"Read all about it"

Archive for November, 2011|Monthly archive page

ICLEI’s Harvey Ruvin and Mayor Tom Rowland share a connection!

In Agenda 21, Government on November 30, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Remember the man that said this?

“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” 

Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project

Well our very own Mayor Tom Rowland has a connection to Harvey Ruvin, one of the architects of the Agenda 21 process in this region! Harvey has influenced ACIR and I have recently shared my concern that ACIR is being “used” in a similar way as ICLEI . As is evidenced in a prior  news blog I titled “TACIR is our ICLEI!” The similarities are many and are being used to change the landscape of our environment.

Mayor Tom Rowland is a major pawn in this whole Regional Growth Plan and the implementation of Agenda 21 into our region. The mayor and his cohort Mayor Gary Davis have signed on or are being complicit with the plans the Southeast Tennessee Economic Development Council and Beth Jones has for our region.

The point is, ICLEI is a direct descendant of the United Nations and they are being given authority by our Mayors without County or City authority, completely circumventing the elected officials that represent you! This Regional Growth plan is situating us to accept major money from the Federal Government which means many strings will be attached, meaning new regulations and higher taxes to pay for it.

Our local governments are broke, near bankruptcy and we are growing our region! We do not have the money to do so, yet we continue to make plans that will result in BILLIONS of growth? Why do you think that is? We are chasing the money and have become prostitutes to our Federal Government! Every thing we are not supposed to be!

Look at the biography of Harvey Ruvin, and the similarities to our own government leader Tom Rowland! There seems to be more similarities than the fact that they shared leadership roles within ACIR/TACIR! They are both globalists and have sold out our sovereignty for the safety and sanctitiy of our community. This is such a sad statement and a bad crowd for him to be hanging around in! Our Mayor and one of the architects of Agenda 21 sharing the same resume! This should frighten many and show their collective plans for our region.

“Individual rights will take a back seat to the collective”  is such a scary vision to share with any one and to think that through this ACIR/TACIR connection, one they both share, this could become a reality!

1) Harvey Ruvin served a four-year term on the prestigious Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). He chaired the ACIR Research committee. (Presidents Reagan and Bush, 1987-91).

1) Mayor Tom Rowland is serving his second term as Co-chairman of the board at TACIR,  the Tennessee Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations

The City of Cleveland Mayor and TACIR support the growth plan!
http://clevelandbanner.com/bookmark/11531579-TACIR-backs-growth-strategy

Mayor Rowland is the vice chair of TACIR!
http://clevelandbanner.com/bookmark/14759118-TACIR%E2%80%99s-hometown-voice
https://bradleycountynews.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/tacir-do-fear/

TACIR is our ICLEI

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=tacir%20is%20our%20iclei&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbradleycountynews.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F07%2F28%2Ftacir-is-our-iclei%2F&ei=u4DWTqugMdCWtwfpws2jCA&usg=AFQjCNHXO2I_OnL1zF26nXDaq7SdKm38MQ

Just for fun read this biography and draw similarities! Both have the same goals!

Harvey Ruvin Biography

Harvey Ruvin
County Clerk, Miami-Dade County, Florida

Harvey Ruvin is a graduate Industrial Engineer (University of Florida 1959). He received his Juris Doctor from the University of Miami Law School, 1962. Mr. Ruvin lives in Miami Beach with his wife, Risa. He has two sons, an adult son Eric and Zachary, a teenager.

He was first elected to public office in 1968 at the age of 30. Serving as Mayor of the City of North Bay Village, he became one of the youngest mayors in Miami-Dade County history. In 1972, Ruvin was elected to the Metro Dade County Commission where he served till 1992, becoming the only person ever to be elected to five consecutive 4-year terms to the Commission.

In 1992, he was elected to the Office of Miami-Dade County Clerk and in 1996 and 2000 was re-elected without opposition. The Office’s constitutional responsibilities include interaction with the County’s $4 Billion plus budget and financial management, Clerk of the Courts, Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners, Recorder of Deeds, Records Management and much more. The Agency has 1400 employees and a $65 million budget funded mostly from its own revenue collections. The Office serves a myriad of functions and touches all branches of local government.

On National and International Levels
Harvey Ruvin served as the President of the National Association of Counties (NACo) (1987-88). He chaired separate NACo Task Forces on Immigration, Environment and Energy, and the Liability Insurance crisis. NACo is the only national organization representing the interests and acting as a clearing house for the more than 3,000 county governments in America.

Ruvin is a past chairman and current member of the Urban Consortium (UC) of Public Technology, Inc. (PTI). PTI is the technology arm of its parents, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and the International City/County Management Association. The UC is a coalition of the Nation’s 50 largest urban government seeking to apply emerging technologies to local government needs.

In addition to his leadership of America’s Counties and the Urban Consortium, Ruvin’s service at the NATIONAL (where he has served five Presidents in an advisory capacity) and INTERNATIONAL level has included:
Member, Intergovernmental Science Engineering and Technology Advisory Panel to Office of Science Advisor to the President (Presidents Ford and Carter, 1975-80).
Member, President’s Council on Energy Efficiency, as well as Vice Chairman of Local Government Energy Policy Advisory Committee (President Carter, 1977-80).
Served a four-year term on the prestigious Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). He chaired the ACIR Research committee. (Presidents Reagan and Bush, 1987-91).
Served as a member of the President Clinton 1988-91 Sustainable Communities Task Force of the President’s Counc
il On Sustainable Development (PCSD).
Member, Board of Directors of the National Association of Counties (1983-present).
Member, Board of Directors of National Association of Regional Councils (1973-1978).
Member, Board of Directors of the Community Associations Institute (1978-1982).
Vice Chairman of National Immigration Forum (1980-1984).
Delegate to the United Nations World Congress for a Sustainable Future, representing America’s Counties at this first-ever international effort to coordinate local governments’ environmental initiatives (1990).
Was the sole spokesperson representing Local Governments World-wide to address the Prep-Com of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in March of 1992.
Served as Vice-President of the North American section and as a member of the prestigious World EXCOM of the International Union of Local Authorities (IULA), an appointment made jointly by the US Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and the Canadian Municipal League.
Served as chair of final communiqué session of the Second Municipal Summit on Climate Control in Berlin (March 1995) which produced the most comprehensive participating statement by local leaders to date on full range of climate change and equity issues.
Member, Board of Directors of the National Association of County Recorders, Election Officials and Clerks, Board of Directors (NACRC). This is the governing body which oversees the organization’s efforts to promote the exchange of ideas for the professional management of county recording, clerk and information management functions.
Vice Chairman, Executive Committee of ICLEI which is the 15 member governing body of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). ICLEI is membered by 600 local governments from all over the planet, seeking pro-active ways to combat global environmental and sustainability concerns. He serves as President of USA – ICLEI. Inc. – the corporate entity operating the organization’s efforts in America.
 
ICLEI has been designated to represent local government at all United Nations’ meetings dealing with the environment and sustainability.

The Regional Growth Plan, ICLEI, EPA, HUD and the DOT are on their way to Bradley County with Agenda 21 with the assistance of our own Mayors!

Advertisements

Community Block Grants, full of fraud and abuse, Senator Mike Bell and Rep Eric Watson embrace them

In Agenda 21, Government on November 28, 2011 at 1:17 PM

I never cease to be amazed at the naievete of some of our elected State officials to partake of such a crime ridden, frequently abused program such as the CDBG program! Have you ever seen such a desire by our elected leaders to take seemingly endless tax dollars and literally give it away to beuracrats and private partnerships all for the love of the little bit of money that will trickle into our community after “federal, state and local administrative costs” are administered! Where is the dignity of these elected officials to think that by contracting with a federal agency like HUD that after we jump through the many hoops to recieve the grants that they are convinced they have done anything good for our communities? Senator Bell and Representative Watson you have been put on notice that these grants and it’s distribution of funds will be closely monitored for effectiveness of use by the taxpayers that you supposedly represent. In the event of your over willingness to spend the taxpayers dollars irresponsibly there will be a huge accountability factor involved! Recklessly spending tax payers dollars can no longer be tolerated! Spending money we do not have and causing great discomfort to the community you represent by federal government regulation for you simply accepting theses grants is not a favorable position to be in and can no longer be accepted as the norm! Federal spending and waste of tax payer dollars must be stopped! Someone must stop the madness!
Community Development Block Grants are the largest community development activity in HUD. They were created by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, which combined several narrower grants into one formula-based block grant for local governments. The change stemmed from local frustrations with the complex web of federal aid that developed in the 1960s.6
In 2009, CDBG spending totaled $8 billion.7 The bulk (70 percent) of the funding goes to selected local governments that are called “entitlement communities.” The top five recipients of these funds since 2000 are the cities of New York ($1.6 billion), Chicago ($780 million), Los Angeles ($758 million), Philadelphia ($557 million), and Detroit ($412 million).8 The other 30 percent of CDBG funding goes to state governments as “nonentitlement community” funding. State governments dole out those funds to local governments and nonprofit groups.
CDBG activities are supposed to meet one of three objectives: (1) benefit low- and moderate-income persons, (2) prevent or eliminate slums or blight, or (3) address a serious need or threat that has particular urgency.9 A huge range of activities meet these criteria, including:
acquisition of property
construction or repair of streets, recreation facilities, and other public works
demolition and rehabilitation of public and private buildings
public services and planning activities
assistance to nonprofit and for-profit groups for community development purposes
While CDBG funds are initially handed out to state and local governments, the ultimate beneficiaries are usually private businesses and organizations working on particular projects, such as shopping malls, parking lots, museums, colleges, theaters, swimming pools, and auditoriums. Here is a small sampling of projects funded in 2008:10
$588,000 for a marina in Alexandria, Lousiana
$245,000 for the expansion of an art museum in Allentown, Pennsylvania
$147,000 for a canopy walk at the Atlanta Botanical Gardens in Georgia
$196,000 for expanding the Calvin Coolidge State historic site in Vermont
$294,000 for a community recreational facility in New Haven, Connecticut
$196,000 for the construction of an auditorium in Casper, Wyoming
$441,000 to replace a county exposition center in Umatilla, Oregon
$98,000 for the Pearl Fincher Museum of Fine Arts in Spring, Texas
$245,000 for renovations to awnings at a historical market in Roanoke, Virginia
$294,000 for the development of an educational program at the Houston Zoo in Texas
All these activities are purely local in nature, and there is no national interest in funding them. CDBG funding runs completely counter to the federalist model of American government.
Federal policymakers are supposed to make decisions on national issues such as defense and security; it makes no sense for them to be city planners, but that’s what the CDBG program effectively lets them do.
Battling over Formulas

Moving funding for local projects up to the federal level injects federal politics into local activities. The particular cities and counties that receive CDBG funding have long been fought over in Congress. While the program was created to help high-poverty areas improve basic services such as fire and police, the program currently spreads taxpayer largesse very widely, including to some of the wealthiest areas of the country.11
CDBG money is doled out based on complex formulas that do not target need very well. For example, the wealthy community of Madison, Wisconsin, receives a CDBG allotment of a similar size as low-income San Marcos, Texas, partly because a large group of temporarily low-income college kids in Madison are included in the formula.12 The 2009 federal budget noted that the CDBG “formula has not been updated in over 30 years and as a result, many lower-income communities receive less assistance than wealthier communities.”13 Experts occasionally try to fix such problems, but those reforms are usually blocked by politicians benefiting from the status quo.
One allocation item in the CDBG formula is “housing built before 1940.” How did that obscure item get into the CDBG formula? The Northeast-Midwest Institute, which is a lobby group for a regional group of states, got a member of Congress to insert it into legislation in 1977 in order to tilt aid toward older cities.14 The Bush administration wanted to change this formula item in 2006 because “many poor communities have torn down old, blighted housing while affluent communities have rehabbed theirs, giving them a leg up in the distribution of funds.”15 But the Bush proposal met stiff resistance from wealthier communities such as Oak Park, Illinois, which would have lost some of its CDBG subsidies.16
CDBG spending has gradually shifted from poorer to wealthier communities over time.17 For that reason, the Bush administration rated the CDBG program “ineffective” due to its “weak targeting of funds.”18 It noted, for example, that wealthy Greenwich, Connecticut, received five times more funding per low-income resident than poorer Camden, New Jersey.19 It should not be the role of the federal government to redistribute income between regions, but even if it was, the CDBG program is not very good at it.
Excessive Bureaucracy

One result of involving all three levels of government in funding local projects is rampant bureaucracy. Local governments that receive CDBG funds spend 17 percent on administration, on average, according to the Government Accountability Office.20 For the portion of CDBG funds that flow to state governments, state-level bureaucracies are an additional cost. The GAO found that state government administration consumed 8 percent of CDBG funds. On top of those costs are federal administration costs, which are about 5 percent of the value of grants.21
After the government bureaucracies take their share, CDBG monies get distributed to the private businesses and organizations that carry out funded projects. Federal rules usually specify the share of funding that may be used by recipients for administrative costs, and 10 percent seems to be common. Thus, considering all the administrative costs at all layers of government and private organizations, a large share of the CDBG budget disappears before any actual work is done.
One cause of high administration costs in grant programs is that governments and private groups must comply with complex federal regulations. Consider, for example, that the State of Virginia’s CDBG manual explaining the regulations is 170 pages long, and the state’s application package for grant applicants is 132 pages long.22
Waste and Abuse

Moving funding for local projects up to the federal level eliminates responsible city planning. When local funds are used for local projects, local officials have an interest in ensuring that the benefits of public projects outweigh the costs. But when the federal government is the source of funds, local governments tend to invest in a range of inefficient and wasteful activities.
The CDBG program also has a history of financial abuse and dubious project spending. In 2006, HUD’s inspector general found that fraud by CDBG grant recipients was common—and increasing.23 After recently auditing a sample of just 35 CDBG grantees, investigators found more than $100 million in improper or questionable spending, including:
An audit of redevelopment projects in San Diego found that $12.9 million was spent on activities there were ineligible or lacked proper records. For example, CDBG funds were used improperly for a festival to celebrate a shopping center.24
The City of Chicopee, Massachusetts, spent $4.3 million on projects that were ineligible or lacked proper records. Some of the funds went to the affluent neighborhood where the mayor lived. In 2005, the mayor was arrested on extortion charges related to illegal campaign contributions received in return for helping a developer obtain development funds.25
The City of Utica, New York, spent funds on a variety of improper uses, such as $902,799 on a marina and $255,158 on ski chalet renovations.26 That is not the targeting of funds to poor neighborhoods that CDBG supporters envisioned.
 In 2006, HUD’s inspector general reported that in just two and a half years of CDBG investigations it had “indicted 159 individuals, caused administrative actions against 143 individuals, had 5 civil actions, 39 personnel actions, and over $120 million in recoveries.”27 The inspector general found that there were “repeated” problems with the program, including the improper use of funds, grantee inability to account for funds, and a lack of monitoring and oversight.
Here is a sampling of some of the local-level scandals to hit the CDBG program over the years:
The economic development agency of Essex County, New Jersey, spent $1.6 million on county administration in assisting just seven businesses.28
A government employee in East St. Louis pled guilty to income tax evasion after directing $158,000 in CDBG funds to her bank account.29 East St. Louis has long had corruption problems with federal grant monies.
Former South Dakota governor Bill Janklow directed $825,000 of CDBG funds to a shooting range, which HUD ruled was an improper use of funds.30 HUD found that 9 of 12 CDGB awards it examined in the state failed to meet low-income targeting requirements.
Miami officials used CDBG funds to back a $5.4 million low-interest loan for an investment company controlled by a wealthy Saudi Arabian sheik.31
Selected audits of CDBG grantees in 1995 produced 31 indictments and 21 convictions for misuse of funds.32 Auditors found that the owner of a Louisiana sawmill used funds to pay off personal debts, the city of Troy, New York used $1.6 million to lure a hockey team to the city, and a California Indian tribe used $404,000 to construct an off-track betting facility.
The head of the Multicultural Center in Modesto, California, who was a Democratic Party activist, used $47,500 of CDBG money for personal and political purposes.33
The government of Washington, DC, gave $1 million to a funeral home for a business expansion, which ended up never occurring. That prompted the Washington Times to note: “It’s an example of a repeated problem the city has administering its community development block grants.”34
Niagara Falls and Lockport, New York, used $12 million to build an amusement center, which shut down after just six months of operation. The company behind the project pled guilty to defrauding HUD.35
The CDBG program has been a poster child for waste and abuse for decades. Unfortunately, few members of Congress have shown any interest in cutting the program or even conducting oversight. A 1989 news article explains why:
GAO investigators have been trying to interest congressmen in scrutinizing the $3 billion Community Development Block Grant program. … Describing the program as the “next bombshell” waiting to hit HUD, investigators said it is rife with waste and mismanagement, but they got no takers. Lawmakers explained that since they had been struggling to save the grants from Reagan’s budget ax, they would be embarrassed by a scandal. In addition, many districts get money from the program, and legislators do not want to launch a probe that could turn off the spigot.36
Despite all the abuses, perhaps policymakers believe that CDBGs are nonetheless effective at stimulating growth. After 30 years and more than $100 billion it should be easy to demonstrate the program’s success, but it’s hard to find any examples of city rejuvenation created by the program.37 Instead, numerous cities, such as Detroit, which have been major CDBG recipients, have fallen further into decline. The reality is that no amount of federal money can overcome the local hurdles to growth in cities such as Detroit—including political corruption and destructive tax and regulatory policies. Indeed, just like international development aid, federal aid to the cities likely increases corruption and stalls much-needed local reforms.
With the federal government running huge deficits, it cannot afford to fund ineffective and often wasteful local development projects. Community development is a local concern, and only local leaders and businesses using their own funds can make sound cost-benefit decisions on projects. By providing local leaders with handouts from Washington, we simply encourage them to make irresponsible decisions. At the same time, experience has shown that federal politicians use local projects as political tools that are disconnected from sound economics.
 

Source of info:
Tad DeHaven, writer!
Please visit his website below!
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hud/community-development#Top

The Truth About Conservation Easements: How they take away your rights

In Agenda 21, Farmers on November 28, 2011 at 9:37 AM

The Truth About Conservation Easements: How They Take Away Your Rights
By Dan Byfield

Smooth salesmen and lawyers representing land trusts, environmental organizations and government agencies are swooping down upon America’s beleaguered and highly regulated rural landowners. With a smile, some cash and a contract, America’s landowners are rapidly losing private control of natural resources.

Municipal, county, and state government agencies are contracting with private non-profit organizations with one goal in mind – to dole out conservation easements. For private landowners, red flags should go up immediately. Conservation easements completely change the way land is owned and managed.

A recently announced alliance between a local government water authority and a land trust included a statement about how they planned to conserve land and protect water. Their alleged goal is to “help landowners create conservation easements on their property that will ensure the property is managed according to the owner’s wishes far into the future.” However, that isn’t entirely true.

Similar alliances are occurring in hundreds, maybe thousands of locations nationwide. Municipal, county, and state government agencies are contracting with private non-profit organizations with one goal in mind – to dole out conservation easements.

For private landowners, red flags should go up immediately!

Conservation easements take away part of or the entire bundle of property rights originally transferred when a landowner purchased real property. Those rights include the right to possess, use, modify, develop, lease, or sell your land. In a conservation easement, Landowners give up some, if not all, of those rights, leaving them powerless to control the use of their land but still obligated to pay taxes. In other words, the landowner becomes a subservient owner of his own land, which is now managed and controlled – forever – by a new partner.

Property includes land, water and minerals and they are what give meaning to the bundle of rights. Conservation easements give land trusts or government entities the authority to manage and control these rights and pay the landowner a reduced amount for his property without “taking” it. As a landowner, you are still physically living or working the land, but you have to abide by somebody else’s rules.

True, conservation easements are voluntary; but once these agencies set their sites on a specific piece of land, the landowner is left with few options, none of which can be classified as “voluntary.” It’s called greenlining and it’s happening everywhere.

Landowners are notified that they are located inside a particular area desired to be “protected” and their land will be regulated or maybe taken by eminent domain. The only option given the landowner is to take their “offer” and the only thing being offered is a conservation easement. Every year, hundreds of landowners are “forced” to sell their rights to a land trust or a land use, resource-based government agency.

Conservation easements are legally binding contracts that last forever – they are “in perpetuity.” The IRS must approve the offer before the landowner can get the tax incentives and abatements, but the outcome is always the same, a third party will take over control and management of the property.

The effect of placing a conservation easement on a piece of property is to substantially lower its value by reducing or restricting its use. Landowners who need quick cash and a tax reduction find these plans attractive for a short term fix. The property, however, will never be the same.

Taking such a step will bring a one time benefit, but the conservation easement attaches to your property forever. It cannot be changed, except by the government, as affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Big Meadows Grazing Association v. United States.

In that case, the Court said; “Specifically, Big Meadows relinquished all rights not expressly reserved in…the easement,” which “expressly reserved in Big Meadows only record title…,” but “it nowhere grants Big Meadows the power to veto a conservation plan of which it disapproves.”

Big Meadows gave up its bundle of rights and was left with virtually nothing but the bills. The government modified the amount of money Big Meadows would have to spend to implement the conservation plan and the Court said Big Meadows had to oblige.

A conservation easement can be enforced by the holder or a third party like the Environmental Defense, who don’t think your land is being managed properly. It can be transferred at anytime to another land trust or government agency. And, it determines management practices and landowner’s obligations.

A conservation easement is also, in effect, a quasi databank that others can use when searching for suitable habitat. That is, when habitat is destroyed for development of any kind, the law, called mitigation, requires other land to be set aside as a replacement. Land in a conservation easement, even if it is 500 miles away, can be condemned and used to replace the property lost. Landowners who have taken a conservation easement have made their property ripe for picking in such situations.

Landowners who are offered conservation easements by agencies who claim they are “here to help you,” must read the fine print . . . because once the papers are signed, the landowner has lost his rights forever.

——————————————————————————–

Obamas EO 13575- “No right to your own food!”

In Agenda 21, Farmers on November 23, 2011 at 9:12 AM

U.S. FEDERAL COURT RULES:

YOU HAVE NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO
YOUR OWN FOOD

Federal Judge Patrick J. Fielder adheres to Agenda 21 globalist, collectivist principles as he strikes yet more blows against U.S. sovereignty and liberty, ruling that Americans have absolutely no right to raise and consume their own food.

TELL CONGRESS TO REJECT AGENDA 21! STOP THE UN NOW!

Judge Fiedler ruled that Americans:

“Do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;”
“Do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;”
“Do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;”
“Do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice;” and
Cannot enter into private contracts without Government intervention.

Just three weeks after issuing the above ruling, Judge Fielder resigned his bench and went to work for a law firm that represents the corporate giant Monsanto – the mega-corporation fighting to eliminate raw and organic food producers.

The inherent nature of the United Nations Agenda 21 treaty is that it seeks not only to destroy our national sovereignty, but also our personal liberty and replacing it with global governance of our resources, our land, our education system and even what we eat.

TELL CONGRESS TO REJECT AGENDA 21! STOP THE UN NOW!

The United States Senate has not yet taken up ratification of the Agenda 21 treaty, but that has not stopped its implementation across America. Powerful globalists like George Soros are using their ill-gotten wealth to circumvent our rule of law, funding campaigns to advance Agenda 21 programs that erode our freedoms, and fattening the personal coffers of judges and “public servants” in the name eco-Marxist objectives like “sustainability.” But what the United Nations globalists see as planning, progress, and desirable development for society – a future that is “sustainable” – is nothing less than tyranny, and in their analysis, what is “unsustainable” is American liberty and sovereignty.

The threat they pose to our freedom cannot be exaggerated, and it is already being implemented in America today, with your tax dollars, by Obama Executive Order 13575!

Green Eco-Marxists are working to implement Sustainable Development plans with the intention of resettling the American population into United Nations approved zones.

TELL CONGRESS TO REJECT AGENDA 21! STOP THE UN NOW!

Think “Resettlement Camps” are things that only happen under totalitarian thug tyrants or in the Third World? Can’t happen here? Think again.

Multi-lateral, diplomatic, negotiated surrender is still surrender.

Please, take a moment to locate your geographic area on the below map.

Copy and google this map!

http://www.discerningtoday.org/ALF/TLmenu.html

Is your town shaded light green? If not, the United Nations wants you to move, and it appears Green Eco-Marxists within the United States are working very hard to ensure success of “resettling” you.

It would be easy to dismiss this map as a crackpot conspiracy theory; however this information comes directly from THE UNITED NATIONS as part of their Agenda 21 implementation plans.

Map Color Codes are designated for the following uses:

Red – Little or no human use whatsoever
Yellow – Buffer zones with limited and heavily regulated use
Green – “Normal” use, similar to existing use but in compliance with UN demands
Pink – Indian Reservations
Grey – Military Reservations
Black Dots – Cities with over 10,000 people
TELL CONGRESS TO REJECT AGENDA 21! STOP THE UN NOW!

To date, Congress has refused to ratify Agenda 21, but that has not stopped radical Greenies, Marxists and Barack Obama from implementing Agenda 21. Obama’s new motto is “We can’t Wait”! He is circumventing Congress all together. Within the last few months, Obama issued Executive Order 13575, establishing his “White House Rural Council” with a new Executive administrative body to implement the “sustainable communities” that the UN’s Agenda 21 was designed to enforce.

To stop our nation’s capitulation into the socialist nightmare of Agenda 21, it’s absolutely imperative that patriotic Americans speak out and make their voices heard. This is our moment! Now is not the time to be found wanting. We MUST ACT to save American sovereignty and liberty!

TELL CONGRESS TO REJECT AGENDA 21! STOP THE UN NOW!

Editors note- We have the ability to stop this! Call your Congressman in your district and tell them “We want the UNITED NATIONS out of the UNITED STATES, please co sponsor HR 1146!

Also, a request for donations to fight this was removed, if you choose to do so please contact Mr Keyes website below!

For further Detailed information please read more from this news blog at: https://bradleycountynews.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/white-house-rural-council-hits-bradley-county/
Keep Faith,

Alan Keyes
http://www.DeclarationAlliance.org

P.S. It’s appalling the number of elected officials who, by design or incompetence, neither uphold nor defend our Constitution. Anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of our Founding would see, as you do, that Agenda 21 in diametrically opposed to all for which America stands! Yet, sadly, it comes down to you and me. Help “we the people” speak up loud and clear – for our nation’s sake!

Occupiers protesting “Black Friday”

In Occupiers on November 22, 2011 at 2:35 PM

AP
In an effort to raise awareness for “income inequality” and “corporate greed,” organizers of various Occupy chapters have revealed their newest move: “Occupy Black Friday.”

It’s what it sounds like.

The idea is that they will protest numerous retailers the day after Thanksgiving in an effort to disrupt credit card usage and their 4th quarter profits, thereby rattling the stock market.

On the website stopblackfriday.com, the organizers have written the following:

ON NOV. 25th: OCCUPY LARGE CHAINS AND PUBLICLY TRADED RETAIL. Hit the 1% where it hurts – in the wallet.
BLACKLISTED Retail Stores to Occupy (Boycott) on Black Friday
Keep in mind that we are not occupying small businesses or hardworking people — we must make a distinction between the businesses that are in the pockets of Wall Street and the businesses that serve our local communities.
We are NOT anti-capitalist. Just anti-crapitalist.
Below is a shortlist for publicly traded large businesses to Occupy or to boycott on Black Friday. Luckily, most of them don’t have good presents anyway. If you want to see the top 100 retail businesses for 2010 to boycott, click here.
On Black Friday, Occupy or boycott:
– Abercrombie & Fitch
– Amazon.com (yes, we have to stay away from Amazon, too!)
– AT&T Wireless
– Burlington Coat Factory
– Dick’s Sporting Goods (I was surprised, too!)
– Dollar Tree
– The Home Depot
– Neiman Marcus
– OfficeMax
– Toys R’Us
– Verizon Wireless
– Wal-Mart

Solidarity!
However, as pointed out by Commentary Magazine, there is one mega retailer missing from their list.

Want to take a guess?

Men’s Wearhouse. Despite the fact the clothing retailer regularly posts a profit from Black Friday sales, it has has managed to insulate itself from protests by “standing” with the “99%” (although one store did have its windows smashed during the Occupy Oakland riots).

Along with a “blacklist” of large retailers, the website also offers sign ideas for protesters who want to partake in the events:

And it’s not just a general boycott the Occupy organizers are calling for:

In addition to encouraging site visitors to not spend money on Friday, the website encourages occupation, and “Occupy” protesters typically have featured sit-ins, on-site camping, slogan cheering and sign-waving as their modes of protest.
Currently, many businesses are unhappy with the Occupy protests. For example, as Security Info Watch reports:

Businesses near Occupy Seattle on Capitol Hill say the protesters need to clean up their act and businesses near Westlake Park are worried demonstrators might ruin their Black Friday.
At least 150 Capitol Hill businesses have sent a letter to Occupy Seattle, which is currently occupying the south end of Seattle Central Community College. They say the camp is a health and safety risk, and they want the protesters to clean it up.
Given that many businesses and business owners are already displeased with the Occupy movement, a general boycott of their stores on Black Friday probably won’t help anything.

“The Occupy movement probably thinks it’s sticking it to the man with this protest, but it’s actually the local stores and their employees who are going to get hit with any of the fallout,” writes Commentary Magazine. “Poor sales mean more layoffs after the holiday season. Yet more evidence that the Occupy Wall Street movement isn’t actually interested in combating unemployment and advocating for the middle class.”

Indeed, protests such as this will most likely have an adverse effect on the average, middle class American. This has led some analysts to predict that the Occupy protests may have some unintended political consequences.

“The Occupy Wall Street,” said Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, “is a tremendous asset and it’s a movement that I think will be very helpful in the 2012 elections, and I think it’s a mistake to interfere with them continuing to annoy middle class Americans.”

He may be right. If Occupy organizers continue with demonstrations like the one they have planned for Black Friday, their already waning public support may disintegrate completely.

That’s where there could be political consequences.

If public opinion turns against the Occupy movement, it may start to gravitate towards the type of 2012 presidential candidate who says of the Occupy movement, “Go get a job right after you take a bath,” as opposed to the candidate who says “The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side…”

ICLEI- Regional plans will go forward even if Feds, States and citizens dont want it!

In Uncategorized on November 22, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Yes, you heard it correctly! No matter how much you resist, the growth plan will go forward! Bypassing federal, state and local officials! They do this by capitalizing on our elected officials forming alliances with PPPs (Private Public Partnerships), NGO’s (Non Governmental Organizations) such as the Chamber of Commerce, our own locally appointed boards that our Mayors have relinquished all our sovereignty too!

Recently, we experienced this in action as our Bradley County Commissioners voted NO on the BCC 2035 Strategic Growth Plan, so the chamber and all these other NGOs joined together with ICLEI and Chattanooga to push the plan into our community by HUD, EPA and the DOT without a single vote cast or involving a single elected local official besides the two Mayors Rowland and Davis!

The residents of Bradley County have been duped by our two Mayors and they have bypassed the citizens of our beautiful city! We must hold them accountable for this lack of vision to protect our community from this plan!

You can see we are in trouble! We need representation in our city and county and it is up to us to make it happen and stop this madness!

Get on the phones, pass this around and let’s get them to include us in this process!

Local action key to sustainability

By Victoria Jack

 

Local communities and NGOs say they are making progress towards a sustainable future on a global scale, despite what many have described as inadequate action at national and international levels.

During the UN DPI/NGO Conference, many speakers leveled criticism at federal governments for their failures to provide strong regulation and effective policymaking concerning the environmental crisis facing our globe. Other speakers blamed the international community for failing to reach consensus and act collectively in efforts to achieve sustainability.

In a paper produced for the UN DPI/NGO Conference, plenary panelist Konrad Otto-Zimmermann referenced criticism of “un-united nations” in the fight against global warming.

“Countries and groups forged ahead in different directions and almost no one believes anymore that there could be one global climate agreement. Yet there is only one global climate. Who is taking care of it?” he asked.

Otto-Zimmermann, the secretary general of ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, argued that there is potential for local communities to make significant environmental contributions.

He argued, for instance, that city governments can utilize a variety of policy options to encourage sustainable practices, such as implementing public transport networks and bicycle infrastructure, car-free areas or days and parking fees.

ICLEI, a network of more than 1220 local governments working towards sustainability, provides information and services to support the implementation of sustainable development at a local level.

ICLEI Executive and Policy Assistant Susanne Salz, who also spoke at the Conference, said the reaction from communities in the US to the Kyoto Protocol provides a good example of how local players have the power to make changes. Despite the refusal of the US government to ratify the protocol, more than 1,000 mayors from across the country signed the pact to meet the protocol’s targets for greenhouse gas emissions; a 7 percent reduction by 2012 from 1990 levels.

Ecocity Builders is another NGO that has solicited the involvement of local communities pursuing sustainable development. Executive Director Kirstin Miller, who attended the conference, said her organization aims to rebuild urban areas to promote a healthy synergy between humans and natural ecosystems. A core part of achieving that mission is providing pedestrian access to basic services and connecting city centers with strong public transportation and bicycle infrastructure, Miller said.

Ecocity Builders has designed a framework to assist towns and cities around the world in becoming ecologically healthy, or an “ecocity” – a term coined by the organization’s founder and President Richard Register. The framework is already being rolled out in a number of communities, including parts of Canada, Nepal and Brazil.

Miller said the framework would help local communities all over the world to band together and make positive environmental changes.

“We can get started without them [the federal governments],” she said.

“The government is beholden to this old paradigm – they withdraw their support from the industries and the businesses that can create green economies. But the cities are going to act anyway and create their own agenda.”

While local action is important, many speakers and NGO delegates present at the Conference agreed it would be ideal if local communities were supported at both the national and international levels.

“You’re going to have the most effective outcome if you act at all levels. There is a role for everybody and it works best if everybody does their best,” Salz said.

A Declaration calling for a more active and collective approach to sustainable development will be released by NGOs at the end of the Conference on Monday 5 September.

Miller said she is hopeful that governments will respond to the call; but, she notes, local communities will continue to make progress even if officials don’t.

“Even if that doesn’t happen, it [the push for sustainable development] will still be going forward with these local organizations and governments… so it doesn’t matter if it fails in a way, the movement will still be taking shape,” she affirmed.

ICLEI: Understanding the connection to Chattanooga, Bradley County and the UN

In Agenda 21, chamber of commerce, Government on November 22, 2011 at 9:19 AM

ICLEI-International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
Link-(copy and paste in google or other)

http://www.uneca.org/itca/governance/Decentralization.htm

ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability was founded in 1990 by local governments at the United Nations Headquarters in New York as the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). ICLEI is a democratically governed membership association of cities, towns, counties, metropolitan governments, and local government associations. Its headquarter is located in Toronto, Canada.

The above information is directly from the http://www.UN.org website!

This information was not generated by me nor did I in anyway manipulate the material provided! This compiled information came straight from the source, the United Nations and ICLEI!

Bradley County, Mayors Tom Rowland and Gary Davis and 15 other counties in a 3 state region have joined with Chattanooga, Mayor Ron Littlefield(who are very supportive members of ICLEI and other NGOs Non Governmental Organizations), mainly the Chamber of Commerce who enjoys “chief consultative status” at the United Nations and are joining forces with the EPA, HUD and the DOT to enter into a full scale assault into our community with the Regional Growth Plan beginning January 2012!

This initiative is not understood by our Locally elected officials nor do they know what it is about but they are so willing to remain silent while the Federal grant money flows in! What a sad statement that we are selling our souls for grant money!

Our State Representatives Kevin Brooks, Eric Watson, Senator Mike Bell have the ability to stop this but to date have done nothing but make sure of it’s success!

Our Federal representatives Corker, Fleischmann, Haslam and Alexander have also remained mute! Perhaps the Chamber of Commerce has them tucked neatly into their pockets!

Our press is too lazy to investigate or put the pieces of the puzzle together for a hungry constituency and are probably willing participants in the scheme! Our failure to report this as a society is abominable and every person that ignores this repeated call should be outed and exposed!

The Mayors leaving our locally elected officials out of the loop was purposeful while they were being appointed to the boards of the very NGOs (Mayor Davis to the Southeast Regional Development council by Beth Jones and of course Mayor Rowland on TACIR which is our equivalent of ICLEI!) are implementing this disastrous and diabolical plan!

This blog is a little lengthy, especially the list of member cities and NGOs! Can you see an international plan being implemented? It is happening all around us for years, is now coming to a head and we are still unable to see the clear connection! So please read intently and ask your self these two questions 1) Am I a willing participant in this plan and is my silence allowing implementation? 2) if this is not an International United Nations all out assault on our nation and world, then what is it?

The information directly from the UNITED NATIONS website!
Link provided:  The game plan!

http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/scp/public/presentProgrammeDetails.do?progID=13

Title of programme: ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability
 
Organization: International Council for Local Environment Initiatives [ contact information ]
UN Environment Programme (UNEP) [ contact information ]
UN Human Settlements Programme (UNHABITAT) [ contact information ]
 
Geographic scope: Global
 
Expected timeframe: –
 
Description of initiative: The ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability is an international association of local governments implementing sustainable development. Its mission is to build and serve a worldwide movement of local governments to achieve tangible improvements in global sustainability with special focus on environmental conditions through cumulative local actions. More than 450 cities, towns, and their associations worldwide comprise ICLEI’s membership. Through its campaigns, ICLEI helps local government generate political awareness of key issues, and evaluate local and cumulative progress toward sustainable development. ICLEI serves as an information clearinghouse on sustainable development by providing policy guidance, training and technical assistance, and consultancy services to increase local governments’ capacity to address global challenges.
 
Programme website(s): http://www.iclei.org/about.htm
 
Target group: local government
 
Activity type: advisory service
information sharing
technology transfer
 
Areas of work: Analytical tools
Changing production patterns
Indicators
Urban planning & transport
Energy efficiency & renewable energy

Who we are
More than 1126 local governments and their associations, representing over 500 million people in 70 countries, constitute ICLEI’s membership. As a democratic, membership-driven association, every Member has a vote at council meetings where the priorities and direction of the organization are determined.

Governed by the ICLEI Charter put in place by its founding Members, our mandate is to build an active and committed membership of local governments and local government associations.
 
Council
The Council is the general assembly of ICLEI Members which is composed of Full Members. ICLEI also offers Associate Membership to non-governmental organizations, research institutions, state governments and other entities. The Council meets every three years on the occasion of an ICLEI World Congress. After the founding congress in New York, USA (1990), Council meetings were held in Toronto, Canada (1993), Saitama, Japan (1995), Dessau, Germany (2000), Athens, Greece (2003) and Cape Town, South Africa (2006). The Council elects the Executive Committee, approves the six-year Strategic Plan, which is updated every three years, and receives the Triennial Report. The Council also adopts a Declaration of Commitment, in support of the Strategic Plan.

That UNITED NATIONS CONNECTION TO ICLEI!
This is a length read (64 pages directly from the UN website) for the sake if time look at page 62 item 52, “The local Agenda 21 survey” (google it)

“The plan will on regardless if we have local, state or federal approval says ICLEI Executive and Policy Assistant Susanne Salz, who also spoke at the Conference, said the reaction from communities in the US to the Kyoto Protocol provides a good example of how local players have the power to make changes. Despite the refusal of the US government to ratify the protocol, more than 1,000 mayors from across the country signed the pact to meet the protocol’s targets for greenhouse gas emissions; a 7 percent reduction by 2012 from 1990 levels.”

“We can get started without them [the federal governments],” she said.

“The government is beholden to this old paradigm – they withdraw their support from the industries and the businesses that can create green economies. But the cities are going to act anyway and create their own agenda.”

Miller said she is hopeful that governments will respond to the call; but, she notes, local communities will continue to make progress even if officials don’t.

“Even if that doesn’t happen, it [the push for sustainable development] will still be going forward with these local organizations and governments… so it doesn’t matter if it fails in a way, the movement will still be taking shape,” she affirmed.

This woman is a representative of ICLEI sending a very strong message with an extremely bleak outcome! YOU CAN’T STOP US, WE WILL GO AROUND YOU TO MAKE IT HAPPEN, just as they have in Bradley County

Link provided for above quotes from ICLEI!

http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/ngoconference/shared/0/Local%20Action%20Key%20to%20Sustainability-Victoria%20Jack.docx

Argentina
Municipality of Buenos Aires
Municipality of La Plata
Armenia
Municipality of Hrazdan
Australia
Adelaide City Council
Adelaide Hills Council
Albury City
Alexandrina Council
Alice Springs Town Council
Ararat Rural City Council
Ashfield Municipal Council
Auburn Council
Australian Capital Territory Government
Australian Local Government Association
Ballarat City Council
Bankstown City Council
Bass Coast Shire Council
Baw Baw Shire Council
Bega Valley Shire Council
Benalla Rural City Council
Berri Barmera Council
Blue Mountains City Council
Borough of Queenscliffe
Brisbane City Council
Burwood Council
Byron Shire Council
Cairns Regional Council
Campbelltown City Council
Campbelltown City Council
Canada Bay Council
Cardinia Shire Council
City of Boroondara
City of Brimbank
City of Bunbury
City of Burnside
City of Charles Sturt
City of Geraldton-Greenough
City of Gosnells
City of Greater Bendigo
City of Greater Geelong
City of Joondalup
City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder
City of Kingston
City of Lake Macquarie
City of Mandurah
City of Marion
City of Melbourne
City of Melville
City of Mitcham
City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters
City of Onkaparinga
City of Perth
City of Port Phillip
City of Rockingham
City of South Perth
City of Stirling
City of Subiaco
City of Sydney
City of Victor Harbor
City of West Torrens
City of Whitehorse
City of Whittlesea
City of Wodonga
City of Yarra
Clarence City Council
Clarence Valley Council
Colac Otway Shire Council
Darwin City Council
Devonport City Council
District Council of Mount Barker
District Council of the Copper Coast
East Gippsland Shire Council
Frankston City Council
Fraser Coast Regional Council
Gold Coast City Council
Gosford City Council
Greater Shepparton City Council
Hobart City Council
Hobsons Bay City Shire Council
Holroyd City Council
Hunter’s Hill Council
Indigo Shire Council
Knox City Council
Kogarah Council
Larry Quick (Associate Member)
Leichhardt Municipal Council
Lismore City Council
Liverpool City Council
Macedon Ranges Shire Council
Manly Council
Manningham City Council
Marrickville Council
Mike Galea (EnvironArc Pty Ltd)
Mildura Rural City Council
Moira Shire Council
Monash City Council
Moonee Valley City Council
Moorabool Shire Council
Moreland City Council
Mornington Peninsula Shire
Mosman Municipal Council
Mount Alexander Shire Council
Murrindindi Shire Council
Nillumbik Shire Council
North Sydney Council
Palerang Council
Parramatta City Council
Penrith City Council
Rural City of Wangaratta
Shellharbour City Council
Shire of Augusta-Margaret River
Shire of Busselton
Snowy River Shire Council
Strathbogie Shire Council
Sunshine Coast Regional Council
Sutherland Shire Council
Swan Hill Rural City Council
Tablelands Regional Council
The Barossa Council
The City of Unley
The Shire of Peppermint Grove
Toowoomba Regional Council
Town of Cambridge
Town of Kwinana
Town of Vincent
Townsville City Council
Warringah Council
Warrnambool City Council
West Wimmera Shire Council
Willoughby City Council
Wyndham City Council
Austria
Magistrat der Stadt Linz
Stadt Innsbruck
Umweltverband Vorarlberg
Bangladesh
Rajshahi City Corporation
City of Dhaka
Belgium
Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
VODO-Vlaams Overleg Duurzame Ontwikkeling vzw (Associate Member)
Van Hoof, Veronique (Associate Member)
Bhutan
Phuentsholing City Corporation
Thimphu City Corporation
Bolivia
Municipality of Santisima Trinidad
Botswana
Botswana Association of Local Authorities
Brazil
Alta Floresta
Apuí
Belo Horizonte
Betim
City Council of Lucas do Rio Verde
Contagem
Curitiba
Goiânia
Institute for Research, Administration and Planning of São José dos Campos (IPPLAN) (Associate Member)
Manaus
Mariana
Palmas
Petrópolis
Porto Alegre
Rio de Janeiro
Santa Maria
Santo André
São Carlos
São João de Meriti
São Paulo (Municipality)
Sorocaba
State of Minas Gerais (Associate Member)
State of São Paulo (Associate Member)
Tailândia
Vitória
Volta Redonda
Bulgaria
Municipality of Burgas
Cameroon
City of Yokadouma
Fongo-Tongo Municipality, Cameroon
Menji Municipality
Canada
Annapolis Royal
Campbell River
City of Calgary
City of Edmonton
City of Greater Sudbury
City of Guelph
City of Hamilton
City of Kitchener
City of Mississauga
City of Ottawa
City of Regina
City of Toronto
City of Vancouver
Dawson Creek
Durham Region
Essex
Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Fort St. John
Halton Hills
Iqaluit
Leduc
Metro Vancouver
Montréal
Nanaimo
Red Deer
Region of York
The Blue Mountains
The Corporation of Delta
Town of Oakville
Ville de Montréal
Chile
Municipality of Chillan
Municipality of Ñuñoa
Municipality of Tome
China
Shenyang, China
Chinese Taipei
Chia-Yi County
Kaohsiung
Pingtung County
Taichung City
Tainan
Taipei City
New Taipei City Government
Taiwan Environmental Action Network (Associate Member)
Taoyuan County
Yilan County Government
Yunlin County Government
Colombia
Municipality of Bogotá
Municipality of Manizales
Croatia
City of Koprivnica
City of Zagreb
Primorsko-goranska County
Cyprus
Nicosia Turkish Cypriote Community
Czech Republic
City of Krnov
Denmark
Albertslund Kommune
Ballerup Kommune
City of Aalborg
City of Copenhagen
Kolding Kommune
National Procurement Ltd.- Denmark (Associate Member)
Equador
Municipality of Quito
Estonia
City of Tartu
Finland
Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities
City of Espoo
City of Hämeenlinna
City of Helsinki
City of Jyväskylä
City of Kouvola
City of Kuopio
City of Lahti
City of Oulu
City of Pori
City of Riihimäki
City of Tampere
City of Turku
City of Vantaa
Mariehamns Stad
Town of Jakobstad
France
Communauté Urbaine de Dunkerque
Communauté Urbaine du Grand Nancy
Communauté Urbaine de Strasbourg
Lille Métropole Communauté Urbaine
Montpellier
Nantes Métropole
Ville d’Angers
Ville de Bordeaux
Ville de Cluses
Ville de Coudekerque-Branche
Ville de Grande-Synthe
Ville d’Hondschoote
Ville de Saint-Denis
Ville de Sanary-sur-Mer
Georgia
City of Tbilisi
Germany
Berlin
Freie Hansestadt Bremen
Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg
Landeshauptstadt Dresden
Landeshauptstadt Hannover
Landkreis Nordhausen
Stadt Augsburg
Stadt Beckum
Stadt Bietigheim-Bissingen
Stadt Bonn
Stadt Bottrop
Stadt Freiburg
Stadt Heidelberg
Stadt Kaufbeuren
Stadt Ludwigsburg
Stadt Münster
Stadt Oranienburg
Stadt Viernheim
Stadt Wedel
Ghana
National Association of Local Authorities of Ghana (NALAG)
Greece
Coalition of 21 Municipalities of N.E. Athens
Municipality of Amaroussion
Municipality of Trikala
Hungary
Center for Environmental Studies Foundation (Associate Member)
City of Budapest
City of Miskolc
Municipality of Tatabánya
Iceland
City of Reykjavik
India
Abhijit Sarkar (Associate Member)
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
All India Institute of Local Self Governance
Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation
Bhopal Municipal Corporation
Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation
Chandrapur Municipal Council
CMAG (Associate Member)
Coimbatore Municipal Corporation
Emaar MGF (Associate Member)
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation
Guntur Municipal Corporation
Gurgaon Municipal Corporation
Guwahati Municipal Corporation
Gwalior Municipal Corporation
Howrah Municipal Corporation
Jabalpur Municipal Corporation
Jamnagar Municipal Corporation
Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation
Kolhapur Municipal Corporation
Kurunegala Municipal Corporation
Madurai Municipal Corporation
Manish Vaidya (Associate Member)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Mysore Municipal Corporation
Nagpur Municipal Corporation
National Institute of Urban Affairs (Associate Member)
Parsvnath Developers Ltd (Associate Member)
Pune Municipal Corporation
Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation
Rajkot Municipal Corporation
Shimla Municipal Corporation
Surat Municipal Corporation
Tenali Municipality
Thane Municipal Corporation
Tiruchirappalli Municipal Corporation
Titupati Municipal Corporation
Vadodara Municipal Corporation
Vijayawada Municipal Corporation
Vishakhapatnam Municipal Corporation
Indonesia
Balikpapan, Indonesia
Bogor, Indonesia
Cilegon, Indonesia
Medan, Indonesia
Semarang, Indonesia
Surabaya, Indonesia
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Ireland
Dublin City Council
Israel
Jerusalem
Municipality of Raanana
Italy
Agenzia InnovA21 per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile (Associate Member)
Cernusco sul Naviglio local government
Comune di Ancona
Comune di Bologna
Comune di Cesena
Comune di Livorno
Comune di Roma
Comune di Rosignano Marittimo
Comune di Vignola
Coordinamento Agende 21 Locali Italiane
Provincia di Rimini
Provincia di Siena
Japan
Aichi Prefecture
Fujisawa City
Hiroshima City
Iida City
Itabashi City
Kanagawa Prefecture
Kawasaki City
Kitakyushu City
Kobe City
Kumamoto City
Kyoto City
Musashino City
Nagoya City
Okayama City
Sapporo City
Sendai City
Sumida City
Tokubetsukukyogikai (Council of Wards in Tokyo)
Tokyo Metropolitan Government
Ube City
Yamanashi Prefecture
Kenya
Municipal Council of Nakuru
Municipal Council of Vihiga, Kenya
Latvia
City of Jurmala
Riga City Council
Mauritius
Moka Flacq District Council
Municipal Council of Port Louis
Pamplemousses and Riviere du Rempart District Council
Mexico
Aguascalientes
Association of Municipalities of Mexico (AMMAC) (Associate Member)
Centro (Villahermosa)
Chihuahua
Ciudad Valles
Corregidora
Cuautitlán Izcalli
Distrito Federal (Mexico City)
Ecatepec de Morelos
Miguel Hidalgo
Puebla
Querétaro
San Miguel de Allende
San Nicolás de los Garza
Solidaridad (Playa del Carmen)
Veracruz (Associate Member)
Veracruz
Zacatecas (Associate Member)
Mozambique
Lichinga City Municipality
Namibia
Municipality of Swakopmund
Municipality of Walvis Bay
City of Windhoek
Nepal
Hetauda Municipality
Kathmandu Metropolitan City
Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City Office
Municipal Association of Nepal
Pokhara Sub Metropolitan city
RADP (Associate Member)
Netherlands
City of Amsterdam
City of Rotterdam
Gemeente Haarlem
Gemeente Tilburg
VNG-Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten
New Zealand
Christchurch City Council
Dunedin City Council
Hamilton City Council
Kaikoura District Council
Kapiti Coast District Council
New Plymouth District Council
Palmerston North City Council
Porirua City Council
Rodney District Council
South Wairarapa District Council
Waikato Regional Council
Waitakere City Council
Nigeria
Ido Local Government
Niger Delta Environmental Surveillance Agency
Norway
Arendal Kommune
Bodø Kommune
City of Bergen
City of Oslo
Drammen Kommune
Kristiansand Kommune
KS-Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities
Lillehammer Kommune
Lørenskog kommune
Porsgrunn kommune
Stavanger kommune
Stiftelsen Idébanken (Associate Member)
Tingvoll Kommune
Peru
Municipality of Ate
Municipality of Cajamarca
Philippines
Baguio City, Philippines
Batangas City, Philippines
Bohol Province, Philippines
Municipality of Calbiga, Philippines
Dagupan City, Philippines
General Santos City, Philippines
Iloilo City, Philippines
League of Cities of the Philippines
Linamon, Lanao del Norte, Philippines
Lubang Municipality
Makati City, Philippines
Muntinlupa City, Philippines
Naga City, Philippines
Puerto Princesa City, Philippines
Quezon City, Philippines
San Fernando City, La Union, Philippines
Science City of Munoz, Phillipines
Tubigon, Philippines
Tuguegarao City, Philippines
Poland
City of Katowice
PSWE-Pomorskie Stowarzyszenie Wspólna Europa (Associate Member)
Portugal
Câmara Municipal de Agueda
Câmara Municipal de Cascais
Câmara Municipal de Oeiras
Câmara Municipal de Torres Vedras
Câmara Municipal de Almada
Junta de Freguesia de Agualva
Republic of Korea
Ansan City
Buchen City
Busan Metropolitan City
Changwon City
ChejuMBC (Associate Member)
Cho, Jung Woong (Associate Member)
Chungcheongnam Province
Daegu Metropolitan City
DaeKyung Engineering Co.
Damyang County
Dongseo Turism Inc. (Associate Member)
Gangwon Province
Gapyeong County
Geumsan County
Gumi City
Gwacheon City
Gwangju Metropolitan City
Gyeonggi Province
Gyeongsangnam Province
Hadong County
Hallailbo (Associate Member)
HanmiParsons Co (Associate Member)
Hoengseong Gun
Hwaseong City
Hyun, Hak Soon (Associate Member)
Incheon Metropolitan City
Issac Holdings (Associate Member)
Jeju Academic Society of Tourisom (Associate Member)
Jeju City
Jeju Development Institution (Associate Member)
Jeju Gymnyeong Mazepark (Associate Member)
Jeju Special Self-Governing Province
Jeongseon Gun
Jeonju City
Kim, Wang Sik (Associate Member)
Namyangju City
National Environment Technology Coperation (Associate Member)
Oreum Partners Co. (Associate Member)
Prof. OH Youn-keun (Associate Member)
Pyeongchang Gun
Sahara
Seongnam City
Seo Min Hye (Associate Member)
Seoul Metropolitan City
Songpa-gu
Suncheon City
Suwon City
Ulsan Metropolitan City
Wonju City
Yangpyeong Gun
Yeosu City
Yong-in City
Romania
City of Baia Mare
City of Giurgiu
Municipality of Odorheiu Secuiesc
Municipality of Orastie
Municipality of Pitesti
Russia
Selenyi Kirov (Associate Member)
Rwanda
RALGA
Senegal
Municipality of Nioro du Rip
Serbia
CEDEF-Central European Development Forum (Associate Member)
Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities of Serbia
South Africa
Beaufort West City
Buffalo City Municipality
Cape Winelands District Municipality
Capricorn District Municipality
City of Cape Town
City of Johannesburg
City of Tshwane
Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality
eThekwini Municipality
Mangaung Municipality
Motheo District Municipality
North- West University, Centre for Environmental Management (Potchefstroon campus)
Pauline Froschauer (Associate Member)
Sedibeng Municipality
Sol Plaatje Municipality
Steve Tshwete Local Municipality
uMhlathuze Municipality
Tlokwe City Council
Water Research Commission (Associate Member)
Spain
Ajuntament de Barcelona
Ajuntament de Calvià
Ajuntament de Lloret de Mar
Ajuntament de Reus
Ajuntament del Prat de Llobregat
Ayuntamiento del Real Sitio de San Ildefonso
Ayuntamiento de Alcoi
Ayuntamiento de Rivas-Vaciamadrid
Ayuntamiento de San Sebastián de La Gomera
Ayuntamiento de Santa Úrsula
Ayuntamiento de Tarragona
Ayuntamiento de Teulada
Ayuntamiento de Zaragoza
Concello de Culleredo
Diputació de Barcelona
Las Rozas de Madrid
Mancomunidad Intermunicipal del Sureste de Gran Canaria
Red de Municipios Valencianos hacia la Sostenibilidad
Red Navarra de Entidades Locales hacia la Sostenibilidad
UDALSAREA 21 – Red Vasca de Municipios hacia la Sostenibilidad
Vitoria Gasteiz
Sri Lanka
Kandy Municipal Council
Matale Municipal Council
Sweden
City of Göteborg
City of Malmö
City of Stockholm
City of Sundsvall
Haninge
Helsingborgs Stad
Laholms kommun
Linköpings kommun
Miljöstyrningsrådet (Associate Member)
Municipality of Växjö
Örebro kommun
TCO Development (Associate Member)
Ystad
Switzerland
IGÖB-Interessengemeinschaft ökologische Beschaffung (Associate Member)
Kanton Basel-Stadt
Stadt Zürich
Ville de Genève
Tanzania
Arusha Municipal Council
Dar es Salaam
Geita District Council
Moshi Municipal Council
Thailand
Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, Thailand
Muangklang, Thailand
Phuket, Thailand
Turkey
SatekSolar (Associate Member)
Sisli Belediyesi
Uganda
Jinja Municipal Council
Kasese District Local Government,Uganda
Ukraine
City of Odessa
Municipality of Nikolaev
United Kingdom
Birmingham City Council
Bristol City Council
City of Glasgow
Craigavon Borough Council
Greater London Authority
Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council
Leicester City Council
Newcastle City Council
Woking Borough Council
Uruguay
Municipality of Montevideo
United States of America
Abingdon, VA
Acton, MA
Akron, OH
Alachua County, FL
Albany, NY
Alexandria, VA
Algonquin, IL
Allegheny County, PA
Alliance, OH
American Canyon, CA
Amherst, MA
Ann Arbor, MI
Antioch, CA
Arlington County, VA
Arroyo Grande, CA
Arvada, CO
Ashland, OR
Aspen, CO
Atascadero, CA
Athens-Clarke County, GA
Athens, OH
Atlanta, GA
Auburn, MA
Auburn, WA
Austin, TX
Ayer, MA
Babylon, NY
Bainbridge Island, WA
Barnstable, MA
Beaverton, OR
Bedford, NY
Belfast, ME
Bellevue, WA
Bellingham, WA
Belmar, NJ
Belmont, MA
Belvedere, CA
Benicia, CA
Berea, KY
Berkeley, CA
Beverly Hills, CA
Binghamton, NY
Blacksburg, VA
Blaine County, ID
Bloomington, IN
Blue Earth County, MN
Boston, MA
Bothell, WA
Boulder, CO
Bowie, MD
Boynton Beach, FL
Bozeman, MT
Branford, CT
Breckenridge, CO
Bridgeport, CT
Brighton, NY
Brookfield, IL
Brookhaven, NY
Brookline, MA
Broward County, FL
Bryan, TX
Burlingame, CA
Burlington, VT
Calistoga, CA
Cambridge, MA
Carmel, IN
Carpinteria, CA
Carrboro, NC
Carver, MA
Cary, NC
Champaign, IL
Chandler, AZ
Chapel Hill, NC
Charleston, SC
Charlotte, NC
Charlottesville, VA
Chatham County, GA
Chatham County, NC
Chatham, NY
CHATTANOOGA, TN
Chelmsford, MA
Chevy Chase, MD
Chicago, IL
Chula Vista, CA
Cimarron, NM
Cincinnati, OH
Clackamas County, OR
Clallam County, WA
Clark County, NV
Clarkstown, NY
Clayton, MO
Cleveland, OH
Clifton, NJ
Cloverdale, CA
Coconut Creek, MD
College Park, MD
College Station, TX
Collier County, FL
Columbia, MO
Columbia, SC
Commerce City, MD
Concord, CA
Concord, MA
Cookeville, TN
Cooperstown, NY
Coppell, TX
Cortlandt, NY
Corvallis, OR
Covina, CA
Coupeville, WA
Cranberry Township, PA
Creve Coeur, MO
Croton on Hudson, NY
Culver City, CA
Cupertino, CA
Cutler Bay, FL
Dallas, TX
Dane County, WI
Davie, FL
Davis, CA
Dearborn, MI
Decatur, GA
Decorah, IA
Dedham, MA
Del Mar, CA
Delray Beach, FL
Denton, TX
Denver, CO
Devens, MA
DeWitt, NY
Dixon, CA
Dobbs Ferry, NY
Dryden, NY
Duarte, CA
Dublin, CA
Dubuque, IA
Duluth, MN
Dumfries, VA
Durango, CO
Durham, NC
East Palo Alto, CA
East Whiteland Township, PA
Eastchester, NY
Edina, MN
Edinburg, TX
Edmonds, WA
Edwardsville, IL
El Cerrito, CA
El Paso, TX
Elmhurst, IL
Emeryville, CA
Encinitas, CA
Essex, CT
Eugene, OR
Everett, WA
Fairbanks North Star Borough, AK
Fairfax, CA
Fairfield, IA
Fairfield, CA
Fairmont, WV
Falls Church, VA
Falls, PA
Falmouth, ME
Fayetteville, AR
Fayetteville, WV
Ferndale, MI
Fitchburg, WI
Flagstaff, AZ
Flint, MI
Fort Collins, CO
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Foster City, CA
Frankfort, KY
Franklin, TN
Fremont, CA
Fullerton, CA
Gainesville, FL
Gaithersburg, MD
Gatlinburg, TN
Geneva, NY
Glendale, CA
Golden Valley, MN
Golden, CO
Goodyear, AZ
Grand Forks, ND
Grand Rapids, MI
Grapevine, TX
Greenbelt, MD
Greenburgh, NY
Greenfield. MA
Greenville, SC
Groton, CT
Gunnison County, CO
Hailey, ID
Hamilton County, TN
Hamilton, NJ
Harrisonburg, VA
Hastings on Hudson, NY
Haverford, PA
Hawaii County, HI
Hayward, CA
Helena, MT
Henderson, NV
Hennepin County, MN
Hermosa Beach, CA
Hillsboro, OR
Hillsborough, CA
Hingham, MA
Homer, AK
Houston, TX
Howard County, MD
Howard, WI
Humboldt County, CA
Hunter, NY
Huntington, NY
Huntsville, AL
Hyattsville, MD
Inglewood, CA
Iowa City, IA
Ipswich, MA
Irvine, CA
Irving, TX
Issaquah, WA
Ithaca (City), NY
Ithaca (Town), NY
James City County, VA
Johnson County, IA
Johnson County, KS
Juneau, AK
Kansas City, MO
Keene, NH
Key West, FL
King County, WA
Kingston, MA
Kirkland, WA
Kirkwood, MO
KNOXVILLE, TN
La Grange Park, IL
La Mirada, CA
La Plata County, CO
Lacey, WA
Lafayette, CA
Lake Elsinore, CA
Lake Forest, IL
Lake Oswego, OR
Lake Worth, FL
Lakewood, CA
Larchmont, NY
Las Cruces, NM
Las Vegas, NV
Lawrence, KS
Lee County, FL
Lee’s Summit, MO
Leon County, FL
Lewes, DE
Lexington-Fayette County, KY
Lexington, VA
Lincoln City, OR
Livermore, CA
Lomita, CA
Los Alamos County, NM
Los Altos, CA
Los Altos Hills, CA
Los Angeles County, CA
Los Gatos, CA
Loudoun County, VA
Loveland, CO
Lowell, MA
Lower Southampton, PA
Lynchburg, VA
Lynnwood, WA
Madison, WI
Mahtomedi, MN
Maitland, FL
Mamaroneck (Town), NY
Mamaroneck (Village), NY
Manitou Springs, CO
Mankato, MN
Maplewood, NJ
Marathon, FL
Maricopa County, AZ
Marlboro, NJ
Marshfield, MA
Marshfield, WI
Martinez, CA
McMinnville, OR
Meadville, PA
Medford, MA
Mendocino County, CA
Menlo Park, CA
Merced, CA
Mercer Island, WA
Miami Gardens, FL
Miami, FL
Miami-Dade County, FL
Middletown, PA
Mill Valley, CA
Millbrae, CA
Milpitas, CA
Milton, MA
Milwaukee, WI
Milwaukie, OR
Minneapolis, MN
Mission, KS
Missoula, MT
Monmouth County, NJ
Monroe County, FL
Monterey, CA
Montgomery Township, PA
Moorpark, CA
Moraga, CA
Mount Kisco, NY
Mountain View, CA
Mt. Lebanon, PA
Muncie, IN
Murrieta, CA
Nantucket, MA
Napa County, CA
Napa, CA
Narberth, PA
Nashua, NH
Nashville, TN
National City, CA
Nether Providence, PA
New Brunswick, NJ
New Castle, NY
New Haven, CT
New London, CT
New Orleans, LA
New Paltz (Town), NY
New Rochelle, NY
New York, NY
Newark, CA
Newark, NJ
Norfolk, VA
North Andover, MA
North Castle, NY
North Hempstead, NY
North Las Vegas, NV
North Liberty, IA
North Little Rock, AR
North Miami, FL
Northampton, MA
Northbrook, IL
Novato, CA
Oak Harbor, WA
Oak Park, IL
Oak Ridge, TN
Oakdale, MN
Oakland, CA
Oakley, CA
Oberlin, OH
Ogdensburg, NY
Olympia, WA
Omaha, NE
Onondaga County, NY
Orange County, FL
Orange County, NC
Orangetown, NY
Orinda, CA
Orlando, FL
Ormond Beach, FL
Oshkosh, WI
Ossining (Town), NY
Ossining (Village), NY
Oswego, IL
Oxford, OH
Pacifica, CA
Palm Bay, FL
Palm Beach County, FL
Palm Springs, CA
Palmdale, CA
Palo Alto, CA
Park City, UT
Parlier, CA
Passaic County, NJ
Peekskill, NY
Penn Hills, PA
Peoria, AZ
Philadelphia, PA
Phoenix, AZ
Pinecrest, FL
Pinellas County, FL
Pittsburg, CA
Pittsburgh, PA
Plantation, FL
Port Townsend, WA
Portland, ME
Portland, OR
Portola Valley, CA
Portsmouth, NH
Pound Ridge, NY
Prairie Village, KS
Prince George’s County, MD
Providence, RI
Pulaski County, AR
Queen Anne’s County, MD
Quincy, MA
Radnor, PA
Raleigh, NC
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Redmond, WA
Redwood City, CA
Renton, WA
Richardson, TX
Richmond, VA
Richmond Heights, MO
Ridgefield, CT
Riverside, CA
Riverside, MO
Roanoke County, VA
Roanoke, VA
Rochester, MN
Rochester, NY
Rock Island, IL
Rockford, IL
Rockville, MD
Rolling Hills Estates, CA
Rolling Hills, CA
Rosendale, NY
Roseville, MN
Rye, NY
Sacramento County, CA
Saint George, UT
Saint Louis County, MO
Saint Louis, MO
Saint Paul, MN
Salem, MA
Salinas, CA
Salisbury, MD
Salt Lake City, UT
San Antonio, TX
San Bruno, CA
San Buenaventura (Ventura), CA
San Clemente, CA
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
San Jose, CA
San Leandro, CA
San Luis Obispo, CA
San Mateo County, CA
San Mateo, CA
San Miguel County, CO
San Pablo, CA
San Rafael, CA
San Ramon, CA
Santa Ana, CA
Santa Barbara County, CA
Santa Barbara, CA
Santa Clara, CA
Santa Clarita, CA
Santa Cruz, CA
Santa Fe, NM
Santa Monica, CA
Santa Rosa, CA
Sarasota, FL
Saratoga Springs, NY
Saugerties, NY
Savannah, GA
Seaside, CA
SeaTac, WA
Seattle, WA
Seminole County, FL
Sequim, WA
Sequim, WA
Shoreline, WA
Sierra Madre, CA
Signal Mountain, TN
Silver City, NM
Sioux Falls, SD
Sitka, AK
Skagit County, WA
Snohomish County, WA
Solana Beach, CA
Solano County, CA
Somers, NY
Somerset County, NJ
Sonoma City, CA
Sonoma County, CA
South Bend, IN
South Burlington, VT
South Daytona, FL
South Gate, CA
South Miami, FL
South Padre Island, TX
South Portland, ME
Spartanburg, SC
Spokane, WA
Springfield, IL
St. Lawrence County, NY
Stamford, CT
Staunton, VA
Stockton, CA
Stonington, CT
Sullivan County, NY
Summit County, UT
Sunnyvale, CA
Syracuse, NY
Tacoma, WA
Takoma Park, MD
Tallahassee, FL
Tamarac, FL
Tampa, FL
Taos, NM
Tarrytown, NY
Temecula, CA
Tempe, AZ
Tewksbury, MA
Texarkana, TX
Thurston County, WA
Tiburon, CA
Tompkins County, NY
Town and Country, MO
Tracy, CA
Traverse City, MI
Tuckahoe, NY
Tucson, AZ
Tulsa, OK
Tumwater, WA
Tybee Island, GA
Tyngsborough, MA
Union City, CA
University City, MO
Urbana, IL
Vacaville, CA
Vallejo, CA
Ventura County, CA
Vernon,CA
Victor, NY
Virginia, MN
Visalia, CA
Vista, CA
Volusia County, FL
Warwick Township
Washington, DC
Washoe County, NV
Wellesley, MA
West Chester, PA
West Palm Beach, FL
West Sacramento, CA
West Windsor, NJ
Westchester County, NY
Whatcom County, WA
Williamstown, MA
Willits, CA
Wilton, CT
Winchester, MA
Windsor, CA
Windsor, CT
Winston-Salem, NC
Wolfeboro, NH
Woodbury
Woodside, CA
Woodstock, NY
Worcester, MA
Wyandotte County/Kansas City, KS
Yarmouth, ME
Yonkers, NY
York, ME
Youngstown, OH
Yountville, CA
Zambia
Chongwe District Council
Zimbabwe
Chinhoyi Municipality
City Kadoma
City of Bulawayo
City of Gweru
MDPESA – Munipal Development Partner for Eastern and Southern Africa (Associate Member)
Municipality of Chegutu
Mutare City Council
Rusape Town Council
Ruwa Local Board

Regional growth plan, death maps, loss of property rights, thanks Mayors Rowland and Davis!

In Uncategorized on November 21, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Time for Action! Take back our Counties!
Citizens join us in a peaceful Revolution!
The time is now!
EVERY CONCERNED CITIZEN, Patriot group, 912 groups and Tea Parties of these areas  we had a very important Agenda 21 meeting on Chattanooga, NOVEMBER 17th, 2011, at the Chattanoogan at 530 pm.  We must collectively act and not let these characters have their way with our future! We will not tolerate this endeavor that has left us, the citizen, out of the equation!
The passion levels are high and the citizenry is mad!
In January, 2012, we are  embarking or should I say the collective Mayors of 16 counties in 3 states are devising a plan, a Regional Comprehensive Sustainability plan to restrict and or take away your property rights, to tax us into oblivion with no end in sight, to accept trillions in federal grants and raise your taxes to pay them back!
We have been circumvented by our Mayors!

Mayor Gary Davis in Bradley County has not only played end around to the citizens he represents, his constituency, that he is sworn to represent, he has more importantly left his Commissioners out of the know with apparently no sharing of information with his own representatives of the people!
Mayor Davis recently said the “time was right” referring to the creation and implementation of this Regional, 16 County, 3 State Comprehensive Planning Coalition of Mayors!

Let me awaken you Mr. Mayor back to reality, “Now is not the right time for a multi billion, perhaps multi trillion dollar coalition effort!

Cleveland/Bradley Chamber of Commerce we are not ready nor are we wanting this coalition to dictate to us our property rights, civil rights, tax base or infringement and eventual ignoring of our State Constitution!
We are in a deep recession Mr Mayor and our community is sinking deeper into debt with every “growth plan” you piece together or Regional plan you decide to force on your constituency!

Let me add that the initial vote on the implementation of the 2035 BCC Growth Plan was turned down by the Commissioners that you are working very steadily to covertly circumvent! I am not surprised that not a single Commissioner yet can tell me what your plans are for this Regional Comprehensive Planning Commission!

This would peeve me to no end to be a Commissioner or Council member that is apparently oblivious to the Mayors of both the City and Counties plan for a Regional Growth Plan! This is Tyranny and we vowed never to have a Monarchy ever again with the institution of the Constitution that you have so conveniently forgotten. Our Sovereignty is at risk here!
Mayor Tom Rowland, I cant leave you out of this mix, because I am convinced by your direct involvement and cooperation with Mayor Davis proves to me you are also being influenced by TACIR and the Council of Mayors and once again, along with ICLEI! Your judgement has been clouded and the Constitution ignored by your failure to listen to the screams of your constituency, when it comes to the will of the people speaking loudly! Joining with Chattanooga in this plan is joining with ICLEI!
Job creation! The Chamber has spent 400 and some odd million recently and has created a little over 200 jobs! Jobs? Please! Outsourcing is their game and distribution of wealth is their game! Their employment of and any significant job gains are being shipped overseas instead of keeping at home! This should raise a few eyebrows when it comes to relying on the Chamber to create jobs!
Mr Mayors in the time you have been in office at your inception, our unemployment in Bradley County was around 1 percent , today it is hovering around 10 percent! Something wrong with this equation and proves we are going in the wrong direction.
Allow me to share some very wealthy information with you Mr Mayors! What you are doing is not working!

Eventually the message should be instead of spend and tax it should be cut and save, that realization should soon resonate with you both!
The Mayor and a Coalition in conjunction with the United Nations inspired Chamber of Commerce has joined efforts with Chattanooga and ICLEI to pursue aggressive plans to implement what will eventually be recognized as Agenda 21, a Regional Comprehensive Planning Coalition. This group met in Chattanooga on November 17th, 2011 and  it will be fully implemented in January 2012!

The Mayors in conjunction with ICLEI and members of TACIR, Mayors Coalitions, Council of Mayors and council of Commissioners, selected minion State Representatives , selected NGOS such as the Chamber of Commerce, introduced this plan to the “public”, yes two or three years into the process “we the people” are being invited to watch!

They will also be selecting one of three teams that will get the very lucrative contract to essentially “reshape the Southeast.” Our very own developers of the 2035 BCC Strategic Growth Plan MCBRIDE, DALE and CLARION and CLARION ASSOCIATES who coincidentally received multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars for a horrendously expensive and expansive growth plan and just happen to be in the final three for this massive private property land grab. Let me remind you all involved are members of ICLEI! Can you say “you scratch mine, Ill scratch yours! I say simply, FOLLOW THE MONEY! That’s all ill say about that!

Let me share some forethought with you!
Believe it or not you are participating in a very distant UNITED NATIONS PLAN called AGENDA 21! You may not believe this, but your belief in something that is happening very rapidly, it doesn’t matter if you believe it or not………YOU ARE WILLING PARTICIPANTS! That is all that is expected of you!
You are destroying our country just as you are being told! You all are being what they used to call “Soviet Sympathizers in Western Countries, useful idiots!” These people saw themselves naievely as an ally of communists, as you may know they were eventually held in contempt and were noticeably being cynically used.

You, Mayors are the Propagandists of a higher power that you do not understand or know! As of this notice, you now know, and will be held responsible for your actions from this day forward! You can no longer be an unknowing “useful idiot” playing as they did as a messenger of goodness in your pursuit to be a force for good!
Just as the writer H.G. Wells, Doris Lessing, George Bernard Shaw and American Journalist Walter Duranty who were “useful idiots” of Hitler, showed much support for him as he was making his move toward attempts to “conquer” the World. You, my respectful Mayors are falling into history as being the willing participant and sympathizer of the United Nations and their plan to implement AGENDA 21 in the USA! Shame on you and you should be peacefully removed from office and make way for true liberty minded civil servants loyal to their constituency!
Mayors Rowland and Davis and the other 15 Mayors in this coalition, do you want to know what your involvement and willing participation in this Regional three state plan has done to the citizens you represent? Do you ?
You have willingly put your citizens at extreme risk! THEY WILL LOSE THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS! You have placed your citizens one step closer to placing those you represent one step closer to eventually being herded into zones called “Color Zones” within a “Biodiversity Simulation Map” as referred to by the Federal Government and the United Nations, a “Death Map” as many liberty minded folks call it!

With the assistance of clumps of HUD housing and grants in the multiple millions this will much more easily be a reality. Your recent MOA (Memorandum of Agreement) to spend millions of Tax payers dollars to herd them into Urban Growth areas has paved the way for this to happen! Your willing participation with HUD and other NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) while forging Public Private Partnerships with the Chamber of Commerce, you are willingly putting everyone you represent at great risk!

Look below, and see where your decisions today will leave the many people you represent!

Agenda 21 and the United Nations and many “green movements” and many “useful idiots” of our elected conglomerate have a plan that moves people into zones and the 2035 BCC Strategic Growth Plan clearly recognizes this and gives it several names, but the death map demonstrates this designation as “Color Zones which reflect property owners being forced from their property and into a “human Settlement” within a “Rural, urban or designated growth area represented as a color designation on the map.
The Counties you represent will fall into these ominous colors and represent a redistribution of our populace to make it in their minds the most “sustainable.” After all, “Urban Sprawl” is a formidable enemy to sustainability and its goals that come with it!

The color zones are recognized by color schemes and their designations are in parentheses as how it will fall on the Biodiversity Map after our counties are manipulated according to this Agenda 21 plan and the will of our negligent self saving Mayors!

RED- No human presence!
YELLOW- Buffer zone around Red area with very controlled limited access!
BLACK DOT- Where people in red and yellow areas will be relocated (human settlements)
TENNESSEE:
Polk County (red)
Bradley County (Red and Yellow)
Cleveland (Black dot)
Hamilton-Chattanooga (Black Dot)
Bledsoe (Red and Yellow)
Rhea (Red and Yellow)
McMinn (Mostly Yellow)
Marion (Mostly Red)
Sequatchie (Red)
Meigs (Red)

ALABAMA:

Jackson County (Red)
Dekalb (Yellow)

GEORGIA:

Catoosa (Red and Yellow)
Murray (Red and Yellow)
Walker (Yellow)
Dade (Yellow)
Whitfield (Yellow)

Notice where the Black Dots fall! Who are the noticeable recipients that will receive the bulk of the population growth? Yes, Chattanooga/Hamilton and Cleveland/Bradley County and the appointed leaders, Mayors Rowland, Davis and Littlefield and their local Chambers of Commerces!

The plan is in place!

It is the will of the people who should stop this madness!
We are the tenants of a Republic protected and guided by the Constitution!
We are not willing participants in our demise and we must not allow this to be a reality, God help us!
We are in this battle for the long haul.
Mayors and all willing participants in this scheme, you are being placed on notice! A very concerted effort to remove you from office either by recall or at the election ballot box will be inevitable.
The decision is yours!
Your political fate is in your hands!

Go forward useful idiots, make wise choices because in the end, we will prevail!

40 million Wheel or Property tax proposed by Bradley County Commissioners

In Uncategorized on November 17, 2011 at 3:36 PM

http://www.clevelandbanner.com/view/full_story/16468322/article-Wheel-Tax-an-option-to-fund-school-projects?instance=homefirstleft

This email is to inform quickly that once again it appears the will of the people is being circumvented for expediency and a new tax burden is going to be place on you!

The Bradley County Commission, Mayors and the Finance committee has once again, it appears, to be leaning toward a 40,000,000.00 (million) plus dollar Wheel tax to be imposed on the citizens of Bradley County in a very down economy!

This amount is being discussed and a few have suggested this amount be doubled so that future projects can also be included, “this avoiding repeated new taxes” , “just one big tax so we can pay for several things on the agenda!”

Tennessee annotated code suggests that the the County Commission can either vote line item up or down with 10 of the 14 Commissioners approving the proposal or it can go to a referendum and the PEOPLE DECIDE! 

At first glance and with comments posted in the banner it appears that the commission is leaning toward a vote among themselves “because it is quicker!”

I don’t know about you but I don’t want any commissioner or Mayor  representing me that will simply elect to vote for a 40 million dollar plus tax on it’s citizens because it is quicker!!!

If our locally elected officials do indeed choose to move forward on this vote and approve the large tax,  the road is more difficult but it can still go to a referendum with a signature ballot with  10 percent of the populace signing to force it to referendum (for you to vote on it)!

I personally feel that if the commission elects to go forward with a vote and once again bypass their constituency and we have to go with a signature ballot to have our voice heard then I don’t see it as an impossibility at that time to move forward with a recall effort of our elected representatives as this would definitely send a strong message that the people of Bradley County do not need another large tax and it’s citizens must be represented!

The other option they went on to discuss in this meeting was that if the wheel tax didnt go forward a property tax would be inevitable! Are you kidding me? A wheel tax or a property tax? Where is the problem solving here? The easy and only solution is to tax the good citizens of Bradley County for years to come? Come on!

Let me remind you that 60 percent, 60 percent of our current county budget is sent to the Bradley County Schools and now it appears that more is being requested!

This will not be the only tax imposed! I have been squawking about this growth plan, the Regional Growth plan which calls for infrastructure costs, sewer, roads, 10 to 20 new schools, new buildings etc, etc, etc! THE CITY AND THE COUNTY WILL BE ASKING YOU TO PAY FOR THIS IN MANY MORE MULTIPLE TAXES UPON TOP OF TAXES IN THE NEAR FUTURE! THIS WILL NOT BE THE ONLY TAX INCREASE! 

People of Bradley County you are not being represented here! The best interest of this county and city is not being represented by our elected officials! We are more worried about receiving “free” federal grant money than the citizens of Bradley and Cleveland feeding their own families!

Stay tuned for more info as this develops! We must act quickly because a runaway government is galloping on the proverbial tax horse through Bradley County and Cleveland with little to no representation from us the taxpayer!

The true tragedy of this is that warning sirens have been going off for a long time around here! The elected officials have been informed, the citizens have been informed of the potential costs of their reckless growth plans and lack of budgetary planning and yet our representatives have chosen to ignore this fact and take more of your money and bypass you the citizen and their constituency!

We must move forward quickly! 

Get their phones ringing! The rubber meets the road now! I have listened for years now as many have said that if it comes down to a new tax, “they will hear from me” well, that time is here and now is the time to act! Don’t delay! 

The best and most effective thing you can do immediately is to inform others! Pass this email along to all you know! P the people must be heard! It will not stop with this one tax, guaranteed!!

Call your elected local representative today and tell them “NO” on this new tax or any future taxes as they seem are inevitable!

Donny Harwood
“less taxes, less government, more freedom”
http://www.teapartyofbradleycounty.webs.com
http://www.bradleycountynews.wordpress.com
423-284-4250

Chuck Fleischmann introduces the “Stop Green Initiative Abuse Act of 2011”

In Uncategorized on November 17, 2011 at 8:38 AM

This is definitely a move in the right direction but with the ever increasing autonomy of the EPA on our country it is evident we must do more

Along with the high cost of complying with the “green movement” comes the imposing regulations and mandates that will further stifle our freedoms and restrict us to federal demands under the guises of a runaway EPA with no limitations on their encroachment!

Let’s encourage Congressman Fleischmann to continue the fight, continue to make the much needed cuts and take his efforts one step further! I am challenging him to move forward on the Ron Paul bill to get the US out of the United Nations (HR 1146) and co sponsor this bill! It must move forward, we are being inundated by the UN at every turn in this country and this bill would turn them away for good!

Chuck Fleischmann introduces the “Stop Green Initiative Abuse Act of 2011”
 
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Chuck Fleischmann introduced the “Stop Green Initiative Abuse Act of 2011” today. It will eliminate the Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program and save taxpayers $2.1 billion over the next ten years.
 
“I ran for Congress because I knew something had to be done about our crushing debt. I have worked since day one to balance our budget and stop the ‘tax, borrow, spend’ mentality that has dominated Washington for far too long. I am glad to introduce legislation to end the Weatherization Assistance Program in order to save billions of dollars. I am also glad the American people directly had a say in this process through the YouCut program. Together we can get our fiscal house in order and get our country back on the right track,” Fleischmann said.
 
The Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program was originally created in the 1970’s. However, other federal programs, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), are already in place to assist low-income households in managing energy costs.
 
In December 2010, the Tennessee Comptroller General’s office released a review of the program citing that weatherization contractors had, in nearly half of the cases studied, failed to implement critically recommended measures to properly weatherize homes. The review also noted that funds for the program were used for other assistance measures that had nothing to do with weatherization.
 
The Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Energy also conducted a review of this program concluding that weatherization work on homes was poorly administered and led to potentially harmful effects for home inhabitants. The State of Delaware actually suspended their weatherization program due to “fraud and mismanagement”.
 
The Weatherization Assistance Program received the most votes from the American people during the week Congressman Fleischmann lead the YouCut effort.

Jordan Powell
Press Secretary
Congressman Chuck Fleischmann

%d bloggers like this: