Category Archives: Federal

NH Activists Lauded in National Review Article

The biggest reason to attend town meetings which are coming up in your town soon!

National Review author Stanley Kurtz has mentioned some of our best NH activists in his latest article about Obamazone and the “Affirmatively Fair Housing Act” and the reason why towns should reject HUD grant funds.

To all our volunteers, those mentioned and those not mentioned, your work may be anonymous but it is not going unrecognized.

We haven’t always been able to get the numbers of people to town meetings as we would like. As you might know, in NH, town meetings (running anywhere from January – June each year) is where residents vote up or down on zoning changes. It is less clear how much say they have in these HUD grants, which are facilitated by ‘Regional Planning Commissions’, boards of unelected bureaucrats who operate just outside of public control and with specially selected NGOs. In our case it’s the Carsey Institute of UNH which actually employs a PR firm (NH Listens) and actors to steer public opinion at under advertised, under attended Delphi sessions.

We are grateful that Kurtz has given this issue of regionalism some mainstream attention. We who fight regionalism can no longer to be considered ‘conspiracy theorists’.

Full NRO Article Here

Property Ownership Under Fire

Well America, get ready to receive your due! Barack Obama has just nationalized your home. Along with that, he has put your local government in chains and he and his central government will now make the rules in your local community. If you do nothing now then it won’t matter whom you elect to city council or county commission. It won’t matter how loud you scream. Imagine no possessions. I wonder if you can! Ignore this warning to take action today or you’re going to learn.

Read more…

Stop Funding Obama’s Paris Global Warming Deal

The only concrete result of President Obama’s Paris global warming agreement is a planned $100 billion per year transfer of wealth from taxpayers in the United States and other western countries to corrupt Third World governments. (The emissions reductions promises from each country are voluntary and unenforceable.) John Kerry specifically promised an initial $3 billion down payment from U.S. taxpayers — but that requires approval from Congress. That request should be dead on arrival, but it’s being credibly reported that the GOP may agree to fund it. That is unacceptable.

URGE CONGRESS: DO NOT FUND OBAMA’S GREEN CLIMATE FUND!

http://action.americancommitment.org/19165/do-not-fund-obamas-green-climate-fund/

Kelly Ayotte Backs Obama’s Climate Plan

Seems that NH Senator Kelly Ayotte is not doing much to help the situation by Backing Obama’s Climate Plan

From the watchdog group CFact:

Could the U.S. and other prosperous nations find themselves hauled before a UN climate court to account for perceived global warming sins and asked to pay restitution?

That possibility edged closer this week when the draft agreement the UN hopes to adopt in Paris this December suddenly included an “International Tribunal of Climate Justice.”

This would allow developing nations to sit in judgment over the U.S. and its allies, but not subject those nations to the tribunal’s jurisdiction themselves.

This is not the first time that a climate court has appeared in a UN climate text. In 2011 a nearly identical provision crept into the draft at the UN’s climate summit in Durban. The provision was stripped from the text after CFACT’s Climate Depot blew the whistle and Marc Morano’s exclusive was picked up by the media.

This time they substituted the word “tribunal” for “court” and insist that the body will be “non-judicial.”

They must have thought we wouldn’t spot the thin edge of the wedge until after it was inserted.

We have three different drafts of the UN climate pact available for you to inspect at CFACT.org. The June draft is around 80 pages long and reads like a radical’s wish list. The French hosts of the upcoming conference stripped the draft down to around 20 pages on June 5th, hoping to create a version that would be easier to slip through.

Over 130 developing nations led by South Africa and egged on by China and India refused to work with the short draft and this week negotiators in Bonn put out a draft nearly twice as long. That’s when the “climate tribunal” was inserted.

The pre-Paris negotiations have become quite contentious. Climate radicals and developing nations are demanding severe restrictions on the developed world along with hundreds of billions of dollars in wealth redistribution.

The American negotiating position has for years been to hold the line against these demands.

The question is, how far will President Obama sell out America’s interests in order to get the developing nations to sign?

Judging by the recent Iran nuclear deal, it appears that Obama and Secretary Kerry may be willing to give away the store in order to claim a foreign policy victory.

Nothing being proposed in the UN climate talks will meaningfully alter the temperature of the Earth. None of their so-called “solutions” can pass a cost-benefit analysis.

It would be a mistake to sign any version of a climate agreement currently envisioned.

We intend to dig through this process and make sure the public knows about any “International Tribunal of Climate Justice” and other equally bad provisions before President Obama signs us on to them.

We’ll need your help to share the facts and get them out.

http://www.cfact.org/2015/10/23/un-climate-text-adds-an-international-tribunal-of-climate-justice/

31 States File Suit Against EPA Water Rule

We have to ask, why isn’t New Hampshire part of this lawsuit?

(CN) – The Sixth Circuit on Friday stayed a new Environmental Protection Agency rule defining “Waters of the United States” that 31 states accuse of trampling their sovereignty.

Attorneys general from 31 states asked the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers in July to delay implementation of a Clean Water Act rule for at least nine months for judicial review.

The rule defines “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. The states claim it asserts federal jurisdiction over streams, wetlands and other water bodies previously considered to be under their jurisdiction.

Sixth Circuit Stays New EPA Water Rule

Are You Guilty of Thought Crimes?

Apparently some folks think you ought to be prosecuted for thinking ‘wrongly’.

As outrageous as it may seem, it is true that “…20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that ‘have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.'”

SO, if you have not accepted AWG as a science you would be prosecuted as a thought criminal?

Read More…

Affirmative Action Housing Effective July 2015

How and Why is HUD Being Allowed To Make Laws? By Mandating!

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HOUSING EFFECTIVE JULY 2015
by Diane Kepus

The social engineering in this new rule, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), was first proposed in 2013. It was finalized this past June with a boost from the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. decision. HUD waited until AFTER this decision came down to make their move.

Knowing the Supreme Court has seen fit to make laws rather than “interpret” them I guess the writing was on the wall. It will come as no surprise to SCOTUS watchers that Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor ruled in the majority, while Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts dissented.

I do wonder if HUD might not be a client of the American Institute of Research (AIR) since they specialize in Social Engineering and Behavioral Modification – for money that is and that is what AFFH is all about!

And by golly they are! Right there on the client list sitting alongside Fannie Mae, Open Society Institute (TY George Soros) and most of our other government agencies sits The US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Hot Diggity Dog!

So it seems AIR is getting rich working with almost every liberal organization and/or government agency to “socially engineer” our country into a Detroit type of country aided by our children who are also to be “psychometrically validated” by the social engineering of AIR!

HUD’s new Affirmative Action Fair Housing (AFFH) rule “gives the federal government a lever to re-engineer nearly every American neighborhood — imposing preferred racial and ethnic composition, densifying housing, transportation, and business development in the suburbs and cities alike, and weakening or casting aside the authority of local governments over core responsibilities, from zoning to transportation to education,” as National Review’s Stanley Kurtz stated.

FAIR TO WHOM? The Illegals, Non-working — If you can’t pass a law you MANDATE IT?

Under a sweeping new federal housing mandate, the Obama administration threatens to withhold funding for cities and counties that fail to remove local zoning laws and other potentially “discriminatory barriers” that restrict low-income housing in wealthy neighborhoods. More than 1,200 municipalities will be impacted by the highly contested rule, which the Housing and Urban Development Department has put into effect.

The massive 377-page regulation requires local authorities to take “meaningful actions” to diversify neighborhoods. Municipalities that don’t comply risk losing millions in federal grant money. Some could face federal housing-bias probes.

In essence, the AFFH gives HUD the authority to force regional annexation on nearly every community in America.  Unless overturned, AFFH can nullify states’ anti-regionalism and anti-annexation laws and erase the concept of local rule and it may be the most comprehensive federal attack on America’s individual sovereignty in our history for you see under Agenda 21 we are not even supposed to OWN any land. 

How many times do we have to tell the states to STOP sending any money to the Federal government? The money they send us is spelled “CHAINS” and if the states would keep their money they would have more money than they know what to do with.

This would be an excellent opportunity for the state and local governments to exercise their independence by telling HUD to “take your funding and shove it”. However, I am sure the “proof will be in the pudding” since our state and local politicians when it comes to defying the federal government or even suggesting such acts of defiance will be few and far between.

This is just another action by the Federal government to eliminate the “middle class”.

HUD’s new rule, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” requires municipalities “to perform an assessment of land use decisions and zoning to evaluate their possible impact on fair housing choice,” it said. “This assessment must be consistent with fair housing and civil rights requirements.”

In a companion “Fair Housing Assessment Tool,” HUD counts “land use and zoning laws, such as minimum lot sizes, limits on multi-unit properties, height limits, or bedroom-number limits as well as requirements for special use permits (and) occupancy restrictions” among “factors contributing to segregated housing patterns.”

For the new rules to be effective, federal officials need to make clear that local governments can lose federal housing aid if they persist in dumping subsidized housing into depressed, racially isolated communities instead of putting more of it in integrated areas that offer better schools and job opportunities.

“In significant measure, the rule amounts to a de facto regional annexation of America’s suburbs,” National Review’s Kurtz writes.

The NY Times editorial board can’t write about anything without getting hysterical:
The Fair Housing Act was intended to break down historic patterns of segregation. But it was undercut from the start by federal officials, including presidents who believed that segregation was the natural order of things.

Really? The FHA was enacted in 1968, long after Woodrow Wilson left office. I wonder what presidents since 1968 the Times thinks “believed that segregation was the natural order of things.” The paper discreetly leaves them unnamed.

I have a good idea! Let’s begin this in Marin County; CA has a total population of 260,750. According to Wikipedia, Marin County, which may be America’s most liberal, is 80% white, 5.5% Asian, and only 2.8% African-American. Marin County is well known for its natural beauty, liberal politics, and affluence. In May 2009, Marin County had the fifth highest income per capita in the United States at about $91,480. This is obviously a place in need of more affordable housing: the most recent census shows 61,264 single-family homes, compared with a measly 210 mobile homes and 1,316 multifamily residential units. Those numbers show that Marin County desperately needs large, subsidized apartment complexes where minorities can live close to good job opportunities and schools along with more mobile home parks, too. In the 2014 governor’s race, by the way, Marin County voted 78% for the Democrat and 22% for the Republican. So I am sure a majority of its residents will applaud the Obama administration’s new “fair housing” initiative and will welcome its application to their communities. 

FYI:  The Department of Housing and Urban Development claimed its statutory authority was found in the Fair Housing Act of 1968. And do you “wanna” bet that when this lands in the Supreme Court they will agree? 

Thirty-One States Fight Clean Water Rule

(CN) – Attorneys general from 31 states asked the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers to delay implementation of a Clean Water Act rule for at least 9 nine months for judicial review.

The rule defines “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. The states claim it asserts federal jurisdiction over streams, wetlands and other water bodies previously considered to be under state jurisdiction.

The EPA cited the need for clean drinking water and clean water as an economic driver as the impetus for its new rule, and Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006 in which justices disagreed about which waters were covered by the Act.

“About 117 million Americans – one in three people – get drinking water from streams that lacked clear protection before the Clean Water Rule,” the EPA said in a May 27 statement about the new rule. “The health of our rivers, lakes, bays, and coastal waters are impacted by the streams and wetlands where they begin.”

Read more…