(Written by Kathleen Marquardt, an associate of Tom DeWeese)

There is a myriad of ways to take our property – and the “powers-that-be are using them and more that they just make up on the spot.

We’ve written about many in our Workbook, in Tom DeWeese’s Sustainable, and in scores of articles. And in more ways than most of us could ever conceive of an act being pulled-off, for instance killing hundreds of ostriches because a couple of years earlier two had been ill but recovered. In fact, the government of Canada had them shot! Another example is capturing” CO2 from atmosphere and compressing and storing it in geological formations. I won’t even get into what could go wrong or, even more, how absurd it is to take CO2 from the atmosphere where we and plants thrive on it.

Many people do not realize that “property” is more than land or a house. Your clothes, your written words, the food in your house and the gas in your car are your property. And your children. Don’t think those taking other forms of your property won’t touch your children.

The U.S. Supreme Court defines property:

“As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels. Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U.S. 141, 21 S.Ct. 48, 45 L.Ed. 126.

Note: Chattel represents physical, transferable items like furniture, jewelry, cars, or livestock. It is used to distinguish personal belongings from real property.

Keep in mind that if you have nothing, you are chattel – you are property.

So, let’s look at the Columbia River Basin and the “New Compact”. I am using Catherine Vandemoer, Ph.D.’s report “Meet the New Compact, Same as the Old” to give you the background of the Columbia River Basin project introduced to Montana in 1993.

At that time we were told that the project was to take the area back to pre-Columbian times. Note:Dr. Vandemoer’s words will be in Times New Roman.

Dr. Vandemoer has been following this issue for years, and her writings on it are invaluable. She points out that Senator Daines “put forth the same bill that Senator Tester had done earlier – the CSKT Compact in full, ‘wrapped” it into the “new” Daines Compact and then added ‘new’ and more ‘goodies’ than even the Democrat did,” in addressing the Western Montana portion of the Columbia River Basin Project.

“As with the Tester bill, the intent of the Dains Compact is to have us all now be distracted by the “goodies” and forget about the documented problems with and substance of the provision of The original CSKT Compact whose true economic, environmental, and nation-wide legal precedent-setting impacts have never been examined.

“Sprinkled into the public relations campaign are the statements that the bill 'removes 97 percent of the off-reservation water rights' but fails to mention that this '97%percent' only refers to Flathead Lake claim and two associated tributaries. Thus, while the Dains bill only removes 97 percent of the Flathead Lake claim, the Tribes retained millions of acre feet of off reservation water from Hungry Horse Reservoir, the Swan, the Kootenai, the Clark Fork, and co-ownership in the Bitterroot River, as in stream flow, with mostly time immemorial priority dates; and also retain the 10,000 claims filed by the tribes/U.S. after the compact passed. None of the off-reservation claims are federal reserve water rights under the Winters doctrine. If the senator was following the Winter’s doctrine, he would have removed 100 percent of the off-reservation water claims and compelled the United States to formally withdraw the 10,000 claims.”

When the CSKT issue was initially brought to us, it was through a consensus meeting[1] televised from Washington D.C. to sites in western Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. I doubt if many there, if any, knew what was being planned – participants being brainwashed to swallow any and all of the ideas directed toward us re changing to make-up and governance of the entire Columbia River Basin.

As the EPA states it:

Since 2020, the EPA Columbia River Basin Restoration Program has competed and awarded 64 grants totaling almost $94 million (including incremental funding yet to be awarded), to state, Tribal, and local governments, universities, and nonprofits. This does not include over $119 million in leveraged funds from partners within the Basin.

Eighteen Toxics Reduction Lead and Tribal Lead cooperative agreements are underway, with $10 million in new science and monitoring awards just getting started. Many focus on developing toxics reduction strategies for portions of the Basin, as well as subawards creating new jobs for on-the- ground toxics reduction work.

Keep in mind, this is just the Columbia River Basin watershed plan. Attached below shows the rest of the area which make up the regionalization of North America drawn in 2009.

Why regionalization? As I wrote in The Activist Handbook, regionalism was designed to take away our elected governance. Non-elected regional government has been in the works here in the U.S. since 1909. Yep, 1909. In May 2009, 43 planners met in Washington, D.C., at the First National Planning Conference. It is considered to be “the birth of the planning movement in America. By the ‘60’s the American Institute of Planners are “drawing no line between public and private property, believing that land-use control should be vested in government and that[2] public planners should have sole right to control the use of all land.”

Why am I showing you this? For one reason — because the CSKT project is one of the ways our country is being divided up into areas governed by unelected individuals and bodies who have no desire to see constitutional governance or private property rights. These areas are overlapped by other non-constitutional bodies designed under 15-minute cities, and a whole gamut of designated governmental bodies — remember the 5 Counties, One Vision”, or “Bay Area Regional Plan, etc? These are overlapping parts or each other so that there is confusion over rights and regulations – so you do not realize that parts of your property can have restrictions even your next-door neighbor may not have. It’s far easier to take a single (or a few) property by some nefarious regulation – that way, there are few protesting and fighting the taking.

Here’s the version in the CSKT issue:

In “Western Montana Water Rights ~ keeping western Montanans informed about the Flathead Reservation Water Compact, we read:

A central feature of the CSKT Compact involves the replacement of the Montana Water Use Act[17] with a new compact-created administration system that permits a political entity to have jurisdiction over the water rights of Montana citizens whether based in federal, state, or tribal law. Known as the Unitary Management Ordinance or Law of Administration, it vests the power to manage the state law-based water rights and uses of Montana citizens in a politically-appointed and unaccountable board dominated by the CSKT.

What more do I need to say?

________________________________

[1] The Consensus Meeting or Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. “Facilitators” use their understanding of group dynamics to ensure a predetermined outcome.It is said to have been created by Rand Corp as a psy-op by the CIA. Consensus is built on German Philosopher Georg Hegel: take opposing points of view and combine into a synthesis – a collective opinion that doesn’t represent anyone’s view. It is not a compromise, but a new ideal to be universally supported – preserves illusion of community participation. Marx introduced process of marginalization, alienation, ostracism and eventually isolation – people will do almost anything to avoid ridicule. Alinsky used these tactics. Many of their tactics came from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War.• Meetings are run by professional manipulators – provocateurs, change agents, agitators, facilitators and moderators, brought in from the outside to sell you on an idea.

• It is easier to control a group than an individual which is why they collectivize the meetings.

• Work to alienate individuals who start needing each other more than their principles.

• Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon – almost impossible to counter ridicule.

• Seek unanimity (collective opinion) disguised as consensus (group solidarity and general agreement).

• Control the “psychological environment” setting up mass neurosis leading to cognitive dissonance, a highly stressful emotional reaction caused by trying to reconcile two opposing beliefs simultaneously. Used by the Left to confuse opponents – especially children – to establish group-think.

• Psychological impact considered paramount, not facts, principles or right and wrong.

• Only questions that support the predetermined plan are allowed.

• Pose hypotheticals.

• Legitimize and institutionalize unpopular policies before anyone knows what hit them.

• Deceive into believing gut reactions are solutions to problems.

• Pass off false cause, dubious evidence, misaligned cause-effect, contradictory and arguments as legitimate hypothesis or even facts, etc.

[2] Jo Hindman writing about urban planning.

____________________

Kathleen Marquardt has been an advocate for property rights and freedom for decades. While not intending to be an activist, she has become a leader and an avid supporter of constitutional rights, promoter of civility, sound science, and reason. She is dedicated to exposing the fallacies of the radical environmental and animal rights movements. She has been featured in national publications including Fortune, People, the Washington Post, and Field and Stream, as well as television news programs such as Hard Copy, The McLaughlin Group, Geraldo, and many others. Today, she serves as Vice President of the American Policy Center. Kathleen now writes and speaks on Agenda21/2030, and its threat to our culture and our system of representative government.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Phone: (540) 341-8911

contact@americanpolicy.org