Do “We the People” have a valid
reason to fear the Federal Government? As a growing number of
unarmed Federal agencies are now either armed or in the process of
being armed, there is a real reason for concern. Paranoia is only
unfounded if there is no reason for it. We have untold numbers of
reasons to be concerned about the push to disarm “We the People”
and put more arms and ammunition in the hands of agencies within the
Federal Government that maintain alliances with the United Nations.
There will be many of us who wake up
one day to find that “chip” that was just a suggestion for
convenience is now mandatory and what you eat and when you eat, where
you go and how you go, is no longer your decision, it is dependent
upon a Government computer somewhere telling everyone what to do.
Or, perhaps, as the Christians see it, the Anti-Christ, ruling lives
through his “mark of the Beast” which is a tattooed RFID chip.
Very convenient.
Published on Oct 16, 2015
www.undergroundworldnews.com
According to the Washington Times, the agency is spending millions of dollars to build a small militarized force of around 200 agents. These agents are charged with fighting environmental crimes and have been equipped with some of the most cutting edge military equipment available.
Among their cache of weapons and military gear include semi-automatic rifles, guns, body armor, camouflage equipment, unmanned drones and aircraft, amphibious assault ships, radar and night-vision gear, and other military-style weaponry and surveillance equipment.
https://youtu.be/NbntRSt6zgY
According to the Washington Times, the agency is spending millions of dollars to build a small militarized force of around 200 agents. These agents are charged with fighting environmental crimes and have been equipped with some of the most cutting edge military equipment available.
Among their cache of weapons and military gear include semi-automatic rifles, guns, body armor, camouflage equipment, unmanned drones and aircraft, amphibious assault ships, radar and night-vision gear, and other military-style weaponry and surveillance equipment.
https://youtu.be/NbntRSt6zgY
April 23, 2014
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) now have armed agents. The Department of Justice is
heavily partisan — and that assertion has nothing to do with
racism. I support our law enforcement agencies having the proper
resources and equipment to fulfill their mission of keeping us safe
from criminals and enemies who have penetrated our sovereign borders.
However, we do not need to become a “police state” where our
government agencies start to resemble special operation strike troops
of the U.S. mlitary.
During the 2008 campaign, I recall then-Senator Obama stating, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Just like the fundamental transformation of America, what exactly did this mean? And just as amazingly, behind the young inexperienced junior Senator, you can see American military veterans applauding.
July 14, 2014
Besides the IRS, no agency should scare the American people more
than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A new EPA rule makes
it easier for the controversial agency to garnish personal wages for
the collection of fines owed to the government. Prior to the EPA’s
July 2, 2014 rule, the agency was required to first obtain a court
judgment before garnishing a private citizens’ wages. But the EPA
thought it was best to, you know, cut out the middleman and be
allowed to collect non-tax debts without a court order.While there are undeniably many instances where citizens or businesses do violate one of the countless EPA regulations, removing the courts from the initial garnishment process is ill advised. Checks and balances is a good thing, not an inconvenience.
The direct garnishment rule is unsurprising given the Obama EPA’s attempt to “strong-arm” private citizens. Around four years ago, Mike and Chantell Sackett purchased a parcel of land near a lake in Idaho. They planned to build a house there. After the Sacketts began building their new home, they received a notice from the EPA informing them that their property was classified as wetlands under the Clean Water Act. If the Sacketts did not halt construction, they could receive daily $75,000 fines. Concerned and perplexed, the Sacketts attempted to sue the EPA to get the agency to reclassify their property. Only the Sacketts couldn’t sue the EPA since the agency had not first sued the couple to enforce its order.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sacketts shouldn’t have to wait around for the EPA to sue them. In the decision, Justine Antonin Scalia writes that access to courts is a proper response to “the strong-arming of regulated parties” by government agencies. Justice Alito took the EPA to task in a concurring opinion criticizing the agency for its implementation of the law it used to fine the Sacketts with and the agency’s behavior:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisprandoni/2014/07/16/epa-wants-to-garnish-your-wages/
September 14, 2013
The recent uproar over armed EPA agents
descending on a tiny Alaska mining town is shedding light on the fact
that 40 federal agencies – including nearly a dozen typically not
associated with law enforcement -- have armed divisions.
"Environmental law enforcement, like other forms of law enforcement, always involves the potential for physical, even armed, confrontation," the agency said.
But Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell has already ordered an investigation, saying "This level of intrusion and intimidation of Alaskans is absolutely unacceptable."
January 31, 2008
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_areas_of_the_United_States
As of 31
January 2008, according to the United
Nations Environment Programme, the U.S. had a total of 6,770
terrestrial nationally designated (federal) protected areas. These
protected
areas cover 2,607,131 km2 (1,006,619 sq mi),
or 12 percent of the land area of the United
States.[2]
This is also one-tenth of the protected land area of the world.
2008 United Nations National
Forest Monitoring Systems: Monitoring and Measurement, Reporting and
Verification (M & MRV) in the context of REDD+ Activities
The
purpose of this document is to describe the elements in National
Forest Monitoring Systems (NFMSs) as they relate to REDD+ under the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and
to describe the UN-REDD Programme approach to Monitoring and
Measurement, Reporting and Verification (M & MRV) requirements.
This paper is presented in a series of sections discussing the
various elements of relevant texts of the UNFCCC and the
methodological recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). This approach aims to allow the end-user to
consider the implications of the implementation of REDD+ activities
in distinct national contexts, and the various steps involved.
The
future vitality of the world’s forests and the globally significant
environmental services they provide are increasingly under threat
from human activities. Not only do these activities have negative
impacts on biodiversity and hydrological services but they also
contribute to global climate change. It is estimated that
deforestation of tropical forests released around 1-2,000 Mt C/yr to
the atmosphere during the 1990s, which corresponds to approximately
17 percent of annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
during the same period. This significant source of emissions is being
addressed under the UNFCCC, through reduced emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), with the aim of lowering
the contribution from the forestry sector. REDD became ‘REDD+’
with the addition of activities aiming to conserve, sustainably
manage and increase forest carbon stocks.
And in 1997 the United Nations
is monitoring the United States of America for our EPA
accomplishments, but to what end?
NATURAL RESOURCE ASPECTS OF SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Click here to go to these sections:
No comments:
Post a Comment