for public view.  He had purchased a house that had previously been occupied by a public land management agency employee who had moved.  My source had opened the document and read it.  He confirmed that it said what my other friend had previously described to me.  In fact, he had lent her the document, which is how she happened to know what was in it.

I was never able to get my hands on that document, but when someone sent me a camera shot of the above article in The Montanian describing much the same policy being announced at much the same time as the eyewitness accounts, I wasted no time in getting a copy of the article.

Other evidence for believing that this article in The Montanian represents policies that affect Idaho, as well as Montana, is that, not too long ago, at a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service public meeting about listing the wolverine on the Endangered Species list, we were told that Idaho and Montana are now considered to be in the same management region by the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  The land and wildlife management policies are pretty much the same now.  This is why huge blocks of land, taking in N.W. Montana, Northern Idaho and N.E. Washington, are included in management plans for grizzly habitat, caribou habitat, wildlife corridors, etc.

Where Did Rural Cleansing Come From?

Commissioner Windom remarks, in the Montanian article, that the Draft EIS that had upset her and other commissioners was the product of five to six years’ labor by the FWP. That puts us back to around 1992, or a year later, when the Rio Earth Summit trotted out the document, Agenda 21: the Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet, and other supporting documents, for our enjoyment.

Documents and resolutions introduced at the Rio Earth Summit had been in the works for years before being introduced to the world.

Policies leading to rural cleansing are found in the document, Agenda 21: the Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet, but another important source is associated with one of the other documents introduced at Rio.  That was the Convention on Biological Diversity.  It has been shown that the Wildlands Project is the central mechanism by which the Convention on Biological Diversity is to be implemented.  The Wildlands Project calls for humans to be removed from one-half of the American land mass, and to create uninhabited corridors for wildlife to move freely from Alaska to Yellowstone Park, or farther south.  It was written by radical environmentalists working in United Nations nongovernmental organizations with the full knowledge and aid of U.S. federal agencies such as U.S. Forest Service, BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA and others.

It appears that the Wildlands Project is now being implemented, under another name, in Idaho and the West through the Western Governors Association’s Wildlife Corridors Initiative (WCI).  To learn more about that, please see my blog, Infiltration of LittleTown U.S.A.: The Wildlands Project and Agenda 21 in Idaho.  Particularly, pay attention to the section subtitled “Nudging Us into the Cities.”

If we are paying attention, we can catch public officials and media pundits additionally telling on themselves by their perpetual use of disinformation.  One common bit of disinformation used to mislead the public is the repeated statement that Agenda 21 is an outdated and nonbinding document.  You can always tell a trained operative when statements similar to this come out of their mouth. Here is an article displaying this strategy: How the U.N.’s Agenda 21 Affects Kootenai County, Idaho.

Just two to three weeks ago, I submitted a comment on the above article.  I commented that Agenda 21 is no outdated or irrelevant document, because in 2012, the United Nations held another summit called Rio+20, in which the members reaffirmed Agenda 21 as the working document for the 21st century.  They also reaffirmed their commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity.  The webmaster declined to publish my comment.

To back up my comment, here is a quote found on Wikipedia’s entry for Agenda 21:

“Rio+20 (2012)
Main article: United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development
In 2012, at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development the attending members reaffirmed their commitment to Agenda 21 in their outcome document called “The Future We Want”. 180 leaders from nations participated.”

Bringing it Home

When the Wikipedia entry calls the Agenda 21 document a voluntary and nonbinding action plan, the writer fails to outline the process whereby former President Clinton issued an executive order and created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), which then formed policies and plans to implement Agenda 21 under soft law. Sustainable Development is the term used at United Nations and national levels to describe the goals of Agenda 21.  The PCSD generated documents and guidelines, notably Sustainable America: A New Consensus for the Prosperity, Opportunity and a Healthy Environment for the Future, used by federal agencies, such as the Forest Service, EPA and others, to form policies.

These guidelines have become the overarching vision for our nation, not only for federal agencies, but also for city planners, corporate trade groups, and environmental groups, as this excerpt from Sustainable America shows.

Federal grants, monies, and other inducements, have drawn local and state governments into that implementation.  I’m sure many of those public officials were ignorant of the consequences of accepting those grants at the time.  Some are either still ignorant or too stubborn, or maybe even too complicit, to admit that they were duped.  When soft law becomes the new normal, it can be upheld by case law.  These practices are also now being codified in piecemeal legislation, comprehensive land use plans and zoning regulations.

There You Go Again

Now you will be told that county comprehensive land use plans, likewise, are nonbinding documents with no real clout.  Oops—wrong again.  For example, the U.S. Forest Service uses comprehensive land use plans when writing forest plans for your region.  If your plan just happens to agree with their goals (and what are their goals? why, Sustainable Forestry, of course) the plan serves as cover for their management policies, because the Forest Service claims that they have coordinated with your county, as required by law, by having read and taken under consideration your comprehensive land use plan.  See this video and hear F.S. employees state this over and over again, as they are being questioned regarding their latest forest plan for Idaho.  I have also read that comprehensive land use plans can be used as a basis for zoning regulations and other county ordinances.

This is why various groups want to embed statements that are conducive to Sustainable Development in your county comprehensive land use plans.

Though the disinformation campaign strategy in Idaho is still one of denial and Alinsky-like mockery of Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists, as exemplified in this Spokesman-Review article, the strategy is now shifting elsewhere.  Rosa Koire, speaking of California, describes how the charge of conspiracy theory is there giving way to the position that Agenda 21, and its related documents and policies, are real, but that these policies are the only feasible and just way of coping with global problems such as climate change, overpopulation, poverty and environmental degradation.

It’s the New normal, Just Accept it.

It’s no surprise, then, that FOX News just published an article entitled Foundations plan to pay news media to cover radical UN agenda. The article describes how a cadre of journalists is being trained to win the public over to U.N. Sustainable Development policies.

Comic Relief

That’s why I just chortle when I find articles like this one, from The Montanian, containing past candid (though Kafkaesque)  quotes from officials who hadn’t yet sufficiently learned to dissemble.  I hope you will read the entire article, as it has additional interesting comments about the changing use of conservation easements and the way Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks was circumventing the public and county commissioners to get its way. The article is reprinted by the gracious permission of The Montanian Newspaper.

And just so we can do a little mocking of our own, let me refer you to this funny, short short video called My Daughter’s New Agenda 21 Bedroom

But, then again, after having a good chuckle, let’s move past the mockery and get down to the debate–if we can get one.  If journalists are going to try to convince us that Sustainable Development, as envisioned by members and advisory groups to the United Nations, is the best path for America, we need to be ready to engage in a logical and reasonable discussion.  And that will be a serious conversation, indeed.

 

 

The Montanian.  “FWP plans big changes in hunting and rural living.”  Libby, Montana: July 1, 1998.

*Sorry, the print on the first page is small.  After posting this, I realized I had made a transcription of the first page of this article.  If you scroll down, past the header front page at the bottom, you will see page 1 transcribed.  Page 2 is large enough to read easily.  When I got this article from microfiche, the greater amount of print on page one inhibited our ability to make the print larger and, thus, more readable.

 

The Montanian Article page 1

The Montanian Article page 1

The Montanian Page 2

The Montanian Page 2

The Montanian Header

The Montanian Header

The

 

 

 

 

 

 

The The Montanian July 1, 1998 (TRANSCRIPTION Page 1)

FWP plans big changes in hunting and rural living

Social Engineering is in the Works

The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks has big changes planned for the way it manages wildlife, hunting and rural living patterns. And even though the proposed changes could impact hunters, property owners and anyone who enjoys the outdoors, most Montanians are unaware of the changes.

Lincoln County Commissioner, Rita Windom, says she has only recently learned about the plan, entitled “Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.”
“This is a document that should mean something to everybody,” Windom said Monday, June 29. “They only printed 300 copies of this document, and they only printed 250 of the actual EIS (Environmental Impact Statement). They had seven meetings in the state of Montana and I happened to get a hold of [it, because of] a meeting I had gone to back in 1992.”

Windom said the plan outlines big changes.  “We were just horrified because it changes the way lands are managed and…it dramatically (effects) counties,” she said.
“This document is called “The Wildlife Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.” The Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks prepared it. They’ve been working on it for five or six years at a cost of $600,000,” she said.

“There are five alternatives and they don’t list the preferred ones, which is unusual.”
Windom said she is concerned about the lack of public input into what are potentially major changes.

“One of the scary things about this document is that…the public input doesn’t go to the game commission for review (and) it doesn’t go to the people. Pat Graham, Director of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, is the decision maker. He gets to select which alternatives or a combination thereof.

“[The plan] allows some public comments…at meetings. [But] they were so ill advertised. They had the biggest one in Libby, which was the one we demanded, and we only had nine people. The meeting was May 26.”

Windom says the plan would allow FWP to sell more non-resident hunting licenses while reducing the number of licenses available for Montana residents.

“They are going to ask the Legislature to change the way they do hunting licenses. They want to allow more non-resident licenses in their formula for licenses. The way I understand it is that there will be fewer for resident hunters,” she said.
Worse, the non-resident licenses will be sold to the highest bidder.

“It will be all market-based, highest bidder. We think that is pretty unfair,” she said.
Windom says the plan goes way beyond the management of just wildlife. It also includes plans to manipulate human population in rural areas.

“They are saying they want social changes. They talk about the increasing importance of environmental concerns nationally, and the increasing reliance on referendums and grass-roots politics for political change. They [FWP] say that social and economic values towards natural resources are becoming less consumptive…nationally. The emergence of the animal rights movement exemplifies national pressure to shift to a less consumptive use at state and local levels,” Windom said, citing the plan.

Windom said she is disturbed that FWP is allowing national trends to dictate its policy.
“What is the reasoning behind allowing an animal rights movement to dictate policy on how we use Montana lands?”

Windom read aloud from Alternative 3 of the plan: “Land owners would increase, through expanded access, incentives and habitat programs. Local governments would benefit from expanded payments including those in lieu of personal property tax.” That means to me, currently we have conservation easements and they pay personal property tax on buildings, farm equipment and livestock. They they pay a payment in lieu of taxes on real estate, very small…. [FWP] is going to change the use of the land and take the personal property off the land on conservation easements, which would mean ranchers and farmers could no longer use the land the way it is currently being used. That is a big departure in the way we have known conservation easements in the past,” Windom said.
Windom said the plan would in essence tax rural property owners for the wildlife on their property.

“This is even more scary. Local governments would benefit from expanded payments, including those in lieu of personal property tax, however new initiatives pertaining to wildlife on the urban interface may [a]ffect some local residents through tax assessments, meaning that those who choose to live in the countryside would have to pay a tax to Fish, Wildlife and Parks so they could manage more effectively the wildlife there.”
Windom said one FWP employee told her the plan is designed to push rural residents into urban areas.

“When I was in Thompson Chain of Lakes meeting, Darlene Edge (FWP state lands manager) told me she didn’t understand the attitude of county commissioners. She said, “You are so reluctant to work with us on these issues…can’t you see we are doing you a favor by forcing people to move from the rural areas into the urban areas. That way you can close roads…you know your timber receipts are declining. You are going to have less money to work with. Why don’t you work with us and move these people out of the rural areas and into the urban areas so cities can shoulder more of the responsibilities and the county can save money,” Windom said.

“He said the general public knew about this before the game commission,” Windom said. “The game commission really doesn’t get any input in it.”
Windom said FWP is working to circumvent negative public opinion of the plan in at least one area.

“We had a situation up in the West Kootenai some months ago where they [FWP] came up and wanted to do a conservation easement, and the people were…

*Read the rest of the article on page 2 above

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedinmailby feather
This entry was posted in Agenda 21, Blog, politics, politics, rural life, Social Commentary and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Telling On Themselves: Rural Cleansing in Idaho and Montana

  1. jim says:

    This is interesting because if you pack everyone in the city, there will be no farmers, then the entire population would starve to death, the Nazi’s did pretty much the same thing but used gas chambers. there are no species in nature other than humans that would seek the entire extinction of themselves, leftists are truly horrible people.

  2. Pingback: pour faire suite à un article d’hier: Des couloirs pour la faune sauvage : l’Agenda 21 change de nom. Objectif : la déportation des ruraux | intérêt pour tous

  3. Pingback: Wilderness Corridors: Agenda 21 under a new name | Land for Love and Money

  4. Pingback: Wilderness Corridors: Agenda 21 Under A New Name - Patriot Rising

  5. Pingback: Wilderness Corridors: Agenda 21 Under A New Name | Living For Longer

  6. Pingback: Wilderness Corridors: Agenda 21 Under A New Name | Olduvai.caOlduvai.ca

  7. Pingback: Wilderness Corridors: Agenda 21 Under A New Name | Sandora News Aggregator Portal

  8. Pingback: Wilderness Corridors: Agenda 21 under a new name – Intellihub

  9. Pingback: Wilderness Corridors: Agenda 21 Under A New Name | From the Trenches World Report

  10. Pingback: ‘PLUNDER AND DECEIT’, Agenda 21 Under A New NameIowaDawg Blogging Stuff | IowaDawg Blogging Stuff

  11. Pingback: Wilderness Corridors: Agenda 21 Under A New Name - Freedom's Floodgates

  12. Pingback: Wilderness Corridors: Agenda 21 Under A New Name | The Daily Sheeple

  13. Pingback: Wilderness Corridors: Agenda 21 Under A New Name | Exposing Modern Mugwumps

  14. Pingback: Wilderness Corridors: Agenda 21 Under A New Name » Survival Gear & Food Storage

  15. Pingback: Wilderness Corridors: Agenda 21 Under A New Name | Ready Nutrition

  16. Bruce says:

    A Trojan horse was planted into our local comprehensive land use plan in Wisconsin. Although it was difficult to change our own plan because once enacted, it became part of the regional planning commissions plan and how the regional commission interpreted our plan as fitting into neighboring plans, certain cost sharing funding would be in jeopardy if our local plan was changed, and there was no written escape strategy. One sentence in our 110 page plan read, “The County Land and Water Conservation District Plan is considered part of this (local) comprehensive plan”. I found the 90 page LCLW plan. That meant that our local community was subject to any changes, without limitation, that the LWCD chose to include in its own plan. It was an enabling act. Out local community had no say in what the LWCD chose to put in its plan that would change our local plan.

    Another more curious item found in our plan was that “the goal of a Comprehensive Plan is the promotion of public health, safety, morals, convenience, order, or the general welfare and for the sake of efficiency and economy in the process of development”. I thought it creepy that the goal of a local land use plan was to “promote…morals” so I Googled that phrase and found variations of that same sentence in land use plans not only in the US but in comprehensive plans all over the English speaking world. I tried to get the planner whom our community had paid to write our plan to explain how that sentence got into our plan. He was evasive and noted that it was jut a “tool” he added but that our community could take it prior to implementation. That didn’t explain how that phrase gets into plans all over the world. Also who gets to define ‘convenience’ and ‘order’? Whose convenience?

    • PoetHerbalist says:

      Yes, Bruce–“Whose convenience?.” And whose “order” or “morals?” Creepy, indeed.

      Thank you for this great concrete example of how comprehensive land use plans are not just innocuous documents with no repercussions on communities.

      I had to read this twice, as it’s full of important details.
      Sara

  17. Pingback: Rural Depopulation….It’s Everywhere | PRCnews

  18. Donna R says:

    Thought you might be interested in these sights.
    http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/our_mission
    House Joint Resolution No. 13 Study, June 2, 2015 http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2015/billpdf/HJ0013.pdf

    • PoetHerbalist says:

      Donna,
      Thanks for stopping by. The House joint Resolution No. 13 is of interest. Do you have any idea about what may come out of this? I know that, especially due to the 2.2 million acre grizzly habitat called for in the latest forest plan, beau-coup roads are being taken out of commission. This despite the fact that the most up-to-date science studies show that bears are much more tolerant of roads than previously thought. Also, some wildlife biologists think that the food source for bears is much more what determines where bears go, not roads.

      I do have a link to American Lands Council on my Links and Resources page. Thank you for bringing these sites to my attention, and if you hear anymore about the House joint Resolution, please fill me in. I’m finding that what happens in N.W. Montana is indicative of what we here in North Idaho can expect and vice versa.
      Have a good one,
      Sara

  19. Dan Henson says:

    They tried this in Washington State 2005-2006 ish. Up in Central Washington, everyone got together up here and with the ranchers/farmers organizations. We had to get our State and Federal Representatives into a meeting with us (no dems showed up) and we raised it to everyone’s attention at the time.
    We were to be moved out in steps.
    First everyone above the canal, to move out. People below could not build or develop anything new. Then, we would be removed later.

    They aren’t kidding and they aren’t leaving.
    On the federal level, in Obama’s first year, legislation was tied to one of the stimulus bills to start studies and encouraging people living 20 miles from cities, into urban areas.
    The mandatory conversion of all diesel trucks to natural gas was attached.
    as a side note, the funding for “fast and furious” was included within the final stimulus bill and was approved.

    Make no mistake, moving everyone into a manageable urban center is a goal. Disarming resistance is a goal. Fundamentally changing America is a goal!

    • Dan Henson says:

      We beat it back but it has never gone totally away. In fact, here it is again, along with the EPA deciding to give back parts of Wyoming to the Native tribe there.

      • PoetHerbalist says:

        Hi Dan,
        Thank you for reading my blog. The newspaper article cited above in my blog was from 1998, quite a bit earlier than the situation you tell us about in upper Central Washington, but I believe they both reflect the same plans that have become commonplace policy in the United States, and especially here in the West, as we have so much more federally-controlled land than in the East.

        I’m glad that the citizens there beat them back. That must have been quite a battle. Have you ever read “Eco-Fascists: How Radical Environmentalists are Destroying our Natural Heritage” by Elizabeth Nickson? It’s great. She covers a lot of the Northwest including Washington State, Idaho and Montana.

        Thank you for the heads-up warning on Obama’s stimulus bill. Yes, this is something we need to be well aware of in this country. For the suburban people, they should know about the push to shift suburban populations into the inner cities. You may read a little about that in my article “Infiltration of LittleTown, U.S.A.: Agenda 21 in Bonners Ferry, Part 1.” It’s listed under Politics in the menu bar above. I talk about this referring to Stanley Kurtz’ book “Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities.”

        It’s basically coming from the same vision, but it’s good to know how the yeast has leavened the whole lump of dough.

        Again, thank you for stopping by the Daily Herb. Please come again,
        Sara Hall

  20. Dennis says:

    Allowing fires to burn and also right next to the Forest Fire Camp, is another way to cause Folks like myself and family to leave a rural area. Libby Mt. Fisher River is an example of this. We had to leave because, they cut everything down, including the large live trees. Just an excuse, and of course we lost our investment. Near Happy’s Inn, on Hwy 2, there was no reason not to extinguish an Arson Fire some years ago along the Highway. We must remember the big money that is imposing this take over and in my opinion ruining what use to be, “Our Country.”
    Boulder County in Colorado is a perfect example of this action, they simply make the Property taxes to high, that people have to leave. What I see is “Russia” and people stacked into Cell Block type living quarters. What better way to Kill off People that can’t even feed themselves without trotting off to the Supermarkets. Simply turn off the electrical power, where the only method to preserve food is by Canning and taking water from a continuous water source. Denver is typical in building such structures, all in the influence of LIFE style for our young people, and their shallow desires.
    Walk or bike to work, come home, micro wave a crappy dinner and hit the night life.
    They just have not been taught to take care of themselves, and us older folks are battling this economy, health benefits, IRS, and a considerable tax burden. This goes even much bigger and it is well planned. The sad thing is the absence of People that will Stand Up against this idealistic way of Life that is going to create the new man.
    Glad I had a Father in the House that taught us Boys how to survive in any circumstances. Even the quickly changing Face of America. They have also shut down the NE section of Alaska / Canada to People, one of the Last Survival Spots.
    Sorry this was so long! I care about my Grandchildren and their way of life ahead.

    • PoetHerbalist says:

      Dennis, I believe you have reason to believe that forest fires are being used to reshape rural populations. You are the second person this week to bring this to my attention. This is ironic considering that the Federal Government’s mismanagement of our forests has created fire hazard conditions unprecedented in our modern times.

      I am encouraged that the millennial generation is very interested in living on the land. The problem is that they don’t understand what is being taken from them under the rhetoric of sustainable development. They believe, as you say, in the idealistic utopian vision of gentle people living gently on the earth, without realizing that certain powers-that-be have no intention of giving them that chance. Please see my last blog regarding the millennial’s interest in survival skills: DIY Tip for Millennials: Think for Yourself

      Thank you for stopping by The Daily Herb
      Sara Hall

      • Ward Dorrity says:

        Consider the events surrounding the Carlson Complex fire in Washington. Delayed response / no response allowed a small fire to go wildly out of control. The attempted closure of area access roads after the fire. The whole thing stank on ice.

        • PoetHerbalist says:

          And when the public hears about a fire that burns out householders, they think the whole thing is just an unfortunate fluke, not realizing that the conditions that have caused these horrific fires have been created by ill-founded policies. The first mistaken policy is that Mother Nature will look after herself and everything will be just hunky-dorey. The second one is the thinking that fire is “natural” because it is part of the life cycle of some tree species. Of course, what the average American doesn’t realize is the first policy has lead to the creation of historical fuel loads in the forests due to unthinned stands in which the trees just choked each other out and the proliferation of disease. The trees die due to these things and that dead wood is nothing but tinder. Then when the fire hits, it burns so hot it sterilizes the soil and kills untold wildlife, in addition to destroying homes.

          Humans have used CONTROLLED burns for millennia, not only as part of a silviculture program, but also as a means to reduce fuel loads in the forest.

          Of course, after the fire hazards have been created, why not use them for your own purposes, such as road closures, or use them to justify turning over watersheds to the Forest Service, as just happened to an important watershed near me.

          Thank you, Ward, for reading my blog. You know I don’t know anything about the Carlson Complex fire of which you speak. I would like to though.

          Sara

    • PoetHerbalist says:

      Dennis, I am truly sorry that your family had to leave your home, due to the fire you describe. Please forgive me for not having expressed my regret for your family’s loss.
      Sara

  21. Pingback: Telling On Themselves: Rural Cleansing in Idaho and Montana | Exposing Modern Mugwumps

  22. Thank you for this article. I have reposted it on my website for tomorrow, the 15th of June, at 9:30 EST. Thanks again

  23. DMAC75 says:

    They want to do this in all states to get everyone in a central location. Control. Then eventually gvt owned and run ranch’s, farms, logging, water and anything else rural. Already starting hard on pushing water control.

    • Sara says:

      From what I can tell, it looks like the government will turn it all over to corporations, that is–corporations who play ball with government. The little guy will be out. The government will be the instrument of seizure, and will control the resources, but mega-corporations, especially multinationals, will do the actual agriculture, logging, mining etc. Of course they will all be very GREEN minded. Yeah, right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *