Saturday, January 28, 2012


It has been a very busy time here due to council meetings, commissioner meetings, Tea Party meetings, writing, countless emails and messages to answer. Not having a secretary, cook, or a maid service, leaves me very strapped. I'm going to say, too, that my art career has been taking a back seat for far too long now because of the political climate. Something has to give....

Below is an op-ed I have just submitted to our local paper on the heels of our Gaston Co. Commissioners passing a resolution condemning Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development / Smart Growth. And on the heels of a recent article in that newspaper trying to drum up controversy by referring to Agenda 21 as a conspiracy theory. I have tried to write my best shot to educate the public with this brief article. The Gazette only allows 700 words for an op-ed.

Article begins here:

Our Gaston County Commissioners have done something very good for which we should all be thanking them. They recently voted unanimously to adopt a resolution rejecting Agenda 21 and all of the tenets therein, a United Nations doctrine that has been wrecking the sovereignty of the United States for years. The Republican National Committee this month finally decided Agenda 21 has become so damaging to our nation that they adopted a resolution to condemn the doctrine as part of their platform for the 2012 election. This is late in the day, but maybe now America will realize the seriousness of the internal threat Agenda 21 has become.

Agenda 21 has been referred to as a “Conspiracy Theory” in this newspaper. And there are many Americans who don’t have an understanding of what Agenda 21 is, or why it even matters. The Agenda 21 plan is readily accessible at the UN website for all to read; 40 Chapters of micromanagement for every square inch of the planet. There is a good reason Agenda 21 is not widely understood by Americans. Our government has deliberately been implementing it under other names for twenty years and obfuscating the true intent of the doctrine.

Agenda 21 was first presented as a treaty in Rio in 1991. Pres. George H. Bush signed it. Part of the treaty, a “Biodiversity Treaty,” was presented to our Congress, but thankfully rejected. Not discouraged by a little thing like our representative government, Pres. Bill Clinton cleverly signed an executive order implementing all of Agenda 21, but used one of the major chapter titles, creating the “President’s Council on Sustainable Development.” This action bypassed every check against executive authority when implementing treaties. A President does not have the authority to implement a treaty without ratification by our Senate. Further, actions of the treaty cannot be funded without approval from the House of Representatives. Instead, Clinton’s executive order has been funded by every executive agency in our federal government without the approval of the American people. Pres. Obama has accelerated the spending for Agenda 21 and created by executive order the “White House Rural Council” on the same principles to control all rural areas of the country.

While you have been wondering what on earth is wrong with our government at all levels, as planners and leaders have been forcing stringent regulations upon us, the federal government has been borrowing tax money from you to completely control every aspect of your life based on this invalid treaty. “Comprehensive” doesn’t begin to describe the sum total of this insidious plan. Agenda 21 controls what you eat, how you move about, where and how you live, the amount of water and energy you use, and more. (The light bulb ban is one tiny example this.) And just to make this more illegal, the funding is coming through unelected entities such as regional governance groups, NGO’s, and non-profits. Media and government agencies have created mass hysteria over bogus claims of “human caused climate change” in order to make you think this control of your life is necessary to save the planet. You have been witnessing this every day for years now. Have you wondered why?

So is this a “Conspiracy Theory?” Or is this fact? You can find the facts easily by searching the UN website on Agenda 21, or search these words and phrases: Sustainable Development, Smart Growth USA, ICLEI, regional governance, Growing Smart Legislative Handbook, EPA PAYT, NRPE, et al. After 20 years of usurpation of our taxes and laws, Agenda 21 is now entrenched in every institution in the country, frankly, like a cancer. It is going to take a major effort to recognize it and un-fund it at every level of government. This is why we must have leadership who reject this and return the U.S. to our Constitutional representative government.

Our elected officials are our last line of defense against this. If they don’t understand what it is, they don’t know how to fight it. This is why our Gaston County Commissioners should be thanked and congratulated. They did what this entire country is needing to do; reject and condemn Agenda 21, AKA Sustainable Development, AKA Smart Growth, ICLEI, and every manifestation of it that exists in our nation. Thank you Gaston County Commissioners!

Saturday, January 14, 2012


Do you wonder how they do it? How do they take your goodwill, your trust, and your money? This is more of a local story, but applies to every city and every State in the era of funny money and your family's ability to survive. You may think the amounts I am about to relate are peanuts, comparatively. (Peanuts managed to put Jimmy Carter in the White House, don't forget) It all adds up, until eventually you get mountains of overwhelming debts.

In May of 2010, the voters in Gastonia turned down a referendum for parks and recreation. Additionally on that ballot was a referendum for street and sidewalk improvements which passed. Shortly thereafter, our mayor at the time and the council who sat with her, decided to ignore the voters and borrowed from something called a two-thirds bond. This allowed them to by-pass the voters and go merrily about borrowing money for parks and recreation anyway. I guess the operative phrase that comes to mind is, "Up yours, voters!"

So here we are after a 2011 election and we have 4 new council members and a new mayor. Hope springs eternal. What does the planning department do? This coming Tuesday, the planning department is presenting yet another borrowing opportunity for parks and recreation.

Fortunately one can read the upcoming council agenda online. The proposal for parks and recreation is there for anyone to see. This time it is paving bike trails on or along an already superfluous greenway project. The reason for the proposal? A North Carolina State grant from NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources combined with another grant from a non-profit business coalition. Hmmmm. (Money for nothing and your chicks for free?....not quite.) The entire project for 3 miles of bike trail is $156,000.00. This comes to $52,000.00 per mile. The grant from the non-profit business coalition is $10,000.00. So tax payers would be on the hook for $146,000.00. The State of North Carolina is, according to Civitas, $9.4 Billion in debt. The grant from NCDENR is $86,000.00. The rest of the cost would be borrowed from something called a General Obligation Bond for Gastonia residents to cough up $71,000.00. (The GO Bond may be already borrowed and sitting there for the city to tap into. I'm not sure, but looking into that.)

A pittance, you say. What is $146,000.00 in the big scheme of things? Can't we all just get along? Let's give the biking enthusiasts their 3 miles and just move on. Eh? Who wants to fight over peanuts, anyway?

The proposal sites two things as reasons to do it. One is that "bike trails fit" into the 2025 Comprehensive scheme cooked up by the Sustainable Development and Smart Growth folks. That was a plan voted on by the former mayor and previous council, but was never on a referendum, so the voters were just told to stuff it down and like it. The other is that this is just the beginning of making bike trails fit into the coming flow of bike lanes and trails throughout the streets and beside the streets in Gastonia. That statement leads to the conclusion that bicycles are now part of the transportation system, more than recreation. So which is it? Transportation or recreation?

According to the grant from NCDENR, it is "recreation." (Remember, the voters here all turned down borrowing for recreation.) Which makes me wonder why NCDENR doesn't give a grant to Kate's Skating Rink. After all, Kate's is promoting healthy exercise and good cardio activities. But Kate's doesn't have a non-profit "coalition." The biking coalition is called Bikes Belong." On their site it says this: " Since 1999, Bikes Belong has awarded 236 grants to municipalities and grassroots groups in 46 states and the District of Columbia, investing nearly $1.9 million in community bicycling projects and leveraging more than $657 million in federal, state, and private funding." That is a 2-657 ratio of return on investment over 12 years. Nice work if you can get it. I think that is approximately a 28% per year gain on money invested, using our tax dollars of course.

Notice how they (planners and politicians, scammers and bureacrats) manage to circumvent the voters and just plow over them, borrowing more and more money and giving tax breaks to favored businesses while the rest of the schmucks get saddled with paying for it all. That is how they are breaking the public trust bank in America. The method is the same from here to San Francisco. This is just one tiny little microcosmic episode to illustrate the reason citizens are just a little bit upset and more than disenfranchised at this point. I guess some small percentage of biking enthusiasts are tickled pink. And some environmentalists who can't wait to take all of our money and get us out of our cars are dancing at the Governor's mansion in Raleigh (and the White House in DC). The rest of us can go fly. Right?

We don't know yet if our new council and mayor will take the bait. I am hoping they see through this entire scheme and refuse to do it. Our voters have said, "No," twice. First when they turned down the recreation bond, and then last fall when they removed the offending mayor and 4 previous council members from their posts. Now we will see if the rubber meets the road, one 3 mile stretch at a time.

Gaston Gazette
North Carolina State Debt Clock

Monday, January 9, 2012


Occasionally I check in on a site called Mat-Rodina who is a Russian blogger. Honestly, I will tell you Stanislav, the author of the blog, hates the United States. I checked in today and found this video that I thought you might find interesting. I know nothing about who the people are in this video. The gentleman in the video says it is 1987. The caption on the youtube site says this: "A classic interview by Professor Antony Sutton, who taught economics at California State University, and was a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution." Having said all of that, this is a 13 minute 29 second long video describing the U.S. / Internationalist corporate involvement in creating the utopian Soviet Union with Trotsky and Lenin and then forward to the continual global corporate cabal up to the date of the video...1987.

I am bringing this video to you to ask a question. What is different from this man's description to what we are seeing today? I would say there is nothing different. When you think of the Tsar of Russia, the Shah of Iran, and the plethora of national heads being taken down recently, I wonder if you see what I see, i.e. the connection between our State Department (Hilary Clinton) and the Internationalist money cartel ...and the destruction of sovereignty of nations all over the world. Is it any wonder Stanislav hates the U.S.? I only hope Stanislav can see the divide between the people of the U.S. and the leadership that has been up to its eyeballs in corrupt money for the last 100 years. Take a look.

Thursday, January 5, 2012


“They are ridiculously expensive and don't work half the time,'' he said. “And no matter how many are built, they won’t replace coal, gas or hydro or nuclear plants, because they are continuous and wind is not always reliable.''
Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace
Article here

Moore told his audience the wind energy industry in Spain has resulted in a 30% unemployment rate among people under the age of 30.

I am not generally on the same side of things political with environmentalists, but this time I whole-heartedly agree with this Dr. Moore who decided to join with those who use their brains for reason, instead of running headlong into destructive insanity. Evidently Dr. Moore had an epiphany some 25 years ago and decided to look for more practical methods, environmental and realistic. Good for him and for us. He has the life experience that led him know the difference between bone-headed nonsense and logical solutions. He knows what the radical environmentalists are, how they plan, and how damaging they can be.

You may wonder why I find this subject so important to discuss since there are no wind farms going up in my near surrounding area. First, our federal and state tax dollars are being used to support this insanity. And secondly, I cannot suffer what these things are doing to birds. Thirdly, they are a blight on the landscape. If you don't like power lines...good heavens, you should see the ugliness of these wind farms.

The thing about these windmills is they are huge, hugely expensive, totally impractical, bird killers, and absolutely the most unnecessary waste of money that I think I've ever seen in this nation. Those windmills are the poster child for everything that is wrong with the green monsters who have taken over our government. You could pick Solyndra for solar panels, or the Chevy Volt, as kindred spirits, but the gigantic windmills, looming like aliens across the farm lands where I have seen them, are a visual blight and reminder of how big and powerful stupidity can become if allowed to steal from the public trough. One thing about the era we live in now is that the boondoggles and monsters are larger and faster appearing than the slow march of historical mistakes and gruesome tyrants of past eras.

If the economics and practicality are not enough for you to see what a disaster these wind farms are, this article tells the story of the birds. "
In 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that about 440,000 birds are likely killed each year by the fast-spinning wind turbines -- and that was at a time when the industry was just beginning an expansion that may bring about a 12-fold growth by 2030. It is impossible to determine how many dead birds that will translate into (it depends how and where wind projects are built), but without a sea change in the industry, it will certainly be in the millions."

Back to the money stolen from you to fund this insanity...(yes, I keep calling it insanity because I can't think of a better word for it..), here is a run down on what the Obama administration has spent on wind turbines and where that money is going:

Despite all the talk of green jobs, the overwhelming majority of stimulus money spent on wind power has gone to foreign companies, according to a new report by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at the American University’s School of Communication in Washington, D.C.

Nearly $2 billion in money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been spent on wind power, funding the creation of enough new wind farms to power 2.4 million homes over the past year. But the study found that nearly 80 percent of that money has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines.

“Most of the jobs are going overseas,” said Russ Choma at the Investigative Reporting Workshop. He analyzed which foreign firms had accepted the most stimulus money. “According to our estimates, about 6,000 jobs have been created overseas, and maybe a couple hundred have been created in the U.S.”

Even with the infusion of so much stimulus money, a recent report by American Wind Energy Association showed a drop in U.S. wind manufacturing jobs last year.

That money is gone...down the tubes. If you want another good reason to get rid of the criminals in DC, starting with the one in the White House, windmills and wind farms would be a darn good reason. And that isn't just bird feathers....

Wednesday, January 4, 2012


Each of us is carrying around with us some hot button issue that hits at the heart of our core beliefs. Some of these issues are narrow. Some are more broad. A narrow issue might be something like the seat belt laws. But even that represents a broader issue at the heart of liberty. A broad issue might be something like Obamacare. This is a liberty issue on steroids. As the government (at all levels) has become greedier and greedier for power, the issues and laws have become incrementally, but lately expeditiously, more all encompassing and more broad.

One of my hot button issues is the " Anthropogenic Climate Change" hoax. It hits me at so many levels it is hard to describe the magnitude of my frustrations over it. The lie is so stunning as to make one's head spin. That deliberate lie on the basis of false doctrine is enough to send me into hives. The lie, taken to its full extent, presumes to cover every activity known to mankind. For instance, if you try to face down the proponents of light rail on the basis of economics or logic, and you dig deep enough into the proponents' reasons, you find they use "Climate Change" as the reason for light rail. If you try to talk sense into someone who proposes tracking recycling activities, you find that underneath the insanity of that is someone who believes in Anthropogenic Climate Change. (AGW) If you want to buy an appliance for your home, you are faced with salesmen pushing "energy star" products. Why? AGW. If you want to take a drive in your gasoline propelled automobile, you are made to feel guilty for doing so. Why? AGW. Buying groceries? Buy local. Why? AGW. Taking a walk? Better take that walk on a previously privately owned piece of property that has been taken for public use. Why? AGW. Want to live 'til you are ninety? Better not. Why? AGW. Heating your house? Don't do it. Why? AGW. Taking a shower? Better make it short. Why? AGW. Whatever you do is now under the cloud of a lie that has become so prevalent that you can't escape living without it? It is everywhere.

Right now we conservatives are vetting candidates for the Presidential race. Some of us are concerned about foreign engagements. Some of us are concerned about domestic policies, energy policies, immigration policies, and more. Some of us focus on employment. Some of us are concerned about privacy issues. Some of us see the big picture and are trying to find a candidate that solves all of the above.

While the AGW issue does not necessarily cover all of the foreign policy issues, it is used as an excuse for some of our foreign policy initiatives. ( We are using foreign aid to support green energy in other countries.) AGW does come into play in almost all of the other issues. It is that broad. So when Rick Santorum explained that he believes AGW is a hoax, my ears pricked up. Why? Because if he is smart enough to tag that as the lie that it is, and say so definitively, he gets my vote for honesty, If he is brave enough to stare the liars right in the face and say so, he gets my vote for courage. The AGW machine is huge and funded with billions of dollars. Santorum sounds willing to tell them to take a hike, get off the stage, take their lies and shove them where the "sun don't shine." That makes me very happy and relieved. We need leadership who is not afraid to tell the truth to the American people. This made me look at Santorum in a different, more favorable, light.

Romney has hedged on this issue. He knows there are buckets of corporate money to be had in this area. He is not about to face down the liars. In fact, Romney likes to embrace all sides of an issue and then pretend he is an honest broker. He likes having everything both ways. He calls Romneycare a good solution for Massachusetts, for crying out loud. If he doesn't resemble a chameleon, I don't know who does. This conservative writer is not a happy Romney-ite. If we are stuck with Romney, yes I will do what is necessary to get rid of the Communist in the White House and will probably vote for Romney. But not happily. While Romney says he will give waivers to all of the states on Obamacare, he does not address the issue that the funding is still in place and some states will continue on implementing pieces of it that no one wants. And Romney definitely does not stand for the truth on AGW.

(Just to make my readers crazy, I have not given up on Newt Gingrich quite yet either. If he lives up to his record from his Contract with America, I see a lot of hope for his candicacy. But he is going to have to get on board with me on with the AGW issue and show the country that he is willing to stand on his convictions for American freedom. He is the smartest guy in the room, as they say. His grasp of history could make him a great leader. Not just that, he has been around the block. He knows what it is like to play hardball with both internal and external enemies of our way of life. I'm hoping he can show why Romney is not the conservative we need.)

There may be hot button issues in your mind that drive you to one candidate or another. This election season is no easy task for choosing the best Presidential candidate. You just need to know that one of the worst is already sitting in the White House. Getting rid of the O is paramount. Replacing him with a Constitutionalist, someone who tells the truth, and someone with the courage to fight for the truth, would be my hope.

One thing is for certain. This election season is not dull.

Monday, January 2, 2012


I've been having a hard time putting labels on those in the political class over the last few years. I don't know what to call those who rule as oligarchs, are doing government deals with corporations, propose populism but implement socialism, and get campaign funds from globalists who get their money from capitalism at the same time trying to destroy capitalism. What do you call these people? There seems to be a mix of too many governing methods to land on one name or another. This coming election year brings a challenge to voters to dare to define a candidate, not just by party affiliation, but by any historically acceptable definition of political science.

First, what is the benefit of a label? A label tells you what you are getting. Or it is supposed to represent something. It says "Green Giant," or it says "Pepsi," or it says "Quaker" oats. A brand name, a label, can make or break a product or an idea, or, in this case of discussion, a political method of governing.

Somewhere in the earliest days of the 1900's the labels of political parties started going off into some neverland of un-definitions. (I would thank Teddy Roosevelt for this due to the Bull Moose Party and his attempt at defining the Republicans as "Progressives.") Defying definitions, the two party system in America has turned into some mish-mash of confusion, so that now we have to look harder, listen harder, and realize a Democrat is no longer what we thought that meant, nor is a Republican what we used to know as "republicanism." When a political party created a platform for governing, the public used to have a reason to look at that platform and decide if it means something they want in their government. That political party then, for purposes of definition, listed the ingredients of the party in their platform so the public would know what they are getting. A brand, a label, would be enough to know if you would want to align yourself with that political party label. The candidate attached to that label would be recognizable.

If you buy Cole Hahn shoes you know what you are getting. If you vote for a Democrat today, what are you getting? A Communist? And if you vote for a Republican today, what are you getting? Progressivism á la Teddy Roosevelt? Or Conservatism á la Jim Demint?

At the top right of my blog you will see a quote from Norman Thomas, a former Socialist Party candidate for President. He says something quite profound regarding the Democrat Party. In his day, the Democrat Party had adopted Socialism so fully, that he basically saw no reason for a Socialist Party any longer. In other words, Democrat = Socialism.

As time has moved on, the Democrats have indeed adopted a full fledged form of Socialism. However, Democrats need money. And while they have succeeded at bleeding the populist dry (note BO's expansion of the national debt), they have to turn somewhere else for money. The Democrat constituency is made up of a lot of the poor dependent class. Not much money there. Yes, they still suck money from unions, but union memberships over the years have dwindled and there isn't as much money in unions as there used to be to fund the Democrats....or maybe another way of looking at this is the high price of politics has out-paced the union money, so the Democrats have had to go fishing in other places. So where have the Democrats gone? They have tapped into the business sector. And that leads to Fascism. Fascism is government rule over business. What did B. O. do? He had the government buy GM. He has hitched his wagon to a global corporation, i.e. GE. He is using government force to take power over businesses, who better pay up and back him...or else. He is attached at the hip to the Goldman Sachs and Soros wall street crowd. Even Warren Buffet has leaned in his direction. The Fascist model is a pay to play model where the corporation or investment class pays the politician or faces the consequences of government force.

Then, with the brief stage appearance of Van Jones, we had a glimpse of someone in BO's camp who unabashedly says he is a Communist. We also have in his camp global Socialists and rabid Environmentalist Socialists. We know his parents and surrounding friends were / are Communists. Put together the GM / GE Fascism, and the hedge fund gleaners, with the others and what we have in BO is a Socialist Fascist Communist.

Then there is the Republican Party who can't seem to shoot straight. Republicanism is supposed to support states rights and individual liberty, small government, etc. Republicans used to support localism by lower taxation, even if that was by default. The less money squeezed out of the states and persons for central government, the more prosperity would fall back onto the states and persons. That was the idea. Instead, what we have had from Republicans is expansion of Democrat social programs simultaneously with the lowering of taxes causing the country to run smack into more debts. You could call this unfunded liabilities, like No Child Left Behind, the Prescription Drug Bill, or Medicare and Medicaid. The Republicans seem to want their cake and eat it, too. Buying the votes of dependents with social programs, but not being able to pay for them is a major flaw in the Republican mindset. The theory is that if you lower taxes on everyone and every business, capitalism thrives and more money flows into the central government coffers. Is that the goal? What is the purpose of government? As long as you are supporting central government social programs you are not a small government, liberty promoting, Republican. Rinos Rejoice!

So, no matter how you look at the two parties, the expansion of the federal, central power of government just goes on unabated. Until finally, no one in the nation has anyone to turn to for small, limited, federal central power. Neither party can say with any authenticity that they are the label for the people, by the people, or of the people. The American public is getting shafted from either direction and definitions no longer hold true. Labels are shams. The mix of definitions has become a toxic soup of Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Environmentalism (now a code word for global socialism), and whatever other ism you want to throw in there.

(Just a quick note on "libertarianism" recommending to legalize drugs and prostitution which taxes those two categories of activities. Basically, more taxes for some immoral behaviors, which isn't any different than Democrats who deem profit as greed and an immoral behavior, wishing to tax it. The Republicans have latched onto various environmental causes and will find taxable activities such as support for land use restrictions, light rail, smart growth, etc. Just saying "libertarianism" is not better than the other two, just another taxation policy.)

So what do you call a politician who is all of the above? Democrat and Republican labels just don't seem to fit anymore. A Socialist Fascist Communist? A Progressive Regressive Politburo? An Environmentalist Fascist Socialist? A Capitalist Fascist Autocrat? Turkeys and Skunks. Might as well be.

Definitions matter.