Category Archives: Miscellaneous

California To Confiscate 300 Farms By Eminent Domain, For Unapproved Water Project

(SAN FRANCISCO) State contractors have readied plans to acquire as many as 300 farms in the California delta by eminent domain to make room for a pair of massive, still-unapproved water tunnels proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown, according to documents obtained by opponents of the tunnels.

Farmers whose parcels were listed and mapped in the 160-page property-acquisition plan expressed dismay at the advanced planning for the project, which would build 30-mile-long tunnels in the delta formed by the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers.

Updated: Wyoming Man Challenges Outrageous EPA fines

By Eric Boehm | Watchdog.org

A rancher is taking the Environmental Protection Agency to federal court, asking a judge to stop the agency from fining him more than $16 million because he built a small pond on his property.

Andy Johnson of Fort Bridger, Wyoming says he made sure to get the proper permits from his state government before building the pond. After all, this is America in the 21st century, and nothing done on your own property — certainly when it involves the use of water — is beyond government concern.

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?

Silvio O. Conte Wildlife Refuge

This is a message from former NH State Representative Anne Cartwright

Dear friends and concerned landowners,

I have information on the expansion of the Silvio O. Conte Wildlife Refuge by the US Fish & Wildlife Service in large parts of our state. This plan to expand, for which I was sent notifications as landowner in the proposed expansion, includes MA, CT, Southern and Northern areas in VT and NH. I am including links to maps of areas in NH and VT for which you might have an interest. The first 2 maps help to show the huge area that this will encompass. The 3rd link is to the home page for the entire document.

Southern Area:
http://www.fws.gov/r5soc/library/about/mapSVTNH_sfa.pdf

Northern Areas:
http://www.fws.gov/r5soc/library/about/mapNVTNH_sfa.pdf

Homepage for Plan:
http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Silvio_O_Conte/what_we_do/conservation.html

Also I am including a couple of links to more detailed maps of a few of the towns and
property within the plan.

http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_5/NWRS/North_Zone/Silvio_O_Conte_Complex/Silvio_O_Conte/01%28f%29w_Appendix_A_Conservation_Focus_Areas_New_Hampshire%28435.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_5/NWRS/North_Zone/Silvio_O_Conte_Complex/Silvio_O_Conte/AshuelotCFAParcelTableandMaps.pdf

Are People You Didn’t Elect Running Your Town?

Governor Hassan ceremonially signs Senate Bill 63 and Senate Bill 88 in Nashua, bipartisan bills important to the process of expanding commuter rail in New Hampshire.

Are People You Didn’t Elect Running Your Town?
It would certainly seem that way.

Smart Growth America, a non-governmental private organization is now hiring “Transportation Program Managers”.

What will these “Transportation Program Managers” do as part of their jobs?

Read the full job description here.

Among those duties would be to…

– Lead technical assistance for state DOTs, MPOs, and City and County DOTs;
– Conduct research, develop policy positions, write policy papers, and inform transportation advocacy efforts;
– Act as lead or team member for technical assistance efforts to local governments, state governments and other SGA technical assistance efforts;
– Assist on other projects where specific transportation expertise is needed;
– Manage program staff, budget, and grant deliverables;
– Help market the transportation program;
– Conduct limited fundraising; and
– Speak publicly before elected officials, transportation professionals, and the general public.

You have to ask yourself, who elected these people to come and advocate or steer our local governments into doing anything?

When you vote at your town meeting in 2016 keep in mind your master plan was not created with you in mind, but with the guidance of these unelected master planners. Scrutinize it well.

High Speed Boondoggle

Obama’s Climate Hubris Scales New Heights

by Betsy McCaughey

This week President Obama is hailing his Clean Power Plan as “the single most important step America has ever taken in the fight against global climate change.”  Obama is posing as the environment’s savior, just as he did in 2008, when he promised his presidency would mark “the moment when . . . the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” Seven years later, that messianic legacy is in doubt.  Obama’s Clean Power Plan has never had legislative support, even when his own party controlled both houses of Congress. Now he’s trying to impose it without Congress, an audacious ploy his old Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe condemns as “burning the Constitution.”  As his presidency wanes, Obama is desperately burnishing his eco-credentials with environmental zealots like Pope Francis and the leftists at the U.N. and in the European Union. But here at home, his plan would be a disaster economically, which explains its failure in Congress.

Hillary Clinton is pledging to support the plan, while Republicans vying for their party’s presidential nomination are vowing to oppose it. The Clean Power Plan will be a fiercely debated issue in coal-consuming swing states like Ohio, Illinois, and Pennsylvania – where the race for the White House is usually decided.

Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is imposing the Clean Power Plan on all 50 states, requiring each state to close down coal-burning electric plants, and shift to other sources of electricity – natural gas burning plants, nuclear plants, solar and wind power generators – in order to reduce carbon emissions by one-third.

Nationwide, about 40 percent of electric power is produced by coal plants. Forcing these utilities to close will burn consumers with higher electric bills. It will also send hundreds of thousands of jobs a year up in smoke, as employers pay more to operate their businesses, according to Heritage Foundation economists.

And for what? The purported benefit is to avoid an imperceptible 0.02 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures by the year 2100. That’s the official EPA estimate of the benefits of this Clean Air Plan. You must be kidding.

That’s what as many as 25 governors are saying, and they are expected to file a lawsuit challenging the plan. They’ve got a strong case. Although the EPA bases its authority on the Clean Air Act of 1970, nothing in that law authorizes the agency to do more than require plants to use the best available technology – like scrubbers – to reduce emissions.

Congress never authorized the EPA to force states to close coal plants and move on to nuclear, or wind and solar. “The brute fact is that the Obama administration failed to get climate legislation through Congress. Yet the EPA is acting as though it has the legislative authority anyway to re-engineer the nation’s electric generating system,” says Tribe. “It does not.”

Defenders of the president’s environmental agenda say he has to act alone because the Congress is gridlocked. That’s untrue. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are against the plan, and for good reasons.

Obama’s EPA has tried several end-runs around Congress, creatively interpreting the 45-year-old Clean Air Act to suit its agenda.

But it hasn’t always gotten away with it. In a stinging U.S. Supreme Court rebuke against the administration’s restrictions on mercury emissions, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that “it is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs” when the benefits are so uncertain.

The same could be said for the plan announced on Monday. Defenders of the new regulation predict falling energy costs from renewable sources, but so far that is pie in the sky speculation. Like the president’s prediction that the average family would save $2,500 because of Obamacare.

But long before the Supreme Court weighs in on this new plan, presidential politics is likely to determine its fate. Another example of how high the stakes are in 2016.
—

Betsy McCaughey is a Senior Fellow at the London Center for Policy Analysis and best-selling author of Beating Obamacare.

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…

Local Governments Now Being Nationalized

In what appears to be adherence to the goals of the Rockefellers, Obama and his community organizer mentors hold the view that the cities suffer because of taxpayer flight to the suburbs.

This past week, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a long and convoluted final rule, entitled “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing”. This rule sets out the new terms and conditions which all local governments will be required to meet if they receive federal funds to advance their local housing programs.

Every state county or municipality organization should think long and hard before taking a dime in HUD money. Otherwise, they face the feds schemes of forced integration and redistribution of the wealth.

UN Housing Goals a Threat to Freedom

Just in case you still wondered what the unelected boards known as Regional Planning Commissions were doing in NH…

As we have written about before, Obama hopes that by imposing the “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” Rule he can social engineer your neighborhood.

A final Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rule due out this month is aimed at ending decades of deep-rooted segregation around the country. “HUD is working with communities across the country to fulfill the promise of equal opportunity for all,” a HUD spokeswoman said. “The proposed policy seeks to break down barriers to access to opportunity in communities supported by HUD funds.”

However, we maintain that HUD cannot simply make a ‘rule’ such as this without congressional approval.

HUD’s ‘rule’ is rooted in the UN’s push for Agenda 21 goals under the guise of ‘sustainability’.

But the idea that an ad hoc NGO such as “Placemaking” which comes out of the UN would have any say in how our cities are built is preposterous. Nevertheless, they hold conference after conference, compiling endless decrees about how countries must comply with their utopian ideas of where and how people should live.

The United Nations Habitat conference on housing and sustainability (Habitat III) is one such conference. The UN says this conference “will set the goals and pace for place making in developed and developing countries…”

These decrees can be seen in numerous documents such as the 2016-2030 Sustainable Development Goals which aims to ‘to provide by 2030 universal access to universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible green spaces and public spaces’.

“…the UN Habitat III preparation papers suggest, this ‘involves a systematic (re)distribution of the benefits of growth or development with the legal frameworks that ensure a level playing field’.”

Read what one of these ad hoc NGOs has to say:
http://newstartmag.co.uk/your-blogs/placemaking-must-be-framed-by-fairness-and-equity/

Most thinking people believe that the UN has no right to tell people in the USA (or anywhere else for that matter) how, where, or with whom we can live. It’s called FREEDOM which seems to be a concept that is totally lost on these unelected agents of Agenda 21.

Typical Agenda 21-Inspired Blather

We’ll let you read the article yourself.

http://www.examiner.com/article/former-carter-staffer-shoot-republicans-to-save-animals-environment

Granite State Future(s)

Exposing Regionalism in New Hampshire