This letter was published on Thursday, September 12, 2013 in
Foster’s Daily Democrat.

The red tentacles of Strafford County Regional Planning

To the Editor:

Do you own property? Do you maintain your property? Do you pay taxes to the city, to the State, to the Federal Government? Be forewarned! The Red Tentacles of Strafford County Regional Planning (SCRP) may be “rummaging” around on your property when you least expect it, even when you are not around!

This Ad Hoc Agency is out of control! They are attempting to usurp the land rights of citizens, incrementally, one — Agenda 21 ACT — at a time!

One afternoon several “UNH College Seniors” drove up next to my property!

They weren’t lost! They were checking drainage culverts “on my property”!

I was/am, not happy with this project and it’s effects on my property rights as a citizen. One mentioned the possibility of poor drainage while checking the culvert on my property! There had not been any rain, so there wasn’t any water! I gave them a short summary of the sources of water.

I was polite and helpful, I thought! One of the “students” then mentioned the City of Rochester will be advised to clear the vegetation around my culvert!

What! I clean this yearly and have done so for 27 years. Secondly, the city has no business cleaning “anything” on my property! This same person tells me a triangular stone that has been there since I moved here, is restricting the flow of water! A major bridge was destroyed, in 2006, on this road by Route 202 a few years ago, this stone was in place then! Water that strong would certainly have moved such a small stone. It has never restricted water flow. Hearing this nonsense yet again, they were ordered off my property!

That stone was in place before he was born!

I have to ask the following questions:

Under what authority does the SCRP group operate?

Under whose authority does SCRP designate these students, or anyone else, to go onto private property?

Under whose authority do these students think they can “delegate work” to city workers on private property?

This is yet again, an SCRP group pushed Agenda 21, which this city, and many others around here, have voted Not to participate in! These grants only go to expand their power and “thiefdoms”! Your rights and or freedoms are of no concern to them!

I didn’t serve my country in the military to give up ANY rights to this totally socialist agenda! Even if I had not served, I would be just as outraged!

The next group will inventory your trees!

SCRP members — Stay out and off of my property!

Louis Archambault
SMSgt, USAF Ret.
Rochester

RPC: THE NEW RULING POLITICAL CLASS?

Jeffrey Taylor, a former Regional Planning Commissioner and director of the Office of State Planning, received “grant” money from the Tillotson Trust to prepare the Land Use Regulation and Policy Audit for Lancaster, NH in March 2013. In 1992, he wrote an article titled “Shaping the Future” published by the NH Historical Society and The Society for the Protection of NH Forests.

In the article, Taylor describes how difficult it was for planners to convince citizens at local Town Meetings to adopt planning and zoning in New Hampshire:

“How many have stood before their town meeting and urged, in relative isolation, that the town adopt a zoning ordinance, or join the regional planning commission? I have a friend who has participated as a volunteer on his local and regional planning commissions for many years. One of his first jobs in the 1950’s was to visit towns in the northern part of the state to explain the planning process. Before speaking to a local service club he was approached by a member of the community and advised in no uncertain terms that it would be appropriate for him to catch laryngitis, leave town, and never return to discuss this zoning business. To his credit, my friend gave his speech, and many others.”

The people of northern NH declared themselves an independent nation called the Indian Stream Republic in the early 1800’s. They established a constitution, a bicameral legislature, courts, laws and a militia nearly a century before the Socialist-led workers attained merely the right to vote in so-called advanced “places” like Belgium and Sweden.

Yet, as Robert E. Lee Frost, wrote in his poem, “New Hampshire” the glorious bards of Massachusetts [and, undoubtedly the likes of New York Alecs from the school of the pseudo phallic as Frost described them] want to make New Hampshire people over. Sadly, they are getting help from the current NH legislature with statutes that have a socialist bent such as those that created the Regional Planning Commission with the resulting 5-year ‘Master Plans’ just like in the ex-Soviet Union.

Robert E. Lee Frost was called a “reactionary” by socialists and liberals when he rejected the school of Freud and “New Deal” programs. Frost said they were ‘Sapheads’.

According to Peter Stanlis, Robert E. Lee Frost believed the sweep to collectivism in our time characterized by totalitarian ideologies could destroy the principle of limited political power, even in America, through the growth of the federal bureaucracy. He said his view of the left was that while rejecting religion and Western culture as superstitious, they themselves were superstitiously addicted by the idea of progress through science and revolutionary ideology.

According to Peter J. Stanlis (a leading interpreter of the political philosophy of Edmund Burke) in his article “Rehabilitating Frost”, Frost believed Marxists and secular liberals rejected or were often agnostic about God but they deified the [communist] party or the state; they rejected the traditional religions and concept of heaven, but they believed in an eventual heaven on earth. They rejected religion and much of Western culture, as superstition, but were themselves superstitiously addicted by the idea of progress through science and revolutionary ideologies.

Frost referred to socialists with their ubiquitous Secret police or Cheka, rationing production, an anthill. He commented that in the Sverdlovsk region alone, the party employs 3,328 “inspection commissions” to do what a competitive price system would do much better for nothing. He remarked on Stalins collective farms that ended up being miserable failures and resulted in the Soviets being unable to feed their own people.

Martha Spalding

Related: Planning Board Members Survive Removal Attempt

As reported this morning on Girard at Large, Rep John Burt’s open meeting for Goffstown residents was well-attended, including the presence of HUD’s representative for NH, Attorney Gregory Carson. Over 100 people attended.

Also in attendance were residents of Brookline, NH who told of how they were able to reject the HUD grant money by paying it back, after realizing that HUD was intent on changing zoning laws in order to remake the town in HUD’s image of ‘sustainability’, not in the image that the residents of Brookline wanted.

Here the story from Rich Girard… Girard at Large

Here is the video Rich was referring to: http://youtu.be/9KZJYO2XvpM

OPINION By TOM DAWSON, San Luis Obispo, CA

Why haven’t we heard about the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and the plans it has for us before now?

Working in cooperation with “partner” organizations, globalist politicians from ICLEI have been quietly put into key positions. What may be one of the best kept secrets of the last two decades is the way ICLEI and other non-governmental organizations have subtly infiltrated all local governments in the world with prepackaged planning material ready for local government consumption. (That makes it easy for staff to present without much original thinking.)

Although Congress did not approve them, these policies have been mandated into federal agencies by executive order. All this was done under the radar because opposition was anticipated.

J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Bill Clinton’s Presidential Commission on Sustainable Development, stated, ”Participating in a U.N. advocated planning process would very likely bring out many who would actively work to defeat any elected official… undertaking Local Agenda 21. So we will call our process something else, such as ‘Comprehensive Planning’, ‘Growth Management’, or ‘Smart Growth’.” That is why we now hear more about “Climate Change” rather than “Global Warming”, and communities are now referred to as “resilient” rather than “sustainable.”

The names have changed but not to protect the innocent No, the fancy footwork is purposely devised to distract and deceive us. Although being sold as protecting the environment, these globalist scare tactics of finding (or creating) a crisis and then heroically presenting the solution have more to do with gaining control than caring for Mother Earth.

Maurice Strong, author of Sustainable Development and avowed socialist, promotes this attitude: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Plainly stated, the overreaching plan is to use local governments to achieve control. Environmental issues are being used much as the Greeks used the Trojan Horse to seduce the citizens to unknowingly bring the enemy right inside their city.

Speaking of overreaching, I would like to address a philosophy that is being brought forth in the multitude of “rule and regulation” policies that county staff brings to the board of supervisors, and which have been given a stamp of approval by two of our county supervisors. Because supervisors Bruce Gibson and Adam Hill have signed an agreement to promote the goals and purposes of ICLEI, an organization directly tied to and implementing United Nations Sustainable Development policies, perhaps a comparison of how the U.N. and the U.S. view individual rights is in order.

The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights says that the purpose of government is to control the individual for the greater good of a global community. “Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” In short, it is the government that grants, restricts or withdraws your rights according to its needs. You and the product of your labor belong to the community.

In direct contrast, the U.S. Declaration of Independence states that the purpose of our government is to protect the natural or unalienable rights of each individual — “That all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” The philosophy of our government is that you are born with rights and government exists to protect them. You and the product of your labor belong to you.

Which philosophy do you want you and your family to live under: control or protection?

The reason for this little history lesson is to make everyone aware that the Sustainable Development political agenda originated in the founding documents of the U.N. In order for progress to be made in implementing Sustainable Development in the U.S., unalienable rights, such as the right to private property, must be eroded, attacked and struck down altogether. The U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda 21 manual states that private property has to be removed from the hands of individuals because it concentrates too much wealth in the hands of a few. Therefore, property must be put into the hands of the collective.

Of course, one of the best ways to control land is by controlling its natural resources, of which water is clearly the most important.

An additional concern for me is how the political structure of America is being transformed. It seems that while we citizens were going about the business of life, making a living, raising our families, caring for our properties, and all the activities that keep us more than distracted, certain mechanisms have been quietly at work without public awareness.

Gone are the days when government was limited and where we, as individuals, were politically acknowledged to possess unalienable rights. Today, we see public expectations and legislative agendas being dominated by the ideology that individual human wants, needs and desires must conform to the views and dictates of the community. This philosophic approach to government is called communitarianism,and it means more of our rights having “to take a back seat to the collective” in the process of implementing Sustainable Development.

I have a question for supervisors Gibson and Hill: When you put your signatures on that ICLEI agreement, did you think the voters of your districts would happily allow you to make their individual rights less important than the rights of some undefined “collective”?

I seriously doubt it.

Read More from Mr. Dawson here: http://calcoastnews.com/2013/09/resilient-communities-supervisors/ and here: http://calcoastnews.com/2012/11/board-of-supervisors-land-grab/

Dubbed as ‘effective partners for state and federal governments’ read more about this unelected layer of governance:

http://narc.org/resource-center/cogs-mpos/what-is-a-council-of-government/

Not until the late 1890’s did Socialist-led workers attain voting rights in “advanced” European countries.

NH settlers had already declared themselves the independent nation of the Indian Stream Republic in the 1800’s. They established a constitution, a bicameral legislature, courts, laws and a militia.

Frost said the glorious bards of Massachusetts want to make the people of NH over. He said he chose to be a plain New Hampshire farmer. When he rejected “New Deal” programs, saying farming and banking don’t mix, he was called a “reactionary” by the leftists at Harvard. Frost called them “Sapheads”.

I wonder what he’d call the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) which imposes an additional layer of government over the people of NH with board members who are unelected and unaccountable to the people.

Maybe he’d say they were the new Ruling Political Class?

It certainly is applicable, because nothing they do is from the people of NH nor is it grassroots; as with Saul Alinsky, a Marxist community organizer, all that matters is the illusion of democracy.

Jeffrey Taylor, a former Regional Planning Commissioner and former director of the Office of State Planning, received “grant” money from the Tillotson Trust to prepare the Land Use Regulation and Policy Audit for Lancaster, NH. He wrote an article titled “Shaping the Future” published by the NH Historical Society and Society for the Protection of NH Forest.

In the article, Taylor describes how difficult it was for planners to convince citizens at local Town Meetings to adopt planning and zoning in New Hampshire. He said:

“How many have stood before their town meeting and urged, in relative isolation, that the town adopt a zoning ordinance, or join the regional planning commission? I have a friend who has participated as a volunteer on his local and regional planning commissions for many years. One of his first jobs in the 1950’s was to visit towns in the northern part of the state to explain the planning process. Before speaking to a local service club he was approached by a member of the community and advised in no uncertain terms that it would be appropriate for him to catch laryngitis, leave town, and never return to discuss this zoning business. To his credit, my friend gave his speech, and many others.”

“It is the zoning and regulatory system that we have in place that has produced the built environment that frequently has so little to do with our stated goals and objectives. While master plans speak of preserving our communities’ rural character, we slice the landscape up in three, four, and five-acre lots; the beautiful compact village centers of Walpole, Amherst, Sandwich and others would be unbuildable under most current local ordinances. Something is wrong here. If the process won’t produce the products we desire, it is time to revisit the process.”

According to Taylor, the planners used urban planning models for New Hampshire’s rural landscape:

“The bulk of New Hampshire’s local land use regulations reflects an urban origin. We have taken urban models and transferred them to the rural landscape. This was a necessary first step. It was a model that my friend could take to the service club up north in the 1950’s and have them understand, if not accept. They have served us well, to a point. It is time to move on.”

There’s no mention of the people’s goals and objectives, just those of the planners!

If the unelected planners didn’t get paid, they just might take Taylor’s advice and move on and out of NH.