Tag Archives: The House of Representatives

John Anthony: You Trust Your Government. Don’t You? 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by John Anthony

I told my friend of Trudeau’s remark that anyone who did not vote to extend his emergency powers was indicating they “don’t trust the government to make incredibly momentous and important decisions at a very difficult time.”

She laughed. “Maybe that’s because the government created that very difficult time!” she said.

We got a good chuckle because everyone knows here in the US, you can’t trust a word the government says…or do they?

I was stunned to find 25% of parents have already rushed their 5 to 11 year-olds to get fully vaccinated in spite of growing evidence of increased injuries and  teen deaths following the jab.

Why would anyone trust a government that is cotinually wrong?

  • “Experts” estimate without lock downs 14X as many Americans would have died from COVID-19 a completely absurd number given the PCR test the government used was incapable of identifying the SARS-2 virus.
  • By attributing a host of deaths from other causes to COVID-19 the government catastrophized what now appears to be an over-hyped bad flu season. Flu deaths miraculously dropped by 97% during the pandemic and none of the experts could explain it! Must be “social distancing”, “hand washing”, “people stayed home” they rambled on.

It’s not only that our bloated government are incompetent bunglers. Often they intentionally hide information.

  • When the public demanded the FDA release the Pfizer vaccine trial data we were told it would take 75 years. Yet the same agency assures us it took only 108 days to conduct a robust and thorough investigation of all the data before issuing Pfizer’s emergency use authorization.
  • Perhaps the FDA was reluctant to show the data because the initial release showed more than 50,000 serious adverse events and 1223 people died following the vaccine within 90 days of the rollout.
  • Recently it was discovered the CDC is hiding massive amounts of granular data that would enable doctors and patients to make better vaccine decisions. Their excuse is that people are incapable of properly interpreting the information and it might lead to “vaccine hesitancy.”

The bigger question is why anyone would accept at face value what this government says.  And yet, many do.

Is it possible the ubiquitous extent of government disinformation is too big for most Americans to get their arms around? Is it that we are desperate to believe someone to relieve our own anxiety? Or is it that we have become so fractionated we are willing to rationalize complete twaddle to remain in good standing with our socio-political tribe?

Secrecy and dishonesty permeate the government.

  • Though “everyone knows” the 2020 election was not stolen, the administration urged federal judges not to release any damning information about the controversial Dominion voting machines. They only want to hide the information, they say, to “protect election security.”
  • Despite claims videos from January 6th could resolve questions about the incident, the Speaker of the House declared sovereign immunity to prevent the public from suing for their release.
  • Instead of public hearings as in the Nixon case, The September 2019 Trump impeachment was partially conducted in private in the basement of the capital where none of the public could hear the sworn testimony.
  • Underage migrants are quietly flown to U.S. cities under cover of night.

The government is not a reliable source for information. Like an errant spouse caught cheating, they hide, dissemble, and blame.  They may not lie about every issue, but the federal government is so massively dishonest that the only reasonable response is to question all  they say and look for the source material.

Still think you can trust the government?

On July 8, 2015, the House passed HR-5 to reauthorize the states’ education money. The bill contained an astounding section enabling the federal government to gain control of local public education and of your child’s public education if the state accepted the money.

Several of us called Representative Kline’s office who denied  knowing the clause was there but agreed to remove it. Instead, they moved it ahead 25 pages. You can read the section highlighted on pages 564-565 under “Restoration of State Sovereignty Over Public Education and Parental Rights Over the Education of Their Children.”

Governments have always been about power. Over time “serving the people” becomes a means to expand that power. Lies and treachery are the tools that enable moves like “every vote counts” (especially the illegal ones), vaccines for all, and the Great Reset.

Our Founders knew that, and it is why our original documents severely limit federal authority.

They also knew politicians could be clever and persuasive. After all, Trudeau ended his plea for more power by equating totalitarianism with democracy!

SFL: https://sustainablefreedomlab.org/2022/02/27/you-trust-your-government-dont-you/

John Anthony is a patriot and a conservative blogger. Read his commentary along with other interesting information at Sustainable Freedom Lab.

Bill Lockwood: Is Secession Constitutional? 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

An Open Letter to Citizens of Texas: An Answer to Rep. James Frank (District 69)

Representative James Frank (TX-District 69) recently announced that he will not support the House Bill 1359, which calls for a secession referendum in the State of Texas. His reasons are three; (1) His Love for this Country, (2) The US and Texas Constitutions—there is no specific “provision” in either of these for secession; (3) The Profound Consequences for Texas.

What follows is not an open call to secede, but a challenge to consider the principles upon which secession is grounded. To dismiss the possibility of secession as “illegal and ill-advised,” as Frank does in his letter, is what I am challenging. At the same time, I will overlook his dismissive remarks that those who wish to “leave the Republic” are some “self-described patriots.” Patriotism is not the issue; it is liberty.

While acknowledging the “profound consequences” (Frank’s #3), such as pensions, social security, status of Texans serving in the military, etc. that a separation would bring, it should be remembered that the consequences for remaining attached to the United States might be profound as well—loss of free speech; indoctrination in halls of learning; excessive taxation; a wildly out-of-control unconstitutional welfare system; a ministry of Truth (propaganda) that is already being organized at the Federal level; the crushing of Texas jobs, cancellation of 2nd Amendment; the loss of free and fair elections, and more. The only issue here is if we will allow people to weigh the profound consequences for themselves.

Pertaining to love of country (Frank’s #1), it must be stated that all of us love this country. The issue is not whether we love this country, but whether we love the gifts of God such as life and liberty more than the United States of America. The main issue I wish to address is his second objection, pertaining to the Constitution.

No Specific Provision for Secession?

Rep. Frank fails to understand the very essence, the nature of the U.S. Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #78, explains the entire principle.

There is no position which depends upon clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority [federal government] contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm that the deputy [federal government] is greater than his principal [the people which created the deputy]; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men, acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

Hamilton was arguing for the interposition of the Courts to protect people, but the principle is the same. That principle is that the people delegated only so much authority to the federal government; that the federal government is merely the deputy created by the principal, the people; that the master is the people and the federal government is the servant. The Federal government is the creation of the people, and it is “we the people” that give to the government its right to exist.

Why was it thus created? Not an instrument to grant rights to people, but a creation of the people to protect what God gave us; namely, life, liberty and property. Authority flows upward from the people, which is why the Constitution begins, “We the People.” Rights to life, liberty, property, and self-government preceded the creation of government.

This is the basic fundamental premise upon which all of our statecraft was built and explains why the Founders would sign a document that reads, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it …” They did not look for permission for secession from England in English statutes. This same concept is built right into our own Constitution, for the 10th Amendments provides that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The right of self-government is one of these.

The argument for secession therefore has never been that one can find its justification in a specific statute which provides for it, but is man’s appeal to Almighty God for the right of self-government, an argument based upon natural law. Ignoring this basic fact throws our entire system into wild confusion, a confusion represented by Frank’s reasoning of the “illegality” of secession on the basis that “there is no provision” in the Constitution that grants this right. The Constitution never did grant us rights—those come from God.

Rep. Frank turns the entire nature of our Constitution on its head. Such reversal of authority is a common error, but a fatal one. American governing is such that it is the people who grant to the Federal Government its rights, not the other way around. To accept the alternative revokes Hamilton’s main point and asserts that the “deputy” is indeed greater that the “principal,” that the “servant” is greater than “the master,” for the servant does not give us a provision to withdraw!

When the Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia 1787 to draw up a new constitution, they were not creating a national system to “grant rights” — they already owned these rights from God. What was done in Philadelphia was to create a central government by granting to it certain specified powers that had previously belonged to their several states. The right of secession therefore, is based upon the presupposition of an inalienable right of free people to consent to the form of government under which we must live.

William Rawle, in one of the first commentaries on the Constitution, written in 1825 and used for many years at West Point Military Academy, stated, “The secession of a free state from the Union depends upon the will of the people of such state. The people alone, as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution.” Again, “The United States were formed into a federal body, with an express reservation to each state of its freedom, sovereignty and independence.”

If Rep. Frank is correct, that secession is “illegal” and “ill-advised” then never is there an escape from a government that works to usurp the will of the people, for that is a dictum that admits of no recourse.  This cuts the legs out from beneath the Founders themselves. He takes the position that he does not favor a proposed referendum vote (HB 1359), which is only to allow the people to voice their opinions in the ballot box as to whether they would favor secession. Rather than withholding a vehicle whereby the people can speak, the earnest invitation is to give the people voice. Vote HB 1359 and liberate the will of the people. 

Bill Lockwood: Capitol Violence 4.5 (2)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

Hypocrisy is not simply failing to live up to a standard, but is rooted in deceit. Our Lord accused the Jewish leadership of being “hypocrites” in the 23rd chapter of Matthew, not because they had failed to live faithfully to the law, but because they were power-brokers, establishing their own system while purposefully ignoring God’s Revealed Law. Hypocrisy points to ulterior motives. It is steeped in hidden agendas, double-dealing, dishonesty and duplicity.

The utter shock continued to be displayed by the MSM, the communists/socialists of America (aka Democrats), Big Tech, and the Main Stream Culture over what occurred at the Capitol last week is a case in point. No one, least of all myself, agree with violence or storming the Capitol building by anyone, be it a MAGA supporter or anyone else.

However, to continue to blame Donald J. Trump for what occurred, and beating the drums for his head on a platter, to use another biblical reference, illustrates hypocrisy in its deepest dye. We need to ask, what hidden agenda, what ulterior motive has the left for such blaming? Consider the constant hypocrisy Americans have witnessed over the past four years, all with the imprimatur of our cultural leaders.

Past Four Years

Lefty Madonna, before Trump sat in the Oval Office one day, spoke of “blowing up the White House” while Democrats present cheered by the hundreds. Remember also the riots where cars were set ablaze in Washington, D.C. because Trump had been elected. Which voice on the left did we hear condemning this?

Not to be outdone, Kathy Griffin posted a bloody picture of her holding “Trump’s head” in her hand. Democrats defended the violence-mongering. Then there was the Hamilton: An American Musical play, which openly challenged President Trump with VP Mike Pence in the audience. No voice was heard from the left in protest for “creating a violent atmosphere.” Another play, Julius Caesar, depicts the famous Roman dictator dressed as Donald Trump, being assassinated. The New York audience whooped and cheered, while Democrats sat silent. Liberal Snoop Dogg, the rapper, shot a “Lavender” video in which he portrayed the same thing. No objections from the left.

How about communist-lover Rep. Maxine Waters? A year after liberal James Hodgkinson actually shot U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, as well as others—being completely motivated by leftist rhetoric of violence and killing—Maxine Waters, not seeking to “tone down the rhetoric,” infamously yelled at an open-air gathering to “get into their [Republican] faces” and tell them they are not wanted here or anywhere! One might think that one wicked witch haranguing against Republicans does not a case make. But the point is: when did we hear one single Democrat calling for her removal, discipline, or a tech company censoring her? Any MSM pundits condemn her? No. The underlying message was clear: violence is approved if against conservatives.

The atmosphere has been electrically charged by these Democrat war-mongers who encourage more violence against Republicans. Sarah Sanders, press secretary for Donald Trump, was run out of a public restaurant. Sen. Ted Cruz was publicly heckled and mobbed to leave another eating establishment. Attempted murder on a ball field made no difference to any Democrat. Aggression. Tucker Carlson and his family were harassed and threatened by leftist mobs. Sen. Rand Paul was attacked with a hammer in his yard by a leftist and sent to a hospital.

And who can forget the Brett Kavanaugh hearings? His life destroyed by Democrat lies on top of lies, Capitol Hill was turned practically into a war zone as Republican lawmakers were continually cornered and threatened by mobs roaming the halls. Offices were stormed, people were arrested. But the Democrats and MSM celebrated this as somehow the “working of Democracy.”

Finding their stride now, the Leftist Revolution led by Democrats continued. Eighteen months after the Kavanaugh hearings, Antifa gangs showed up at Trump rallies and marches in San Diego, in Phoenix, and other places. Violence occurred. This is what the right deserves, was the MSM take.

Then there were the George Floyd protests that invariably turned violent. Washington, D.C. had burning buildings; Chicago, Milwaukee, Seattle, Portland, Baltimore, and other cities all saw huge acts of riotous violence in which entire towns look like downtown Baghdad after bombers had struck. America watched on television as police headquarters were burned, enforcement officers were beaten, and Trump supporters were physically assaulted.

Did the communist-inspired left speak in condemnation of any of this? No. Instead, VP-elect Kamala Harris, bailed out of prison some of the rioters. She later publicly declared in debates, as did Joe Biden, that this was all “peaceful protest.”

Instead of mourning for this mayhem, the only thing we heard from Democrats when President Trump went to a burned-out Cathedral in Washington, D.C., and held up his Bible, was that he was the hypocrite taking advantage of a photo op. No remorse. No outrage. No unity to pull America out of the ashes. Just more hate.

In response, Democrat/communist leader in the House, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, tweeted that all violence was necessary. “The whole point of protesting is the make ppl feel uncomfortable.” “That’s the point.” Sally Kohn, liberal political commentator, could only say, “I don’t like violent protests, but I understand them.” (5/3/20).

Communist-inspired mobs attacked the Portland, OR courthouse for more than 60 days. Twenty-one Police officers were hospitalized. Portland mayor Ted Wheeler even joined rioters and participated in demonstrations. Finally, the mayor had to be escorted to safety. Seattle mayor Jenny Durkin encouraged and lauded the anarchists as they set up an “autonomous zone” in her city. Insurrection has been afoot for years and it is encouraged by the left. Monuments of America culture, including Confederate statues, memorials to presidents, and others have been ransacked—all encouraged by Democrats.

Dallas, TX saw the breakdown of the rule of law. Viewers could watch on television as young blacks beat into unconsciousness white people running down the street. Yet, no outrage from Democratic lawmakers. Why? Because their Marxist playbook calls for it. Burn it down. Police were told in these cities to “stand down.”

A piece in the left-wing journal Current Affairs argues that “destroying property is not in and of itself a violent act.” “The word ‘violence’ should be reserved for harm done to people,” wrote editor Nathan J. Robinson. CBS News’ Hannah Jones agrees. “Violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man’s neck until all of the life is leached out of his body. Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.”

And what about the Republican National Convention, the aftermath of which saw leaders such as Rand Paul physically attacked by Democrat-inspired mobs? Or the thousands of goose-stepping Democrats who literally occupied the Wisconsin Capitol building in Madison and physically occupied it for two weeks? “This is what Democracy looks like,” said the left. Even President-elect Joe Biden refused to condemn Antifa in the public debate with Donald Trump, chirping the liberal catch-line: “Antifa is only an idea.” Well, there are many people in America who are physically injured from this “idea.” But Joe could not bring himself to condemn any of it.

Then we are treated to AOC as well as Ilhan Omar both refusing to condemn any of this violence when asked about it on camera. Instead, they smugly walked by reporters who taunted them with the question of whether or not they were against the violence. And let us not forget Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi demonstrably on camera tearing up the State of the Union speech immediately after Trump finished speaking.

Colin Kaepernick, the infamous America communist-sympathizer, responded to all of these years of leftist violence with this tweet. “When civility leads to death [speaking of George Floyd], revolting is the only logical reaction.” “We have a right to fight back.” So violence and destruction is all right—as long as the cause is justified. He has been endorsed by major sports teams as well as corporate America.

We deplore the Capitol violence. But for the reasons above we do not condemn the thousands of peaceful protestors who went to Washington, D.C. last week to legitimately exercise their patriotic and constitutional right to voice their opinion on the election. We uphold them and champion them. And we will not be so naïve as to vilify them by lumping them all into the category of the lawbreakers who stormed the Capitol.

Most of all, we do not intend to be lectured about the besieging of the Capitol by the Marxist Left that has sponsored, endorsed, and excused violence for four solid years.

For the MSM and the Democrats to feign outrage over the type of violence that they have patronized is diabolical hypocrisy. Their true agenda is the total overthrow of American liberty. As our Lord put it, these liberals have “compassed sea and land to make one proselyte” but they have made them “more than a twofold son of hell more than” themselves (Matt. 23:15).

Harsh words. Tough times.

Matt O’Brien: Foreign Criminals Are Victims: Welcome to the New Way Forward 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Matt O’Brien

Democrats in the House of Representatives have proposed a new immigration bill called the New Way Forward Act. Although touted by the Sacramento Bee as, “[restoring] due process protections for all immigrants, including those in deportation proceedings, the bill does nothing of the sort. If enacted, what it would actually do is destroy the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and remove all distinctions between U.S. citizens, lawful immigrants, and illegal aliens.

Among the New Way Forward Act’s provisions are the following radical departures from current legal norms:
• End mandatory detention of aggravated felons.
• Exempt drug traffickers from deportation.
• Place a five-year statute of limitations on all deportations.
• Grant all foreign immigration violators a right to release from detention on bail.

As an example of the alien criminals who would benefit from the New Way Forward Act, the Sacramento Bee points to Cuong Nguyen. Nguyen came to the U.S. as a refugee at age 11. However, when he was a grown man, he knowingly transported illegal drugs to pay off a debt owed by his father.

Nguyen was arrested, convicted and served 24 months in prison. INA § 101(a)(43)(B) explicitly states that illicit trafficking of a controlled substance is a deportable offense. Therefore Nguyen’s conviction rendered him subject to removal from the United States and ineligible for any relief.

According to New Way Forward Act sponsor Ayanna Pressley, that’s evidence of “racial and anti-immigrant injustices embedded in our immigration laws.” And that’s why, in her opinion, we need her bill.

But it should be obvious that it’s actually Pressley and her ilk who are being racist. Their approach to immigration law presumes that all non-European immigrants, no matter how long they have been in the United States, are hapless victims, forced into a life of crime by a racist system. It’s an example of what Bush ’43 speechwriter Michael Gerson labeled the “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”

Bizarrely, Pressley and her cohort make the “hapless victim” argument while simultaneously claiming that immigrants are essential to the U.S. because they are more entrepreneurial than native-born Americans. But that’s a prime example of cognitive dissonance in action. One can be a hapless victim, or one can be an intelligent individual in control of one’s own destiny. It’s impossible to be both.

People who care about the rule of law in the United States cannot afford to succumb to emotional caricatures that portray immigrants like two-dimensional characters in made-for-TV movies. The most just approach we can take is to hold immigrants to the same standards as we hold ourselves. In fact, one of the reasons immigrants want to come here is because we have a free and fair legal system.

So instead of asking how we can give foreign felons a greater chance to remain in the U.S., we should begin asking more important questions: Why do legislators like Ayanna Pressley balk at the notion of holding immigrants to the baseline requirements of our society – like holding down a job, supporting one’s children, and staying out of trouble with the law? And why do they exalt foreigners, even those who fail to live up to those baseline requirements, even as they deride honest, hard-working Americans as “racists” for simply expecting foreign guests to obey American laws?

In reality, the best way forward is to stop infantilizing immigrants and demonizing Americans. In a world inhabited by people, not cartoons, it isn’t remotely unfair to expect adults – immigrant or citizen – to accept responsibility when they commit serious crimes.

IR: https://www.immigrationreform.com/2019/12/20/illegal-aliens-crime-congress-sanctuary-immigrationreform-com/

Matt O’Brien joined the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in 2016. Matt is responsible for managing FAIR’s research activities. He also writes content for FAIR’s website and publications. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in French from the Johns Hopkins University and a Juris Doctor from the University of Maine School of Law.

Kathleen Marquardt: WHISKEY IS FOR DRINKING AND WATER IS FOR FIGHTING 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Kathleen Marquardt

If whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting, as Mark Twain famously said, then the 2015 Montana Legislature affirmed the truism. Tristan Scott, Flathead Beacon

In the mid-90s, before the Internet, the U.S. government held a meeting via satellite link between Washington, D.C., and cities and towns across western Montana, Idaho, eastern Washington, and Oregon. The subject was the Columbia River Basin.

I was living in Helena, Montana. The meeting was held in a school or some building like a school on a Saturday morning. The room had about a dozen round tables with six chairs each, and we all watched the presentation on a screen. In attendance were the press, people from farming and Ag organizations, local officials and others like me – wanting to know what was afoot.  After the viewing, we had one of those infamous consensus meetings.

The major point of that meeting was that the Columbia River Basin needed to be returned to the state it was before Columbus. In unspoken words, NO WHITE MAN. But a lot more was presented to drown that in political gobbledygook.

Understandably, the global elite want that area to be re-wilded, to be part of the Wildlands Project. But at this meeting/Charrette, they let us know that they would start by removing only the non-indigenous peoples. Plus dams – dams gotta go.

Now, some 25 years later, we are seeing exactly how this is being accomplished via the western Montana portion of the Columbia River Basin Project – the proposed Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) Montana water compact.

The fact is, the CSKT Compact has nothing to do with water rights, Indians, culture, fish, or the environment.  It is all about money for a small group of tribal elite and state officials who covet more power, political positions, and power over others. It seeks revenge for spite. Catherine Vandemoer, Ph.D., Sovereign Nation

I have been trying  to put together a short-ish synopsis of the machinations over the CSKT compact. But the backstory is that the feds are using the treaty to bring about the unlawful expansion of the tribal government authority over Non-Indians. “This compact proposes that the State of Montana expand the authority and jurisdiction of tribal governments over non-members and non-Indians where federal law has specifically prohibited it. People, the Montana legislature does not have the authority to remove constitutional provisions and statutory protections from its citizens,  . . .” [1] ,  On top of this, the CSKT Compact, is an attempt to create a new type of federal water right “ . . .using the wording from the Hellgate Treaty that states that the tribes have a right to take fish. And from those simple words that even a horse trainer can understand, the proponents of this compact would like us to believe that the right to take fish, equates to an aboriginal, time immemorial, tribal reserved, federal water right. Again, they are asking the Montana State legislature to conjure up…and I do mean conjure up… a federal water right where currently one does not exist. We simply do not have that authority.” [2]

The compact between Montana, the federal government, and the tribes is so complicated that the fur has been flying for well over a hundred years, and recently, another 1,000+-page compact has been written. I suggest you go to Western Water Rights and watch the video of the Perfect Storm for the full story from the first tribal agreement. It is extremely well laid out.

But here is the dirty, rotten, nasty underbelly of this whole Machiavellian plot. Remember how Agenda 21 was signed in Rio by President George H.W. Bush, but never ratified by Congress? Actually, never even brought up in Congress. Yet, instead, President Clinton put V.P. Al Gore in charge of using the President’s Commission on Sustainable Development to embed all the aspects of Sustainable Development into every department of the federal government.

That same tactic is being used here. Catherine Vandemoer, Ph.D.  Chair, Montana Land and Water Alliance, out of Polson, Montana, wrote me that, “ . . . the state is implementing the CSKT Compact without Congressional approval both on and off the reservation by:

On Reservation—State, BIA, and Tribes implementing CSKT Compact in a federal irrigation project without Congressional approval

State and BIA participating in planning, possible design, funding of projects associated with compact water management plans, including measuring devices, headgate operations,

Tribes aggressively implementing and directing a compliant BIA  how to manage storage and reservoir levels, instream flows, and canal deliveries  according to plans specified in the CSKT Compact appendices which affects water delivery to irrigation and stock,  and violates US-irrigation district contracts.

There is an existing federal operations plan that has not been followed since 2014 because they have been implementing

Off-reservation—State implementing Milltown Dam water right

The compact calls for CSKT “co-ownership” of the water flow from the Milltown Dam water right on the Clark Fork River, and thus “splits” the water right between two tributaries to protect instream flow.

The state had planned to implement this with or without the Compact, but with the Compact they didn’t have to go through their regular permitting process to achieve that transfer of use and point of diversion.

Congress has not approved the compact yet the state water right abstract for Milltown dam listed the co-ownership and compact-related conditions

In 2017 our organization wrote to the state Department of Natural Resources (DNRC) to point out that the compact hadn’t been approved and the abstract was in error, and to inquire as to whether the state was going to go through its regular process

After getting a nasty response, the state changed the abstract to list them as full owner, but indicated as soon as compact passed would be co-ownership.

However, they are implementing that right now without having completed the state process for a change in the use and place of use of the water, which was required without the compact.

You don’t have to understand all those terms, you just need to understand that this project is be embedded into state, tribal, and local governments without Congressional approval, and probably without Congress knowing it is being done. Plus, this is not just about Montana waters, it will have a most destructive affect on all western waters.

The furthest west hatched lines designate the Flathead Indian Reservation Article II Treaty of Hellgate. The green area is what this new compact is turning over to that small reservation to have full control over the waters.

The compact begins with an incorrect definition of the reservation that paves the way for the expansive taking of water within reservation boundaries:  “all land within the exterior boundaries of the Indian Reservation established under the July 16, 1855 Treaty of Hellgate, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through the Reservation.”   

This flawed premise is used to rationalize giving all water running through and under the reservation to the CSKT.

Additionally the compact gives the federal government time immemorial water rights for every drop of water in Flathead Lake, and concedes significant instream flows with various priority dates throughout 11 counties in western Montana in the Clark Fork and Kootenai River basins.

This is a water grab (which becomes a land grab, because you can’t use land that doesn’t have water) the size no one has seen before outside the USSR. Those Americans who think that this has no relevance to them, better think twice – at least. This is not the beginning of the taking of water rights in this country; it is happening all over in various tactics and schemes. But it is the biggest. And it has been in the works for at least 30 years.

You can think, oh well, that’s in Montana; it won’t bother me. I am in Ohio, or Arizona. Understand, this is just the first place – sort of a testing ground. And, no, they don’t need Indian reservations to stage the take-over of water rights. We cannot survive without water so, if you haven’t stood up for your rights before, start now. Whiskey may be for drinking, but let’s see you survive long without water.

[1] Theresa Manzella, member of Montana State House of Representatives, “My testimony to the Montana House on the CSKT Water Compact.

[2] Ibid.

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/11/25/whiskey-is-for-drinking-and-water-is-for-fighting/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

TOM DEWEESE: Green New Deal Reveals the Naked Truth of Agenda 21 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Tom DeWeese

Sometimes if you fight hard enough and refuse to back down, no matter the odds, your truth is vindicated and prevails!

For twenty years I have been labeled a conspiracy theorist, scaremonger, extremist, dangerous, nut case. I’ve been denied access to stages, major news programs, and awarded tin foil hats. All because I have worked to expose Agenda 21 and its policy of sustainable development as a danger to our property rights, economic system, and culture of freedom.

From its inception in 1992 at the United Nation’s Earth Summit, 50,000 delegates, heads of state, diplomats and Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) hailed Agenda 21 as the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” The 350-page, 40 chapter, Agenda 21 document was quite detailed and explicit in its purpose and goals.  They warned us that the reorganization would be dictated through all-encompassing policies affecting every aspect of our lives, using environmental protection simply as the excuse to pull at our emotions and get us to voluntarily surrender our liberties.

Section I details “Social and Economic Dimensions” of the plan, including redistribution of wealth to eradicate poverty, maintain health through vaccinations and modern medicine, and population control.

To introduce the plan, the Earth Summit Chairman, Maurice Strong boldly proclaimed, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” Of course, according to the plan, if it’s not “sustainable” it must be stopped.

In support of the plan, David Brower of the Sierra Club (one of the NGO authors of the agenda) said, “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.” Leading environmental groups advocated that the Earth could only support a maximum of one billion people, leading famed Dr. Jacques Cousteau to declare, “In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

Section II provides the “Conservation and Management of Resources for Development” by outlining how environmental protection was to be the main weapon, including global protection of the atmosphere, land, mountains, oceans, and fresh waters – all under the control of the United Nations.

To achieve such global control to save the planet, it is necessary to eliminate national sovereignty and independent nations. Eliminating national borders quickly led to the excuse for openly allowing the “natural migration” of peoples. The UN Commission on Global Governance clearly outlined the goal for global control stating, “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” That pretty much explains why the supporters of such a goal go a little off the rails when a presidential candidate makes his campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.”

The main weapon for the Agenda was the threat of Environmental Armageddon, particularly manifested through the charge of man-made global warming, later to conveniently become “climate change.” It didn’t matter if true science refused to cooperate in this scheme as actual global temperatures really are not rising and there continues to be no evidence of any man-made affect on the climate. Truth hasn’t been important to the scare mongers. Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” To further drive home their complete lack of concern for truth, Paul Watson of Green Peace declared, “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

So in their zealotry to enforce the grand agenda, social justice became the “moral force” over the rule of law as free enterprise, private property, rural communities and individual consumption habits became the targets, labeled as racist and a social injustice. Such established institutions and free market economics were seen as obstructions to the plan, as were traditional family units, religion, and those who were able to live independently in rural areas.

Finally, Agenda 21 was summed up in supporting documents this way: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced. It requires a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals, and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

Of course, such harsh terms had to be hidden from the American people if the plan was to be successfully imposed. They called it a “suggestion” for “voluntary” action –  just in case a nation or community wanted to do something positive for mankind! However, while using such innocent-sounding language, the Agenda 21 shock troops lost no time pushing it into government policy. In 1992, just after its introduction at the Earth Summit, Nancy Pelosi introduced a resolution of support for the plan into Congress. It’s interesting to note that she boldly called it a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” In 1993, new President, Bill Clinton ordered the establishment of the President’s Council for Sustainable Development, with the express purpose of enforcing the Agenda 21 blueprint into nearly every agency of the federal government to assure it became the law of the land. Then the American Planning Association issued a newsletter in 1994, supporting Agenda 21’s ideas as a “comprehensive blueprint” for local planning. So much for a voluntary idea!

However, as we, the opponents started to gain some ground in exposing its true purpose and citizens began to storm city halls protesting local implementation, suddenly the once proud proponents lost their collective memories about Agenda 21. Never heard of it! “There are no blue-helmeted troops at city hall,” said one proponent, meaning policies being used to impose it were not UN driven, but just “local, local, local”. “Oh, you mean that innocuous 20 year-old document that has no enforcement capability? This isn’t that!” These were the excuses that rained down on us from the planners, NGOs and government agents as they scrambled to hide their true intentions.

I was attacked on the front page of the New York Times Sunday paper under the headline, “Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot.” The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) produced four separate reports on my efforts to stop it, calling our efforts an “Antigovernment Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory.” The Atlantic magazine ran a story entitled, “Is the UN Using Bike Paths to Achieve World Domination?” Attack articles appeared in the Washington Post, Esquire magazine, Wingnut Watch, Mother Jones, and Tree Hugger.com to name a few. All focused on labeling our opposition as tin-foil-hat-wearing nut jobs. Meanwhile, an alarmed American Planning Association (APA) created an “Agenda 21: Myths and Facts page on its web site to supposedly counter our claims. APA then organized a “Boot Camp” to retrain its planners to deal with us, using a “Glossary for the Public,” teaching them new ways to talk about planning. Said the opening line of the Glossary, “Given the heightened scrutiny of planners by some members of the public, what is said – or not said – is especially important in building support for planning.” The Glossary went on to list words not to use like “Public Visioning,” “Stakeholders,” “Density,” and “Smart Growth,” because such words make the “Critics see red”.

Purchase Tom’s latest book “Sustainable: The WAR on Free Enterprise, Private Property and Individuals”.

Local elected officials, backed by NGO groups and planners, began to deride local activists – sometimes denying them access to speak at public meetings, telling them that Agenda 21 conspiracy theory has “been debunked”. Most recently an irate city councilman answered a citizen who claimed local planning was part of Agenda 21 by saying “this is what’s “trending.” So, of course, if everyone is doing it is must be right!

Such has been our fight to stop this assault on our culture and Constitutional rights.

Over the years, since the introduction of Agenda 21 in 1992, the United Nations has created several companion updates to the original documents. This practice serves two purposes. One is to provide more detail on how the plan is to be implemented. The second is to excite its global activists with a new rallying cry. In 2000, the UN held the Millennium Summit, launching the Millennium Project featuring eight goals for global sustainability to be reached by 2015. Then, when those goals were not achieved, the UN held another summit in New York City in September of 2015, this time outlining 17 goals to be reached by 2030. This document became known as the 2030 Agenda, containing the exact same goals as were first outlined in Agenda 21in 1992, and then again in 2000, only with each new incarnation offering more explicit direction for completion.

Enter the Green New Deal, representing the boldest tactic yet. The origins and the purpose of the Green New Deal couldn’t be more transparent. The forces behind Agenda 21 and its goal of reorganizing human society have become both impatient and scared. Impatient that 27 years after Agenda 21 was introduced, and after hundreds of meetings, planning sessions, massive propaganda, and billions of dollars spent, the plan still is not fully in place. Scared because people around the world are starting to learn its true purpose and opposition is beginning to grow.

So the forces behind the Agenda have boldly thrown off their cloaking devices and their innocent sounding arguments that they just want to protect the environment and make a better life for us all. Instead, they are now openly revealing that their goal is socialism and global control, just as I’ve been warning about for these past twenty years. Now they are determined to take congressional action to finally make it the law of the land.

Take a good look, those of you who have heard my warnings about Agenda 21 over the years. Do you see the plan I have warned about being fully in place in this Green New Deal?

  • I warned that Agenda 21 would control every aspect of our lives, including how and were we live, the jobs we have, the mode of transportation available to us, and even what we eat. The Green New Deal is a tax on everything we do, make, wear, eat, drink, drive, import, export and even breathe.
  • In opposing Smart Growth plans in your local community, I said the main goal was to eliminate cars, to be replaced with bikes, walking, and light rail trains. The Green New Deal calls for the elimination of the internal combustion engine. Stay alert. The next step will be to put a ban on the sale of new combustion engines by a specific date and then limiting the number of new vehicles to be sold. Bans on commercial truck shipping will follow. Then they will turn to airplanes, reducing their use. Always higher and higher taxes will be used to get the public to “voluntarily” reduce their use of such personal transportation choices. That’s how it works, slowly but steadily towards the goal.
  • I warned that under Smart Growth programs now taking over every city in the nation that single-family homes are a target for elimination, to be replaced by high-rise stack and pack apartments in the name of reducing energy use. That will include curfews on carbon heating systems, mandating they be turned off during certain hours. Heating oil devises will become illegal. Gradually, energy use of any kind will be continually reduced. The Green New Deal calls for government control of every single home, office and factory to tear down or retrofit them to comply with massive environmental energy regulations.
  • I warned that Agenda 21 Sustainable policy sought to drive those in rural areas off the farms and into the cities where they could be better controlled. Those in the cities will be ordered to convert their gardens into food producers. Most recently I warned that the beef industry is a direct target for elimination. It will start with mandatory decreases in meat consumption until it disappears form our daily diet. The consumption of dairy will follow. Since the revelation of the Green New Deal the national debate is now over cattle emissions of methane and the drive to eliminate them from the planet. Controlling what we eat is a major part of the Green New Deal.
  • I warned that part of the plan for Agenda 2030 was “Zero Economic Growth.” The Green New Deal calls for a massive welfare plan where no one earns more than anyone else. Incentive to get ahead is dead. New inventions would disrupt their plan for a well-organized, controlled society. So, where will jobs come from after we have banned most manufacturing, shut down most stores, stopped single-family home construction, closed the airline industry, and severely regulated farms and the entire food industry? This is their answer to the hated free markets and individual choice.

The Green New Deal will destroy the very concept of our Constitutional Republic, eliminating private property, locally elected representative government, free markets and individual freedom. All decisions in our lives will be made for us by the government – just to protect the environment of course. They haven’t forgotten how well that scheme works to keep the masses under control.

Though the label “Green New Deal” has been passing around globalist circles for a while, it’s interesting that its leaders have now handed it to a naïve, inexperienced little girl from New York who suddenly found herself rise from bartending to a national media sensation, almost over nigh. That doesn’t just happen and there is no miracle here. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a created product. They probably needed her inexperienced enthusiasm to deliver the Green New Deal because no established politician would touch it. Now that it’s been introduced and she is set up to take the heat, the gates have swung open allowing forty-five members of Congress to co-sponsor it in the House of Representatives as established Senator Ed. Markey (D-MA) has sponsored it in the Senate. That doesn’t just happen either. Nothing has been left to chance.

Behind the sudden excitement and rush to support it are three radical groups each having direct ties to George Soros, including the Sunrise Movement – which markets itself as an “army of young people” seeking to make climate change a major priority.   Justice Democrats – which finds and recruits progressive candidates, and New Consensus – organized to change how we think about issues. Leaders of these groups have connections with other Soros-backed movements including Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street. According to The New Yorker magazine, the plan was written over a single weekend in December, 2018. Ocasio-Cortez was included in the effort, chosen to introduce it. This may be the single reason why she was able to appear out of nowhere to become the new darling of the radical left.

So there you have it — Agenda 21, the Millennium Project, Agenda 2030, the Green New Deal. Progress in the world of Progressives! They warned us from the beginning that their plan was the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society”. And so it is to be the total destruction of our way of life.

To all of those elected officials, local, state and federal, who have smirked at we who have tried to sound the alarm, look around you now, hot shots! You have denied, ignored, and yet, helped put these very plans into place. Are you prepared to accept what you have done? Will you allow your own homes and offices to be torn down – or will you be exempt as part of the elite or just useful idiots? Will you have to give up your car and ride your bike to work? Or is that just for we peasants?

Over these years you have listened to the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, ICLEI, the American Planning Association, and many more, as they assured you their plans were just environmental protection, just good policy for future generations. They have been lying to you to fulfill their own agenda!  Well, now the truth is right in front of you. There is no question of who and what is behind this. And no doubt as to what the final result will be.

Now, our elected leaders have to ask real questions. As the Green New Deal is implemented, and all energy except worthless, unworkable wind and solar are put into place, are you ready for the energy curfews that you will be forced to impose, perhaps each night as the sun fades, forcing factories, restaurants, hospitals, and stores to close at dusk? How about all those folks forced to live in the stack and pack high-rises when the elevators don’t operate? What if they have an emergency?

How much energy will it take to rebuild those buildings that must be destroyed or retrofitted to maker them environmentally correct for your brave new world? Where will it come from after you have banned and destroyed all the workable sources of real energy? What are you counting on to provide you with food, shelter, and the ability to travel so you can continue to push this poison? Because – this is what’s trending — now! And how is it going to be financed when the entire economy crashes under its weight? Is it really the future you want for you, your family, and your constituents who elected you?

Every industry under attack by this lunacy should now join our efforts to stop it.  Cattlemen, farmers, airlines, the auto industry, realtors, tourist industry, and many more, all will be put out of business – all should now take bold action to immediately kill this plan before it kills your industry. Stomp it so deeply into the ground that no politician will ever dare think about resurrecting it.

For years I’ve watched politicians smirk, roll their eyes, and sigh whenever the words Agenda 21 were uttered. As George Orwell said, “The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it”. Today I stand vindicated in my warnings of where Agenda 21 was truly headed, because it’s not longer me having to reveal the threat. They are telling you themselves. Here’s the naked truth – Socialism is for the stupid. The Green New Deal is pure Socialism. How far its perpetrators get in enforcing it depends entirely on how hard you are willing to fight for freedom. Kill it now or watch it die.

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/02/25/green-new-deal-reveals-the-naked-truth-of-agenda-21/

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Modern Judas Politicians 0 (0)

Posted on by One comment

Modern Judas Politicians

by Bill Lockwood

The text of John 12 is instructive insight into the distinction between true and false “compassion.” During the last week of our Lord’s life He came to Bethany where was a feast in his honor. At the somber meal, Mary, the sister of Martha, anointed the feet of Jesus with very expensive “pure spikenard.” It was a class of aromatic amber-colored oil the value of which was equal to a year’s wages for the common agricultural worker of the day (12:5).

Judas, the treasurer of the apostolic band, objected to such a lavish expenditure and queried why the ointment had not been sold for 300 shillings and the money given to the poor (12:5). John gives us this editorial note after years of hindsight, “Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief and, being the keeper of the treasury, took away what was put therein.” Obama and company cares very little for the poor, in spite of multiplicity of speeches which portray himself as their champion.

It is easy to frame a grasp for power or wealth beneath a cloak of “compassion.” Judas’ words painted him as a one concerned “for the poor” but the reality was quite different. So also today our modern unconstitutional welfare state is driven by the same deceit. One cannot begin discussing, for example, the removing of taxpayer money from even the murderous Planned Parenthood without immediately facing the argument of “compassion” to woman’s needs which they are said to provide. How can we remove money from “the poor?”

The Democratic Party majors in this Judas-style question and the Republicans do their best to catch up by insisting that they are “compassionate conservatives.” But it is easy to be compassionate with others’ money, isn’t it? Added to that is the fact that our gargantuan welfare state, bloated out of reasonable financial responsibility bounds, is unable to even keep track of the billions of dollars flowing through the hands of bureaucrats who are the “keepers of the bag.”

Compassion
There is much spoken of compassion today but seemingly very little known. Some suppose that meeting physical needs of the American populace is to be prioritized over spiritual needs; others think that giving my tax dollars to Uncle Same satisfies the obligation to be compassionate; still others talk of the lack of compassion in those who wish to return to a Constitutional government in which it was illegal to redistribute taxpayer money to various special interest groups or segments of society.

First, true compassion is to be exercised at a personal level. Government programs are no substitute for true compassion. Actually, Uncle Sam’s programs are not really compassionate at all, but destructive to society. Witness the growing minority unrest in the inner city—many of whom are recipients of government handouts provided by other people. No one watching these riots unleash on the cities by destroying private property has the impression that the rioters are thankful for the provisions that have been given them by others. What is the problem? True compassion is a personal matter. In order to discriminate between those who are truly needy and those interested in bilking the system by refusal to work, personal contact is necessary between the given and the recipient.

Sometimes poverty comes upon people through no fault of their own. Fires, earthquakes, crippling accidents, deaths and diseases injure people. Christian charity is called for (1 Cor. 13:1-3). But on the other hand, according to the Bible, sometimes poverty is the due penalty for laziness. “How long will you lie there, O sluggard? When will you arise from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, so shall thy poverty come upon thee like a robber, and want (lack) like an armed man!” Solomon insists that work is good for the soul.

The point is, how is one able to distinguish between those truly in need and those who are taking advantage of the system? Only by exercising compassion at a personal level, where people might know. As Marvin Olasky, former professor at the University of Texas at Austin, observes, failure to “establish personal relationships with recipients” means that one cannot “sufficiently discriminate between the needy and the lazy” (The Tragedy of American Compassion, 26).
Government programs absolutely violate this major component of personal contact between the giver and the recipient. And since the nature of mankind is such that man will live of the labor of others if that is possible, government or structural poverty only grows under the oversight of bureaucracy.

Second, true compassion recognizes that man’s most important need is spiritual. At one time, when churches were distributors of goods to the needy and not the government, spiritual emphases were in place. As a matter of fact, Jesus Himself criticized the crowds who came to him interested only in food and not spiritual nourishment (John 6:25-28). Instead of feeding them, He instructed them to “work” for spiritual sustenance. This is a shock to today’s society which lauds the person or agency which provides clean needles to the drug addict or contraceptives to the promiscuous and call it “charity.” This just shows that we have forgotten the true meaning of compassion.

In the end, all government programs accomplish—for poverty rates have remained unchanged since the advent of The New Deal and The Great Society—is accumulating power into the hands of the politicians. Exactly what Judas had in mind.  

Back to Homepage