Saturday, July 30, 2011


I'm a little out of sequence here, according to my title. I saved "Viewsheds" for last. The concept of "Viewsheds" is a bit of a dilemma. All things being subjective in the the realm of aesthetics, your idea of a "Viewshed" might be different than mine. No one wants to look at an eyesore, but your eyesore might be my gemstone, or my livelihood. I'm all for beautiful vistas and scenic enjoyment. However, I'm all for private property rights. So how does one combine those two things and come up with a coherent policy that is good for all? Common sense would prevail, or one would hope so.

The concept of "Viewsheds" is new to American jargon. MerriamWebsterDictionary Defined as: "The natural environment that is visable from one or more viewing points." First known use is 1981.

My how justification expands quickly in today's environmentalists' methods and ideology. The Urban Dictionary states:
"A viewshed is an area of land, water, or other environmental element that is visible to the human eye from a fixed vantage point. The term is used widely in such areas as urban planning, archaeology, and military science. In urban planning, for example, viewsheds tend to be areas of particular scenic or historic value that are deemed worthy of preservation against development or other change. Viewsheds are often spaces that are readily visible from public areas such as from public roadways, public parks or high-rise buildings. The preservation of viewsheds is frequently a goal in the designation of open space areas, green belts, and community separators.

Isn't that nice? From 1981 to 2011, in thirty years, someone's idea of expanding land use controls that have nothing to do with private property rights has blossomed into an entire philosophy of radical land usurpation for the sake of "Views."

For purposes of illustration I came across a document describing the dilemma regarding Thomas Jefferson's home, Monticello, in Charlottesville, VA. I've been there. I loved it. It was wonderful to see it and learn from it. But the area now has a "Comprehensive Land Use Plan." And Monticello has a foundation to advocate for its preservation.

The view from Monticello to the east and the south overlook a vast piedmont landscape into Fluvanna County. A power plant was planned for construction in that area. This power plant involved natural gas and would connect with the national power grid. The power plant would benefit a lot of people.

"The Foundation responded that the lights and the plumes atop those smokestacks could be visible from Monticello. “Depending on the weather sometimes you can see 50 miles from the hilltop. In a rural area, eight or 10 miles is in the neighborhood.”

If I read that right, The Monticello Foundation wants to control all of the land within 50 miles of eyesight from Monticello. 50 miles of land for the purpose of scenic views. The article also refers to yet another environmental designation attaching to another new Federal idea called the Rural Historic District. RHD. The RHD means more layers of regulation of land use. Well, if you look at all of the land left in the country that is not under the control of cities, you could just put all rural land under an RHD. After all, could you not make the case that the entire country is a RHD? It was historically all rural at one point. But I digress.

We have a similar situation arising here in Gaston County. There is a State Park at Crowders Mountain, from which, once climbing to the top, you can see for miles. In fact you can see all the way to Charlotte, NC on a clear day. Now the environmentalist lobby is trying to keep development out of the line of sight from any viewing position on Crowders Mountain. How many miles should be kept out of development for the sake of the "Viewsheds?" The question of Crowders Mountain "Viewshed" is not yet settled, but the wording in "Vision" plans is clear. "Viewsheds" are to be taken into consideration and given priority over development. Check your local "Vision Plan" and you will find it so.

I guess the amazing thing to me is that once the environmentalists in America realized they could trash property rights by controlling the use of land, they then figured out they could expand that control by demanding "Viewshed" rights. There is no end in sight to their environmental fanaticism. Pun intended.

I'm not sure I have a good solution. Perhaps one should limit the distance of "View" in question. How far should "View" rights extend? If you own a residence in a "scenic" community, can you not just claim "View" rights based on the RHD and demand all other comers take a back seat to your new "government granted rights" that, by the way are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?? Then again, when it is truly historical, such as Monticello or Mt. Vernon, or Gettysburg, what is reasonable? Is your "View" a right?

Welcome to the new Amerika, where rights are granted by government and special interest groups, instead of the rights granted by our Creator.

Thursday, July 28, 2011


I attended a Municipal Planning Board (MPO) hearing the other night for the purpose of observing and trying to get a handle on what is going on behind the scenes in our government. My motivation is a degree of shock and outrage at how much of our government has gone behind the curtain, so to speak. While the meeting was advertised in the classified section 10 days beforehand, and stated it was open to the public, I think the mass public is very unaware of how boards such as this one operate and who is calling the shots. I was one of only three citizens who went to this MPO meeting to observe. I report that there was little to no opportunity to address the board on any issue they discussed. It was a fait á complit.

The MPO board is appointed and unpaid. They make decisions on what roads and development may be allowed in our area. And then they send their recommendations on to the State DOT or whichever agency in the State government that would have jurisdiction over the requested development or road. Supposedly these are "recommendations." Supposedly these are not "cut in stone" decisions. Supposedly, once the State has blessed the recommendations, the issue comes back to our city council or county commissioners for further blessings. None of the issues before this board ever come to the public on a ballot for referendum, but all of the issues require the use of taxpayer money.

Sitting on this board are a few local elected officials who volunteer their time to attend, just enough to give the board some local "elected" credibility. There are a few government agency bureaucrats on the board. Also, sitting on this board are developers, those who want the board to bless their development activities. The members of this board are known as "stakeholders." Supposedly "stakeholders" are citizens who have a vested interest in the outcome of government actions.

Stakeholders. Hmmmmm....who are "Stakeholders?" Time was when "stakeholders" in America were voters. They approved or disapproved their "stake" by voting on for specific issues and elected officials. Not any more. "Stakeholders" are now those who are appointed to boards who make the decisions on specific issues. They are appointed to those boards by those who want the boards to mime the same ideology as those who appoint them. In short, it is a crony system where like-minded people appoint like-minded people to override and circumvent the voters. And so far it is very successfully doing exactly what the like-minded want this system to do....rubber stamp the goals of the few over the wishes of the masses.

Stakeholder boards are another hallmark of the Soviet System. Michael Shaw Explains "
At a young age I learned that a "soviet" was a system of interconnected councils that work to destroy individual personality, suppress individual potential, and centralize power into the hands of those who seek to control human action and human production."

The Definition of a Soviet:

  • A soviet is a system of councils that report to an apex council and implement a predetermined outcome, often by consensus, affecting a region or neighborhood.
  • Members of a soviet council are chosen by virtue of their willingness to comply with that outcome and their one-mindedness with the group
  • Soviets are the operating mechanism of a government-controlled economy, whether it be socialism or government-corporate ("public-private") partnerships"
In our area in central North Carolina alone we have multiple unelected Soviet councils. There is the Centralina Council of Governments (CCOG). There is the Unified Development Organization (UDO). There is the Municipal Planning Organization (MPO). There is the Economic Development Council (EDC). Under the actual city council resides the Stormwater Runoff Committee. There is the Citizens Advisory Committee. There is the Clean City Board. There is the Gaston County Restructuring Committee. There is Gaston Together. There is the Historic Preservation Committee. There is the Uptown Revitalization Committee. Of course on top of these you have the usual Chamber of Commerce, United Way, and Rotary Club groups. Then you have countless environmental groups who have emerged over the last few years. The River Keepers being the first one to pop into my head. The Carolina Thread Trail is another.

Groups of committees all vying for the favors of government to suit their own goals. Well, O.k. fine, but this involves more than just petitioning the government for grievances or favors. This involves groups forming what they call "consensus," when in fact they are a bunch of fractured special interest groups who are not representing "consensus" at all.

In America's founding documents, the true stakeholders of our country are the citizens. The Constitution does not say that some well-connected, appointed, few are the deciders of the fate of our citizens. Through our elected representatives, we, as citizens, hold the keys to our own policy decisions. At least that is the promise of our America.

Now comes a structure into our country that we Americans do not recognize as legitimate, but is so flattering to some egotistical and corrupt power hungry citizens that they are participating in the destruction of our freedoms, our Constitution itself. Somewhere along the way we have created too many chiefs and not enough Indians. In other words, there are a lot of Americans sitting around wanting to be chiefs, thinking they can tell other Americans how to live and what to do without going through the electoral process.

As I write this, unelected boards with the new "stakeholders" are making decisions about our lives. If you aren't one of them, be assured these "stakeholders" are not looking out for your interest, but their own. Should you be invited to be a "stakeholder" realize you are disenfranchising the rest of your fellow Americans by participating in a process that gives them no voice. That, friends, is wrong. That is the Soviet system, not the American way. That makes you an enemy of the U.S. Constitution and no friend of mine.

Up Next: "Viewsheds"
Double Tongued Dictionary
viewshed n. the landscape or topography visible from a geographic point, especially that having aesthetic value."


Those are but three of the latest terms in newspeak by government leftists creating the new Soviet system in the United States of America. I realized upon looking into these three terms that each one encompasses so much that I could not describe them in one post. So this is the first of three posts on these three terms. I'm discovering these things as I continue to research the destruction of the America I once know, the one that guaranteed property rights and freedom. I hope you will benefit from my research in ways that help you take back our country from the Socialist system being put in place by anti-American power brokers who have infiltrated our government, our culture, our education system, our churches, our economic system, our food supplies, and all else you come across in your travels.

Time was when America supported the right of ownership of private property. That has changed. All land is now deemed property of "the commons" by our government agencies. In order to use land, you must pay someone else....not just to purchase the land, but for the privilege to use the land. Who are you paying to use the land? Answer: The government, plus the additional layers of those who want in on the take.

First: Land Banking:
Land Banking Specialists
"Wetland and stream mitigation banks are a viable and cost effective tool for providing compensatory mitigation throughout the US, as well as meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act to restore the physical, biological, and chemical integrity of the nation's waters."

The Federal government has created an entire framework through most agencies (DOT, EPA, HUD, USDA, BLM, etc.) to facilitate this game. Enforcement mechanisms are called "mitigation points" required by government agencies in order to allow you to develop land for any purpose. Mitigation points might otherwise be known as offsets. (In Gang Land, this is known as a bribe.)

Governments, state and local, have created Land Banks. But, lo and behold, businesses have been created to profit from this government policy. Imagine that. An entire industry has sprung up based on the Cap and Trade model of buying credits in order to use a resource, only in this case the resource is land instead of energy. In other words, if you wish to develop land, you can do it IF you buy land banking preserves of other land which is held out away from development. Well, I guess that is very creative enterprise by some very greedy folks who found a way to hold land as ransom and make builders and developers pay for the privilege of doing business. I've discovered you can also invest in "Land Banks" because there is potential to rake in buckets of money on this is the new, hot, thing. Just like the Chicago Climate Exchange was hot in the Cap and Trade energy business a while ago, before it collapsed for lack of business, that is. The difference here is that while new sources of energy are continuing to emerge, land is a finite commodity. There will be no new sources of land. It is what it is.

This is the new Soviet business model in America. You must pay to play....or pay the mob in order to do business. The old model meant buying a piece of land and investing in the development of that land, following the rules of zoning. Now you must pay off the Soviet system of environmental land banks in order to proceed with your development. When you pay off the new Soviet mob in this new business model, you get "credits" or "points" which the government then trades with you to allow you to proceed with your development business. An entire new layer of bureaucracy has been added to the system and you must pay for it on top of all of your other business expenses that I need not enumerate here.

You might be wondering why people are fleeing the rural areas, why development costs are "skyrocketing," why the cost of living (including finding a place to live) is going up, etc. According the EPA, every square inch of land is either a wetland or a riparian corridor. If you thought your children might one day buy a piece of land to live on and or farm, a piece of land that might have water accessibility, the possibility of that has become near extinct, unless of course you are one of the very wealthy "landed gentry" being created by the ruling class in America. The rest of us can just sit in high density mega-cities and wish for clean air and room to roam.

More Info Here "On December 26, 2002, EPA and the Corps of Engineers announced the release of a comprehensive, interagency National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan to further achievement of the goal of no net loss of wetlands. The goals and objectives of the National Mitigation Action Plan were incorporated into the 2008 Final Compensatory Mitigation Rule."

Additional info:
Mitigation Banking .org
Mitigation News
Another Land Bank Business
Is It Another Government Created Bubble?

Next up: Stakeholders
"Stakeholder Coordination - In 1999, the Federal agencies began hosting a series of stakeholder forums to gather information and opinions on the concerns and challenges of compensatory mitigation."

Wednesday, July 27, 2011


Let me see if I can make sense of President Obama's debt policy for the United States. Oh, that's right. Nothing makes sense from this President. So while he is on TV discussing how concerned he is that America might default on the nation's debt, he has directed our State Department to transfer $100 Billion of our money to the United Nations. What a good idea! We are $14.5 Trillion in debt and borrowing money from "other nations" so we can then pay interest on the loans with one hand while we hand over billions to "other nations" with the other hand. Hmmm...and President Obama doesn't connect this with our debt problem?

Accuracy in Media Explains below

"In addition to the annual gift of $1.33 billion to the Global Fund, President Obama has agreed to provide billions more for UN projects.

The U. S. State Department yesterday announced that the Obama Administration has agreed to contribute $4 billion to the United Nations Global Fund to fight AIDs, Tuberculosis, and Malaria from 2011 to 2013.

In addition to the annual gift of $1.33 billion to the Global Fund, President Obama has agreed to provide billions more for UN projects.

These allocations are set forth in a 28 page document as follows:

  • Funnel $63 billion to the Global Health Initiative during the next six years
  • Make $1 billion annually to education programs
  • Give $475 million to the Global Agricultural and Food Security Program’
  • Provide $800 million from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East and North Africa. An additional $3.2 billion will be provided by private equity capital sources to these Muslim nations
  • Shell out millions more available through USAID for developing tech hubs in Uganda, Kenya, Cameroon, South Africa, and Senegal.
  • Dole out $80 million through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation for small to medium enterprises in the Middle East and North Africa.
  • Cough up $2.5 billion annually to 90 countries to “strengthen governance and democratic institutions.”
  • Make available $30 billion through the Obama’s Climate Change Initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, $100 billion a year will be provided through taxpayer and private resources to deal with the alleged threat of global climate change.
The United States is assessed at 22% of the U.N. regular budget and more than 27% for U.N. the peacekeeping budget. Mr. Obama has requested $516.3 million for the U.N. regular budget and more than $2.182 billion for the peacekeeping budget for 2011."

Sometimes there is nothing more to say. This is one of those times. The proof is in the pudding.

Also Published at Pundit House

Tuesday, July 26, 2011


I've been holding off on the subject of the debt ceiling. I'm not an economist, but I do have a common sense basic understanding of accounting. And I can smell a dead rat.

Should the United States government borrow more money?? The United States government is operating on the "Full, Faith, and Credit" of the American people. The United States government IS "We the People." Do the American people have over $14 Trillion to pay a debt? Is $14 Trillion enough?

I've been wondering what ever happened to that woman who was so elated a couple of years ago that she was going to get Obamamoney...from Obama's stash. I've also been wondering about the masses he convinced of the same thing. Did they think he was the Black Santa Claus? Did they think he was the Black Robin Hood? Did they think he was the Black Avenger? Did they think Barack Obama had some magic ability to transfer the money from those nasty rich people and start handing out cash to them? Did they think Barack Obama was going to rob the treasury and hand it over to them? Surely they are disappointed to find that all of BO's promises to "redistribute" the wealth has not resulted in piles of cash landing in their front yards.

Well, he's stealing alright. Just not the way they thought. And just not from his rich cronies, but from the American people.

What kind of person encourages masses of people to hate another group of people for the sake of his own personal gain? What kind of person would steal from masses of people in order to aggrandize himself? And then, what kind of person votes for that hate and theft?

Class warfare and outright theft are the methods of operation Obama uses to massage his ego. Those two things, along with lying, are the hallmarks of one of the most twisted political leaders I've ever seen in my lifetime. In some psychologically, bent out of reality, twisted way, I'm sure he thinks he is standing on high ground. In his world, hating, stealing, and lying, are the high ground. To him, it's a matter of style, finesse, and how cleverly you can manipulate people. He found an ideology to match his personality and that ideology comes with methods he likes. This is the twisted mind of Karl Marx's "Ends justify the means" manifested in real life, in real time right, before our eyes, in the person of Barack Obama. He has no interest in lowering the debt limit burden on the American people. If I were betting, from his actions, I'd bet just the opposite; that he wishes nothing more than the end of the United States of America.

Paraphrasing part of his speech to La Raza yesterday, " When I took office I inherited a trillion dollars in debt, which then made me have to borrow more money to fix things." Say what? He borrowed YOUR money. It's yours and the money of your children and grandchildren. (This is the Flip Wilson excuse, "The Devil Made Me Do It." But with Obama playing the part of Geraldine. (If you are too young to remember this, you really ought to take a minute and watch it!! )

And you are going to have to pay that back, PLUS pay interest on that money. Obama is not at risk of having to pay for any of his own actions on your behalf. At this moment the individual personal debt to the U.S. government is $46,000 plus. He's holding your "full, faith, and credit" as ransom. You and I both know that each American does not have $46,000 lying around to hand over to the government. (That figure does not even include the future unfunded liabilities of the entitlement programs.) So how is Obama proposing you pay that loan back? By borrowing more money. And by raising taxes.

Raising taxes on the "rich" he says will fix the problem. They will have to pay...not you, according to the Obamanomics master. He is trying to make you believe that those "rich" people are going to be stuck with the bill, while you go dancing off into the sunset. Is that why he signed you onto a tax on the sale of your house? Are you rich? Is that why he decided to soak your employer for health insurance, so much so that your employer is most likely to drop health insurance benefits altogether? Is that why he said your energy prices will necessarily "skyrocket?" (while he spends billions subsidizing windmills and solar panels?) Is that why every policy he puts in place causes inflation and higher commodities prices?

It's all so simple really. Those who created the debt should be paying for it, not the American people. If Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the Dem. Black Caucus, Obama, Geithner, and all of their cronies want the debt paid, let them pay for it. If Warren Buffet thinks he is not paying enough taxes, well then Mr. Buffet should just turn over his fortune to the United States government for payment. The American people are the victims of the greatest long term fraud and heist every known to mankind. The American people do not want more debt. The American people did not create the debt.

There is money going out of our government for programs that the American people don't want, never wanted, don't need, and wish to end. Obama has quadrupled the debt to subsidize his own Marxist ideology. There is highly questionable foreign aid being doled out in our name using borrowed money, money we do not have, but we and our children will have to pay. There are government programs no one wants, but are being forced onto the public. There are subsidies for useless nonsense.

The reality of this debt is that America is doomed by it. Our country cannot exist under this burden. Our resources and assets are being and will be sold off to pay for it. Our sovereignty has been sold down the river. The game is over. Even the deal Speaker Boehner has presented still creates at least $7 Trillion in more debt over the next 10 years. The end is not in sight. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. It's a Black Hole, gleefully dug deeper by this President and our Congress.

Friday, July 22, 2011


The House Un-American Activities Committee has for decades been vilified by the left in this country. And no wonder. The left IS un-American, so it follows they would not take kindly to light being shown on their operations. Yes, I said it. The left in this country is un-American. (caveat: Some of the right in this country has tossed aside its American credentials as well.)

Some "red" flags are hanging out there for all of us to see where our own government is appeasing and further promoting the Muslim Radical Terrorist cause within the United States. Article by Frank Gaffney, Jr. suggesting we recreate the HUAC to root out the Muslim sympathizers in our government. Mr. Gaffney is right on target with evidence of this actually happening in real time right in front of us. Our government is full of radicals who think it is just fine to implement and support the activities of Sharia loving Muslims. The goal? Obviously to further take down the constitutional principles we hold dear and thereby finish off the last vestiges of constitutional protections we rely upon. I doubt seriously that the leftists in our government think highly of Muslim Sharia laws. They could not care less. But used as a tool against our constitution, it fills the bill. And as we know, the means justify the ends, so any old tool will do. Islam is not just a religion. It is a political governmental ideology of control of all people. So pretending to use freedom of religion as the front for promoting Sharia law, the left can pull the wool over the eyes of the uneducated in our nation.

So here's an idea. Mr. Gaffney is suggesting we resurrect the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Yes, but further, I think we should counter the left with their own medicine. The left is trying to wallpaper over the un-American activities of Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground, with none other than the very red Robert Redford producing a new movie pretending that the Ayers crowd was really the true blooded American patriot crowd. You've got to be kidding me! Well, of course Redford isn't kidding. The next thing you know he'll be producing a Jane Fonda bio-pic telling us she is the essence of apple pie and motherhood and wholesome American values. My idea? Counter movies with movies. Let's have some movie wars. As long as we are suffering the onslaught of propaganda paid for by the communist left and the likes of George Soros, let's give them tit for tat. BUT, our counter movies must expose the truth of what the left is doing and has done. Take their tool and turn it back on them, for crying out loud. Where are the movie producers who will make the bio-pic on what the Clintons actually are and what they've done to our country? Can we see a movie please that shows the damage Jimmy Carter did and how much he hates the Jewish religion?? Please?

Imagine the movie on the Obama's and the Chicago Annenburg Foundation, along with all of his communists connections. The plot begins with some CIA operatives paying for a Kenyan communist to come to America to be educated and then the Kenyan knocks up an ambitious un-American American woman working for the father of Tim Geithner. Ford Foundation / Geithner and Obama's mother (Yes, both the Ford and the Annenburg Foundations. Imagine that. So many little time.)

Uh oh, I'm just remembering a movie that came out last year exposing the Kennedy family for what they actually did. HBO, or the History Channel (can't remember which) pulled it. I never did get to see that one. As long as we are talking "underground," how about talking "underground" movies. That is one step below "independent" movies. Underground movies are where you can only see them if you hide yourself away in someone's cellar with some like-minded moles to the left drives the right farther into the fringes of acceptable society.

So how about it?? Some "underground" movie makers out there? I think there are a lot of tea partiers and constitutionalists looking for some truth telling in the culture. I'll buy the popcorn. Come to my house. Let's do it!!

Meanwhile back at the chronicles, we learned today the Muslim terrorists just blew up the government buildings in Oslo, Norway. 4 dead as I write this. The Scandinavians are not immune from the global damage being rained on all of us. Is multiculturalism dead yet? Nah, just a few Norwegians this time. NATO bombing the heck out of Libya...I suspect Gaddafi will take the blame for this one. Let's appease some more Muslims.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011


"Holstein Grazing"
©Cheryl A. Pass

I love milk. I love cows. I love all things dairy and beef. I could go for a big bowl of ice cream right now. No, not tofu faux ice cream, but the real thing. Calcium and proteins from bovines are good for us. Grilled cheese sandwiches, Philadelphia cream cheese, sweet creamery butter, sour cream, yummy yummy!! And right now, since it is 97 degrees, maybe a thick, cold, chocolate milkshake would do the trick!

I can't think of anything more soothing and wonderful in the food department than the gifts given by domestic cows....unless....oh wait...they pass gas? Oh, no, don't tell me!!

In the interest of ruining all of our joy and gratitude for the gifts we receive from the wonderful animals called cows, the USDA released a report this week quantifying the environmental damage from our dear Elsie and Elmer. I think we need to start calling the marxist environmentalists what they are: Killjoys! They have declared war on all things good, so who is surprised at this latest revelation?

"In the first detailed study on emissions from large-scale dairies, ARS researchers found that a commercial dairy with 10,000 milk cows generated an average of 3,575 pounds of ammonia, 33,092 pounds of methane, and 409 pounds of nitrous oxide every day>" Cite

As Anthony Watts says, can regulations be far behind? "Hello $10.00 gal. of milk."

Gee, for personal anecdotal evidence, I know people who grew up around and on dairy farms and they didn't suffer any dire consequence from bovine generated methane. The air was not thick with toxic substances. In fact, I can still recall the sweet summer smell of grazing grasses and hay, along with the peaceful landscape full of dairy cattle ambling around a green pasture by the side of a country road. Pure bliss! And I don't remember any horrible air pollution from living in an agricultural area, as I did when I was growing up. But personal anecdotal evidence is hardly what the USDA and the EPA want to use as real life proof of the good life.

That was then and this is being when we spend our tax money trying to prove that cows are destroying the planet. Is this government lactose intolerant?? I think I'll head over to Tony's Ice Cream now and delight my taste buds while I still can. Take a look and salivate!!

The Cow Fart Chart
Farms Lost Since 2001

Tuesday, July 19, 2011


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 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.

Saturday, July 16, 2011


And what exactly is Environmental Justice, please do tell us?
Wikipedia definition

The United States Environmental Protection Agency defines EJ as follows:

"Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work."[5]

The United States Department of Transportation defines three fundamental EJ principles for the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration as follows:

"1) To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations. 2) To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process. 3) To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations."[6]

Suddenly we have government agencies redefining the guarantees already given in our Constitution. The EPA and DOT have weighed in with their versions. A funny thing though, our Constitution already gives citizens of the U.S. equal protection, so why are these agencies defining something called Environmental Justice? Why don't we have "Clothing Justice?" Well then, why don't we have "Food Justice?" Oh, wait, they are working on those, too. But I digress.

So as I was researching some other unrelated topic the other day, up popped a site called National Religious Partnerships for the Environment Seems Environmental Justice is now something our religious organizations have joined. Hmmm...that's funny, because Environmentalism is already a religion.

As I looked further into this phenom, I found out that this has been inching its way into American religious life for some years now. Interestingly enough, the founding of this organization coincides with the UN doctrine of Agenda 21. It appears to have cropped up just the same year that Bill Clinton established the "President's Council on Sustainable Development. Isn't that a coincidence? Seems churches have figured out a way to glom onto the most trendy fashion of the day which requires Sustainability according to the UN's Agenda 21, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, the Obama administration, the Sierra Club, Smart Growth, the American Planning Association, the EPA, DOT, HUD, multiple government agencies, and countless other non-profit and for-profit groups, ad infinitum.

So what's my problem, you might ask. Two problems, actually.

The first is the confluence of the church with political exploitation. I was raised a Methodist and have also been a member of the Presbyterian Church at one time. During my Christian education I was not taught to trash the earth, but in the contrary, to respect the God's creations and do my best to take care of them. I was also taught these lessons from my parents. In all of my life it never occurs to me to do anything but respect nature. If I kill a copperhead, I am doing it with all due respect to the damage it can do to me and my family. If I shelter an injured bird or usher a box turtle across the road, I do it because I respect nature and appreciate what is good. If I pull a weed I am trying to protect the useful plants that weed would choke to death.

The churches I attended were concerned about getting across the word of God, not the word of the UN or the Sierra Club. Now, apparently, the word of God is not enough. The churches have decided they will use the environmentalists to interpret the word of God into a political message. And vice versa. Environmentalists are using the churches to advocate a political theology. And this political theology is not the word of God, but a modern usurpation of the word of God to suit a political agenda.

The second is the idea of turning religion into a control mechanism for our government. Which may seem a conundrum because I do believe our laws are based on Mosaic law and that is fine with me. And further, I am completely against putting Sharia law into our society. So how do I resolve that? Here's how: free will. There is nothing about Sustainable Development that allows for free will. There is nothing about environmental justice that actually works under the word of God which gives us free will. Why? Because environmental justice is about theft and about control. It is, as B. Obama says, "spreading the wealth around," albeit by government fiat. It is about Marxism under the trendy name of environmental justice. This is, as I understand the word of God, the antithesis of free will and individual salvation.

I would also add that the word "justice" heretofore in America referred to our actual legal system. Now the word is abominated to mean that churches are involved in acting out "justice," along with the EPA, DOT, HUD, and all the above mentioned depts. and orgs. So everyone involved is thinking they are implementing "justice?" Doesn't that just massage the egos of people who wish to control other people. (rhetorical statement, not a question.) Excuse me? (Suddenly I am reminded of an old Laugh In routine by Sammy Davis Jr. called, "Here come da judge!") Ooh, aren't we all so sanctimonious these days?

HERE you will find a list of churches under the heading of ECO Justice Partners Maybe you'll find your church affiliation there. If so, what does that say about the church you attend? Is environmental justice your reason for going to that church? Is Sustainable Development your idea of the word of God? I wonder if you might ask yourself just where is your tithe going and did you mean for your church to be a tool of the UN, the Federal government, or what? I'll bet lots of you are the ones who yell and holler about the separation of church and state.

Great Article at Conservatives On Fire explaining Agenda 21 and Sustainability!!! Be sure to watch the will understand the threat!

Monday, July 11, 2011


I hear the phrase "unintended consequences" often. Usually it is referring to the good intentions of this or that policy which may have seemed so thoughtful and kind, but turned into a debacle of biblical proportions that the initiators of the policy supposedly couldn't have foreseen. Usually, this phrase is used by those on the "right" side of politics while describing those on the "left" side of politics.

(Caveat: For intents and purposes of writing here I am using the word "right" to describe both Republicans and Constitutional Orignalists, realizing, however, that all those who say they are on the "right" are not necessarily Constitutional Originalists, though I wish they were. In many cases, even those on the so called "right" have taken up the policies of the "left," a situation I find abhorrent and I mean to include them only by virtue of argument.)

For instance, some on the "right" will say that those folks who are pushing gay rights just want to be "inclusive and kind" to some diverse set of behavior that doesn't normally fit into the established societal morés. So out of their "kindness" they just don't foresee the "unintended consequences" of their policies of gay marriage and hate crimes legislation. Even without pointing to the fact that gay rights is prescribed explicitly in Marx's list of methods to take down America, I could name several damaging consequences from gay rights policies that are unsavory for society, but I'll save that for another writer to explore.

That is just one sample of policy. Cap and Trade is another. Sustainable Development is another. Social Justice is another. The consequences of these things are dire for most people, but the "left" would never admit that. Those on the "right" often express the excuse that those on the "left" have good intentions, but that they just don't grasp the "unintended consequences." I disagree with that idea completely. I think those on the "left" who have gained power in our government know full well what the consequences of their policies are and those detrimental consequences are intended. In order to understand this, you only need to read some of their handbooks for governing. Rules for Radicals Communist Manifesto Nudge, by Cass Sunstein Responsibility to Protect Doctrine Exposé of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission and more...

The poster boy example of this is Barack Obama exclaiming that his policies would "necessarily make energy prices skyrocket." That instance was a rare glimpse into his plans. He usually cloaks things in much more cozy language to downplay the consequences of his policies, language of environmentalism or social justice. He knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what the consequences are of his energy policies, but would never admit that those policies hurt people, lose jobs, wreck industries, and most assuredly will take down the middle class and the poor in America. Because he knows this and continues forward with his energy starvation policies, you have to conclude these consequences are anything but "unintended." His policies are deliberate and intended.

A web friend of mine just this weekend reminded me that in order to get to one of my points, I'd have to assume that people are "THINKING." In my personal life, if I start down one path and find that path is the wrong one, I have to admit that I was mistaken and do a u-turn as quickly as possible. This involves thinking, not just feeling. I'm not immune to making a wrong decision here and there...I am human after all. But God gave me a brain to sort out the options and the will to move in one direction or another. When faced with the truth that I have made a bad decision, I have to be humble enough to realize that I have made that bad decision and must change my path going forward. Believe me, this is not always the easy thing to do. However, if I am going to base my life on truth and consequences, reality based, then the u-turn must be considered. I try not to make excuses for myself and stay on the wrong path. Sometimes I just have to face up. I know if you think about it, you can come up with circumstances in your life where this has been the case for you.

But, from my experience with those on the "left," I have yet to meet one who will either look into the long term consequences of their policies or will admit they made a wrong turn and must rethink their policies. Without exception, everyone on the "left," with whom I have ever discussed issues, completely shuts down the possibility that they may be wrong. Usually when faced with incontrovertible truth, these people cover their ears and try to make the truth go away. In several instances in my life, they have completely shut truth out of their lives because they cannot tolerate hearing another viewpoint different from which have convinced themselves. They don't want to hear it. And they won't associate with anyone who threatens their jolly ideas of things should be.

I want to know why anyone thinks it's a good idea to make excuses for the "left" by using the phrase "unintended consequences." All this does is play into the premise that they "mean well." They don't "mean well." They may convince a lot of people that they "mean well." But if you look at the consequences of their policies and their deliberate lying about the consequences, you can see quite readily that they don't "mean well."

Here is another one: "Well meaning people can disagree." Sorry, I'm not buying that one either. "Thinking" people could possibly disagree, but "well meaning people" are using their feelings as an excuse for not thinking.

People are fallible. We can excuse some mistakes. But ethics in leadership is needed that is based on facts and reality, not on "well meaning" feelings of misguided people. Leadership that deliberately creates dire consequences is neither "unintended" nor "well meaning." It is time for the "right" to recognize this and stop making excuses for the "left."

You can start by asking these questions:
1. Is "well meaning" enough to cover up the dire consequences of bad policies?
2. Do you vote for "well meaning" or for serious leadership based on facts.
3. Do you really believe at this point that the consequences we face are "unintended?"
4. Can "unintended" be applied to Marxist policies?
5. When are you going to stop making excuses for yourself and for Barack Obama?

Yes, Jim! at Conservatives On Fire
In order to answer those questions, you would have to be THINKING. Thanks for reminding me!

My favorite quote from my reading today is this: Once again from Al Fin

"The world is not what you think it is, because the world is constantly changing -- mostly out of your line of sight. The organisations and persons responsible for keeping you informed about the state of the changing world are generally incompetent boobs, crooks, and cronies -- tunnel-vision locked onto their own agendas and corrupt commitments. You are nothing but pawns on the board to these people: your professors, your government officials, your talking head anchors and pseudo-intellectual journalists and pundits.

THINK! Research, learn history, explore, study consequences, and THINK!

Friday, July 8, 2011


Burning fossil fuels brought us from the depths of hard labor and short lives into the most productive and healthy eras of world history. Amazingly, some people who have benefited most from the rise of technology and civilization have decided that fossil fuels are a bad thing. Those some people don't like it that western civilization evolved into a thriving world economy that has fed, clothed, and sheltered more people than all of pre-industrial civilization time which elapsed. These some people are the supposed environmentalists who have driven the argument that civilization is killing the planet.

But the environmentalists could not destroy modern civilization on their own with just their unsupported theories. Presto ! Enter the political global socialist / Marxist who likes power and wishes to control populations of people and / or depopulate the earth in order to control fewer people. It's much easier to control 1 billion people than 6 billion people. And with only 1 billion people there are fewer people to share the resources of the planet. And Presto! again...Enter the faux scientists who live off government grants who skew information to suit the new government goals of reducing life styles, and ultimately reducing population.

Whether or not you believe depopulation is the expressed goal of global environmentalist Marxists, the outcome of their policies will result in lower quality of life, shorter life spans, and eventually depopulation. Policies equal intentions when you can read their goals as they have written them in several documented plans.

"As bizarre as all this seems, one only has to go to the records of the United Nations to confirm that indeed there is this super plan for humanity to be reduced to a hunter-gatherer type of society much like that of our prehistoric ancestors." Cite

So intent is proven. And the lies are exposed. CO2 is not dangerous. And Sustainable means the government is kicking people off their lands. The question is, are you going to go to your local government and tell them you will not allow them to continue the process of eco-marxism in your area? Are you going to go to elected officials at all levels of government and tell them? And if they don't stop the process of eco-marxism, are you going to find candidates who will stop this madness?

Maybe you think there are too many people in the world. Maybe you think these policies won't affect you, but will just affect those "other" people. Ask yourself that when you try to buy an incandescent light bulb, find RFID chips on your recycling bin, or buy gasoline for your car. Ask yourself that when your heating bill "necessarily skyrockets." Ask yourself that when you go to the grocery and find half the food is imported and twice as expensive as last year. Ask yourself that when your commute keeps getting more congested and you don't know why. Ask yourself that when you open the newspaper and find that half the country is not paying taxes. Ask yourself that when the housing market goes bust for a second time and the value of your property plummets into the tank again.

Ask yourself that the next time you exhale CO2. Ask yourself who is in charge of these policies and why are they doing it?


Tuesday, July 5, 2011


Sometimes life imitates art. Such is the case with a movie from 1959 called "The Mouse That Roared," a satire on how a small country is in debt and decides the way out of it is to declare war on the United States, lose the war, and then ask for foreign aid. It was a comedy on how to bribe the rich Americans into saving the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. The twist in the movie is that the Duchy wins the war by grabbing an American who holds an ultimate weapon that can destroy the earth. At this point, the leaders of the Duchy (all played by Peter Sellers) have to figure out how to win the war, but lose the bribe. Who gives aid to whom?

Sometimes, art imitates life, then life imitates art, then reverses again while art imitates life once more. Round and round we go.

The premise of the movie, "The Mouse That Roared," recalls the American rehabilitation of Germany and Japan after WWII. In the eyes of the third world, I suppose America suddenly looked like Santa Claus and the Savior all at the same time. Enemy nations got the spoils after being defeated by the U.S. Now that was quite a departure from history where to the victor went the spoils. Post WWII brought us a new paradigm, "to the loser goes the spoils."

Now we have the UN, on behalf of all smaller nations, basically doing the same thing, i.e. bribing the United States for aid to support their conjured up doctrine called "Responsibility to Protect." Some third world dictator misbehaves, abuses his citizens, builds a nuclear weapon, or generally acts like a brute, and the UN decides the United States (and the Western civilized countries) must now step in, bomb the hell out of the misbehaving and then go in and "protect" the supposed innocent, rebuilding the infrastructure of the offending nation. If you ever had a problem with America being the "policeman of the world," well I expect you aren't too keen on R2P.

Obama is playing Peter Sellers, as he played all of the parts of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. Only this time the UN is giving shelter to Obama's global playmates who think the United States is just the plum worth picking. The Clinton's are terribly keen on this philosophy also, but Obama is over the top on it. The UN has become the director of the movie, with the George Soros as the producer and Obama as the "star" of the movie. Americans get the dubious honor of being the financiers of the entire production.

If we were successfully exporting American ideals, third world dictators would have a "Responsibility to Behave." Instead, we are exporting the "Mouse That Roared" across the globe with American blood, sweat, and tears.

I don't like paying for this incarnation of life imitating the movie. The satire has gone too far. Life is following this piece of art too closely. Global actors learned to play Peter Sellers' parts too well. The UN is playing with our sovereignty, our money, and our lives. The R2P doctrine is life imitating satirical art and the comedy is no longer funny.

Saturday, July 2, 2011


Bill Gates is shooting for ZERO CO2.

Well then, I guess, if we are shooting for zero CO2 production, some people better stop breathing. Hmmmmm... I wonder who Mr. Gates would like to eliminate? Mr. Philanthropist Gates is so kind and benevolent, I wonder just what vaccines and health care Mr. Gates is proposing. Don't you?

So, for all of you who think CO2 is some huge problem for the planet, here are some facts from some real science sites: Death Wishes
"The only way CO2 warming could be dangerous is if it were dramatically amplified by water vapor feedback effects, in which case our climate would be radically unstable and sneezing would be dangerous. In other words, the only way CO2 is dangerous is if EVERYTHING is dangerous, and there is no evidence for such instability."

Climate Nutshell
"The anthropogenic CO2 based theory is based strictly on computer models – the empirical data do not support it."
"Global warming alarmism has taken over. As Richard Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT) said [Ref.32]: “It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right

Just go here and read, read, read!!
For heaven's sake, READ SOME MORE!!
KEEP READING if you are still breathing

So, why is Bill Gates, who presumably is a very smart man, out there telling an audience that CO2 must be brought to zero?? Exactly what do you think Mr. Gates is up to? What would motivate a billionaire philanthropist to propagate stupidity and/or lies to the masses? Do you suppose he regrets his business of spreading intelligence through the internet? I mean, if people can access the internet and find out that CO2 is not a harmful greenhouse gas, maybe he is using his bully pulpit for some other goal? Maybe spreading access to intelligence is coming back to bite him? Maybe he doesn't need a billion more customers because he is already richer than God. Maybe Mr. Gates has a sinister streak that isn't part of his usual public relations personna? Maybe??

Beware of moguls bearing gifts. Magi, maybe O.K. Moguls, not so much.

Hat tip to Anthony Watts!
And to Climate Depot and Junk Science!! And Climate Nutshell!!!