Friday, November 6, 2015

Federal Domestic Abuse – the Political Ruin of 30,000 Montanans

And Confiscation of 350,000 Others’ Property Interests.

            At least since 1998 and likely sometime sooner, federal and tribal officials were coercing State leaders into submission to surrender major protections of natural resources, property rights, water rights, Constitutional and civil rights of Montanans. A 1998 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed then by Chris Tweeten for the State, of 2011-2015 Water fame and notoriety, as well as tribal and federal officials created the poison potion for the Flathead Reservation property owners to consume.  With the recipe in place, the instructions for administering the concoction were laid out by the CSKT Tribe in a 2001 Proposal for Negotiations.  And they were followed – to the letter over the next 17 years. Within these two documents many years ago was the plan and path to minimize the voice and silence those most directly impacted—property owners within the Flathead Reservation, 80% of whom are non-tribal citizens of the State.

            Most of those directly harmed were entirely unaware that from 1998 to 2011 the federal jackboot was being crafted by numerous federal, state and tribal entities. A thirteen-year head start of multiple agencies that withheld public information for this period of time, certainly gave the feds, tribes and state profound leverage over a few courageous citizens asking questions or voicing concerns.

            It is 2015 now.  Farmers, irrigators, landowners within the Flathead Reservation have lost control or any voice over everything necessary to produce life on their lands. The Tribe has 100% control of access to water. The Bureau of Indian Affairs controls the operation and maintenance of the irrigation districts. The federal government and tribe entirely control the former Kerr dam, with no reporting requirements, and no scrutiny of its public safety. The Bureau of Indian Affairs owns the Mission Valley Power Company that provides electricity to all households and lands within the reservation, and is operated by the tribe. Oh, and the tribe has no duty to non-tribal citizens or to keep America safe.  An unaccountable federal monopoly now controls life on non-Indian lands in Western Montana.

The Secretary of Interior has the last word on the Flathead Indian Reservation for water, power and irrigation. Not the Governor, not the State. Farmers and cattlemen fully know that life doesn’t happen on land without power and irrigation. And it’s the feds and tribes that will now arbitrarily set all rates for each—water and power, answering to no one, not the ratepayers or even the State’s Public Services Commission (PSC). It is the CSKT that no longer contributes to county and school district economic needs, so a substantial tax burden now shifts to the landowners as well. Water rates will go up; irrigation rates will go up; power rates will go up; taxes will go up.  This final economic squeeze is a foregone conclusion—it is a dead certainty.  The only things going down will be business income, household income, and land values. All of this is against the law. In the mid-80s a mission of the CSKT was to remove all non-Indians (approximately 30,000) from the reservation by 2030 “by any means necessary.” The stage is surely set.

             Throughout this seventeen year period, during which landowners have been slowly bullied, demeaned and silenced, the State of Montana has made no effort, whatsoever, to protect its citizens and their collective right to own and enjoy the state’s natural (water) resources, for which the state is held legally responsible as a fiduciary under the public trust doctrine. Few attorneys, if any, have lifted a finger to assist the property owners. Public meetings were mere theater, feigned to pretend that any citizen voice mattered. The song sheets of the 1998 MOU and the 2001 CSKT Settlement Negotiation Protocols have been followed to the tune without missing a note or a beat.

 Narrowly customized “help” was provided to the Flathead Joint Board of Irrigators (FJBC), keeping conversations limited to in-stream flows and not much else. Efforts by FJBC advisors have intentionally kept chronic divisiveness and dysfunction within the FJBC Board. These nine fine Board members all deeply believe in the FJBC, are landowners and irrigators themselves, but pitted against each other could cause the collapse of the FJBC.  Apparently, the federal and state governments’ objective have long been to facilitate the failure of the FJBC so that the CSKT Water Compact can succeed. A well-functioning FJBC is a direct obstacle to successful CSKT Water Compact implementation. The FJBC and everyone must lose for the CSKT Water Compact to succeed. The plan set twenty years ago has wrought great fear and pain to truly fine Montanans.

            To be blunt, the Interior Department and its Bureau of Indian Affairs now serve as pimps for federally recognized tribes, including the CSKT, who willingly submit themselves before the congressional and executive alters as “dependent” sovereigns to ensure rapid expansion of their “sovereignty” and legal jurisdiction over non-tribal lands, waters and persons; and the State of Montana is a willing and compliant customer, leaving an additional $55 million in State taxpayer dollars on the dresser. Indeed, while the State and Federal government lie comfortably together behind closed doors, the citizens of Montana have publicly had their dearly held private property rights pick-pocketed and transferred to others.

            The State government has paid little heed to the printed words within the Montana Constitution or within the four corners of the federal Constitution, including the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Bill of Rights. Abandoned by their guaranteed representative government, good Montana people will be forced to move out and move on. The seven or eight Montana tribes will stand to devour the remainder of the physical State, as Montana’s governing institutions and structure increasingly become puppetry to implement federal directives for even greater tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction.  

            Want proof that this intentional theft of property owners’ interests have not been entirely orchestrated and maneuvered by the federal government and its operatives on the ground in Montana?  One small group of citizens engaged legal counsel to get their voices heard by the courts and federal agencies, and to claim their rightful due process, equal protection and property rights. And these folks are now painted as Enemy Number One. How dare a few property owners seek to protect their interests and their livelihoods? Those unable or unwilling to support these landowners remind me of the beaten wife contacted by domestic abuse counseling services that offer to help, but she sees them as bringing more trouble to her door, until she’s found dead in her home.

Governor Bullock, and Attorney General Fox:  Should Flathead Reservation land and water owners just lie down and drink the poison? How does that comport with your Oaths of Office? Who would have thought Montana, of all states, would succumb to such federal domestic abuse of the State, and then conspire with the federal government to deny its citizens’ State Constitutional protections of private property, water rights, and due process procedural rights?

Absent support from the State of Montana or any current federal government entity, and in spite of serious demeaning and intimidation, some courageous property owners will eventually have their day in court.  And that is a good and necessary thing if property rights and due process are to exist for citizens anywhere in Montana today or tomorrow.

Elaine Willman, Author
Going to Pieces…the Dismantling of the United States of America
Phone: 509-949-8055     

The Religion of Eugenics: Agenda 21 and Common Core Are Merely Death Cults in Disguise

Monday, October 26, 2015

Environmental Extremism

Environmental Extremism is a subject that in my own trained scientific objectivity, I cannot leave alone.  I know that I have beaten this drum before, but bogus man-caused Global Warming has become the greatest scientific scam ever perpetrated by worldwide governments upon their own peoples.

Obama and his cronies feed upon its numerous profit-making opportunities, becoming millionaires after only a few years in public office. Opportunist Al Gore authored only a half-dozen or so books on global warming, yet elevated his net worth to over ten-million dollars. He simply charges liberals readmission to hear his same disinformation, so dear to their liberal-biased perspective, over and over again. However unthinking, his timeworn speeches still draw large paying liberal audiences. I presume that this currently irrational process will eventually fade in time, unlike their irreversible body tattoos, to be  replaced by some equally fashionable liberal drive to display their intellectual conformance.

There's another profit-making scenario. The US government under Obama invested millions of taxpayer dollars into questionable start-up green-energy companies, exemplified by Solyndra (now bankrupt and defunct). The government's apparent endorsement of Solyndra, an obvious confidence-booster for investors, drove Solyndra's stock price skyward virtually overnight. Democrat US congressman and other elite Progressive insiders, all bought-in as the stock price rose, then all bailed out or sold short when it became apparent to insider investors that Solyndra's highly touted technology presented no actual substance. With this scenario repeating itself  as many times as possible, Obama and his corrupt congressional fat-cats became very rich on the backs of misinformed, gullible public investors.

Such 'insider trading' is strictly forbidden under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Over the years, many Wall Street traders have gone to federal prison for lesser 'insder trading' offenses. If we had a real Attorney General at the time, instead of Obama's cohort Eric Holder, offenders would have been vigorously prosecuted under existing Federal law. One of the reasons Eric Holder left office earlier than Obama is because he knows that he may yet face Federal indictment for his failure to prosecute SEC law violations and other constitutional offences.

EPA Environmental Extremism

I must assume that the EPA just discovered that the earth's atmosphere contains much more water vapor than harmless Carbon Dioxide. In fact, water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and there is twenty times as much of it in earth's atmosphere. When visible water vapor obscures the earth's surface (like with clouds), the sun's warming rays are reflected back into space. You would think that this should be a simple natural process to comprehend, even for Obama's single-minded EPA.
Opportunist Al Gore and Obama's bought and paid-for climatologists tell us that earth's polar ice packs are rapidly melting, when in fact they are currently refreezing rapidly. Recent NASA photos from space illustrate this dramatically. It's been reliably reported that in their desperation, Obama's government-funded scientists are now blatantly skewing NASA's legitimately recorded climate data in order to perpetuate Obama's man-caused global warming myth.

The sun has now passed the peak of it's eleven-year increased radiation cycle. Good news! Al Gore's polar bears have been spared, and now they're devouring tasty seals again out on the north polar icepack. Residents of Churchill in northern Canada on the Artic Ocean will be most relieved. Over the past decade, hungry Polar Bears have frequently broken into their homes in search of food. Churchill is the traditional Winter jumping-off point for Polar Bears.

Highly reflective polar ice and snow reflect sunlight back into space, more so than clouds. This effect over time helps to compensate for the sun's natural cycles of warming and cooling, thus maintaining earth's atmospheric temperature stable overall. The earth's mean atmospheric temperature hasn't warmed perceptibly in going on eighteen years now. Obama, prove to us conclusively that the earth's atmosphere is rapidly growing warmer as you claim. Bogus testimony from your bought and paid for liberal academics is unconvincing, at the very least.
66,000 published legitimate scientists are now on record disputing your global warming claims.

Oceans cover seventy-one percent of earth's surface, and the sun's radiant energy continually evaporates staggering amounts of water from them. This atmospheric moisture content cools and  condenses to form clouds, and then these clouds release rain that keeps earth green and verdant. Without this natural cycle, earth's surface would dry up like a prune and mankind's vital food crops would perish.

In its infinite liberal wisdom, the EPA apparently now considers atmospheric moisture to be a global warming threat. It has reportedly crafted still another silly regulation to control the amount of waste steam ejected into the atmosphere by electrical power generation utilities and Chinese laundries. If it would just look skyward at all those voluminous clouds of naturally evaporated seawater, I would pray that there's still a chance that the EPA might finally realize the absurdity of its assumptions.

Earth's natural processes dwarf any contributions made by man. The same holds true for relatively miniscule amounts of harmless Carbon Dioxide emitted by planes, trains and automobiles. Perhaps the EPA will next attempt to contain massively greater CO2 emissions from volcanoes and forest fires. A couple new EPA regulations should do the trick. Perhaps the EPA should bring self-proclaimed, but totally unaccredited, atmospheric scientist Al Gore on-board to help sell his totally fabricated assumptions to America's foolishly-receptive liberals. Ironically, so far, he's been very successful doing it.

Under the United Nations Rio Accords, unthinkingly endorsed by former President George W. Bush, the EPA is no longer required to prove with scientific evidence any assumptions regarding environmental peril. It may proceed freely with binding regulatory measures in the total absence of scientific confirmation of the perceived threat's validity. This inconceivably irrational concept has proven invaluable to the Obama Administration's ongoing promotion of its great global warming lie. It's estimated that overall, this single man-caused global-warming falsehood has cost America's economy over three-trillion dollars, with no end in sight. Do the math .That's about one-sixth of America's staggering debt today, over one-half of which has accrued since Barrack Obama entered presidential office only seven years ago.

Many members of Congress now recognize the need to rein in the EPA. It's about time. Some are demanding that Obama-appointed EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy be sacked. The EPA has been blatantly exceeding its authority, writing what amounts to laws instead of just regulations based upon law. Obama then employs his Justice Department to enforce these illegal laws. Under the US Constitution; only Congress may enact laws.

Does even Obama himself fully comprehend what he's been ordered to accomplish by the Socialist UN powers behind his administration? I doubt that very much. Now that there's an unpleasant end in sight for America, even George Soros, Obama's mentor and financier, recently donated 28 million dollars to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, just before "getting out of Dodge" himself and taking up residence in Switzerland for his own safety against US Government violence and oppression that will soon engulf America. He knows what Progressive Socialist Hillary Clinton will seek to impose upon America, even though her Democratic Party's mindless minions still haven't a clue what to expect.

Friday, August 14, 2015

to Party or not to Party

Yes, folks are fed up, tired of government overreaching, tired of not being given any real choice by ‘party’ [and I refer to BOTH D and R]. That’s why Trumps #s are up in the polls. I think Trump is a side show. Several of the others in the R line up are ‘insiders’ who I believe would just carry on with the present globalist [corporate, and banking] plan to dissolve national sovereignty – as Daines and Zinke appear to be doing. Party is not where statesmen are found. Party selects and vets candidates for state and national races by a different litheness test that more local city and county, ignoring platform and measuring instead how likely the candidate might support the plans of the big money that keeps the party afloat.
Independent, Libertarian, Constitution, seem to be better described as ‘movements’ as low info populace tend to follow brand name or big team groups – The caution ‘don’t throw your vote away’ has worked to keep other parties marginalized.
I supported Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 I was a Ron Paul delegate to the MT State R nominating convention – the MT GOP officers manipulated the convention and side lined Paul’s supporters as the same occurred in FLA at the National Nominating Convention. Ron Paul had a HUGE following and support across the spectrum, BUT the insider circle via MSM and manipulation took the Nomination away from him.
I support Rand Paul 2016. The insider circle is busy sidling his campaign. Encouraging way too many possible candidates, and denigrating him and not reporting on him. Rand has a big grassroots following. They give way too much exposure and coverage to Bush - who is really NOT very popular with the public – and who supports progressive programs. They give exposure to Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal, all who have questionable Article II, Section 1, clause 5, eligibility – much like the current occupant of the Oval Office.
If Hillary takes the Presidency, you can bet the gates of hell will open. A slower road deeper into slavery may be a better choice, but if we truly love liberty and want to restore freedom – I think we just might need to abandon ‘party’ but not ‘platform’, and support statesmen who stand on ‘principle’ over ‘politics’. ‘Reaching across the isle’ has only been a losing game plan for Republicans, the ‘other side’ – progressives [socialists] – have nothing to loose, but we always seem to give up something of value, freedoms, and liberties.
As for running a team on the Libertarian ticket, it will take monumental efforts and financing to get any positive MSM coverage.There is a movement forming the ‘Veterans Party’, national and here in the state of MT too. They will soon have a convention and establish their candidates.
There is also a factor that is very important – election process has be so compromised and corrupted, as shown time and again mostly since 2000.
What to do? Take back local government. Then our state. If we can drive the feds back to D.C. where they belong and retire those who support them. We just might buy some time and let people taste what freedom and liberty is. Turn off the T.V. and open up some dusty old books.
So, those are my thoughts just now.

I must get to the canning kitchen.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Todays random thoughts...

Misnomer exists that 'conservatives' are the group threatening control and fascist policies... when in fact it is progressive policy and thinking that promotes regulation of movement, action, and thinking towards a narrow politically correct scope.

Neo-Conservatives are really Trotsky socialists misusing the term as a mask.

Constitutionalists urge 'conservation' of the spirit and structure that expanded freedom to all; Liberation from tyranny of elite, monarchs, or other overlords.

Progressives are the new overlords - dictating and regulating every aspect of life according to a constantly shifting politically correct paradigm - which serves to confuse those who are ensnared, rendering them inadequate to discern the trap in which they have been caught.

Often, when recognized that they are "trapped", denial becomes the "norm", bigotry rears its ugly head, and the duped refuse to admit they were "had", or that they were wrong. That is the quintessential mark of "a bigot" - one who, when faced with facts and/or truth, refuses to "see" - that is also what a religious fanatic is - someone who does not see unless he/she believes...

Dictatorship follows "progressivism", as EVERY "other group" becomes "suspect" - if it questions THE group in charge. Witness what DHS and NSA, and all their "lovers" are doing today. We are in a death spiral, thanks to proud leftist progressives, and leaders like Obama and most Democrats.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Where Does Steve Bullock stand?

Montana Governor Steve Bullock, Aspen-Rodel Fellow (Class of 2010)
Montana State
 Superintendent of Public Instruction Denise Juneau, Aspen-Rodel Fellow (Class of 2012)

When you realize what they're part of, you will have a better understanding of why:
Gov. Bullock was nominated “April Fool” by the Tenth Amendment Center
Sup. Juneau is implementing the highly controversial Common Core scheme

The information here just scratches the surface. The deeper you dig, the more alarmed you become. Click the links to easily verify this information for yourself.

"The Aspen Institute is an international nonprofit organization founded in 1950 as the Aspen Institute of Humanistic Studies. The Aspen Institute is largely funded by foundations such as the Carnegie Corporation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Gates Foundation, the Lumina Foundation, and the Ford Foundation, by seminar fees, and by individual donations." -Wikipedia

"The Aspen Institute-Rodel Fellowships in Public Leadership program seeks to enhance our democracy by identifying and bringing together the nation's most promising young political leaders." "These men and women represent the very best among the new generation of America's political leadership," said former Congressman Mickey Edwards, the program's director who recently taught at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and who is a member of the infamous global government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). "There are now some 200 Rodel Fellows, at all levels of government." "Our goal is to work with the young men and women who will be America's top leaders in the next decade, whether at the federal, state, or local level—those who now serve as, say, governors or members of Congress and are poised to move either to another level of government or to a new leadership position within the same institution—as well as those who have proven a commitment to running for office."

"Our goal is nothing less than to begin a reshaping of the American political dynamic," said the program's primary funder, William D. Budinger, an Aspen Institute Trustee and president of the Rodel Foundation. It is expected that Fellows will share with other public officials the insights gained through the Fellowship.

"The new fellowship program will be absolutely essential to focusing our political leadership on democratic values," said Bill Mayer, "especially those who are just beginning their careers, whose ideas and values are still taking shape." Mayer was Chairman of the Aspen Institute from 2000 to 2008 and is currently on its Executive Committee. He is also a CFR member.

No outside observers are permitted to attend fellowship programs. [Secrecy] Fellows must be nominated to be considered for participation. The Rodel Fellowship Program National Advisory Council consists of such CFR members as John McCain, Janet Napolitano, David Boren, Tom Foley (deceased), Gary Hart, James R. Jones, Jim Kolbe, Jim Leach, Mel Levine, Lynn Martin, Sam Nunn, Anne-Marie Slaughter (Dean, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University), Vin Weber, William F. Weld, and Christine Todd Whitman.

A perusal of The Aspen Institute's Magazine leaves no doubt about their left-leaning agenda and influence on all levels of government. One story even boasts, "Aspen Fellows Take Over the Presidential Cabinet:" President Barack Obama has nominated five Aspen Global Leadership Network Fellows to serve in the US Cabinet concurrently. "As they ascend to these new offices, they personify the central goals of the Institute's Fellowship programs."
Aspen Institute Senior Leadership:

· Walter Isaacson has been the president and CEO since 2003. He is a CFR member and has been the chairman and CEO of CNN and the editor of TIME magazine. He is the author of Kissinger: A Biography, and coauthor of The Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made (an excessively flattering portrait of six CFR luminaries). He is a graduate of Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar**. He was appointed by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate to serve as the chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and other international broadcasts of the United States, a position he held until 2012.
· Elliot Gerson is Executive Vice President of Policy and Public Programs, International Partnerships. He is a CFR member and was a Rhodes Scholar**. He also administers the US Rhodes Scholarships as the secretary of the American Rhodes Trust, responsible for directing each year’s selection process and serving as the sole institutional representative of Oxford’s American Rhodes community, he is closer to the scholarship and the scholars than anyone else.
· Peter Reiling is Executive Vice President, Leadership and Seminar Programs. He is a CFR member and oversees the Institute's growing portfolio of leadership initiatives (the Aspen Global Leadership Network) and seminars as well as its flagship leadership program.

The Board of Trustees is made up of numerous CFR members such as Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine K. Albright, Paul F. Anderson, Richard Braddock, L. Brooks Entwistle, Henrietta Holsman Fore, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., David Gergen, Patrick W. Gross, Jane Harman, Robert Hurst, Laura Lauder, Frederic V. Malek, William E. Mayer, David McCormick,
Marc Nathanson, William A. Nitze, Jacqueline Novogratz, Jim Rogers, Roderick von Lipsey, and Vin Weber. Not to mention trustees whose spouses are CFR members. Many trustees are also involved in other un-American activities (ie. David Gergen is also a member of the U.S. executive committee for the Trilateral Commission and Bill Mayer is also on
the Board of Directors of the Atlantic Council).

Lifetime Trustees include such CFR luminaries as Richard N. Gardner, Henry "New World Order" Kissinger and Paul A. Volcker.

Like the CFR, the Aspen Institute is involved in numerous subversive schemes to undermine our Constitutional Republic, supporting and promoting numerous un-American ideas and efforts such as:
· Nationalize our police
· Nationalize the media
· Merge the U.S. & EU
· Global government
· UN Control of Internet
They've also given platforms to globalist and environmental extremists such as Maurice Strong, Al Gore, Robert Craig, Dan Rather and Mikhail Gorbachev.

The long and short of it is that Bullock and Juneau should come clean of their involvement in un-American circles, denounce the Aspen Institute, renounce their Rodel Fellowship status and embrace the principles of liberty and limited government — if they want to gain the trust of Montanans who are rightly concerned about the direction our country is being led.

** Bill Clinton is one of the best known Rhodes Scholars. "Known as an old and prestigious international graduate scholarship, the Rhodes Scholarships are administered and awarded by the Rhodes Trust, which was established in 1902 under the terms and conditions of the will of Cecil John Rhodes, and funded by his estate under the administration of Nathan Rothschild. Rhodes wanted to expand the British Empire because he believed that the Anglo-Saxon race was destined to greatness. In his last will and testament, Rhodes said of the British, "I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence, look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions gives." He wanted to make the British Empire a superpower in which all of the British-dominated countries in the empire, including Canada,
, New Zealand, and Cape Colony, would be represented in the British Parliament. Rhodes included American students as eligible for the Rhodes scholarships. He said that he wanted to breed an American elite of philosopher-kings who would have the United States rejoin the British Empire. He believed that eventually the United Kingdom (including Ireland), the USA, and Germany together would dominate the world and ensure peace." -Wikipedia.

A better explanation is found here:…/…/16639-salon-article — the Rhodes Scholarship program is a way of identifying potential elite players to enlist in the effort, kind of like the Aspen Institute-Rodel Fellowship.

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Guest Contributor, Jim Greaves writes

I will be the first to "indict" me regarding the fact that I have not read a lot about what the Founders intended (The Federalist, for example; Thomas Paine; etc). I do have a mind, however, and though obtaining a "C+" in my major of philosophy-religion in college in 1971, and learned through trial and error what is or is not Aristotelian logic, I think some things do not even require a high school education to be understandable as nonsense.

Thus, one thing I think is accurate, is that the Founders did NOT use phrases like "civil liberties" in their writings, nor in the Declaration of Independence,  nor the US Constitution.

"Civil" implies "given by civil government" - us, through our representatives... Mere mortals, be it by a small town or Congress. It has - often - little to do with "pre-existing" rights "given by nature's god" or whatever was believed by the disparate band of rebels at the time of the two above works. Civil rights are used to justify the "equality" that has been "given" to blacks and others. This is NOT what the Founders meant by "inalienable", which they meant to include ALL up-right, walking humans!

In fact, both those works are based on a long history, dating back to (if not before) Magna Carta. "Civil liberties" is not a phrase therein either, and is a construct of "modernism". Moses come to mind?

SO, when someone proposes or posits a bill to promote or create "civil liberties", they are NOT speaking to "precedent", but, IMHO, merely to the recent "histrionics" of politicians from the 1920's onward [the growth of socialist fascism], who, seeking to ensure their own positions in government (including aggrandizements of power and wealth) would have - and still would - do ANYTHING, say ANYTHING, and promote ANYTHING (bill etc) to make their wishes for power into reality. As well as to ensure their grandiose "life styles" in retirement. No need to name names on that!

Beware Greeks bearing gifts. Promises of protection by "law" from invasions of privacy do NOT work to protect the innocent from false arrest and the paparazzi in the press who will do ANYTHING - just like the power-mongers they emulate and revere in politics - to gain notoreity and - they each hope - a Pulitzer Prize for skewering some poor soul on their own pillar of guiled "journalism".

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
But, recall the words of one of our UN-popular presidents, who promulgated, promoted, and signed into law "civil rights" legislation, that has proven neither "civil" nor equal of rights:

“You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."
­ President Lyndon B. Johnson

Wednesday, March 18, 2015


And don’t quit there! Following are additional sources that could indicate what it is really all about if our State of Montana allows another government take over its CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION to protect the water rights of its citizens!! If water levels of Lake Michigan (the size of a small ocean) can be lowered by exporting fresh water to China, think what could happen to waters of our Flathead Lake, Hungry Horse Reservoir and Lake Kookanusa. And why do you suppose the Ogallala Aquifer is being targeted also. . . and the Upper Missouri River Breaks feeding into the AGR lands of Middle America and the great Mississippi? We are the land famous for ABUNDANT WATERSHEDS! ! PLEASE DON’T LET IT BE TAKEN AWAY FROM ALL OF US! ! !
Is there any protection against where our water rights legislation (HB 262) could take us if this 1500 page CSKT Water Compact document is approved by our present legislative body and control goes to the reservation government (under federal government control) already abusing irrigation water rights of its non-native property owners? Could this attitude and unacceptable behavior help explain the millions being directed toward passage of this single, apparently VERY SIGNIFICANT BILL ????? In support of its perpetrators?
JUST HOW WELL INFORMED, REALLY, ARE THE MONTANA CITIZENS? We know how desperately this compact is being forced through by the volumes of promotion through PEOPLE WE KNOW and can identify. Governmental over-reach would extend beyond the eleven designated NW MT counties, but would impact the financial security of the entire state.

A “NO” vote on HB262 is imperative! !
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING (highlighted) ! ! !
Related posts:

Thursday, February 26, 2015

A Sustainable Development Q&A [UN Agenda 21]

From Plymouth Rock to the Pacific Coast, home owners across America are losing rural land and property rights in alarming numbers. Willingly or not, they are being crowded into high‐ density urban living and "walkable" communities in the name of sustainable development, Smart Growth and environmental justice.
A Sustainable Development Q&A [UN Agenda 21]
What is sustainable development? The United Nations defined the term in a 1987 report as "development that meets the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." A 1992 UN convention, called Agenda 21, codified the report.
What is wrong with that? The "needs" the report refers to are not human needs but those of the planet. It concludes we can only meet them by eliminating or reducing "unsustainable" activities globally. These include property ownership, consumerism, and high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, roadways, automobiles, dams, our legal system, pastures, golf courses and more.
How can a United Nation's program affect citizens in the United States? Three presidents agreed through executive orders to
1. abide by these definitions of sustainable development,
2. reduce the "unsustainable" activities and
3. implement action plans to accomplish this through federal agency regulations.
Why have I not heard of this side of sustainable development before? Because, most see sustainable development as a safe way to protect the planet. The UN and other groups see sustainable development as a political agenda in which it is acceptable to sever personal rights in the name of the environment.
How does the UN version of sustainable development enter my community? Planners or groups approach local officials and "stakeholders" (not always residents) with proposals to review Master Plans and conduct surveys to improve living quality and the environment. Frequently, they invoke perceived "crises" such as transportation issues, overpopulation or poor water quality. Grant money often follows, and may include strings that limit property rights. The UN version, while protecting the earth and wildlife, has secondary regard for personal rights.
How might sustainable development affect my property rights? By accepting certain grants and extreme regulations on property usage, owners find their development rights stripped away in favor of bicycle paths, solar farms, open spaces, mixed‐use dwellings and controlled property and farming use.
The Constitution and local laws protect my property rights, don't they? Not if you sign them away by agreeing to accept certain grants, surrender them through conservation easements, wetland or endangered species designations, or lose them through eminent domain or specific changes in your town's Master Plan.
What can I do? See pamphlet: The "Sustainability" Solution. For more info go to:

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

MONTANA in the 70’s: When the State Stood Tall for Its People and Its Lands, and the Self-Inflicted Injury of the Proposed CSKT Compact.

By Elaine Willman,
Author of Going to Pieces...

There was a time when the Montana legislature was at the forefront of environmental policy, state sovereign authority and diligent protection of the rights of Montana citizens.  Look at this interesting time line of events from 1970 through 1981 when Montana legislators were taking excellent care of their State and citizens:

1970  National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This federal mandate requires assessment and analysis for all significant projects affecting the environment, across the country.

1971  Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). Farsighted legislators passed, 99-0, a state mandate, MEPA,  requiring assessment and analysis for all significant projects affecting the environment. MEPA stepped up the “spirit” and strength of the federal act, NEPA, and significantly expanded the public right to participate in government decisions. Perhaps now we better understand why both of these environmental mandates have been avoided at all costs. The proposed CSKT Compact is in direct violation of NEPA, MEPA, and the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, requiring due process and a remedy for grievances against government decisions. MEPA was preparatory to the development of a new Constitution for the State of Montana, adopted in 1973.

1973  Montana State Constitution. Legislators adopted a Constitution that incorporated the intent of MEPA into Article IX of the new Constitution, and additionally provided Montanans with 35 enumerated rights in Article II, including popular sovereignty, the right of participation,  and the right of self-government.

1975  Indian Education and Self-Determination Act (Public Law 93-638) provided tribes with the right to self-government and management of their own federal funds through contracted services.  Unfortunately, many tribes ignored the critical word prefix self in self-determination and took actions toward  asserting tribal government authorities to tax and govern non-tribal persons and properties.

1981  Montana v. U.S. 450 U.S. 544.  In 1973 the Crow Tribe attempted to assert its jurisdictional authority over non-tribal lands and persons. The State of Montana argued valiantly for many years to protect Montana citizens, and obtained the ruling in Montana v. U.S. that continues to be a landmark Supreme Court case protecting citizens in Montana and across the country from tribal governance over non tribal persons and lands.

Throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s the Montana governors and state legislators were diligently protecting state sovereign authority, state natural resources and the individual rights of Montanans. So what happened between 1981 and 2015? 

The emerging coalition of a powerful triumvirate: 1) federal Executive branch over-reaching; 2) tribal government political influence and tribal government over-reaching; 3) coalitions of environmental extremists; the trendy aboriginal and United Nations movement, and the globalists promoting Agenda 21. All of these folks are on the same page, singing from the same hymnal and absolutely dedicated to the demise of State sovereignty, citizen and property rights. This cumulative political and financial power has had oppressive and intimidating success among elected officials at every level of state government and academia in Montana. The 2015 Montana State Legislature does not remotely resemble the Montana Legislature of the 1970s, when the State was acting like a State and damn proud of it.

What will be the end result of the CSKT Compact if Montana's legislators breathe life into this legislative Beast?  Look again at the policies and laws noted in the time line above.  The CSKT Compact will render irrelevant the U.S. Constitution, the Montana Constitution, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Montana Environmental Policy Act, and this is just openers. Current state legislators passing the Compact will ensure their ongoing and future irrelevancy as elected officials of a state intentionally enfeebled by the CSKT Compact. Oaths of office and the Pledge of Allegiance are now just meaningless, irrelevant rituals. One of the finest State Constitutions in the country, Montana’s 1973 Constitution becomes toilet paper.

Another irony:  Passage of the Compact will also overturn hard-fought protections from tribal governance over non-members in 1981 Supreme Court case of Montana v. U.S. for Montana citizens; however,  the rest of the country will remain protected by this Landmark ruling of the High Court because the ruling protects citizens from tribal governance absent their individual consent.  The Compact legislatively removes individual citizen consent for some 350,000 Montana citizens in 11 counties that will be subject to tribal government control of their water, their water rates, and water-dependent land use.

The Compact is not just about water. It is now about the Rule of Law as well. Our federal and state Constitutions matter, or they don't. Our federal and state environmental mandates matter, or they don't. Supreme Court rulings matter or they don't. Exactly what does matter to current legislators and an entire cadre of well-paid Montana state attorneys? It certainly does not seem to be to uphold the Rule of Law in the State of Montana. The once youthful and muscle-bound State of Montana is voluntarily surrendering its Statehood to Assisted Living in perpetuity, to be governed by tribes, the federal government and International organizations intent on destroying State authorities, property rights and the rights of the Popular Sovereignty of each and every citizen. Montana is already buckling at the knees; the proposed CSKT Compact begins the process of turning off the State’s life support as a State. The battle then goes to all of the other Western States.

One more sad irony: There is within the rule of law the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. This is a legal doctrine wherein a State within its sovereign capacity may provide protection, and may even sue on behalf of, citizens unable to care for themselves. The proposed Compact will render tribal and non-tribal landowners, 11 counties and their municipalities, and some 350,000 Montanans needing water for the homes and businesses, hard pressed to pay high water rates, or take care of themselves in the future. Do you suppose your current or future Governors and State Legislator will step in to help them?

A victorious CSKT Compact opens the door for the federal government, tribal governments and globalists to fundamentally transform Montana to something unlike the proud State that existed in the 1970s. Montana legislators passing this Compact may just as well turn off the lights in the Helena Capitol because the CSKT Compact is a fatal, self-inflicted injury to State sovereignty and all of Montana's waters. Legislators voting for the Proposed CSKT Compact are assuring their future as useful idiots to federal, tribal and international influence.