Green Communists, Red Fascists and Management of Regional Jurisdictions

April 9, 2019 in News by RBN Staff


Source: The Technocratic Tyranny | By: Vicky Davis 

On March 29, 2019, the National Review Institute held their annual Ideas Summit which was broadcast by C-Span. One of the speakers was retired Judge James L. Buckley. Buckley was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1985 and he became Senior Judge in 1996. The subject of Buckley’s remarks was federalism. He described how the Congress and the Administrative Agencies of government had effectively nullified the Tenth Amendment by providing conditional funding for programs that are out of the Congress’ constitutional purview.  The Judge gave us the arguments to use to try to save our states and our country.   What follows hopefully are the compelling reasons why we need to do it because we will lose everything if we don’t.

Unconstitutional Mandates

In 2015, the people of Idaho experienced a demonstration of the unconstitutional use of a federal mandate with the threat of loss of federal funds and federal services attached to it.  Both the Governor and the State Legislature bowed to the federal demands for the passage of legislation requiring our state to agree to participate in a Hague Convention.

Administrative Re-organization

The Group of 7 aka G7 is a forum for the leaders of the industrialized countries of the west to coordinate national policies.  They were formed in 1975 presumably after the Helsinki Final Act was signed by President Gerald Ford.  The Council on Foreign Relations has a background report on the G7 that is worth reading for an understanding of the significance of the Group.  The University of Toronto formed a Research Group and they maintain a record of all proceedings of the G7.

In 1990, the G7 held their summit in Houston, Texas.  They issued an Economic Declaration that included the following language:

Measures Aimed at Economic Efficiency

16. Considerable progress has been made over the past few years in supplementing macroeconomic policies with reforms to increase economic efficiency. We welcome the progress in the realization of the internal market in the European Community and the continuing efforts to reduce structural rigidities in North America and Japan. Nonetheless, we emphasize the widespread need for further steps to promote regulatory reform and liberalize areas such as retail trade,telecommunications, transport, labor markets, and financial markets, as well as to reduce industrial and agricultural subsidies, improve tax systems, and improve labor-force skills through education and training.

President George Bush then kicked off the negotiations for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to reduce the structural rigidities of our national borders and our economy.  The NAFTA agreement as an annex to the La Paz Treaty with Mexico became law on December 8, 1993.   Our national borders were effectively eliminated for commerce in 1994 when the U.S. Senate passed legislation to adopt the Uruguay Round of Agreements establishing the World Trade Organization.

The implications of reducing structural rigidities were never discussed in political terms for what it would mean to our nation and to the people of this country.  It was only discussed in positive economic terms using words like market and free trade – except for Ross Perot who used the term, gigantic sucking sound for what it would do to the American economy (and he turned out to be right).

U. S. Treasury Secretary Henry Morganthau told us the plan in 1945 when he said:

“We can hardly expect the nation-state to make itself superfluous, at least not overnight. Rather what we must aim for is really nothing more than caretakers of a bankrupt international machine which will have to be transformed slowly into a new one. The transition will not be dramatic, but a gradual one. People will still cling to national symbols.”

— Henry Morgenthau, CFR, Secretary of the Treasury under FDR, 1945

State and Local

The external borders were not the only structural bonds they intended to weaken.  At the state and local levels, using federal grant money and programs, the administrative agencies designed programs to weaken and dilute the structural bonds (legal jurisdictions) by incentivizing cross-jurisdictional agreements.

The political organization of our nation and the states is by Constitution.   The strategy of reducing structural bonds for economic purposes redefines the territorial United States into economic zones and economic regions managed by unelected Commissions.  Even if the commissions are comprised of elected officials from multiple jurisdictions, the representation of voters from each jurisdiction is reduced to 20% representation on a 5-member commission.  That weakens the structural bonds (jurisdictional boundaries) of our constitutional, legal structures and it defeats the electoral process.  It is through this strategy of regionalization overseen by commissions of unelected officials that the U.S. is being changed from a law of the land country to an administrative territory that will have community law for the regions created by contract which means no law except that which they speak on a day-to-day basis.  Community rights trump individual rights – because the commission says so.

Economic Zone

In 2006, Elaine Chao who was at the time the U.S. Secretary of Labor announced the WIRED initiative.  That announcement has a paragraph that describes perfectly the strategy of weakening the political, structural bonds using administrative programs with incentives to establish cross jurisdictional economic zones.

Regional Economies

Globalization has changed the formula for developing a prepared workforce and necessitated a change in visualizing the boundaries of an economy. An economy is no longer defined by the political boundaries of a city, county or state line. Instead, economies are defined regionally by a diverse group of industries, supported by factors such as infrastructure, investment and an availability of local talent. This regional concept promotes partnerships among key community players, including K-12 schools, community colleges, adult education centers, universities, regional employers and community economic and workforce development organizations.

Did anybody ever vote for a regional economic czar?  I don’t recall ever seeing one on the ballot.  Did anybody ever vote for a syndicate of corporations to manage the education system for our young people?   I never did.  And what happens when the interests of the syndicate of corporations in an economic zone diverges from the interests of the citizens who reside in the political jurisdictions within the zone?  In Idaho for example, the syndicate of milk product producers import foreign workers and economic refugees from other countries.  That practice has major social and economic impacts on the citizens who reside in the political jurisdictions within the economic zone but the citizens have no recourse for the destruction of their economy and their way of life because the system of economic management by corporations is not a republican form of government.  It is fascism and we should color it RED.

Words Matter

Words Matter.  Ideas Matter.  In 1996, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development produced a report titled, Sustainable America: A New Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Health Environment for the Future.  In Chapter 4, Strengthening Communities, Policy Recommendation 2,  the includes policy recommendations for government encouragement of coalitions of “stakeholders” to engage in collaborative regional planning:  “Encourage communities in a region to work together to deal with issues that transcend jurisdictional and other boundaries”.

In May of 1999, the final report to the President was titled, Towards a Sustainable America: Advancing Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment for the 21st Century was published.  The following is from Chapter 3, Recommendation 7, page 54.

Foster a collaborative regional approach to environmental protection.

Generally, environmental management is place dependent… Since contaminants move from place to place, communities in one place cannot disregard the fact that contaminants travel elsewhere.

… Solutions can be strengthened by building on the regional nature of some environmental concerns30,  and by tapping the resources and expertise of affected jurisdictions to devise and implement solutions…Regional, state, and local collaboration are essential in achieving sustainable environmental management, especially in natural resource and land use decisions. Regional- and state-level collaboration can take multiple forms and occur at different points in the same geographic area….

…Target indicators for sustainable development include, for example, water use, air and water quality, energy consumption, solid waste, education and business infrastructure, transportation, natural resource assets, and overall economic progress.

[Note:  Do read the footnotes noticing the titles of the publications listed.  Page 122 (adobe)]

To manage all of the environmentally related aspects of a region is to manage the behaviors of citizens by extension.  The government becomes the club to bludgeon citizens into compliance with policy and edicts that serve the interests of the managers.  There is a big difference between a government for the people and a management system that operates for the benefit of special interests. The regional commissions established to manage a region are unelected and unaccountable to the people no matter how many facilitated stakeholder meetings they hold.  The system of regional management is not a republican form of government.  We don’t vote them in and we can’t vote them out.

Green Communists in Idaho

In 1996, Brent Coles was the Mayor of Boise and a member of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.  Mayor Coles met Christine Saum, Executive Director of the Mayors’ Institute of City Design (MICD) and Dena Belzer, an economist and founder of Strategic Economics in Berkeley, California at a meeting of the MICD.

… the two women suggested to Coles that he host a regional forum on growth and development issues.  “Saum and Belzer helped by inviting several national experts on economics, city planning, open space, growth and transportation issues to speak at the conference. The primary players were the elected officials of nine local jurisdictions: the cities of Boise, Caldwell, Eagle, Kuna, Garden City, Meridian, Nampa, Parma and Ada and Canyon Counties.” ~ The Treasure Valley Partnership history.

The goals they established for what became the Treasure Valley Partnership (a partnership of elected officials from different jurisdictions) were:

Treasure Valley Partnership Goals

1. Create coherent regional growth and development patterns (such as coordinated investment in waste water treatment plans, cooperation on managing storm water runoff and finding ways to conserve ground water reserves)

2. Link land use and transportation (increasing transit use, creation of bike and pedestrian trails, and of greenbelt areas)

3. Reinforce community identities and their sense of place (involves development of a vision for the region’s future that honors each locality’s unique characteristics), and

4. Protect and enhance open space and recreational opportunities (in part by encouraging acquisition and preservation of interconnected open space).

The Partnership also agreed on the cross jurisdictional structure of the committee and memorandums of understanding on first responder issues.  They agreed to limit the partnership to elected representatives because issues such as land use and police powers can only be dealt with by elected representatives.

“Before the Partnership, police in one city or county couldn’t arrest suspects across jurisdictional lines. They had to go through a complicated process to follow, arrest and prosecute criminals. And ambulances couldn’t assist people in cases where they were over the county lines, even if the “appropriate” ambulance was much further from an accident! We got an early win during the first year when the Partnership members began to sign memos of understandings (MOUs) allowing their respective ambulances and police officers to cross jurisdictional lines.”

In 1998, an organization called Idaho Smart Growth notified the Treasure Valley Partners of an EPA federal grant opportunity.  The EPA grant program at the time was the Sustainable Development Challenge Grant (SDCG) program that was designed to incentivize the implementation of the priorities defined in the Clinton Administration’s Reinvention of Environmental Regulation report that was published in 1995.   The 1992 Earth Summit Conference and the implementation of Agenda 21 were the driving forces behind the Reinvention of Environmental Regulations project.  The following is an excerpt from the SDCG that was published in the Federal Register [August 24, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 163) Notices; Page 45155-45161].

The Sustainable Development Challenge Grant program strongly encourages partnering among community members, business and government entities to work cooperatively to develop flexible, locally-oriented approaches that link place-based environmental management and quality of life activities with sustainable development and revitalization…More detailed information is available via Internet at:

The Sustainable Development Challenge Grant program is consistent with other community-based efforts EPA has introduced, such as the Brownfields Initiative, Environmental Justice Small Grants Program, Project XL, the President’s American Heritage Rivers Initiative, Watershed Protection Approach, Transportation Partners, the $mart Growth Network, the Community-Based Environmental Protection Approach, and the Sustainable Urban Environment effort. The Sustainable Development Challenge Grant program is also a step in implementing  “Agenda 21, the Global Plan of Action on Sustainable Development,” signed by the United States at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. All of these programs require broad community participation to identify and address environmental issues.

Through the Sustainable Development Challenge Grant program, EPA also intends to further the vision and goals of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), created in 1993 by President Clinton. EPA is coordinating existing urban environmental programs within the Agency and with other federal, state and local agencies. The President charged the Council, composed of corporate, government, and non-profit representatives, to find ways to “bring people together to meet the needs of the present without jeopardizing the future.”

To kick off the Treasure Valley Partnership, they received two grants:

  • The Partnership was awarded a $510,000 grant from the FHWA for the development of a regional approach to growth issues and preservation of our quality of life
  • The Partnership received a grant award of $250,000 to improve energy efficiency in city and county owned buildings.

On the current website of the Treasure Valley Partnership, it says that the first grant was:

“to work with Idaho Smart Growth and COMPASS to develop alternative land use and transportation patterns in the valley.”

The grant was for the Transportation and Community System Preservation Act (TCSP) which was a program included under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, Title 1, Section 2221.

The name of the project that the grant paid for was the Treasure Valley Futures: Alternative Choices for the American West.   In plain language, the grant was for community organizing.  One of the demonstration projects that the grant paid for was for the students of the University of Idaho to design a community using the small farm town of Star, Idaho as their project.

I have written a lot about Star, Idaho over the years trying to piece together what happened there because it was a location for the subprime mortgage meltdown because they built houses for which there was no market; where there was no infrastructure; because there was a lot of grant funding and the end goal of all of it was to get a cross jurisdictional land use planning agreement to enable a commission for central economic planning of the region above the elected representative government based in law of the land.

The story about Star and the regional land use and economic planning could be a case study for political scientists in the failure of socialist economic planning and the success of socialist movement building – organizing useful and youthful idiots toward conversion to a socialist system of governance committing sedition in the process.

What happened in Star and in Ada and Canyon Counties is not a unique situation.  It happened all over the country.  The administrative agencies of the federal government coordinated the programs and the funding to incentivize regionalism and Agenda 21 structurally weakening the bonds of our Constitutionally land-based system of government. Maybe someday someone will take all of the pieces of the story and put them together to tell how the globalists went about re-organizing us right out of our government setting us up for the collapse of the nation-state.