December 18, 2017

Bishop’s Bill, Not Yet Visible to Public, on Antiquities Act

Congressman Rob Bishop has introduced a bill, H.R. 3990, that, we are told, is intended to curb the authority of the sitting president to declare national monuments in a willy-nilly fashion. Will it? I don’t know. The bill has been introduced but the public has yet to be able to see any of the wording of the bill.

Below are press releases and statements made by others about the CAP Act.

Subcommittee Chairmen Respond to Antiquities Act Reform Legislation
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 10, 2017 –

Tomorrow, the Committee will markup H.R. 3990, the “National Monument Creation and Protection Act” or “CAP Act.” Introduced by Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT), the bill protects archeological resources while ensuring public transparency and accountability in the executive’s use of the Antiquities Act.

“The Constitution gives to Congress alone the jurisdiction over public lands. While the executive should be able to move swiftly to protect small archeological sites from imminent threat of looting or desecration, the decision over whether to set aside vast portions of land in perpetuity should only be made after the lengthy debate, public input and accountability that are the unique attributes of the legislative branch,” Subcommittee on Federal Lands Chairman Tom McClintock (R-CA) said. 

“Our government works best when it works with the people it serves to accomplish objectives for the common good. For too long, our leaders have not adhered to these principles. The ‘National Monument Creation and Protection Act’ seeks to protect the public’s interests from executive overreach through collaboration with local stakeholders, comprehensive review of monument designations and congressional direction on any future presidential monument reductions. I thank Chairman Bishop for his leadership on this issue and look forward to passage of this important legislation,” Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) stated.

“When Teddy Roosevelt created the Antiquities Act, his intent was to set aside unique areas of land, not to cutoff millions of acres for the federal government to control that produces no revenue or benefit – all while hurting local governments. Through the years, the abuse of this power has snowballed to a point where President Obama designated more acreage during his Presidency than all other Presidents combined. This process unfairly eliminates local input altogether and severely limits the public’s access to hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities as well as reasonable resource development on their public lands. It is important that the decision to designate or expand national monuments is returned to Congress, where the local citizens and communities can have a say,” Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs Chairman Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) said.

“This legislation secures a future for locally supported national monuments, checked executive authority, and empowered local governments. The original intent of the Act is upheld and strengthened with measures that bring us into the twenty-first century. I firmly believe this will provide the accountability we need when it comes to protecting our lands,” Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans Chairman Doug Lamborn (R-CO) stated.

“Regardless of political affiliation, presidents on either side of the aisle shouldn’t be able to create massive new national monuments by executive fiat without local public input. It is, after all, the people living near these national monuments that are most affected by their creation. Our nation’s public resources are best managed when the people that use those lands are intimately involved in the process. Chairman Bishop’s ‘National Monument Creation and Protection Act’ protects private property rights and empowers local stakeholders while also including important clarifying definitions that should have been included in the original law. I am grateful for his strong leadership on this issue and am proud to be a cosponsor,” Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Chairman Paul Gosar (R-AZ) said.

Bishop Statement on Antiquities Act Reform Bill

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 10, 2017 –

On Monday, Chairman Bishop announced the introduction and markup of the H.R. 3990, the National Monument Creation and Protection Act (CAP Act). He released the following statement

“The 1906 Antiquities Act was originally intended as an executive tool to protect historical and archeological artifacts and structures under threat. Regrettably, this worthy goal has been manipulated for ulterior political purposes. Today the Act is too often used as an excuse for presidents to unilaterally lock up vast tracts of public land without any mechanism for people to provide input or voice concerns. This is wrong.  

“This legislation provides for accountability in the Act’s uses. It modernizes the law to restore its intent, allowing for the protection of actual antiquities without disenfranchisement of local voices and perspectives. It standardizes and limits the president’s power to reshape monuments.

“If my colleagues are serious about their calls for accountability under this Act – no matter which party controls the White House – they will support this bill.”

Committee Passes Legislation to Require Transparency, Public Input in Antiquities Act

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 11, 2017 –

Today, the House Committee on Natural Resources passed H.R. 3990, the “National Monument Creation and Protection Act” or the “CAP Act.” Introduced by Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT), the bill protects archeological resources while ensuring public transparency and accountability in the executive’s use of the Antiquities Act.

“Congress never intended to give one individual the power to unilaterally seize enormous swathes of our nation’s public lands… Our problem isn’t President Obama or President Trump. It’s the underlying law – a statute that provides authority to dictate national monument decisions in secrecy and without public input. The only path to the accountability we all seek – no matter which party controls the White House – is to amend the Act itself,” Bishop stated.

“Under this new, tiered framework, no longer would we have to blindly trust the judgement or fear the whims of any president. The bill ensures a reasonable degree of consultation with local stakeholders and an open public process would be required by law. It strengthens the president’s authority to protect actual antiquities without the threat of disenfranchising people.

“Ultimately, if enacted, it will strengthen the original intent of the law while also providing much needed accountability.”   

Click here to view Chairman Bishop’s full opening statement.
Click here to view full markup action.
Click here for more information on H.R. 3990.  

 

 

Share

L.D. 31 Amendment to Maine Constitution

The following is the proposed amendment to the Maine Constitution that would require signature gathering for any “Direct Initiative of Legislation” comprise a percentage of voters for each of the two Congressional Districts.

It is my opinion that this would be a good thing. It should provide a more favorable sampling of diverse voter representation statewide. Understanding the geography of Maine’s population densities helps in understanding why such an amendment would prove to be a good thing.

Passage would require two-thirds of both the Senate and House members. Contact your representative and let them know your position on this.

Of note: There will be a public hearing on this amendment February 13th, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. State House, Room 437.

Maine 128 - HP 32 item 1
Share

ESA: Definition of Destruction or Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), collectively referred to as the 
``Services'' or ``we,'' revise a regulatory definition that is
integral to our implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 
as amended (Act or ESA). The Act requires Federal agencies, in 
consultation with and with the assistance of the Services, to insure 
that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat of such species. On May 12, 
2014, we proposed to revise the definition for ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' in our regulations as this definition had been found to 
be invalid by two circuit courts. In response to public comments 
received on our proposed rule, we have made minor revisions to the 
definition. This rule responds to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 
(January 18, 2011), which directs agencies to analyze their existing 
regulations and, among other things, modify or streamline them in 
accordance with what has been learned.

FINAL RULE: Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habitat; Implementing Changes to the Regulations for Designating Critical Habitat

Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act
 
Share

Az Sen Flake Proposes Amendment to Energy Act to Delist MGW

I have received information from Veritas Research Consulting, that Arizona Sen. Flake has introduced Amendment #3164, as part of the Senate Energy Act (S.2012) to remove from the Endangered Species Act List Mexican gray wolves (MGW) from federal protection and placing management within the appropriate states where MGWs live.

The amendment – found at this link – calls for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to verify that at least 100 MGWs exist within a 5,000 square mile region, and to remove federal protection as per the Wolf Recovery Plan of 1982, which declares MGWs recovered at that threshold.

Missing from this amendment is any wording that would exempt court interference, now and in the future.

It appears the amendment is basically worthless, in my not-so-humble opinion.

Share

New-Science Wildlife Scientists: Creations of Wellington House – Part VI

It is my hope that by now readers might at least be scratching their heads and questioning their “normal” lifestyles and if nothing else have a grain of suspicion that maybe things aren’t quite as they appear.

I have only helped to expose a handful of entities as being responsible for the “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.” In Part IV I asked that you might consider how many NTL-trained “change agents” must now exist world wide and specifically in the United States of America. In addition, in Part V, we have now seen the role played by our own Department of Education to brainwash the people. Now, let’s take a brief look at just a handful of other organizations with the same basic dream “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.”

In much of my work, I have to deal with a mass movement that is called environmentalism. By definition an environmentalist is “any person who advocates or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects.”

If it was only that simple. Who can seriously argue that the majority of people are environmentalists by definition. Most everybody wants clean air, non polluted water, as well as a sensible approach to protecting animals, plants, etc.

However, the environmentalist movement isn’t about any of these things except for the brainwashed who have, without questioning, accepted new-science/new-education propaganda used to promote the conspiracy. The mind controlled believe they are doing good things and sometimes they do but fail miserably in lack of understanding as to what the bigger picture is.

Many of us are willing to recognize events such as someone appearing on national television or in the media expressing concerns over a shortage of toilet paper, or sugar, rice, gasoline, etc. Most people see the result of what happens and often are willing to believe that it is a hoax to drive up prices for quick profits. Are you aware that the basic premise of these con jobs is rooted in fear and the media are simply “change agents” themselves?

Recall again that in Part IV I spoke of new-science scientists being trained by the Science Policy Research Unit in “Future Shocks”. Delivering false statements to be distributed by the media of shortages, is a “Future Shock” tactic with the prime goal of creating fear. Fear in people leaves them open to mind control and brainwashing.

Before I get into more specifics about the environmental movement, let’s try to gain a better understanding of its roots. According to Dr. John Coleman, Gifford Pinchot, the first head of the U.S. Forest Service and close friend of Teddy Roosevelt, coined or invented, if you will, the term “environmentalism”. It all went downhill from there. The founders of the modern day environmentalism just so happened to be the heirs to the great petroleum and pharmaceutical fortunes of the world, with the purpose of seriously stifling industrial growth in order that they have full control of any and all growth for their own fortunes.

A once active and now defunct Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, helped to define and set the stage of the environmental movement. One of the purposes of the CSDI was to rewrite the United States Constitution and in that rewrite to amend the Constitution to include a guarantee of environmental rights. I’m not sure exactly what that means, as is the case with just about all this social rewriting and brainwashing, but consider what could go wrong with such a constitutional amendment.

Consider the mindset of those involved in this environmental movement, especially one U.S. Senator from Rhode Island, Claiborne Pell, who served six terms from 1961 to 1997. In addition to expressing his support for human population “culling”, Pell believed that NATO should be the enforcers of environmental standards worldwide. What could possibly go wrong with that?

The real environmentalism uses tactics I’ve written about and others “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.” These plans are carried out through organizations, i.e., non governmental agencies, non profits, institutions of education, think tanks, state and local governments, as well as our own Federal Government through their varied overreaching, rights trampling departments.

When you see our very youngest of children attending school each day, where no time is spent teaching history, our heritage and everything that made America the greatest nation of earth, and they are being taught that the globe “has a fever”, that humans are evil, wasteful people, that animals have rights, that people shouldn’t eat meat, that “truth” about our environment is “inconvenient”, brainwashing is in full effect; Al Gore being a master at fear mongering for profit. The people say nothing. Why? Because, as I described in Part I and Part II, we are all products of the same brainwashing, having been made to accept the same crap being fed to our children.

So, can we point a finger at the United Nations, National Training Laboratories, Department of Education and others for this environmentalism brainwashing? Of course but there are hundreds more that eagerly participate as well. Most all of the above mentioned organizations, their founders and leaders, are more than likely a part of the conspiracy “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.”

Many readers of this blog are quite familiar with groups such as Defenders of Wildlife, Humane Society of the United States, Audubon, Nature Conservancy, Center for Biological Diversity, Earth First!, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, etc. This list of national organizations numbers in access of 100 and when you add in all the others, including those at the local level, we are bombarded with thousands of them; all trained by the trained, by the trained, etc.

Chances are probably 100% that with each organization, if you did a biography on all the leaders and/or founders of these organizations, you will discover they are all “trained” by the same group of people that are products of Dr. Kurt Lewin’s mind altering “science” used to make mentally healthy people ill.

Let’s look at some more. Second Nature should be remembered by readers and avoided like the plague. Second Nature, subtitled, “Education for Sustainability” (there’s that word again), has a mission statement. I’ll only post part of it; that says enough:

Second Nature’s mission is to create a sustainable society by transforming higher education. We accelerate movement toward a sustainable future by serving and supporting senior college and university leaders in making healthy, just, and sustainable living the foundation of all learning and practice in higher education.(emboldening added)

I’ve highlighted the keywords, that if you’ve been following along, should be ringing bells and blowing whistles in your mind. Doesn’t that paragraph just sound wonderful? I’m sure people like MSNBC’s Chris Matthews would say it sends shivers up and down his leg.

However, consider honestly the keywords and ask yourself how, who and for what real purpose. We’ve covered some of “sustainability” but just what is it and at what expense is it achievable, as well as who decides what defines sustainability? Are you aware that often when “change agents” talk about a “sustainable society” that means killing off the “useless eaters” the non enlightened as well as killing off of let’s say about 5 billion people by the year 2050?

And what is a “just” living? Is that determined by my standards and those I choose for my family? Or does someone I’ve never met and couldn’t care less about me, going to decide my education, my way of life, where I live, what I eat and where I die according to his/her standards? Are you a “useless eater”? How do you know?

By the way, Second Nature does define “sustainability” – as determined by the United Nation. SURPRISE!

I suggest you get to know your local, state and national brainwashers. And did I mention the founders of Second Nature?

Second Nature was founded in Boston in 1993 by a small group of forward-thinking leaders that included Dr. Anthony D. Cortese, Senator John F. Kerry (D-MA), Teresa Heinz Kerry, Bruce Droste, and others. This group sought to establish an organization dedicated to bringing about the change in society that is vital to the success and livelihood of every current and future living being: a change for a just and sustainable future.(emboldening added)

I wanted to point out Senator John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, as Mr. Kerry’s name will come up again as we continue to climb up the ladder in discovery of who’s behind it all.

In addition, I highlighted “change in society”. This should trigger uncontrolled regurgitation. If it hasn’t you’re not getting it. If you will recall some of President Obama’s famous words during his first campaign heading into the 2008 election. I’ll paraphrase and say that he referred to the United States as one of the greatest nations on earth and then urged everybody to help him “change it”. Does that make sense to you? I hope not because if it troubles you, you might be starting to get it. This is the same as what I wrote about the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation being the best and we now see “change agents” looking to destroy it. Refresh your memory of that list of everything that made America great and people like Barack Obama and John Kerry want to change it. Why? More importantly, why do we let them?

Why does John Kerry and Second Nature want to dedicate themselves to “change society”. I don’t believe he is one who recognizes the wrong direction society has gone in and wants to bring it back. It must be that John Kerry and his band of brainwashers want “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.”

The very tiny number of organizations that I have brought to your attention, have the only purpose of brainwashing Americans. But there are hundreds perhaps thousands more that I haven’t even mentioned. In addition to the organizations themselves, consider the “trained” change agents by the hundreds of thousands that have taken over our society; the destruction, fear, chaos, anger, division, loss of morals they are responsible for and we let them do it.

In Part VII, I will examine the Aspen Institute and link it further up the ladder to the Tavistock Institute and beyond.

Share

Typical Governmental Bureaucracy on Endangered Species Act

One of the problems with any government is bureaucracy and red tape. Here’s a clear example of it.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, in which the entire document is 47 pages, contains the phrase, “Significant Portion of Its Range”. This in reference to consideration of whether to include a species for protection or remove a species from Federal protection.

When you examine the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, you will discover that the word “range” is used a total of 6 times (pg. 5, pg. 6, pg. 7, pg. 11 and pg. 40). The use of the entire term of “significant portion of its range” is used twice (pg. 5, pg. 6).

President Obama has offered a proposal to amend the ESA or perhaps better described as offering a clarification or definition of the use of the term “significant portion of its range”. The president uses 84 pages to accomplish that feat. This approaches nearly twice the length of the entire ESA.

Now I just received a copy of this proposal so I haven’t had the chance to read it but I will. It was just that my first reaction was that it would take only a government agency to define a 5-word phrase used twice in the ESA, 84 pages to do so.

One would also suppose that being that the House Natural Resource Committee began hearings this week to examine the ups and downs of the ESA, that Obama’s Administration would want to get into the act. Some see this as a good thing and others as being very bad.

Dr. Charles Kay, Ph.D. Wildlife Ecology at Utah State University and one who never minces words, had this to say in an email on the subject of Obama’s proposal:

To all—-What do you not understand that they, CBD [Center for Biological Diversity] and others, want wolves, grizzlies ,etc. EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!——Even if this policy is adopted by the OA [Obama Administration], all they will have done is invited CBD to the courthouse to have it overturned—–This, on the part of the OA, is simply a ploy, in a long list of similar ploys, to reduce the growing political movement to repeal the ESA, as presently written BY THE COURTS————-Charles

If I find worthwhile information and/or commentary to pass on after struggling through 84 pages of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, you’ll find it posted here.

Tom Remington

Share