THE AUDACITY OF GREENWAYS

The more I look, the more I see, the more I read, the more I learn, the more I lament the sorry state of American freedoms.

Not at a snail's pace, walking trails called greenways are now taking private property at breakneck speed. Thousands of acres of land are being taken out of the hands of private property owners every day in this country for the ubiquitous, albeit unfounded, idea that Americans need more nature walks to traverse.

One example: This story a Tennessee home owner's land is threatened by greenway
"RUTHERFORD COUNTY, Tenn. - One man's home he built himself nearly 30 years ago is in jeopardy. It's not due to neglect or financial issues, but to make way for a greenway."

Here is another one

I point these out because it is becoming all too common. The city council where I live has adopted the anti-private property rights initiative of establishing greenways. The council has come at this from no less than three directions...maybe four. The first was signing an agreement with something called the "Carolina Thread Trail." The second was adopting a "Vision Plan" that specifically identifies the addition of greenways as a goal of the city. The third is coordination with the transportation committee called the MPO (Municipal Planning Organization), which is proposing to divert transportation money away from roads and into the building of...you guessed it...greenways. The fourth is attachment to something called a Regional Government. In our case it is called the Centralina Council of Governments whose stated goal is to implement Smart Growth. Smart Growth proposes greenways and open spaces to be part of any planning goals.

Let's say you rescind one or two of those agreements, you are still stuck with the others. One way or another, greenways will be put in place usurping the private property rights of many to serve the few, using our tax system by purchase or by incentives or by eminent domain to take land from those who have worked to own it and paid property taxes for the privilege. If they can't get you through the utopian goals of the "Vision Plan," they'll come at you through the transportation planning department. If they can't get you there, they will refuse grants from the Regional Government. And if they can't get you on that one, they'll sue you for not implementing your agreement with the Thread Trail.

So, what is a citizen to do? Our local tea party is looking for council members who will rescind all agreements with Trails orgs. and who will rescind the Vision Plan. We are looking for council members who will stand up to the MPO and tell them our transportation money is not to be used for greenways and bike trails except in areas that are already owned by government. We are looking for council members who are familiar with the Constitutional rights to own private property and who define property rights as a top priority for our local government.

Who wants to live in a place where the government can step in for the sake of a walking trail to take your property? The audacity of government officials who would define the common good as an excuse for taking private property for a walking trail is beyond reprehensible. And I would note that these greenways never cross the private property of city council members, county commissioners, or the select few who are chosen to sit on the ridiculous "stakeholder" councils. The audacity is stinking to high heaven. Yes, that heaven where our rights are derived.

Who are the citizens who think it is their right to traipse across someone's private property? Those who think this, for their mistaken idea of some altruistic sake of commiserating with nature, should be candidates for trespassing fines and arrest. Instead, we have councils promoting obsequious cooperation from all around them to literally slap private property owners in the face. Other property owners...not themselves, of course.

Not satisfied with just greenway land, audacity leapt bounds even further in this Oregon law where government can and will take Scenic easements. Scenic easements are also called Viewsheds. In other words, they want views and scenery to surround their greenways and trails. So if your land just happens to be within viewing distance, your house or structures might offend the utopian connoisseurs of nature. We can't have that, now can we? The word "viewsheds" can be found in our local plans as well.

An excerpt of this law is here:

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, after the date of the approval of the plan for the Willamette River Greenway or any segment thereof under ORS 390.322 (Submission of plan to Land Conservation and Development Commission), the State Parks and Recreation Department may acquire scenic easements in any lands described in such plan or segment pursuant to ORS 390.318 (Preparation of development and management plan) (2)(d). Each such easement may be acquired by any means, including but not limited to the exercise of the power of eminent domain.

Audacity of illegal land confiscation. It seems to be contagious.

WHERE SOVEREIGNTY WENT

A few posts back I asked a question regarding the implementation by a President of an unratified treaty. I was seeking legal counsel on the subject, but so far have not received legal advice. Still waiting...I decided to research some more....

In case you think a President has restricted powers and that our election of a President is a rather inconsequential exercise of our voting process, you might want to rethink that. Yes, our Constitution gives each branch of government restrictions, "checks and balances" if you will. Not to let a little thing like that get in the way...our recent Presidents have completely ignored the premise of Constitutional restraint.

Evidently, the United States of America has hopped onto a process where we do things based on the United Nations' ideas of how America should be operating. The reason this has come to my attention is the implementation of a United Nations Treaty...under the name of the Rio Treaty or the Kyoto Treaty or Agenda 21...not three different treaties, but the same treaty under different names. (again, the global Marxists keep changing the names of things to deflect criticism and continue on their happy march to global Marxism.)

From Bill Clinton's creation of the President's Council on Sustainable Development, to Obama's creation of the White House Rural Council, we have two Presidents implementing Agenda 21, a United Nations treaty, WITHOUT Congressional approval.

Why would they do this?? They do it because #1. they know the treaty is not compatible with the United States Constitution, and #2. they know the people of the United States would not vote for one iota of it, and 3. they can put the revenue stream in place without our consent over use of our own money. So they do it anyway...by executive orders.

Well, the last time I checked, the President of the United States does not have dictatorial powers. These executive orders are illegal representations of a United Nations treaty that the American people don't want. Legal counsel, please advise.

Wikipedia on the word "Treaty" - Sole Executive Agreement

"A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a “manifest” violation is required such that it would be “objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision."

"A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority????" Well, I suggest we'd better not "presume" such a thing in the case of United States' Presidents, because they have done just the opposite. Electing a President who refuses to adhere to the will of the people or respect the U.S. Constitution is obviously a bigger problem than most people realize. Hence, the Presidential election is not so inconsequential after all...is it? We used to think that Congress and the Constitution held the reins on Presidents. Evidently not so much.

Wikipedia on the word "Treaty"

"In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senate, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President."


Under the United States Constitution, no treaty is valid unless it is ratified by Congress. Yet, we now have Presidents implementing United Nations treaties and edicts without the consent of our representative Congress and thereby, without the consent of the American people. Evidently, from that last paragraph, a sole executive agreement is a treaty by executive order, the President acting alone. Yet, our Constitution requires Congressional ratification of a formal treaty. I'm confused. Are you??

I searched further to find that there is such a thing as a "sole executive agreement." This is also considered a treaty. I found more on that:
"Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert.^[8] The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so."Cite Wikipedia on Treaty-Clause

"Although it has not yet done so????" Drat the luck! So, even if a President agrees to a United Nations treaty by his signature and / or implements the tenets of a treaty, it is still subject to adherence to the U.S. Constitution. But no one has nullified such actions?? No process or matter of regulation coming through our government by way of the United Nations' treaty compliance regarding sovereign land use, water use, energy use, etal, is consistent with our Constitutional rights. The rub is that we have local and state elected officials complying with the processes and regulations, thereby implementing a UN treaty, and bypassing referendum or voter consent in doing this. The process has become corrupt. The funding and dictates are coming from the executive branch of our government in order to implement the wishes of the United Nations for control over the U.S. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this??

Our only hope is to UNELECT those who participate in this corrupt scheme of anti-Constitutional dictates, from Presidents all the way down to city councils and county commissioners.

Back to the Agenda 21 (Sustainable Development and Smart Growth) question of treaty implementation without the American voters' consent, I am still looking for legal counsel on the subject. There is nothing in our Constitution which gives the United Nations authority over our land use, energy use, water use, building codes, or anything else within the purview of our sovereign lands. Somehow American Presidents are swearing to uphold our Constitution, but at the same time, putting United Nations' orders and regulations into place using our Federal government as force and our taxes as funding. All of this without Congressional consent.

This is where our sovereignty went. How and when do we get it back??

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??

THE SUSTAINABLE DEATH OF AMERICA

Every day in every way we hear how we are working to be “Sustainable.” But do you know why this word, “sustainable,” is showing up in everything in your life? Why is it used in every government regulation, every talking point on development, every initiative, and every working plan adopted by leadership at all levels of American life today? It sounds so cozy, so comforting, so reassuring. It’s the latest craze, the latest buzzword, the latest word to explain how everything the government is doing is supposedly good for you. It goes with “green,” “livable,” “preservation,” “conservation,” “open areas,” “recreation,” “eco-tourism,” etal. So hip. So now. So happening. So rad. So cool. So… necessary?

It is amazing what words can do to create a perception. People can be convinced of anything if the right words are used to do the convincing. Words can make you feel good. Words, when used for propaganda, are very powerful. And that is why you are hearing the cozy words; sustainable, green, conservation, preservation, livable, easements, visioning, partners, smart growth, equity, consensus, etc.

Your vote has not been requested. You are not included into the decision making process. There was no debate. Sustainable Development is being implemented without the consent of the governed. Plans, such as Gastonia 2020, were adopted without citizens’ understanding of it. (similar plans have been distributed by regionalists for Agenda 21 and adopted in nearly every town in America.) Partnerships between government, businesses, and nonprofit organizations have been created without your consent. Taxes are being taken from you to support these partnerships, creating a binding contract with them that you did not sign onto. Rules, created by central planners in the United Nations and our Federal government, did not include your permission. You are being wooed with comforting words to make it all seem O.K., all the while your liberties are being taken from you at breakneck speed and under the radar. You are being disenfranchised of your ability to decide on matters of land rights, light bulbs, and so much more.

When the U.N. treaty on Agenda 21 was presented to congress, Congress voted it down. To get around the will of the people, in 1992, Bill Clinton created the “President’s Council on Sustainable Development.” By executive order he commanded Federal agencies to start handing out grant money to states and localities to implement Agenda 21 in spite of Congress. Government grant money is taken from our taxes. As the country grows more bankrupt due to government policies, states and localities are begging for those grants. The grants are “string babies.” With each grant come restrictions on freedoms. You want the money? You do what the United Nations prescribes in a 40 chapter document, Agenda 21, a plan to rule the entire planet. Sound crazy? Look it up. http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

The race for the money is on. Everybody wants grants. Not a thought is given to the strings attached. Cities and counties and states are adopting plans and writing grant applications as fast as a bullet train, competing to see who can give up the most rights and land for the most money. The sweet sound of “sustainability” is ringing throughout the land, while the sweet land of liberty is being trashed with every grant agreement. Those who swore to uphold our Constitution are selling their souls, using our money, to take every right our Constitution guarantees, for government land acquisition like Mayor Stultz’s Emerald Necklace, and the Carolina Thread Trail. The American dream is being sold out from under the American people on the basis of “sustainability,” and our local leadership is participating in order to get money (grants) and awards for cooperation. You have not been told the truth.

As North Carolina school superintendent, Jim Causby, said at a 1994 international model school conference, “We have actually been given a course in how not to tell the truth. You’ve had that course in public relations where you learn to put the best spin on things.” http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/teotp1196.html

“…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable. Maurice Strong, author of Agenda 21. http://soldierforliberty.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/maurice-strong-man-behind-agenda-21-part-2/

Resources:

http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles4/local_agenda_21.htm

http://www.nationalcenter.org/DossierStrong.html

http://www.freedom.org/board/articles/beckett-804.html

UNDERSTANDING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - CONNECTIONS TO THE CAROLINA THREAD TRAIL

This article is also published at Pundit House

The following is a rebuttal article I have written and submitted to our local newspaper, hoping to offset the slick sales pitch being touted by the local executive of the Catawba Lands Conservancy regarding the Carolina Thread Trail. ( Due to space issues, the newspaper can only print a condensed version. Below is the entire article.)

The idea that we all love nature and do not wish to wreck the planet is a given. However, Sustainable Development NGO's and nonprofit conservancy organizations have created a lucrative and diabolical network across the entire nation by using our love of nature and the planet as a ruse to socially restructure our laws, our private property rights, and our Constitution. I am fighting this issue locally in Gastonia, North Carolina. Many others are fighting this issue in cities and towns across the country. I expect this article is not the last I will have to write on this subject. Have a read below:

The Carolina Thread Trail is but one arm of a larger group of nonprofit organizations that are systematically working with governments at all levels to gain control over private property. The "trail" of tax laws, money, anti-private property initiatives, and conspirators is long and convoluted. I hope to try to explain this tangled web of central planning and deceit as concisely as possible. However, if you are seriously interested in knowing how and why this intricate web of land grabbing has taken hold in America, you may research websites by searching terms such as: Agenda 21, history of Sustainable Development, history of the President's Council on Sustainable Development, the Wildlands Project, and many more. If you would like to know more on this, please contact me.

Briefly, Agenda 21, which debuted in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit, is a United Nations action plan for worldwide environment and development. It is a comprehensive blueprint for actions to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by governments and organizations connected to the United Nations in every area where "humans affect the environment." (Funny, I can't think of a human life that does not have any affect on the environment, so that pretty much covers every living, breathing human being on the planet.) The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development created Agenda 21 with someone called Maurice Strong as the primary author. (Please research Maurice Strong, also.) Because Agenda 21 is an anti-private property rights agenda and would likely bring about resistance from Constitutional. freedom-loving Americans, the initiatives now carry lots of utopian sounding names such as: Smart Growth, Sustainable Development, Lands Conservancies, Greenways, Livable Communities, etc.

In 1992 the first President Bush signed onto the Rio Summit Environmental Treaty, incorporating Agenda 21, but our Congress never ratified that treaty. Not dissuaded by the power of Congress, the next President, Bill Clinton, decided to implement Agenda 21 by executive order, creating "The President's Council on Sustainable Development." "Sustainable Development" is the core philosophy of the Carolina Thread Trail and the Lands Conservancy, and the plethora of non-profit land taking organizations all over the country. This Presidential Council created the federal use of tax credits to implement Agenda 21 in America.

As the issue of eminent domain use for the Carolina Thread Trail came up recently, I conferred with several local people, commissioners and other interested parties, only to find out that few people are aware of the origins of "Sustainable Development" in America. The problematic issues with Sustainable Development and the Thread Trail are larger and more far reaching than just the eminent domain issue. Most have never heard of Agenda 21. Yet our daily lives are now impacted by decisions initiated by the United Nations that we, as citizens, have never voted into place. These decisions have been put into action by cooperation between levels of governments, non-governmental organizations (NGO's), non-profit organizations, and central planners. Local policy statements, such as Gastonia 2020, and local planning boards have adopted land use restrictions based on the United Nations' plan called Agenda 21. Groups such as the Carolina Thread Trail and the Lands Conservancy have been established to operate the initiatives of Agenda 21 by using tax subsidies to support them. There are now, at the latest count, over 1700 nonprofit lands conservancy groups operating within the United States. (In 1950 there were fewer than 50) At this writing, well over 4o% of all land in the United States is held by the Federal, State, and local governments, not including the restricted use lands in the conservancies and trusts.

Mr. Cable, the executive director of the Catawba Lands Conservancy, proudly points out that an area the size of Connecticut carved out of 15 counties is planned for the Carolina Thread Trail. Connecticut comprises 4,845 square miles. If you were to superimpose that amount of land onto our local area for instance, that would be an area from Charlotte across to Shelby, and from the South Carolina border north to the Virginia border vertically. North Carolina has 48,000 square miles. So, a swath of at least 10% of the entire state, as an example of size, would be "restricted use" controlled by the Carolina Thread Trail alone. The Carolina Thread Trail is planned in North and South Carolina. (This does not include the areas already controlled by federal, state, and local governments, the Lands Conservancy, the Land Trust Alliance, and all of the other non-profits who are in the business of restricting land use in our State.) I might ask the question, “ How much is enough?”

The Carolina Thread Trail organization and all of the Conservancy non-profits boast that conservation increases property values. This is a "maybe so, maybe not," argument. Conservation easements lower property values for property tax purposes. Land that is undeveloped has a lesser tax value than developed land. This means that localities will be increasing taxes on the rest of the population to make up the tax losses created by the conservation easements. This is a socialist redistribution policy where the rest of the population pays to support the tax breaks to landowners who are "contributing" their land to a "restricted use" contract in perpetuity. The opposite argument of the decrease in tax value is, as Mr. Cable states, is the idea that conservancies increase property values. The simple explanation of this is that taking land out of use, or “restricting use, by owners or future buyers, creates a scarcity of land. When you create a scarcity of any particular necessary thing, the price goes up. When land prices go up, the poor and the middle class have fewer opportunities to buy and use the land for their own needs. So Mr. Cable has a point that conservancies increase property values with regard to market prices. That can be a bad thing for future buyers and dampen the market severely. The land taken out of ownership use is, for all historical purposes, is now restricted forever by feudal landlords made up of non-profits and governments.

As for the word, "voluntary, that Mr. Cable keeps pointing out as one of the selling points of the Thread Trail, I would like to point out that the tax consequences of the taking of the lands is not voluntary on the part of the rest of the local population. As our taxes rise to support the taking of these lands, we are not voluntarily agreeing to support the landowners who are getting the tax breaks. Local government officials are making those decisions without referendum. The last referendum on the subject, in Gastonia, was rejected by the voters.

It is not surprising that some landowners want to take advantage of tax breaks. What is unconscionable is that our leadership is promoting this socialistic policy without public and press scrutiny and loud opposition. The decisions to create these policies are not in the interest of individual taxpayers or the public's knowledge of the consequences. In fact, the public generally has no knowledge of Agenda 21 or the Sustainable Development origins. Instead, the public is being fed a clever Madison Avenue sales pitch on "saving the environment," when in fact, what is happening is a transfer of property and wealth to a privileged few on a ruse of "saving the environment." In reality, citizens are being forced to support Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 without consent or knowledge.

Resources:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_agenda_21_coming_to_a_neigh.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/agenda21rpt.htm

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011022312907/life-and-science/energy-and-environment/agenda-21-part-iii-maryland-county-abolishes-agenda-21-now-for-the-rest-of-the-country.html

http://www.vimeo.com/8821807

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=history+of+the+President%27s+Council+on+Sustainable+Development&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= - q=history+of+the+President%27s+Council+on+Sustainable+Development&hl=en&sa=X&tbs=tl:1,tl_num:20&prmd=ivns&ei=jGRyTaj

http://www.redstate.com/barleycorn/2011/02/11/conservation-easements-the-evil-no-one-knows-cares-about/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_trust

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=history+of+land+conservancy+trusts+in+the+U.S.&aq=f&aqi=m1&aql=&oq= -

http://www.catawbalands.org/your-land-trust/conservation-vision-2030/

http://www.sheelahclarkson.com/land/

http://www.onencnaturally.org/pages/ConservationTaxCredit.html

ICLEI Special Report from Tom Deweese