Telling On Themselves: Rural Cleansing in Idaho and Montana

I just love it when someone slips up, and tells us country folk what’s really being planned for us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"back to 18th century"

We never completely got away from it, did we?

How can the people push back against it? The people already herded into the cities and don't know any other kind of life, I don't want to call them poor. By the world's standards they aren't. And some are wealthy and come and go.

I don't know how to push back. The news is full of diversions, and I hadn't really dug into this one very deeply but it's been out there for some time now.

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!
Solzhenitsyn

“How is that people who have been crushed by the sheer weight of slavery and cast to the bottom of the pit can nevertheless find the strength to rise up and free themselves, first in spirit and then in body; while those who soar unhampered over the peaks of freedom suddenly lose the taste for freedom, lose the will to defend it, and, hopelessly confused and lost, almost begin to crave slavery”.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Gobbels

These wolves from Canada can take down bison in a pair or three. Only one can take down an elk easily.

I am sharing this because I live in northern Michigan in the forest and they are coming...

In BC they decimated an entire herd of caribou even though the government finally stepped in and shot a bunch of wolves to try to stop it.

In Minnesota they are grabbing pet dogs from front porches. These are an invasive species, being originally from the Mackenzie Valley in northern Canada. They are larger and much more fearless and aggressive than the timber wolf they were meant to replace.

WORSE. They are protected so if they are killing your dog you are not supposed to shoot or harm them. This is the liberal agenda to move people to cities.

Here in northern Michigan there are folk who say they have never purchased meat from a store. We have hunting seasons for everything you can imagine and then some.

Agenda 21 and the wolves and grizzlies overpopulation are all about shutting down hunting as a lifestyle, in addition to ranching and farming, etc.

The UP came very close to cancelling the deer hunt here because the deer population is so low. First time ever they tell me, and they have these wolves now....

So yes, food independently achieved is something I believe they want to stop. Just scary.

CS, I don't know. History tends to repeat itself, yes, but this thought isn't original. Rather than gun grabbing (what they think would have saved themselves from the Communists; they'd have come back for them with a vengeance; they were utterly brutal), I think they will find out where the guns are and kill the owners. Then look for the guns.

And it can get worse quickly. I guess it will depend on if you can build a trusted support network. And sometimes family are the worst to trust.

Mar-Mema, I guess I don't mind seeing those big predators dead. So whoever shot them was in an area where they aren't protected.

I'm in an area, given time, they'll get here but we are having some cougars, I think it was cougars, very small number of bears on outskirts a bit north. Haven't heard of any foxes. The cougars were threatening horses I can't remember exactly on the edge of town, and ONLY those small farmers were authorized to shoot them.

I'm too old to be able to do much of anything. As long as I have a mind to think with, I hope to stay independent because I am going to need to try to get through my young 'uns. Just one in particular.

I've got to do some more reading. One thing I've found helpful is find books on things I want to know more about and look for the ones with the most reviews and start reading them. You can learn a lot just doing that and I've just gotten started on Agenda 21.

We have property in Brazoria County Texas. A number of years ago we got a letter telling us that the Feds wanted our land to be part of the Columbia Wildlife Project. They wanted all the land in the Oyster Creek drainage, but they didn't want to buy it,. We weren't asked to stop raising cattle but we would not be able to sell it or develop it in any way, ever. Of course we laughed at them.

The project must have died because we never heard any more about it.

So whoever shot them was in an area where they aren't protected.

Oh I LOVE seeing them dead. And these pics are most likely from Idaho which did allow wolf hunting for a few years and Canada where these wolves came from... I think Wisconsin allowed wolf hunting for a time too.

Just trying to remember but I think in Wyoming they are still allowed to kill them. Wyoming is fighting back hard on this. Montana is in bad shape with the liberals there now.

I have red fox and don't mind them one bit. Neighbors says we have bear but I have always lived around black bear.

These monster wolves they have brought in are devastating elk and deer, moose and bison. The wolves follow the elk until they give birth and grab the newborn elk. Or they just take the late fetus from the elk cow, who cannot run that well in late pregnancy.

The feds are trying to put some grizzlies in the Cascades right now, where the Seattlites hike and camp. Washington state is not so happy about that.

The grizzlies are part of it too. Just letting these serious predators overpopulate and keeping them protected as an endangered species...

Lotsa pet dogs being grabbed by the wolves these days.

Good website is lobowatch if you are interested.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.