STORMS PRUNE TREES - MAYBE WE SHOULD FINE GOD

UPDATE on this article: The Charlotte Observer reports the city is relenting on enforcing the fines against Albemarle Rd. Presbyterian Church. Evidently the national shame and public outrage caused Charlotte bureaucrats to backtrack and let the church off the hook for the $4700.00 fine. Good!

The following article was picked up by Drudge, which is where I found it. Don't you love it when government won't let you prune your trees? Who owns the trees on your property? What is property? Hmmmm...now there is a question.

If I own apple trees, do I have to pay the city a fine to pick my own apples?? What if I pick my apples before they fall to the ground to rot? Maybe that is an insult to Gaia. After all, if we weren't there to pick the apples, then Gaia could feed Her critters.

We need to buy a permit to prune our own trees? Ca-ching!

You should see my neighborhood trees after the last two or three storms. We've lost BIG trees and little trees and lots and lots of limbs. We've been spending a lot of time with chain saws and picking up tree debris all over the place. Maybe we could demand the city pay us for picking up what nature has strewn on all of our yards and public streets?? I mean, really. Since we can't be responsible for the trees on our own property, maybe the city should send in an army of limb pickers. Um...no thank you very much.

By the way, if a tree limb falls in the city, does anyone hear it?? Evidently the Charlotte city bureaucrats have big ears. The better to ring the city cash register with, my dear.

Charlotte Church fined for pruning tree

By Brittany Penland
Correspondent

Posted: Saturday, May. 28, 2011

Eddie Sales looks over some of the trimmed crape myrtles on the grounds of Albemarle Road Presbyterian Church. Diedra Laird - dlaird@charlotteobserver.com

Every two to three years, Eddie Sales trims and prunes the crape myrtles at his church, Albemarle Road Presbyterian Church.

But this year, the city of Charlotte cited the church for improperly pruning its trees.

"We always keep our trees trimmed back because you don't want to worry about them hanging down in the way," said Sales, a church member.

The church was fined $100 per branch cut for excessive pruning, bringing the violation to $4,000.

"I just couldn't believe it when I heard about it," Sales said. "We trim our trees back every three years all over our property, and this is the first time we have been fined."

The fine will be dropped if the church replaces each of the improperly pruned trees, said Tom Johnson, senior urban forester for city of Charlotte Land Development Division.

"When they are nonrepairable, when they have been pruned beyond repair, we will ask them to be replaced," Johnson said. "We do that for a number of reasons but mainly because they are going to come back unhealthy and create a dangerous situation down the road."

Charlotte has had a tree ordinance since 1978, and when trees are incorrectly pruned or topped, people can be subject to fines, Johnson said.

Trees planted as a result of the ordinance are subject to the fines if they are excessively trimmed or pruned. These include trees on commercial property or street trees. They do not include a private residence.

"The purpose of the tree ordinance is to protect trees," Johnson said. "Charlotte has always been known as the city of trees. When we take down trees, we need to replace these trees."

Individuals who would like to trim their trees should call the city foresters to receive a free permit to conduct the landscape work.

Foresters will then meet with the person receiving the permit and give instructions on how to properly trim their trees, Johnson said.

The state Division of Forestry recommends that anyone trimming trees should be certified by the National Horticulture Board, but certification is not required to receive a permit.

On private property, fine amounts are based on the size of the tree improperly pruned. For small trees such as cherry trees or crape myrtles, the fine is $75 per tree. Excessive cutting can increase that fine to $100 per branch.

For large trees such as oaks or maples, the fine is $150 per tree.

Because there is a widespread lack of understanding on how to prune crape myrtles in the Charlotte area, Johnson said, residents found in violation regarding these trees are asked to simply replace them, and the fine will be lifted.

Sales said trees found in violation at the church must be cut down and replaced with new trees by October, but the church plans to appeal. Sales doesn't know how much it would cost to replace the trees.

"We trimmed back these trees in the interest of the church," Sales said. "If we were in violation, we certainly did not know we were."

Typically during the course of a year, Johnson said, about six private residents are found in violation of improper topping or pruning.

"We are trying to be pro-active and not trying to fine people excessively," Johnson said.

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/05/28/2333197/church-fined-for-improper-tree.html#ixzz1NtWGwIla

WHEN LIARS TAKE OVER YOUR LIFE - AGW BUNK

Original promo from Fox show "Lie to me"

"The earth is flat!" Oops, no it isn't. "AGW is causing the planet to kill us all!" (translation- you bad humans are killing us all) Oops, not!!

I have had friends who are so convinced of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) that talking with them is like talking to a programmed robot. Even worse, they have been so arrogant in their ignorance that they scoff and ridicule others who know the truth that AGW is a dangerous myth of very bad environmental mistruths. Well, I guess that is the Alinsky rule...to ridicule those who take an opposing view from you own. My experience is that you can tell them the truth until you are blue in the face, but they won't listen. And that is why AGW is so dangerous. Because it is a lie and because it is being used as the premise for government control of nearly everything in our lives. The AGW / IPCC (from the UN) crowd has committed fraud upon the world and created an environmental religion on a huge scale. Thankfully some are finally realizing the scam. I'm still waiting for those former friends to recognize their errors and regain their footing in the real world. Unfortunately, I may go to my grave waiting.

AGW is the premise for Smart Growth and Sustainable Development, two names for the same plan of government controls of everything you do and everything you own. If you strip away the falsehoods of the original premise of AGW, Smart Growth and Sustainable Development are shown for exactly what they are, schemes for government controls.

Thankfully we are recently seeing a few politicians and candidates standing up for the truth and seeing through the scam. Others, not so much. Unfortunately, while Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey signed the state out of the cap and trade scam, RGGI, he still asserted he believes in global warming. So for those of you who think Chris Christie is the answer to conservative prayers, you better think again. Good signs though below:
More NJ legislators denounce RGGI
GOP Candidates Back Off Global Warming

I hope this trend continues, and not just for political expediency, but for the sake of truth winning over power.

Convincing masses of people of lies is not a new phenomenon. Been around since time began. The way to control masses of people is to make them believe what you want them to believe so you may impose your will on them. If you are a liar, then you are doubly foul in my opinion..first because you want to impose your will on others, and second because you would lie to do it.

Our mission, (Mr. Phelps would say) should we choose to accept it, is to spread the truth around on AGW and let people know the "good news" that human beings are not destroying the environment. There is no reason for cap and trade, or RGGI, or Smart Growth, or Sustainable Development. Responsible environmental stewardship does not mean you should allow the government to take away your rights, more taxes, your energy, your light bulbs, your anything.

Science and Public Policy.org - Source for Information

FYI:
As I researched this issue this morning I discovered another myth...this one on Galileo and the Flat Earth premise we have been teaching in public schools, at least since I was a child.
Jamie Kiley blog on Galileo and the Myth of the Flat Earthers

"The idea that that people of the Middle Ages believed in a flat earth didn’t originate until the 1830s. This idea was introduced by a couple people contemporaneously, one of whom was Washington Irving (who created Rip Van Winkle, and who had a reputation for writing historical fiction under the guise of fact).

In reality, the concept of a spherical earth has been around at least since Pythagoras in the 6th century BC, according to Dr. Jeffrey Burton Russell. After the 3rd century BC, almost no educated person believed in a flat earth.

Yet despite this fact, it’s a very common myth that the earth was discovered to be spherical only recently. So how come the myth is so prevalent?

Russell’s answer: The defense of Darwinism. Painting medieval Christians as flat-earthers was handy ammunition against creationists, because it helps to imply that Christianity gets in the way of science."

Flat Earthers History

So it was Darwinism that convinced Americans and the world that believers in God were believers in the Flat Earth premise....when all along that was also a myth....I mean, lie! Things that make you go..hmmmmm.

Are we having fun yet??

HOW MANY WAYS CAN THEY SPEND YOUR MONEY?

U.S. Embassy / U.S. Taxes Sponsor Gay Film Festival in Bulgaria

"The U.S. Embassy joins the British, German, French, and Swiss Embassies in announcing the start of the Sofia Pride International Film Series in honor of Gay and Lesbian Pride Month, which is celebrated each year in June. The series features one movie selected by each of the five sponsoring embassies, and aims to promote acceptance of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) rights in Bulgaria by examining the different issues and challenges which members of the LGBT community face in today’s world. All films will include Bulgarian subtitles."

This article caught my attention for two reasons, both having to do with my son who is career Air Force. Pursuing endeavors that take advantage of his masters degree in International Relations, he was recently on duty with the U.S. Embassy in Bulgaria for five weeks. While there, one of the first persons to greet him thanked him profusely for the contributions from the American George Soros. Say what?? Yes, that is what I said. My son hardly knew how to react but to say he had no knowledge of George Soros' contributions to Bulgaria. Turns out Mr. Soros is doing to Bulgaria the same thing he has done to most other countries in which he involves himself, using his money to prop up the supposed disenfranchised in order to shake up the "status quo" in said country. In this case, Soros is propping up some group of gypsies, called the ROMA movement. (My understanding, however limited, is that gypsies are happy being gypsies and have no interest in being mainstreamed into other cultures. The few I have known about lived quite deliberately separate and apart from the rest of the society in the town in which I grew up.) Then...during the last days he was there, my son also related something about how the U.S. Embassy was involved in helping the inclusiveness of gays into the Bulgarian society.

Second reason: Now that he is back in the U.S. my son has recently been involved in officer training regarding the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This "training" involved a Catholic priest, a former career officer, a gay officer, and someone else....I don't remember who. The four speakers to the group gave an afternoon of justification and apologetics for the supposed "rights of gays" and how the military can and will impose the gay lifestyle into the regular traditions of the Air Force. The gist was how wonderful it is all going to be for everyone. (Things that make you go hmmmmm)

I will not convey to you my son's opinions on all of this. His opinions are his own and shall remain so.

But I will give you my opinion. The idea that the U.S. State Department is using American taxpayers' dollars to encourage and prop up the gay / homosexual lifestyle in any country is a travesty, here or abroad. What on earth is the point of that? The left started out this conversation on gays a few years ago saying we all needed to be tolerant. So fine...we are all tolerant. Then it became not just tolerance, but advocacy. There is a difference between tolerance and advocacy. Now it is outright promotion of everything homosexual or bisexual or trans-sexual or any variation of gender issue you can think of being proselytized in our elementary schools. Kindergartners being taught there are more than two genders"

And now we find out this: The percentage of gays in our society is very much lower than has previously been reported by the media and by university professors ...and by our government agencies. The actual percentage is more like 1.7 percent, as opposed to the inflated figures from the Kinsey report decades ago. From Traditional Values.org Huffington Post article

From a Gary Gates, who is a demographer-in-residence at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, a think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles, the article states: "Gates' best estimate, derived from five studies that have asked subjects about their sexual orientation, is that the nation has about 4 million adults who identify as being gay or lesbian, representing 1.7 percent of the 18-and-over population."

I wonder how much of our taxes are being spent to promote gay marriage in all of the 50 states? How much of our money is being spent in courts on this issue. How much of our money is being spent in our schools to promote "gayness." And all because less than two percent of our population has a bent for, let's say, unusual practices?? And remember, we have been mostly tolerant, leaving well enough alone. (I take no credit for encouraging the abuse of people no matter what their sexual preferences are.)

It is the leftists' game...tear down traditional values and replace them with chaotic nonsense. This works to tear down the family, tear down what is thought of as normal behavior, and cause the society to break into incompatible factions. But that is the plan. That is the "Open Society" of Mr. Soros' creation.

So how many ways can they spend our taxes to wreak havoc and take American down?? Keep on counting....

HAVE YOU MET THE NGO?

Philanthropy used to mean that wealthy people or corporations would donate money, out of their own pockets or profits, to good causes for the sake of doing good things. Charity used to mean people would dive into their own wallets to assuage some terrible need or circumstance of suffering.

Welcome to the 21st century and meet the NGO. What does NGO mean? Non Governmental Organization. When something turns into an organization, it usually means forces have gathered to effect something. You can think small, such as a local Chamber of Commerce. Or you can think big, such as the UN. Or you can run for your life, which is what I recommend. You see, the term NGO has become a big deal. Big organizations are moving governments around like chess pieces on a board. NGO's are doing big things within our government and ....who knew?? Does the average voter have knowledge of this?

Recently we have seen the word "stakeholders" when government policies are being made without public ballots or referendums. Who are "stakeholders?" Most often they are NGO's or NGO executives being placed on policy boards. This is happening locally and nationally and globally. Governments on all three of those levels are making policies based on recommendations from NGO's. What does that mean?? That means voters are left out of the process of representational government. It is a pay to play system where the powerful over-ride the consent of the people. In fact, most often, the consent of the people is never requested.

In short, if you are wondering what happened to the "will of the people," I think you might look to the organizational structure of "governance" that has been set up to take our representative republic out of our voters hands. Take a look at this website: For an inkling

So just for illustration purposes, here is one NGO for you to consider: World Business Council on Sustainable Development: WBCSD Here is their FAQ page If you click on Regional Network you will find this quote: "The WBCSD's Regional Network is an alliance of close to 60 CEO-led business organizations united by a shared commitment to providing business leadership for sustainable development in their respective countries or regions." Who might be a member of this World Business network of CEO's?? " James E. Rogers
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Duke Energy Corporation " who is a vice chairman of WBCSD. (Thank you Duke Power, but no thanks...I don't want to be a member of a global NGO that governs what my sustainable worth might be.)

What do these company executives do with WBCSD? "A key element is the personal commitment of the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), acting as Council Members. They are influential advocates for the WBCSD's policy positions, and they co-chair our working groups. They also organize support for the WBCSD's work program and ensure the adoption of sustainable management practices within their companies."

On the history page you will find these entries and more:
1990

Maurice Strong appoints Stephan Schmidheiny his principal advisor for business and industry
Maurice Strong, the Secretary-General of UNCED, invites Swiss businessman Stephan Schmidheiny to be his principal advisor on business and industry and to lead business participation at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.

If you don't know who Maurice Strong is Go here or here Do a google search and you will find out who he is.

Continuing on WBCSD history:
1999

Launch of the UN Global Compact
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan calls for a Global Compact between UN and business. In this context he highlights the efforts of the WBCSD, saying: "The WBCSD has already shown itself an invaluable partner in providing this leadership. Now we need to demonstrate in practice, by concrete example, that doing the right things makes good business sense.

1995 The WBCSD is formed
On 1 January 1995, the World Industry Council for the Environment (WICE) and BCSD merge to form the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). The new organization sets up its headquarters in Geneva with Bjorn Stigson as President.

1998 Stakeholder dialogues begin
The WBCSD establishes its Learning by Sharing program to facilitate the transfer of best practice between members.

2000

Doing sustainable development
The WBCSD starts publishing member company sustainable development best practices with examples from Bayer, Western Power and BC Hydro. There are more than 230 examples today.

2005

10 years again!
In 2005, the WBCSD celebrated its 1995 merger with the WICE.

Strategy to 2015
Looking forward to the next decade of activity, WBCSD adopts its Strategy to 2015. Over the next 10 years the focus of WBCSD's activities will be on advocacy work and getting companies to integrate sustainability concerns into their activities. As part of this effort, the WBCSD defines three key focus areas: Energy & Climate, Development, and the Business Role.

There is more..and current info on that page.

Back to the point..WBCSD is one of hundreds, if not thousands, of both American and global organizations implementing policies that completely disenfranchise the American voters. See: America's Ruling Class by Angelo Codevilla

What does this have to do with you? You've been thrown into the unsustainable bin....the landfill for old school refuse....the dustbin of history. You don't get a vote. You are either in with NGO's or you are out of the picture....completely. When the Duke Power smart meter comes to your house, you won't be asked for permission. When the greenway wants your property, you won't be asked for permission. When GE uses your money to install electric car chargers in your town, you won't be asked for permission. When the RFID chips are placed on your recycling bin, you won't be asked for permission. When the global carbon tax becomes part of your life, you won't be asked permission.

Just want you to meet your new maker....the NGO.

A PANDEMIC OF STUPIDITY - SMART GROWTH VISION PLANS

Time was when I used to love to drive over to Charlotte for shopping and events. This was 20 years ago when it was still easy to navigate the roads and streets, before congestion, when parking was easy and the commerce I sought was readily accessible. It was an enjoyable day or evening trip for the most part. Occasionally I would go to Spirit Square for an event or go to the first Friday art crawl with friends when Jonathan's restaurant was still there. I would run over to Providence Rd. for shopping and dining. I would go to the ASID Designer house event which raised money for the symphony. I would go to a favorite Dr. on East Blvd. upon the need. Gradually that all changed. Now I cringe when even thinking of going to Charlotte. What used to be a fun trip to the city is now a nightmare with odd traffic patterns, fighting traffic congestion, less available parking, and mob scenes in shopping malls. Everything is more difficult to access.

What changed?
Smart Growth is what happened. Growth is one thing. Smart Growth is quite another thing. Smart Growth is planned high density and traffic congestion....by design. The same Smart Growth disease that occurred in Charlotte has come to Gastonia and, sadly, most cities in America.

The Charlotte Vision Plan 2010 is nearly a carbon copy of the Gastonia Vision Plan and of every other plan in the country. Isn't that strange? How could individual cities and individual city councils and mayors in individual topographical locations somehow come up with the same template for their formerly unique cities???

Take a look at the "Overview" of the Charlotte Vision Plan:

To create a memorable Center City Charlotte, future development as well as funding initiatives and improvements will be guided by these principles:

Pedestrian: A Walkable City. Create comfortable and interesting neighborhoods at a human scale.

Mixed: Encourage growth that supports a mix of housing, retail, office and civic spaces, throughout neighborhoods, blocks, and even buildings.

Balanced: Each new initiative for Center City should be considered according to its impact on the larger picture. Memorable cities grow comprehensively.

Leveraged: Optimize each private and public investment through coordination and partnerships between government, neighborhoods, developers and businesses.

Varied: Offer a range of experiences to the community, including urban alternatives such as multi-family housing, mass transit, active parks and vehicle free living.

Designed: Discover the "architecture of Charlotte" that is unique and of the highest standard.

Now take a look at the Gastonia Vision Plan:

1. Make improvements to pedestrian paths and create safe,
walkable, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.
2. Support the revitalization of declining neighborhoods.
3. Increased opportunities for homeownership for various housing
types.
4. Vibrant recreational centers, including walking trails, and
connections to area greenways.
5. Mixed-use transit oriented development centers combine retail,
services, and offices with medium-scale residences to fill the
transition from commercial uses to surrounding neighborhoods.
6. Promote regional cooperation to ensure development outside the
City’s municipal boundary is complementary.
7. Increased opportunities for mixed used high density residential
development with commercial business and health service centers.
8. Redevelopment of abandoned commercial and industrial sites.

Problems cited are:
1. Large lots and low density discourages walking and
bicycling.
2.Street networks tend to consist of two-lane roads
handling far more vehicles than they were designed
for funneling traffic onto major arterials, causing and
congestion on major streets.
3. Roads are designed for mobility of cars as opposed to
accessibility for all modes of transportation.
4. Streets with multiple lanes of traffic; often lack sidewalks.

It goes on to say:
"Therefore, it is essential that the City encourage smart growth and sustainable development principles, which will build from the City’s source of strength–structured around a historic and vibrant downtown, diverse residential neighborhoods, infill development within the Center City, and nodal development along the commercial and institutional spines of the City’s major corridors like Franklin Boulevard and US 321."

If you haven't been here lately, you should see the traffic congestion along Franklin Blvd. created by Smart Growth principles. Evidently there is no other plan but "Smart Growth." There is no development, but "Sustainable Development." The entire country has become a cookie cutter pattern designed by environmentalists who believe space belongs to wildlife and not to people. And there lies the rub. The planning is not for people. In fact it is anti-people planning. In fact, the planning is un-American. The planning has been forced on the U.S. through the U.N., through corrupt American politicians and a corrupt process called "regional governments" who are unelected bureaucrats demanding Smart Growth for bribes....oops, I mean government grants.

It doesn't have to be this way. Believe me. I have one little acre of property. There is wildlife all over my property. I have frogs, birds, bugs, trees, bushes, weeds and wildflowers. I have chipmunks and way too many squirrels. I have hickory nuts and acorns. We have lots of permeable land. I've grown cucumbers, tomatoes, and carrots. We have butterflies and dragonflies. We have occasional owls and hawks and bats. We have an occasional raccoon and rabbits and box turtles. We have occasional black snakes and, once in a while, a very unwelcome copperhead. I even have a walking trail all around the wooded backyard. My one acre lot is supporting a lot more wildlife than if you crammed a high rise apartment building on this one acre. There isn't anything going on here that thwarts wildlife. Maybe I should apply for a government grant for all the wildlife I support with my one little acre. What do you think??

I tell you all of that because neighborhoods with larger lots support more clean air, better water distribution, and "livability" that condensed, high density, congested, "Smart Growth" planned areas ruin. My quality of life on this one acre is environmentally sound for both my family and wildlife!

Smart Growth is just plain dumb. But worse than that, Smart Growth is corrupt politics. And sadly, it is now pervasive in our country in the way that the Asian Carp and Kudzu are pervasive. It is a pandemic of stupidity and political tyranny.

Cramming people into smaller and smaller areas is not good for the quality of life we all seek, that is assuming you actually want good quality of life for people and the surrounding wildlife. If you only care about a wild planet without people, then that's another thing. Maybe you should move to Mars.

Study Smart Growth and STOP IT NOW!

So here's another one from the little town of Davidson, NC

Davidson preserves its small town character and community assets in the face of explosive development pressure from nearby Charlotte. Adherence to smart growth principles and regional collaboration on industrial development projects are Davidson’s strategies for upholding its community’s high standards.

Read below, just so you know:
Cities Across the Country Under Smart Growth
Smart Growth Principles

LORD, LET THERE BE LIGHT! AND THERE WAS! A LITTLE...

I've written before on the insanity and dangers of compact fluorescent light bulbs. And I have written also on the insanity of carbon offset trading. HERE and HERE I discovered today from Anthony Watts' blog that a little light has managed to peep through the darkness on carbon offsets and lightbulbs. The light comes from the north, which is appropriate if you think about it.

Canada Finds Climate Sanity from Watts Up With That
"A sudden outbreak of sanity seems to have taken hold Canada. Firstly the idea of a carbon tax appears to have been killed off for good:"

Conservatives kill carbon tax

Conservatives have kiboshed a carbon tax, Environment Minister Peter Kent confirmed Thursday.

“It’s off the table,” he told reporters Thursday after accepting an award from World Wildlife Fund International on behalf of Parks Canada.

“There’s no expectation of cap-and-trade continentally in the near or medium future.”

Hallelujah and amen brothers! Has Canada regained its mind? It looks that way. Having lots of oil and gas in Canada, maybe the neighbors to the north have realized it is better to have and sell energy than to make people pay for the privilege of having no energy. May sanity reign forever in the land of the maple leaves!


Then, in the same post, Anthony reports:

Government delays pulling plug on old-fashioned light bulbs

Tories propose pushing deadline to 2014 over lack of alternatives to incandescents

The Conservative government wants to postpone pulling the plug on incandescent light bulbs, saying it needs more time to allow for technological innovations and to deal with concerns about compact fluorescent lamps.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/decision-canada/Government+delays+pulling+plug+fashioned+light+bulbs/4806638/story.html#ixzz1Mpjo25v6

So where are the sane in our legislatures and our government? Oh, yeah, I forgot. There are so few sane in our government that we can't expect reason to prevail in the U.S.

The idea of forcing the American public to use cfl's was idiocracy at its worst.....or best, depending on how you frame it. First of all, it was a Gov/Co corruption at the highest levels. Secondly, banning a legal and proven to be safe product is just the kind of insanity control freaks long to commit against the masses. Think of the 'power' trip! (pun intended) So to do this for the sake of campaign buckets of money from GE and to then use that kind of power against the public was a double hit of cocaine to the power addicted in Congress.

I'm longing and praying Jim Demint and others in Congress can reverse the criminal idiocracy of our Congressional 'dim'wits. Let there be light!!!

RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT?? ILLEGAL UN POLICY

I have a new initiative for the United Nations. I wonder if I can get any other countries to sign onto it. It's called "Responsibility To Be Sovereign." RTBS. Each sovereign nation would be allowed to survive based on its own laws and borders. The sovereign nation of the United States of America would be allowed to use its own resources and power to protect itself from illegal invasions (see mexican illegals), and would not be forced by the United Nations to undermine its own natural alliances with other sovereign nations. Seems like a good idea to me....but tell that to the UN.

You see, the United Nations evidently sucked us into some crazy agreement called "Responsibility to Protect" some time ago. 2005, to be exact. The United States actually signed onto this idiocy. I'd be willing to bet most Americans have not heard of this or has a clue what that means. It sounds so nice, doesn't it? Just like all global leftist ideas, branding is what matters. Name something using a sweet euphemism for do-good mentality, and the world applauds and steps right into the knee-deep do-do.

History of the United Nations R2P / Responsiblity to Protect agreement

Basic Principles
R2P Basic Principles

The principles and elements of The Responsibility to Protect doctrine were elaborated in the 2001 report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). Its basic principles are two-fold:

1. Inherent in the concept of sovereignty is a state's responsibility to protect its populations; and
2. If a population is suffering serious harm, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the responsibility to protect those people lies in the international community."

1) Right Authority - The most appropriate body to authorize military intervention for human protection purposes is the United Nations Security Council. However, should the Council reject a proposal or fail to take up a situation within a reasonable amount of time, alternatives are the following:

A. the General Assembly can consider the matter during an Emergency Special Session under the "Uniting for Peace" procedure; and

B. Regional or sub-regional organizations can act within their geographic jurisdiction, subject to their seeking subsequent authorization from the Security Council.

Of course, where anti-American sovereignty reigns, there sits our best friend, George Soros. KeyWiki on Soros

The Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.^[30]

From WND:

The joint U.S. and international air strikes targeting Libya are widely regarded as a test of Responsibility to Protect – which is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility.

According to the principle, any state's sovereignty can be overrun, including with the use of military force, if the international community decides it must act to halt what it determines to be genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing.

More from WND:

Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article entitled "The People's Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations."

In the article, Soros said "true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments."

"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.

"In particular, the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict."

Excuse me? Say what? As usual, the oxymoronic illogic of Soros shows he has no understanding whatsoever of American government. In one fell swoop, he declares "sovereignty belongs to the people," and then creates a doctrine that takes our representative government completely out of the picture and hands it over to the UN. (Soros is crazy like a fox and dangerous as a copperhead snake) The American people had no opportunity to delegate on the issue of Libya. Does the U.S. Congress have any say about taking our military into war or conflicts in the world after this??? Evidently not any longer. The UN now has the authority to take our soldiers into conflict all over the world without the American voters' consent. Mind you, this thing was signed onto by the U.S. during the Bush tenure. Now our dear leader, the Big Zero, has acted on the R2P Doctrine with the UN attack on Libya in March. While the American public is sitting here scratching our collective heads and asking why on Libya, some of our congressional representatives are trying their darndest to get the President to go to Congress to address the "War Powers Act" in order to justify this action. So far the Big Zero has ignored the request.

Believe me, I am among the clueless. I had no idea this agreement existed or that we, the U.S. had signed onto it before the subject hit the news on Libya. I blame this on mainstream media who made no attempt of alerting the American public on just how bad this is. I imagine it was on the back pages of some newspaper somewhere, but it certainly didn't make the headlines or filter down to the majority of Americans. Where are the American people on this? Sitting there listening to John Lennon's anthem "Imagine?" Driving your "smart car?" Handing over your property to the latest "greenway" project? Volunteering for the now gay military? Nope? Just sitting there?

The End of United States Sovereignty

Therefore the U.S. Responsibility to Protect organization re-committed itself to its goals. The mission of Responsibility to Protect is

• To convince the American people and its leaders to embrace the norm of the responsibility to protect as a domestic and foreign policy priority.
• To convince our political leadership that the US must join the International Criminal Court.
• To convince our political leadership to empower the UN and the ICC with a legitimate and effective deterrent and enforcement mechanism – an International Marshals Service – a standing international police force to arrest atrocity crimes indictees.

The Big Zero has done more to take down the country than all previous presidents combined: quadrupling the debt, calling Americans terrorists, appointing socialists to the Supreme Court, refusing to allow our own exploration for energy, allowing Interpol carte blanche within the U.S., bailing out Egypt, throwing away our money to support global banks, supporting QE2 - creating inflation, implementing R2P doctrine - turning over our military to the UN.

I wonder if the American people can drum up the responsibility to protect ourselves from this enemy in the White House. Just wondering.

A FEW WORDS FOR MEN WHO CAN'T KEEP IT ZIPPED

Think about it guys....
Schwartzenager Kennedy(s) Edwards Clinton IMF CEO
my ex
and more.

For you guys who think you can just do it to anybody, anytime, no matter who, and for what...if you have any desire to be a real man and husband, get a zipper lock. Get your male ego untangled from your phallic symbol and figure out that women find this sort of behavior reprehensible, unsavory, disgusting, and lacking in any possible integrity.

And lastly, YUCK!

WHO OWNS THE NEWS

Control the message and the messengers. That would be the perfect Orwellian, or should I say Marxist/Communist, fix for all of the stupid people out there. (That means you and me, folks.)

So who owns the news? Time was when there was at least an attempt at ethics in news reporting. The journalist had a code to live by, just as a doctor had the Hippocratic Oath. Sadly, the journalist's code has morphed into some sort of "social justice" mandate. The journalist was, originally, supposed to report, not skew or create the news. But of course, that wouldn't make Fabian Socialists happy.

And while I am at it, who owns access to the news?

Cities and towns all over the country have created government utilities including water, sewer, waste management, and energy. This basically creates a monopoly on those services. Lo and behold, what are they wanting to control now? Broadband access to the internet. Sure, what a great idea. Let's have government in the business of controlling access to news and research. Heaven forbid we should have a free marketplace where people can go to any source for news.

Two "news" articles grabbed my attention in the past week on the subject of journalism. One is involving the North Carolina senate who passed a bill limiting municipalities from operating their own fiber networks. NC Debate On Broadband

Thank you, North Carolina senate for at least attempting to nip this poisonous idea in the bud. I am doubting that our Democrat Governor will sign onto this bill, in spite of our representatives' good attempts at reining in government control of our lives.

Opposition camps to the bill say:
"People in at least two North Carolina communities—Albemarle and Chapel Hill–apparently agree with the opponents, as both communities passed resolutions disapproving of the newly approved bill as well as another piece of anti-municipal broadband legislation that the state is considering."

"The resolutions also argue that the legislation will limit smart grid deployments, prevent collaboration among local governments through regional public safety networks, hinder the deployment of traffic management systems, bar municipalities from working with school districts and community colleges on shared networks, and interfere with basic government operations, thereby undermining the local economies."

To which I say, HOLD ON THERE MARXISTS!!! (above article cites "people" when it really means community councils...not anything to do with referendums or ballots.) Ask the people if they want government controlled "smart grids." Ask the people if they want more government interference in our economies. How's that been working out for us lately?? As for the rest of it, nothing is preventing the cooperation between traffic management and school districts now. I'm sure one of the existing broadband companies can supply that capability right now, or is already. So who the heck are you kidding!??!

When once we allow any local government to control access to communications, this will set the precedent for "regional governments," or the States or the Feds to step right in and take control of who delivers internet access and what will be allowed through that access. Municipal governments are trying the "bottom up" method of using government to over-ride our liberty via the free markets. Mind you, the Feds are already busy trying to do this using the "top down" method through the FCC. Either way, it is a bad omen for freedom of the press. Government does not have the right to use your tax money to create either a monopoly of communications, the press, or create a competing entity with the free market press. Government only has the Constitutional obligation to protect freedom of the press and the free expressions of the people. Otherwise, the government (at whatever level) is supposed to stay the heck out of it, Constitutionally speaking.

Lastly, the other news story is a bit of the "other side of the coin." Our favorite monetary bully, Mr. Soros, is using the marketplace to buy up news media in order to promote his very sick ideas of what the world should be. Further, journalists in those outlets have joined Soros' boards of his socialist/globalist organizations. Funny thing that Soros would use the free market to shut down the free market, but that is his MO, so not too surprising. He is a master of oxymoronic behavior. Yes, he has the right to buy news media outlets. My question is: "When does someone have the right to commit fraud upon the public through the public airways?" Using his media outlets as indoctrination forums is hardly reporting the news, just so you know. But I could say the same of Al Jazeera. And NPR/PBS. Is it fraud? Or is it not? Has journalism lost its code? You betcha! The blessing is we have at least a few competing news media outlets who are telling the truth about Soros to the public. But, not if Soros and those who want control of news and access have their way.





With the mainstream media spewing socialist/globalist nonsense all day long, the only alternative most of us have had is to go looking for truth from both sides of issues on the internet. Without the free market flow of information, we might as well go back to the pounding of drums, or smoke signals, or maybe Paul Revere's famous ride to find out what is going on around us. If governments and Soros have their way, we will be back to the dark ages in short order. What do I mean by that? I mean information will be so skewed by the socialist/globalist ideology of big-government power-brokers that the general public will be dumbed down to the point of extinction. Soros would drive the last nail in that coffin, gleefully.

But that is the goal, isn't it? Welcome to the new Idiocracy!

TO WORK ON GOVERNMENT LOCALLY OR NATIONALLY - THAT IS THE QUESTION

This is kind of a "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" question. Over the past couple of years I've been wondering just where is the origin of 'government off the rails?' Is it a top down problem or a bottom up problem? Who is setting the policies that are taking the country into 14 Trillion in debt? Do local governments have any responsibility? Or do we voters just keep lashing out at the top echelons in DC?

Leading up to the 2010 elections, while Pelosi and Reid were passing bill after bill which were undermining freedom and loading us up with astronomical debt, I emailed, called, and wrote to congresspersons almost every day. By the time November rolled around, I realized this approach was futile. For a myriad of reasons, congressional Reps and Senators didn't give a flying flip about what constituents had to say regarding legislation. There are the lobbyists. And there are the influential non-profits. And there are the backroom deals. And there is the mainstream media turning everything upside down every day with bogus polls and lies. So, I reasoned that unless I am one of the insiders in one of those groups, I really don't have anyone's ear at the Federal level. Congress is unresponsive to voters and everyday constituents back home unless there is some gigantic mass of demonstration somewhere that gets on the nightly news shows. I concluded that I might as well have been throwing darts in a windstorm. (my husband has another way of putting that....ahem.)

So what is an American to do? If you can't clean up the house in DC, then you might as well "Look Homeward Angel" and clean up the house in your own location. The sorry thing I have learned along this path is that our local government is all wrapped up in strings from the Federal government. Some of the strings are just filtered down through the states, but some of the strings are more direct than that. Either way, local government is being usurped by grant money and subsidies coming from the Feds. And local government officials are right in there playing that string-baby game, with their hands out begging for as much money as they can wrangle.

For instance, the so-called Stimulus Bill. If your local government wants Federal stimulus money to come dropping in by helicopter in bucketfuls, then your local government has to make steps to make your town or city look like it is all on board with Federal programs. You want a downtown improvement project? Make sure it is "green." You want new business development? Make sure it is "infill" development. Where is the local autonomy in this picture? (Hint: Somewhere hiding out with Casper the Friendly Ghost or Somewhere Over the Rainbow?.)

How does the local government fit the requirements for the money? The local city council will adopt 2020 Vision plans that comply with the Federal grant requirements made up by the EPA, DOT, and HUD. This has been going on for years with "Block Grants." Now it is much more pervasive than that, with plans for land use, local economic development, housing, energy usage, water control, and other supposed environmental initiatives. The Vision Plans for communities across the country come from the same source, Smart Growth. Smart Growth comes from the same source, the Federal government. The Federal government got Smart Growth from the United Nations....but that is another part of the story addressed in previous posts.

This circumstance is prevalent in towns, cities, and counties all across the country. Finally, some towns, cities and counties are beginning to stand up and say, "NO MORE OF THIS!" This local response is still too rare, though. Why any response has taken so long is a mystery to me, but I think it is because it has taken the general population a while to catch on to the insidious creep of what Federal strings are doing to local autonomy. The amazing thing is that local government officials have only to tell the Federal government, "Thanks, but no thanks." I can only wish that were the case.

One of the first occasions I had to learn about this top down phenomenon was regarding a traffic intersection where a traffic light was requested by citizens to clear up rush hour jams. The City said heck yes the light was needed, but said they didn't have any money for it. The estimated cost for the traffic light was $175,00.00. Lo and behold, the city traffic officials said, "but wait, but wait, the Feds have money....if only you want a "round-a-bout" instead of a traffic light." The cost of the "round-a-bout?" $250,000.00 So, twice the money from the Feds if only you do what they want; construct a "round-a-bout" instead of install a traffic light. I'm not crazy about "round-a-bouts," but that isn't the point. The point is that the Feds used twice the money taken from taxpayers in every other city and state in the country to spend twice as much as was needed to solve the problem. Some of us objected, but the city went ahead with the "round-a-bout." Thank you Arizona and Hawaii and Maine.....or whoever the heck shelled out taxes to put this thing in on our connecting street here in small town North Carolina.

So where do we go for accountability? The Feds? Or our own local officials? The answer has become clearer to me lately. If tea party folks want to clean up the fiscal mess this country is in, then tea party members are going to have to go after the mess in their own local governments. You see, the Feds would not be able to sink the nation with trillions in debt, IF the local governments would stop being on the take. At least this would solve part of the problem....the part that addresses domestic policies. I, for one, don't want string-babies paid for by people all over the country who have no idea what they are paying for. I don't want Federal or State grants for a greenway, or recycling bins with RFID chips, or smart meters, or round-a-bouts, or biking trails, or parks, or light rail, or anything else. I want the Federal government to turn off the tap, but they won't. As long as the greedy, smarmy, local officials are just deliriously happy to catch the bucketfuls of cash with string-babies, this country will never get on its feet and the debt will just keep piling up.

So, what do you think? Do you see this in your home town or city? Can you do anything about the Federal and State revenue streams with strings coming into your community? Does anyone know how to just say, "Thanks, but NO THANKS?"

Do you honestly think congress will ever get the message as long as your local council or State government just keeps taking the money? Not a chance. voters in

WATCH YOUR BACKYARD

While we are watching Osama Obama insanity and Trump or no Trump speculations, our local governments are busy trying to pull a fast one right in our own backyards. The 'fast one' is the adoption of plans from "supposed" consensus, without public referendum, and without the voters realizing the serious implications of these plans.

Next week there will be a local vote by our city council on a 2020 Vision Plan for our city. If you look online there is a 2020 Vision Plan for cities in all states across the nation. It may be dated 2030, or 2015, or 2035. It may be called a "Comprehensive Plan, or a Vision Statement." This "Plan" is showing up in small cities and big cities all across the nation. And they all say pretty much the same things. And the fact that they all promote nearly identical guidelines and principles should be a red flag to any red-blooded American.

The Vision Statements or Comprehensive Plans are written deliberately with vague language that sounds like an environmentalist's wish list. All of them, without fail, include language derived from the EPA and Smart Growth. For instance, you will see phrases such as "best management practices." Where does that phrase come from? Smart Growth. What is Smart Growth? It is a theory of environmentalism developed by central planners based on the United Nations' plan for global control of sovereign nations called Agenda 21. It has been adopted as the preferred Federal money granting tool of the EPA, DOT, and HUD. Smart Growth is a plan to create high density mega-cities using infill development practices, thereby limiting the supposedly evil practice of "urban sprawl." The infill high density development practices are intended to create wildlife corridors where human activity is limited. What it actually does is create limited living space for humans, make open space off limits to human development, and restrict automobile travel by funding light rail rather than roads, create precedent for takings of private property, among other things.

The catch phrases are many, including "sustainability, livable cities, walkable communities, connectivity, stakeholder councils, consensus statements, mixed use development, regional governments," and more. The proposed benefits are supposedly clean air and water, lower ozone, green environments, equality, affordability, and lots of other nice sounding promises. Envision people jam-packed in high density housing piled on top of each other, higher taxes, and higher costs of living, The actual outcome of Smart Growth is far different than is advertised. The actual outcome is more like your worst nightmare with draconian zoning restrictions, more traffic congestion, less available land, and lots of money spent on indoctrination "educating" people on how great Smart Growth is.

What does this have to do with the Gastonia 2020 Plan - A Vision For Our Future? The Gastonia 2020 Plan explicitly cites Smart Growth as the guideline for the Plan. By passing a 2020 Plan drawn up by central planners, our council is basically deeming itself irrelevant. How is that? Because the 2020 Plans are written to be compliant with regional governments who are unelected by local voters. Regional governments are all on board with Smart Growth. By turning over local responsibility for local planning to a central planner from a regional government, the door is wide open for the States and the Feds to walk right in with Smart Growth laws. The 2020 Plan is written by planners who are all on board with Smart Growth. Our council has turned over its elected responsibility to do its own research and planning by handing over their jobs to some unelected boards and councils. All our council has to do is sit there and listen to the proponents of Smart Growth and pass the plan, thinking the grant money will start rolling in. The council has not asked for alternative plans from any other independent planners who might have a different vision to present. In short, our council is about to pass a Smart Growth Vision Plan for our city as a guideline for every aspect of our lives and use that plan as a regulatory tool, without referendum from the voters, without explanation of the consequences to property holders, and without concern for Constitutional liberty. The Gastonia 2020 Plan, just like the Carolina Thread Trail agreement, gives the mayor and the city council free reign to stomp all over private property rights and local voter control using Smart Growth as the jack-boot.

Council members will tell you the 2020 Plan is not written in stone. They will tell you Smart Growth is not yet law. However, the 2020 Plan and Smart Growth are what is called "soft law." What that means is the 2020 Plan is used as a regulatory tool to be used by the council until they, or the State, or the Feds, decide to pass "hard law" based on Smart Growth, i.e. the 2020 Plan. The 2020 Plan is the proverbial "camel's nose under the tent." If it can be implemented locally, without referendum, without voter consent, it can be used as precedent for more draconian laws passed in the legislatures or by local councils as the public loses more and more say in the issues.

For a glimpse into how Smart Growth has worked out in Portland, Oregon, read below:

Smart Growth Plans Are A Failure in Portland, by Randall O'Toole, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute
"Smart-growth planners believe that Americans live the wrong way, and they use land-use regulation to impose on others what they believe is the right way to live. Surveys consistently show that all but 15 percent to 25 percent of Americans want to live in single-family homes with a yard, but planners think we would be better off if a much higher percentage lived in high-density apartments or condos."
"After the first high-density developments saturated the demand, planners supplemented land-use mandates with tax breaks, below-market land sales and other subsidies to developers who built high-density housing. This means Portland neighborhoods continue to be invaded by mid-rise and high-rise developments, even though there is no more demand for dense housing."
"Increased densities destroyed the small-town atmosphere that once made Portland attractive. Congestion is worse, housing and consumer costs are high, and urban services such as fire, police and schools have declined as the city took money from these programs to subsidize high-density developers."

I urge the Gastonia City Council to step back from this 2020 Plan and begin doing the real work they are elected to do by researching and presenting to the public real plans that include the voters consent, not just some hand-picked "stakeholders." I also urge citizens of Gastonia to let this Mayor and Council know that we will not be turning over our liberties to an unelected regional government or central planners from the Federal government or the United Nations.


“The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

More resources:
Cato-at-liberty.org.
American Planning Assoc. Smart Growth Plan Is Just Plain Dumb