Editor’s Note: From the source, we received an update from the Dept. of the Interior (DOI) Reorganization of Regional Boundaries…file under ‘one more step toward centralized, socialized, planned society of the future’.

February 28, 2018
In order to provide states and state partners with early, meaningful and substantive input on the development of U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) policies and initiatives, on January 11th and January 12th, DOI held briefing calls with Governors, local governments and stakeholders to discuss and solicit feedback regarding a draft map of DOI unified regional boundaries.

The discussion was focused on establishing unified regional boundaries for the Bureaus within the Department. On these calls, DOI discussed how these proposed boundary changes would reduce administrative redundancy, share resources more effectively, improve coordination among federal, state and local agencies, drive more decisions to be made at the regional level rather than in Washington DC and facilitate joint problem-solving.

Most importantly, as part of a clear and accountable process with states and state partners, DOI asked for feedback from Governors, local governments and stakeholders on the draft unified regional boundary map and concept and the greater process of reorganizing the Department of the Interior.

After receiving input from Governors, local governments and stakeholders, DOI has revised the draft unified regional boundary map and it is attached for your review. As stated in previous communications, the original draft unified regional boundary map followed watersheds and ecosystems as the concept is to organize boundaries with common features and issues. As you will see, the new iteration of this draft map reflects the input and concerns raised regarding splitting states into multiple regions. The new draft unified regional boundary map follows state lines, with few exceptions, but also follows the intent of these boundaries being organized along watersheds and ecosystems.

I have attached the latest draft unified regional boundary map, a map of the current DOI Bureau regional boundaries for context, a one page document outlining the need for unified boundaries, a two page outline of the goals of reorganization and next steps, and an updated FAQ. Hopefully these resources will answer some of the questions you may have regarding the unified regional boundary concept and the greater reorganization effort.

I cannot express this clearly enough. The U.S. Department of Interior values your input and feedback as we continue with this process. Please continue to send us ideas, thoughts, and concerns. Also, if you would like to set up a conference call or meeting to discuss in further detail, I am happy to help facilitate.

Todd

—

Todd M. Wynn
Director of the Office of Intergovernmental and External Affairs
Office of the Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
Desk: (202) 208-6649
Cell: (202) 897-7269
NOTE: Every email I send or receive is subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act.

Current Regional Boundaries (Map)

Draft Unified Boundary Map February 2018 (Map)

FAQ about why current regional boundaries are being changed.

Overview of Boundary Reorganization

Unified Regional Boundaries Summary

Congress is selling out our government to the United Nations and its goals.

We’ve had personal correspondence with this guy. His name is Zack Huhn. When I ask him what the heck he thinks he is doing, he says he’s “confused”.

He claims his organization has nothing to do with the UN, their SDG goals or regionalism, and in fact, never even uses the word “regionalism”.

But now, on March 13, he is planning the launch of a congressional caucus (more like a group with permanent lobbying status and access to our legislators in DC) under the auspices of his group “Venture Smarter”. He is doing this WITH THE HELP OF CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS like Darrell Issa (R).

In an article written by Zack Huhn, Venture Smarter CEO, he describes:

“For cities and nations dedicated to the UN SDG’s, the foundation is especially appealing as a means by which to shorten project timeframes and enhance outcomes.”

Does that sound like he’s not at all connected to the United Nations agenda as he claims?

He says “For Cities, we might call them “Smart City Development Goals,” but the foundational principals remain the same: 100% Connected.”

He concludes with this: “The UN SDG’s are a good model, but no easy feat. By focusing on smart and connected development first, we will streamline efforts related to each of the United Nations Sustainable Development goal as we build smart cities and connected communities rooted in solutions that create better places to live, work, and visit.

Interested in setting Smart and Connected Development Goals in your region? Get in touch! (e) hello@venturesmarter.com “

Indeed. Someone ought to email Zack and ask why he lied to me. This is the UN agenda on steroids. Complete connectivity and 100% CONTROL over all human “settlements”, land ownership, property rights, transportation modes, food distribution, and educational content.

Read the whole article here…

They want your soul…

Related Link… The Connection of SDGs to the Smart Cities

Listen to Zack Huhn, self-described ‘conservative’, speaking about ‘smart cities’ and you decide if he’s promoting Agenda 2030 or not.

Direct link: https://youtu.be/gYUSMF2Acn8

There will always be doubters, and those who harbor ‘normalcy bias’ in that they think it can’t happen here. Let them read about what this is, where the philosophy comes from and how it threatens the lifestyles of everyone in the future.

“The nation is being transformed under the banner of “Sustainable Development.”

We are assured by elected officials that Sustainable Development is simply a tool or a guideline to help direct the carefully-planned growth of our cities and rural areas while protecting our natural resources for future generations. “We must guard against a chaotic, unregulated growth in our cities,” say its earnest proponents as they sell the concept through familiar, non-threatening words and beautiful pictures.”

“Citizens are assured by their community leaders that all such plans are just local, local, local, created with the participation of the whole community. Sustainable Development policy, they say, is just an environmental land conservation policy, a sensible development policy. Sustainable…what’s wrong with that?”

“As usual, the answers are hidden in the details. Are we hearing the truth? What are the consequences of the policy that has taken over every level of government? Are there hidden dangers most just can’t see? Or, as its proponents claim, is opposition to Sustainable Development really just a silly, overblown conspiracy theory found in a twenty-year-old meaningless document called Agenda 21?”

“The Sustainablists use such innocent, attractive sounding descriptions of their plans for us. Then they deny they are even doing it, and anyone who calls them on it is labeled a fringe nut. But there is another way to say it, a much older description of Sustainable Development that explains the motivation behind the policy in a much more direct manner: “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” If you recognize that quote, then you fully understand the true nature of Sustainable Development.”

And finally, “First, does this sound like something your local planners may have said? “The chaotic growth of cities will be replaced by a dynamic system of urban settlement… The region is formed by the economic interdependence of its development, from the industrial complex to the industrial region. The region has a single system of transportation, a centralized administration, and a united system of education and research.” This was written in 1968 by Alexei Gutnov. He was a Soviet Russian architect writing in a book titled The Ideal Communist City.”

Read More…

The UN is still hard at work, planning to organize us under their vision of government divisions.

The UN’s New Urban Agenda is not just for cities, but for rural populations as well, all of whom will be ‘assigned’ to their nearest city-region. Sustainable Development and city planning if part and parcel of Technocracy.⁃ TN Editor

The phrase “human settlement” formally entered the United Nations lexicon during the Habitat I conference held in Vancouver in 1976, coined to acknowledge that all settlements, whether urban or rural, fell under the purview of the U.N.’s new Human Settlements Programme, now known as UN-Habitat.

Now, the Habitat Agenda has been supplanted by a new strategy: the New Urban Agenda, the consensus declaration adopted at Habitat III. In name, at least, this is a document that focuses explicitly on the urban. So how does this new strategy look at the rural end of the spectrum?

For the most part, the rural finds mention in the 24-page document as part of a compound: “urban-rural”. The agenda doesn’t have a separate vision for rural settlements and rural development; rather, it links the growth of urban development with that of rural areas. The resulting “urban-rural linkages” came to receive significant attention during the run-up to Habitat III, including in a technical “issue paper” that described these linkages as “flows of people, capital, goods, employment, information and technology”.

New Urban Agenda: Regional Planning Integrates Control Over Urban And Rural Populations

Related: S. 1904 Must Be Stopped

An NGO we write about often called “Smart Growth America” is now bragging that they are the new experts on ‘form based code’. Recall that they have claimed that millennials prefer city living with no cars or homes of their own, to rural living and ownership of homes and automobiles. We suggest they doth protest too much.

“Form-based codes often serve as the regulatory framework for smart growth in communities across the country,” Scot Spencer, Smart Growth America’s board chair and Associate Director of Advocacy and Influence at the Annie E. Casey Foundation, noted in the official press release announcing the merger.

The nerve of these people to speak about ethics!

Hildebrant says: “Hildebrandt broke down the smart city model into five main tenets. Firstly, a smart city uses a digital infrastructure that is standardized and safe. Secondly, it provides room for research and experimentation, allowing for collaboration between the public and private sectors. Thirdly, it requires a new government system, where officials work directly with citizens to achieve goals. Fourthly, it will ideally promote and improve education and increase employment. Finally, the smart city will work as a network with other smart cities, and using this regional collaboration, it will be more effective and efficient at creating change and progress.”

As we and others have written about before, ‘smart’ cities are less about your needs and desires, and more about the desire to regionalize and eventually globalize American government, government under the corporations.

The “public/private partnerships” seen in an expanded view are truly rule by corporations, nothing more. America will be seen and divided as economic regions and people will be used and exploited for the government. Now you know why education geared to ‘workers’ and property is referred to as ‘settlements’.

As we have proven many times before, regionalism is just one small step toward the bigger goal of rearranging the normal political divisions of a constitutional republic into networks of global “megacities” resulting in the loss of local control. The loss of local control is clearly cited as one of the barriers to urbanism and regionalism. Regionalism is but one step toward a unified world government, and consolidating countries into “unions” such as the EU, an even larger step.

Due to the recent unfortunate events in Florida there has been much debate over gun control. Some deny that gun control may lead to total gun confiscation.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other pro-second amendment groups who merely seek to preserve the right to keep and bear arms, have come under criticism. Those crying for gun control are claiming these groups oppose any gun control because of fears that it would lead to total gun confiscation. We believe the NRA and other groups may be 100% CORRECT.

The United Nations does seek TOTAL SMALL ARMS DISARMAMENT, not just the abolition of nuclear weapons. (The knotted gun sculpture at their New York headquarters might give a hint.) Our federal government has been proven to be 100% committed to the UN agenda, as if our constitution did not exist. This conclusion is easy to reach after merely perusing all the information gleaned from UN’s multitudinous websites outlining all their treaties, compacts, commissions, and resolutions, and their push toward regionalism and the subsequent creation of regional councils in the USA, governing bodies which would replace LOCAL CONTROL. You can see that this agenda has been adopted by examining your US State Department website where they are up front and in your face: DHS Promotes Agenda 21 and Smart Cities – Some of the US’s Agenda 2030 Goals (example) – US State Department’s Global Goals

What more proof does anyone need? To continue to believe that there are no mandates from or authority held by the UN is to ignore the voluntary adoption of these ideas by our Federal and State governments.

Those who say there is “no such thing” as the goal of total gun confiscation and/or one world government by way of regionalism are sadly uninformed and naive.

Why you are receiving a second update to this article: PLEASE READ! We just learned that this is a bill in congress that would basically allow lobbyists and their corporate sponsors a permanent voice in the US legislature! They will basically codify regionalism! No more excuses about it being “voluntary”.

See the bill here: Summary: S.1904 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)

“This bill directs the Departments of Commerce, Energy, House and Urban Development, and Transportation, the National Science Foundation, and, as appropriate, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Labor, and State to establish the Interagency Council on Smart Cities to promote coordination of the activities and funding from federal agencies related to smart cities or communities.”

Note: A very important update to this article has been made today, 2-15-2018, which is why you are getting a second notice to read it. We actually spoke to the person in charge of Venture Smarter. The man seems not to understand the agenda he is supporting. Please scroll to the bottom of the article to see the update. ~ Editor

Seems that even with Republican majorities in both the NH legislature and US congress we can never be guaranteed that conservative policy will prevail.

Perhaps those Republicans who helped create this group and participated in it, should be voted out.

Take this newly formed Congressional Caucus on Smart Cities

“Venture Smarter is proud to support federal, state, and local efforts to build smart cities and regions across the country. We are especially happy to support the bi-partisan congressional effort led by Congresswoman Clarke and Congressman Issa.”

Doesn’t Darrel Issa know that regionalism is the step toward one world government, which is socialism, and whose political divisions have no regard for our constitutional republic?

Addendum: We spoke with Mr. Zack Huhn from the Venture Smarter group. He claimed his group had nothing to do with Agenda 2030, regionalism or establishing regional governments. Oh really? He stated “regionalism isn’t a word we use”. Oh really?

Linked on the page is this: Smart Regions Congress Leadership Forum He then ironically asked me if I was “familiar with Metropolitan Planning Organizations or Regional Councils of Government”. Oh dear. What does he think their agenda is?

He said he was a “bit confused”. We think he is VERY confused if he thinks his group is not part of this globalist attempt to change how we govern ourselves by changing the political divisions of the country.